Town Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'd like to call this meeting of the Pentecostal Council to order. We do have a quorum. I'd ask that everybody please remember to silent your phones. And I would ask you to stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. And please remain standing for the invocation.

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.

Counselor Fernand.

Let's pray. Dear Heavenly Father, we just thank you so much for this wonderful community that we get to call home. Lord, we ask for your wisdom to be upon us all tonight, for your peace and your patience as well, Lord. God, we just think of our first responders as we enter into this very busy season, and we just ask that you be with them, give them energy, give their families comfort, Lord, and just give them wisdom as well as they deal with everyday situations. Lord, I just ask that you also be with our country, our armed forces, and those families, Lord, as they are dealing with stressful times. And Lord, I just ask that you give our country leaders just wisdom, your wisdom, Lord, right now. Lord, we again just come and ask for your presence, and we ask these things in Jesus' name. Amen. Amen.

Thank you, Councillor Fernau. Item B on our agenda is call to the public. This is a business meeting of the town council. The town values and welcomes public input. Please address the council as a whole and not individual council members. Do not address staff or members of the audience. Council action on items brought up is limited by the open meeting law. Council may direct staff to study the matter and bring back at a future date. Items on the agenda are not heard during call to the public and individuals are limited to three minutes. I'm Kenny Cale.

Thank you, Mayor Irwin.

Council Members, the vast majority of our town's budget deals with salary and wages. Within each department, the town approved the recent budget, saw changes from the 2023 actual expenditures compared to the 2026 budget. If you'll look at that document right now, you'll see how the changes went. Really impressed that you guys are working at reducing the costs there. But there seems to be one item or two areas that have an increase. One I'm really concerned with. Why was there not any questions about the large increase in the town clerk department budget? And once again, I think we should be looking at geothermal as a great tax base for our community. And if a council member would ever want to amend the consent agenda to include a dog park discussion, I'd love to hear that too. Thank you for your time. Bye.

Kenny, thank you as always for your passion. Lisa, would you please put the dog park on a future council agenda so that we can have an open discussion and conversation about that again? Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Mr. John Glitzos.

Thank you, Mayor, Consul. I've asked Jim Schnitzer. We've got four of our board members from the White Mountain Nature Center here tonight to present something to the town. And Jim Schnitzer is the closest to the situation, and he did the most work to make this happen. So I'd like him to fill you in.

Thank you. Thank you, John, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council. Thank you very much for this chance to be here. I'm here to report on the results of the Spring Carnival. I'll give you the bottom line first. It's the best one we ever had. It was a huge success, and it's important to the Nature Center, of course, because we make money, but I think it's extremely important to the town because as a AS A TOURIST TOWN, THE QUESTION PEOPLE ALWAYS HAVE, ESPECIALLY YOUNG PEOPLE, IS, IS THERE SOMETHING TO DO? SO THIS WAS VERY SUCCESSFUL, AND BOTH WEEKENDS WERE WELL ATTENDED. THE, I ESPECIALLY WANT TO THANK PARKS, CHRISTIE AND MELENA, THANK YOU BOTH. THE COOPERATION WITH THE TOWN OF THE PARKS AND REC WAS THE BEST WE'VE EVER HAD THIS YEAR. I KNOW IT'S A LOT OF WORK FOR THE TOWN TO HAVE THE EVENT, BUT AS I SAID, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I HOPE We have the event again next year, but I'm well aware that show has really made a push To take this event away from us, and they've been marketing to Steve the carnival owner, so I'm grateful that we had it this year. I hope we have it again, but I just don't know What he did to show his appreciation He gave me a check made out to the town of pine top lakeside which I'll pass on to you mayor for $1,000

um just as a sign of his appreciation for the town working with him and helping to make his carnival a success thank you all thank you very much we really appreciate the partnership that we have with the nature center and all the value that you bring to the community so we hope that we can keep that in lakeside and work together towards that goal thank you all very much

Thank you, Jim.

Okay, we'll move on then to item C on our agenda, which is the consent agenda. We actually have no items on that agenda item, so we're just going to go on then to item D, which is business before the council. Public comments shall be accepted at the beginning of each agenda item. after the mayor's announcement of the item and staff presentation. Any citizen who wishes may address the council one time for five minutes on each agenda item, either before or after council discussion. Questions from council members may be directed through the mayor to staff or members of the public at any time. during consideration of the agenda item. Item D1 tonight is recognition of our MIAC seniors. I am particularly proud of this group of young people, and unfortunately we only have one of our seniors here tonight, but that's okay. She's the chairman of our MIAC committee. Jessie Stroop graduated from Blue Ridge just last week and is going on. So would you come up to the podium? I have a presentation for you, a certificate, and I'd also like you to tell us your plans for next year, please.

Right there, speak to us. So my plans for next year is I'm going to ASU West Valley and I'm going to be studying business management. And on top of that, I also want to work on getting an internship hopefully with a business down there. Fingers crossed. That's wonderful.

We're very proud of you and all the work that you've done. You've served as chairman this last year and your leadership has been very much appreciated. So I'm going to and this is in grateful recognition to Jesse Stroop for your dedication and service from June of 2022 through June of 2026 to the town of Pinetop Lakeside Mayor's Youth Advisory Committee.

Thank you.

Okay, I would also like to recognize the other two individuals who graduated that are seniors from the MIAC committee are Jackson Wood and Isabella Shumway. They were not able to be here tonight, but we appreciate their contributions to the town. So item D2 is a public hearing. This is the first public hearing regarding the continued use of the alternative expenditure limitation, which is our home rule option, including information and discussion related thereto. I'll turn that over to our town manager, Christy.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, and members of the public. It's always nice to see so many people here tonight. I have a lot of information to share with you guys tonight, and I'm sorry, but I think at the end I have something that's going to be a fun surprise for everyone to make this a little bit more easily digestible for you. Tonight's presentation is the first of two public hearings regarding the alternative expenditure limitation commonly referred to as the Home Rule. The purpose of tonight's presentation is to provide factual information about what home rule is, how it works, and how it impacts the town of Pinetop Lakeside. This is intended to be an educational presentation so that residents can better understand the proposition that will appear on the November 3rd, 2026 general election ballot. I do want to point out that the last time that the alternative expenditure limitation was voted on by the voters and proved was November 8th of 2022. We do have to bring this back to the public every four years. And this one that we're currently in will be effective until June 30th of 2027. And if it passes again in the general election, it would go into effect on June 30th of 2027. Okay, the second public hearing will be held on June 18th, 2026 at the Normal Town Council meeting. And our finance director, Gabe Boulder, will be here to present and provide additional information and answer more detailed financial and technical questions that I am not a professional in. So with that, I'll begin tonight's presentation. Thank you. All right, home rule is Arizona's alternative expenditure limitation. Arizona municipalities are required to operate under a state-imposed expenditure limitation unless voters approve an alternative expenditure limitation, commonly known as home rule. Home rule does not create a new tax. It does not increase tax rates. It does not increase property taxes, which the town of Pinetop Lakeside does not have. And it does not authorize additional debt. Instead, home rule allows municipalities to establish its own expenditure limitation based on local revenues and local needs. In simple terms, Home Rule gives local communities the ability to determine expenditure limits that better reflect the realities of providing services for the residents. Did that go? Did that go to the next one?

Okay, thank you.

Arizona's expenditure limitation formula was established decades ago, actually in 1980, and is based primarily on population growth and inflation. Although the state-imposed limit increases each year, many of the costs associated with providing municipal services have increased at a much faster pace. Examples include public safety services, road maintenance, infrastructure improvements, employee benefits, insurance costs, and facility operations. One important thing to understand is while the state-imposed expenditure limit has increased each year, it has not increased at the same pace as actual cost of providing municipal services. For example, the state's imposed expenditure limitation for fiscal year 26-27 is approximately 7.47%. Million, I'm sorry that should yeah 26 27 is right seven point four seven million dollars while that limit has increased approximately eleven point nine percent over the past four fiscal years the actual cost of providing services have increased significantly more in the years as Communities grow and service costs rise the gap between state and post limit and the actual cost of operating the municipality can become substantial the next slide provides examples of the cost of those increases I'm sorry, that's kind of small. This slide provides examples of how costs have changed over the time. As you can see, the cost of providing public safety services has increased significantly, along with associated employee benefits needed to support those services. Public works and streets maintenance costs have also increased substantially over the same period. In addition, health insurance costs have increased by more than 46% in the period shown. These examples help demonstrate that costs of providing municipal services have risen considerably faster than the state-imposed expenditure limitation. These are not unique challenges to Pinetop Lakeside. Municipalities throughout Arizona are experiencing many of the same inflationary and operational pressures. The town receives revenue from a variety of resources. These include the transaction privilege tax, state shared revenues, highway user revenue funds, grants, permits, and user fees. These revenues support many of the services residents rely on every day. including public safety, road maintenance, parks, library services, community development, facility maintenance, and infrastructure improvements. An important point to understand is that the town continues to receive these revenues regardless of home rule. The question is not whether the town receives revenue. The question is whether the town has sufficient expenditure authority to utilize those revenues for community services and projects. There are several common misconceptions regarding home rule. Home rule does not create a new tax, it does not increase sales tax, it does not increase property tax, it does not authorize additional debt, and it does not remove council oversight of the budget process. What Home Rule does provide is local flexibility in establishing expenditure limits that better align with community needs and available revenues. The Town Council would continue to review, discuss, and approve annual budgets through the same public process that exists today. In summary, Home Rule is a budgeting tool authorized under Arizona law. It allows local voters to determine whether the town should continue operating under a state-imposed expenditure limitation or adopt an alternative expenditure limitation. Home Rule does not generate new revenue and does not increase taxes. Rather, it addresses expenditure authority and provides local flexibility in budgeting. Ultimately, this decision rests on the voters of Pinetop Lakeside. Before Mayor Irwin opens up the public hearing, I would like to share a short animated video that the town has created to help explain home rule in a simple and easy to understand format. The video provides a brief overview of the concepts discussed this evening and serves as additional educational resources for our residents. Following tonight's meeting, the video will be posted to the town's website and shared to the town's Facebook page so that residents may view it at their convenience and share it with others who may be interested in learning more about Home Rule. Finally, I would like to remind everyone that this proposition will appear on the July election ballot. If approved to proceed, alternative expenditure limitation or home rule will appear on the ballot as a proposition, which we do not have the number yet, for voter consideration during the general election on November 3rd, 2026. And with that, Annie's going to go. It's just like a two-minute video, so I hope you enjoy it. We try to use slides to make it look like Pinetop Lakeside. But we don't have sound, Annie. She's working on it. Here she comes. One moment, please.

Thank you.

Oh, I hope it works.

This ballot measure on the 2026 general election ballot in November is about home rule. Home rule gives our community more local control to make decisions that are right for Pine Top Lakeside. Let's start with the basics. An expenditure limit is a state-imposed limit on the amount of money cities and towns can spend each year. This is calculated based off of a formula adopted by the Arizona State Legislature in 1980. Now, this formula took into account the services and programs that Pinetop Lakeside had to offer back then, and it does adjust each year to account for inflation and population changes. But it does not adjust for new services, expanded infrastructure, operating costs, or new programs and facilities. Because of this, the state offers the option to voters to change the city's or town's expenditure limit. So what does it mean if you vote to adjust Pinetop Lakeside's expenditure limit? Basically, it would allow the town to spend more of the funds that have been set aside for things like public safety, park services, and road maintenance. It simply raises the cap on the amount of money the town can spend on municipal services and programs. Let's go over a few things that a base adjustment would not do. It would not raise taxes. It would not create new taxes. It would not allow the town of Pinetop Lakeside to exceed its annual budget, and it would not allow Pinetop Lakeside to spend more than it receives in revenues. For more information about Home Rule, please visit the town of Pinetop Lakeside Town Hall or call us at 928-368-8696. We will also be posting information on our town website at PinetopLakesideDaisy.gov.

That's what I have for you tonight.

This ballot measure on the 2026 general election.

You guys liked it, right? You want to listen to it again?

Thank you, Annie. I know Annie had a big part in that as well. This is a public hearing. This is an opportunity for the citizens to ask questions. There will be no action, obviously, taken on this this evening. So does anybody have any questions they'd like to come up and ask? Come on up, Lynn.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. I am looking forward to knocking on doors to talk to fellow town people because I think this is really important. I was on the council when we went through this four years ago, and so I'm hoping that it will pass again. That was excellent, Christy. It really easy. What I would like to know is will there be something that I can give people that they can have in their hands to talk about

this when i knock on doors i believe that is yeah absolutely thank you lynn for your efforts and we'll get back to you go ahead christy thank you i was just going to tell them we'd get a turn but thank you mayor yeah okay let me know when lynn i'll go with you any questions from council members come on up please jeff

Nice job on the video. Enjoyed it very much. A couple of questions. As far as passage, is it simple majority or does it require a certain percentage of the voters to approve? And number two question I've got is what is the alternative if home rule does not pass?

So it is a simple majority, yes. And it would go back to, I believe Christy referenced the number, around $7 million?

It's $7.47 million.

$7.47 million that we would be able to spend. I hope that answers your question, Jeff. Okay. Any other questions, comments from the council?

I was just going to say to kind of tie that piece home, I think in the last council meeting I asked, what is the actual amount of revenue that the town brings in via sales tax and its other funds. And it was, if I remember right, I don't remember exactly, but right around nine and a half million. And so basically home rule would take us back not to not being able to tax that amount, but only being able to spend $7.47 million, which is this, I mean, that's a $2 million cut in the budget. And that's, I mean, that's significant.

Can I add to that as well? So if it was not to pass, we wouldn't be able to take it back before the voters for two years. So we would have to operate off of that expenditure for two years.

Thank you. Anyway, anybody else have questions or comments on that?

I have a question.

Of course.

People who, are there any opponents to this? Or is it more...

I think it's a lack of understanding.

They don't understand it.

Yeah, but I haven't met anybody talking to them that said they were against it to give me any reasons. I think it was just a lack of understanding. So we're working really hard on education. And thank you to the PVC group and the Chamber of Commerce and other groups in town that are allowing us to come and speak and get that information out. And for people like Lynn who are available to go out and spread that word as well.

I think that's our key is education, presenting the facts. So, okay, if there's no other questions or comments from the public or the council, I will go ahead and close that public hearing for item D2. And we'll move on to item D3, which is a two-part item. First of all, the public hearing information and discussion of the proposed fiscal year 26-27 consolidated fee schedule. Our town clerk, Lisa, will present this one. Thank you, Mayor, Mayor and Council.

The fiscal year 2026-27 consolidated fee schedule has been reviewed by all departments and properly posted for public review. Proposed changes include modest increases to the electric and gas permit fees, formally adding the annual green waste event to the schedule, and implementing a $5 fee for notary services. Staff recommends approval of this resolution adopting the consolidated peace schedule, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you, Lisa. Any questions for Lisa? Okay, this is a public hearing. Is there any member of the public that would like to address this? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. We'll move on to D3, Section B, which is consider approving Resolution No. 26-1815, adopting the document entitled FY2026-2027, Consolidated Fee Schedule, filed with the town clerk with an effective date of July 4th, 2026. Are there any questions, additional comments? Yes, Councilor Smith.

Yeah, I have a thing. that I would like to have you consider, everybody consider. I know we want to charge notary fees now of, what, five bucks, but why don't we just not charge the town residents of Pinetop Lakeside? Kind of like we do the collection center, we give the town residents a little break, and that's another one that we could do at very little cost to us, and just charge the people who are not Go ahead and charge the people who are not residents of Pinetop Lakeside.

What was the rationale behind that?

So, Mayor, do you want me to? No, go ahead. Okay, all right. Mayor and Councillor Smith, thank you. Me and Melina are currently the only notaries here right now, and I'm getting inundated with notary. And when we looked at what other cities and towns were doing, they were charging anywhere between $5 and $15 a page. So when people find out it's free, when they go down to the local mailbox place, they're coming over here. And I simply just, I don't have time for it. So if we're going to do it, we need to make some money on it so we can get some other staff members as to notaries. But they've changed the policies now. The state, they have to test and go to Flagstaff for that. So it's not something we had in our budget plan to have to send staff over there. So we're just trying to... find a way, a notary, we were basically, we started that mostly to do town business, and it's become into being called up front quite a bit to do notary service.

And I think the unintended cost of that is time away from your other functions, so.

Yeah, we do pay, the town pays for a bond for each of us as well, so there's some cost anchored in it.

So I think this is only fair, in my opinion. Any other comments from council?

$5 is still a very good deal.

Hard to find notaries anymore. Yeah. Counselor Heiser?

I move to approve resolution number 261815, adopting and declaring as a public record a certain document filed with the town clerk entitled FY2026-2027, town consolidated fee schedule effective July 4th, 2026.

I'll second it.

Thank you. We have a motion to second. Further discussion? All those in favor, please signify by raising your hand. All those opposed? That passes six to one. Thank you for bringing that to us. Item D4, again a two part, first part public hearing information and discussion regarding an amendment to Town Code Title 17, Chapter 17.102, Section 17.102.050, Medical Marijuana Dispensary. I will ask our Public Works Director Frank Young to come up and can then introduce our new Community Development Manager when you're ready.

Thank you, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council. I would like to have Jennifer, our new community development manager, describe this to you. She could probably do it much better than I can anyway. So come on up, Jennifer.

Thank you, Frank.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council, and community members. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the Town Council approve amendments to Title 17, Section 17-102-050, medical marijuana dispensaries, and C1 zoning, like commercial districts. The recommended amendments are as follows. Revising subsection C2 to allow dispensaries a maximum gross square footage of 4,000 square feet. and amending subsection C5 to require dispensaries to be located at least 500 feet away from the property line of a privately owned, family-oriented place of business. To give a little bit of background on this, on March 5th, the commission first brought this to council. When it was presented, it did not pass. Town Council requested that Planning and Zoning Commission please revise the chapter and specifically look at the family-oriented, privately owned zoning rules. Looking at it myself, I did a lot of industry research. Specifically, starting with the square footage. Going from 2,000 square feet, where it is currently today, up to a maximum of 4,000 square feet is right about the sweet spot looking at the industry as a whole, which is anywhere from 3,500 square feet up to 5,000. Additionally, I needed to be able to give myself a little bit of a visual of what 4,000 square feet actually looks like, something I'm very familiar with in town. Looking at the McDonald's over in the Safeway parking lot, that square footage of that structure itself is 3,453 square feet. So we're looking for a maximum square footage just a little bit above what is currently located at the Safeway parking lot, the McDonald's over there. In addition to that, the security measures that come with this include most of the marijuana dispensaries spend anywhere from $50,000 up to $75,000 per year just on equipment for security and also that does not include additional safety measures that are required to be taken in the form of a security guard on premises as well as vaults and inventory enclosures as well. So with that, the staff recommends, council approves this amendment.

Thank you, Jennifer. Any questions for Jennifer at this point? This is a public hearing, so if there are any members of the public that would like to come address this, this is your opportunity if you would come up. Okay. Seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing, and we will move on to... D4B, which is consideration of legal action to approve ordinance number 26-491, amending town code title 17, chapter 17.102, section 17.102-050, medical marijuana dispensary. Are there any questions from the council or additional items? Councilor Heisler?

I've asked you some of these questions beforehand, but I'd like to know, since you did the research, 500 feet, 700 feet, 750 feet, and 1,000 feet, and how many properties within the town would that allow based on the different feet from another occupancy?

So looking at our C1 zoning as it stands today, we have approximately 550 viable parcels that exist in town limits. So starting first at the first variable, in order to establish a medical marijuana or rather a dual license dispensary is 1,000 feet from property line to property line of a school area. preschool and education facilities, so that automatically wipes out about 410 parcels already. That remains about 53 in total. Looking at the property line to property line, the second caveat to that is making sure that we're within 500 feet of the privately owned facility as well as 200 feet set back from the actual wall to wall of a private residence. So looking at that holistically, it's about 53 or so, give and take unless something is incorrectly zoned for whatever reason, viable properties that fall within that parameter.

So that's within the 500 feet or the 750 feet?

That's within the 500 feet. And looking at the 750 feet, you could split up parcels and subdivide them out. Of course, it's not totally logical, but it is plausible that somebody might do that. But looking at the addition to the setbacks, going from nothing, which is what we currently had in place, to an actual requirement for a dispensary to get established, We have two or three locations here in town that fall within that type of business parameter. And the movie theater is the first one that comes to mind. Within 1,000 feet of that school property line, it stretches it pretty far. And plus, they're right next to a county line as well. So that wipes that one out. And then additionally is the mini golf family fun park down on the other side of town. So it's well beyond that as well. So it has to basically from is it past the Maverick, if not a little bit further, would be one extension of that 500-foot arm, and then all the way to the opposite end of Camp Tottier.

Okay, and then I think that one of the other things that I heard, because I attended the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, was the identification that it's property line to property line, not wall to wall, which is only on residential properties, which significantly changes when you're talking about feet. That significantly changes the game when you're talking about property lines and not buildings.

Yeah, so that 53 viable parcels includes that 250 feet wall to wall.

wiped out quite a bit but that's okay we don't have any interest right now so any other questions I do have a question have you and I apologize for not being at the planning and zoning meeting do you is there actually a map that shows what parcels we're talking about

53 yeah, we did have the GIS specialist Katherine and map that out As well as listed out majority of them are going to be on the far side of town over That Penrod and the lion's den kind of on that end over there surprisingly. So that's where a lot of them ended up landing. I Couple central ones over Porter Mountain, Highway 260, right there with the retired Navapatchee parcel is. A couple over there. But it's more in abundance on that side.

OK. Question. Have we, are there any studies that have been looked at that note the increase in community usage of the marijuana with a dispensary that's local?

I didn't research that topic specifically. What I did find that was actually really interesting when a dispensary development is looking at certain markets to put one in, what they typically found was Surprisingly, markets with tourism were a higher propensity to be approached for development. Second to that was the age of the demographics, typically senior citizens. And then the third one to that was veterans as well. So that topic I didn't specifically research itself, but I'd be happy to.

Have we had input from the police force on anything else?

Well, I think we have quite a few of them back there. I think just in chatting with some of them, I think this is in our community already, and we are all aware of that. Would you like to address that, Chief Barnes? Put you on the spot, sorry.

I apologize.

I don't think we're going to see a lot of change. We have a... We have a dispensary in Show, which is pretty close to us anyways, and a lot of people travel through our area to get to that area. I don't know if it's going to be a big change for us. They don't have any security issues that I know of at Show, though. If they do here, that's something we've got to address, but it's an unknown right now. I think with the use being legalized and everything, I don't think it's going to change anything. overall in our community what's going on, so.

Yeah, I guess, you know, personally, I hate being around it. And I find it, you know, when I'm up at sunrise skiing and the smell of it is everywhere and it's not a pleasant place to be. If we're making, and as a medical provider, I see the detrimental effects that it has, whether it's legal whether it's good or two different things I firmly I'm okay with it being legal from my personal experience as a medical provider it's not been a good thing since it's been legalized and I see a lot more of my patients using it it's not been a good thing for people's health and so when we're trying to make a special we're going out of our way to open the door to alter zoning that's been there, to welcome something that's not good for our community, I guess that's where my question lies. Is that wise?

That makes total sense.

It's not good for our community, so yeah. I can't change, so.

I have just one more question to it. Sorry. SEEMS LIKE WHEN WE FIRST WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS EVEN AT PLANNING AND ZONING, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THEY NEED, THAT THE FIRST PERSON THAT EXPRESSED INTEREST IN COMING HERE, THEY WANTED A LARGER FOOTPRINT BECAUSE THEY WERE GOING TO DO MEDICAL AND RECREATIONAL, AND THAT'S WHY WE WERE ALLOWING BIGGER. OR THAT'S WHY WE WERE LOOKING TO ACCOMMODATE. AND IS THAT STILL THE REASON THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO ACCOMMODATE BIGGER? I MEAN...

SO IT'S NOT SO MUCH AN ACCOMMODATION, BUT MORE SO A REALIZATION THAT OUR CURRENT CODE WAS not creating enough space within 2,000 square feet in order to be able to operate both medical as well as recreational dispensaries. So looking at what goes inside of that 4,000 square foot footprint, that includes a lobby, a waiting area, bathrooms, the inventory vaults, break room, office, all the different components that make it up. It's also a lot smaller than what you'll typically find in some of our Phoenix neighbors. Those are typically around 8,000 to 10,000 square feet, and they usually have a lot more kiosks and different types of things, so that way they're accommodating a higher volume of customers. So this really restricts the amount of customers that can take place in that sort of square footage as well. So it's I hear and I understand what you're saying, that we're making an accommodation to the code as a reactionary response. I think looking at it from formerly a citizen perspective and now as a town employee, that it's more of an understanding that our town code needed to be reviewed when it came to our square footage restrictions that we had in order for a business to be viable within our community. Thank you.

Go ahead, Councilor Hodge.

Just one, I guess one last question, and I guess I'm not so hung up on the size of the building because that didn't really seem to resonate with a lot of people in the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. It was the distance, right? And so if we were to increase the 500 feet to 750 feet, is there still viable properties? Like we're not saying absolutely not, but we are definitely limiting the places where they can go in. So if we went to 750 feet, would we be, would there still be viable properties within the community for that?

it's roughly still about the same. It's around that 50, 55. You may gain one or two. And like what we mentioned before, there's always the possibility that people will start to subdivide different communities. Being that our town specifically is not built on a grid, it makes those types of things really not linear, to be quite frank. So it still is roughly about... be about 40 or so. I looked very heavily at the 500 square foot one versus the 750 because we didn't have any sort of ordinance in place to protect those types of businesses and what they're trying to do. So this is in addition to what we already had. It's not a reduction of any setbacks by any means.

And I think when we discussed this earlier this year, the feet away from the family-oriented businesses was more, as you said, concern than the dimensions of the building so if we increase that to 750 feet we would still have definitely adequate number of parcels for this type of business to come to our community yes I I would support increasing it to 750 feet I don't know what the rest of council this wishes are I just have a couple questions of course you mentioned there'd be a couple more I think what you meant is there'd be a couple less all right yes bless thank you

I mean, this first came before council, actually before I was on council, I think it was over six years ago, when it was addressed. And at that time, the council approved medical marijuana to be sold here. My understanding is, correct me if I'm wrong, that doesn't go along with state statutes that require that if you're going to allow medical marijuana, you have to allow the

recreational marijuana as well is that correct so currently our town code in order to operate a dispensary within our town code you have to have a dual license so really looking at this second agenda item to the marijuana as a whole is To make sure that we have cohesion when it comes to the setbacks as well as the square footage of the actual building so it So that way the dual license component makes it actually viable so that way we have there's no difference between recreational and medical because if we did have a difference between the two then it would make it a lot more challenging because one code would say one thing and one would say another. So really the second section is more so about having cohesion between the two different types of marijuana dispensaries because within the town you have to have a dual license. Does that help answer the question?

And I actually had a question for Chief Barnes as well. Again, my understanding is some of the revenue collected from this actually goes to law enforcement. But I believe in the conversations I had with you, Pinetown Lakeside's already receiving some of that. Is that right? Just for the...

I'm not familiar with us being able to receive any funds. So... Okay.

Councilor Heiser. Yeah, so... There is a state shared revenue portion of when marijuana was passed in Arizona state law, there's a portion of that revenue that goes to public safety, but it is not based on if you have a marijuana dispensary in your community. It's dispersed statewide based on the number of public safety people you have within your organization.

So we're getting that already. That won't change for us.

That's 207 money. Okay. all right yeah that's correct that's that's what i want to recall that now so i'm not sure how much that is it's not a big amount of money but um a little bit helps and i do think that the revenue generated if we did have a dispensary in our community could be significant i believe solo's making i've heard that around a half a million dollars um annually that's the number that's kind of been floating around

And to answer that second part about SHOLO, looking at Phoenix, the average marijuana dispensary in Phoenix is bringing in about $1 million a month. So maybe they're probably doing a half a million dollars a month, so maybe $6 million. looking at the fact that they have the entire market share. And we would either be pulling from that or pulling from other areas. It's probably safe that we could potentially have around a $3 million business in our area and the TPT on top of that. So could help significantly.

Anything else from the council?

I mean, are we discussing anything regarding this or just what's on the just what's on the address?

I mean, that's what we have to kind of stick to that going from 2000 to 4000 feet, potentially looking at 500 feet distance or 750 if we want to change that. Any other questions? You have one brewing.

I mean, I'm opposed to, I'm going to keep using the word accommodating. I'm opposed to accommodating this. We're such a single corridor town that no matter where you come in to our town, I don't want to see that when we come in, especially if one of the prettier parts of our town, tall trees, historic stuff. I feel like that's a major detractor to any of the businesses we actually want. And I'm all about raising revenue. Even as a local realtor, I have a couple exciting potential commercial things that I'm trying to bring to Lakeside, and they've asked questions about that in a negative light. And so I personally don't, I just don't, I'm thinking the long view, and I don't think that's a great long view for our town.

I agree with Todd. If you're out at the lion's den and you're outside enjoying it or out at the orchard and you have... A dispensary there close by. The reason that the company wants to focus on tourist areas is because, hey, let's go buy something because it's convenient and use it now because it's convenient, something we don't normally do. But it's here, so let's use it. And I think it degrades the quality of the experience for the other tourists and for the other town's citizens.

Anything else? Are we ready for a motion? I mean, I know everybody has their different viewpoints, which is wonderful.

I guess I'd like to ask the question about if we defeat this motion, what is the effect on someone who wants to put another facility in? Do they revert back to what the current zoning regulations are? Is that worse than... than what we're trying to change.

Well, I guess it depends on the business, because it would revert back to 2,000 square feet, and with no separation from other family-oriented businesses, such as the movie theater or the family fun park.

So there's good and bad. We could have something separate in the future to create a distance.

Mm-hmm. Or you could amend the motion right now and just change it to a 2,000 square foot facility. That's 750 feet.

We could do that right now, yeah. You know, which would.

I'm in favor of that personally.

I'm sorry, Christy, did you just remind me it's a public hearing before you go to vote? Thank you.

Leslie.

Thank you. This is a public hearing. So if any member of the public would like to come up, Leslie. Did you want to come up? Come on up. That's okay. It's a public hearing.

It's okay. I'm Leslie Wessel. I live in the community. I have a question. Does a community, is a community in the state of Arizona required to have medical marijuana or recreational marijuana dispensary? Are we required to have one?

This isn't.

giving us one this is providing a mechanism I know I know I'm just saying maybe we're talking and I just have some questions and I know I don't know anything at this point so they might be irrelevant they might not be first of all is it revenue generation that we're concerned about is it citizens requiring or requesting that we have a facility here in our community and and you know they could fall under the gamut of any actual thing. I know that you're talking about code changes here and it's a public hearing for code changes. We already have something in our code for medical marijuana apparently. It's not big enough according to the people that want to come here or put a business here. So the questions I have, there's concerns about does it fit in our community? The neighboring community has something like this, and they are generating some revenue from it, which probably helps to provide services. But is that something we want to do? We have to be careful maybe where it's located so that it doesn't impact other businesses in the community. These are things that might not fall under this particular agenda item. And if you'll just let me know, I'll sit down and be quiet. And maybe raise these questions when it does.

Questions, you're fine.

So, you know, I guess we need to, and I'm late to the game and I apologize for that. But do we want it? Do we need it? Do the citizens want it? And do we need the revenue generated from it to provide services? Or is it something that can still just be located in our neighboring communities? So those are things I just would have you think about. Thank you.

Leslie Frank, did you have, or Jennifer, you had an answer?

We're talking about whether the state requires or not. The state does say that we cannot prohibit it, okay? The other thing I need to say is whether it's here or it's not, the marijuana is still in town. It comes from somewhere else. So it's not gonna make a difference whether we deny it or approve it, it's still gonna be in town. So that's all I have to say about it.

Thank you. And I remember I was actually on the council when we, years ago before recreational marijuana was legalized, we said we don't want it at all and we made it so prohibitive that there were no places for it to be located. And now we have to allow it in our community. So in my opinion, it's good for us to plan for it the way we want it to fit in our community and not have our head in the sand. Because as you said, it is in our community. Barnes says it's in our community.

It's all over. I go home, I smell it in my yard. Not from me, but... Glad you clarified. I have neighbors, you know, and the fact is, it's here.

and and the fact is that the revenue we could generate from this could be very helpful to our town budget so um i think we and and i think i'll speak for myself i'm personally opposed to it as well as are some council members but i am personally opposed to the abuse of alcohol which is prevalent and those types of stores are prevalent in our community and they are not much more attractive so anyway okay counselor heisler did you have something to say

I was just going to respond to Leslie and Frank already did. In the research that I've done, we can't prohibit it. We have to provide a mechanism for which it can come in if it wants to, but I think to some of the council members' points, we don't have to be welcoming. We can leave it at 2,000 square feet, and if they want to come here, that's the size of the facility they're going to have to be in.

Anybody else from the public? Yes, please come up. We need to make sure we can hear you and get it on tape, so you need to come to the microphone, please.

If it comes and people need it, so be it. But if there's going to be a restriction on where you place it, please don't put it where families are, restaurants, because there's nothing worse than being out in the nice air and you're smelling marijuana coming in. It's kind of like Las Vegas. You can't even walk down the streets anymore because it's everywhere. So if it has to be in the community, let them drive a little bit farther away so it's away from everything.

Thank you. And your name is?

My name is Christopher Jishuka.

Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Christopher.

I know that you can drive to Show Low and get it, but I think there's still an amount of people that will get it if it's here local that wouldn't otherwise get it. So I think that there is a difference. And I don't think that Revenue for the town is a good enough reason to roll out the welcome mat. I think that there's other ways that we could look for revenue that would be better for our town.

Thank you. Sir, you want to come up?

Well I've spoke to all you guys a lot of different times and I've already gone on the record but I want to go on the record again one more time. I completely agree we don't have to be accommodating to people and so by saying we have to allow it, the law says that, we can make it as restrictive as we want with not upping that 2,000 square feet. As far as being able to snout everywhere, It gets so irritating smelling it. I mean, you walk, I came from Colorado, which I've been to the planning and zoning meetings and talking to everybody about it. We got to where you couldn't go down to Fort Collins, you couldn't go to any towns. You walk, you smell it everywhere. And by allowing it here, it's just normalizing it. So we normalize things, we normalize it, then we legalize it, we have to have it. And I don't think we need to do that. There's many other ways to make money. So I just wanted to go on the record at this meeting saying that. Thank you. And your name? David Hendricks from the White Mountain Family Farm Park. Thank you.

Anything else? I'd entertain a motion unless there, is there any more public? Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing. And we can move on to the second part of this consideration of legal action. To approve ordinance number 26-491 author, excuse me, amending code title 17, chapter 17.02, section 17.102.050 medical marijuana dispensaries. What are the council's wishes?

Can I just say something? Go ahead. Those of you who are here will remember I was very strongly about making sure we increased the distance from the schools when we did this the last time around. I would propose maybe some type of compromise. Personally, I mean, I don't want to see it, Again, as already been mentioned, I mean, it is here and we are required to allow it. I don't have a problem with the 4,000 square foot, but I do think we could raise and put it at least 750 feet from the property line of movie theaters, bowling alleys, miniature golf and facilities. And why not even increase it then? And maybe this is a question for you, Jen. What if we increased even from the residences, made that the 500 feet, what would that do as far as how many properties would still be available.

I think the residential one isn't on the agenda tonight, Vice Mayor.

Okay.

Yeah, it's just the recreation facilities.

I think at that point, if we would be making it too restrictive, we may be allowing it to stay there.

WE CAN BE MORE LENIENT THAN THE STATE STATUTE, BUT WE CAN'T BE MORE STRICT.

WHAT DOES THE STATE STATUTE SAY?

I BELIEVE IT'S THE 500, ISN'T IT?

FROM CHURCHES TO SCHOOLS.

IS THERE ANY MENTION OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN THE STATE STATUTE?

Yeah, it just won't catch, yeah. People watching at home won't hear it.

So it's State Statute 36-2857, Section C, and currently in the State Statute, and Christy will look at it in just a minute just to make sure it's correct. That does include 1,000 feet from property line to property line for schools, education facilities, et cetera, and then 500 feet for... Actually, no, it does not actually have the mention for, sorry, 500 feet for places of worship, churches. There is no, nothing in the state statute that includes the privately owned family oriented properties. So we're adding that to maintain our community character. And there's also no mention of the residential. And she's going to double check just to make sure. So we have that in addition too.

So you just said we can't be more restrictive than state statute, but here we are being more restrictive.

I'm going to look up what state statute says, but we can't be more restrictive. Right.

So did our town attorney look at this?

Yes, he did. From a resident's? Yeah. But I'm going to keep it on the residential side.

While they look for that, I... Go ahead. For me, I'm okay approving something that's 2,000 square feet at the state statutes.

That's kind of where I stand.

We can put this square foot.

It's currently.

I'm okay leaving it at 2,000. I don't want this to be one of the premier commercial places viewed in our town. I think we leave it at 2,000. And with the state statute setbacks from Schools and churches.

Go ahead, Christy. Do you have it? So the state statute does not have a distance for residential at all. For churches and schools, they're both 500. Actually, take it back. The state does not have a church requirement either. Just the schools is 500 feet.

So we're already more restricted than state statute then?

Is that medical or recreational? So dual license, looking back at the statute, because in order to operate a dispensary inside town limits, you have to have a dual license. So the concern under the current town code and the need for the revision going to 4,000 square feet is that in order to operate, it could be too restrictive at the 2,000 square feet. And that's in the agenda packet. That was the reason.

It could be too restrictive to get us in trouble with doing it legally, or it could be too restrictive for them to want to open up something.

To be able to operate.

So it's not a why, it's more of an operate. If they choose not to operate in 2,000 square feet, I'm okay with that.

I have a question.

Yeah, that's that's that's what I wanted to bring up the way our town is laid out We could easily have something much closer and you know what the county Restrictions are I don't know specifically not enough to but but it's It would ease that could easily occur

that's that's their decision this is our decision one one other thing i mean i mean if you take somebody that's creative and they say okay we can't do four thousand and on per parcel but they could come in here and ask for a partial split and they could do two thousand and two thousand I mean, technically, by our code at that point, there would be nothing stopping them. There would be 2,000 square foot buildings right next to each other. I mean, it might add a little bit of work for them to come here. But I mean, technically, and I tend to not want to let it go bigger than 2,000 myself, but just I think I could figure out a way to get past that.

And so I don't know if we... Or they could go 4,000 and 4,000 and do a parcel split and have 8,000. We have a limit on...

We can only have one. One. OK. Yeah. One in town.

We can only have one dispensary in town.

Yeah, so they couldn't technically split.

Do that.

OK. OK. Did you have something?

I just want to clarify, if we have a motion and a second, to approve as it reads. At that point, we can amend, we can vote, we can raise the question of amending that.

You can amend this motion that's in our CDR.

To the 2,000 feet.

Sure. We can do that right now.

I think the sense is that 2,000 feet is as much as we want to go, but we still want all the setbacks and we want all of the, the things that are in the planning and zoning decisions here.

Recommendation. Okay.

So that's what I would recommend we do is that we go ahead and vote.

Ready to make the motion then?

Yeah, the first motion would be, yeah, let me. I move to adopt. Approve ordinance number 26-491 amending town code title 17 chapter 17.102 section 17.102.050 bracket medical marijuana dispensaries to increase the maximum allowable buildings area for a marijuana dispensary to a maximum allowance of 4,000 gross square feet based on the findings of consistency with Arizona Revised Statutes 36-2857 , amending to require dispensaries to be located at least 500 feet from the property line of movie theaters, bowling alleys, miniature golf facilities, and sporting facilities, and to ensure reasonable and lawful regulation of dual licensed marijuana dispensaries as presented.

So I just want to clarify, you read it exactly as it is with 4,000 feet. Yes. That's what you wanted.

Okay. I'm going to amend that, though.

Well, you could have just. Okay.

I will amend it to change the size to 2,000 gross square feet instead of 4,000. Do we want to amend D500?

Can I? Yeah. Well, I guess we go with this one and then do another one if we don't. What do you want to do? I would propose another amendment as well.

Wait a minute. We have a motion on the floor. We really can't discuss it until we have a second, and if it fails, then we can go back to it. So I will second it for discussion purposes. So we have a motion on the floor to approve this with the 2,000 gross score footage and 500 feet from the – respective facilities mentioned so further discussion if you want to amend the motion we can do that now or we can take a vote if it fails we can come back with a new motion i'd like to amend the motion but do we need to take a vote on this one and then amend it or you vote on the amendment you can yeah so i think we need to vote on this yeah i think so so we have a motion on the floor motion the second is there any further discussion All those in favor, please signify by raising your hand. All opposed?

I can't oppose it.

I made a motion. You asked if there was any discussion, and we didn't get to discuss.

I'm sorry?

You asked if there was any discussion, and we didn't get to discuss, I guess.

I'm sorry. I didn't see any hands raised.

I apologize. And so I just thought that would go a little slower. I'd like to discuss what Vice Mayor Buse is thinking, to be real honest.

So what I would propose, and I'll make the motion. Let me lay it out first. I would do what Jerry Smith suggested, the allowance of 2,000 gross square feet, but then also increase it to at least 750 feet from the property line of movie theaters, bowling alleys, miniature golf facilities, and sporting facilities.

Okay, so we have a motion, a second on the floor. I believe we need to vote on that. We need to vote on the motion, and then we can come back and make a new motion with the changes that you wanted. So that's where I was trying to go. I didn't mean to cut off the discussion. I apologize.

I thought we did vote on it.

Well, I thought we did too. So all those in favor of the motion on the floor, please raise your hand. All those opposed, please raise your hand. Thank you. The motion fails. Do we have a new motion? Vice Mayor.

I move to adopt and approve ordinance number 20.

I just want to remind you guys of something, that you don't need to amend that back down to 2,000 square feet. That's what our code currently says.

Okay.

So you just wouldn't increase the square footage. You don't need to say that we're amending it to 2,000 square feet. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, yes. I move to adopt part of ordinance number 26491 as follows, amending town code title 17, chapter 17.102, section 17.102.050, medical marijuana dispensaries, Amending to require dispensaries to be located at least 750 feet from the property line of movie theaters bowling alleys miniature golf facilities and Sporting facilities and to ensure reasonable and lawful regulation of dual license marijuana dispensaries as presented I Will second that Okay, we have a motion the second

to increase the distance to 750 feet from the associated businesses, and that's the only change. Does everybody, any discussion? Okay. Call for the vote. All those in favor, please signify by raising your hand. No opposed. That carries unanimously. Thank you. That was, thank you Jennifer and Frank on that one.

Okay.

sorry i thought we were going to amend my motion we're going to move on then to d5 which is also two-part a public hearing information discussion regarding amendments to town code title 17 chapter 17.114 recreational marijuana specifically section 17.114.040 um jennifer you want to explain what we're doing here and then it's a public hearing so i will open that up Or Frank, somebody? Getting your shoes back on?

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council. Once again, welcome back. So this item is actually housekeeping to the previous item on the agenda. And because the previous item was in relation to specifically medical marijuana, and for the previous item to have cohesiveness between the two different town codes. The first one was medical marijuana going from 2,000 to 4,000 and the setbacks to include the 500 feet. This second item is to match that first item to ensure that the two different codes align. So the requirement or the recommendation is to amend Title 17, subsection 17114040. Okay.

But we have to amend it to 750. Okay. All right. This is a public hearing. Is there any member of the public that would like to address this at this point in time? Okay. Yes. Come on up.

Well, hi there, Mayor, Council. Thank you. I wanted to make sure that the term of medical marijuana, you're approving the combination of recreational and medical marijuana. Is that clear?

Yes. Okay. Thank you. Any other public that would like to speak? Okay, seeing none, I'm gonna close the public hearing and we'll move on to the second section of this agenda item, which is consideration of legal action to approve ordinance number 26-492, amending town code title 17, chapter 17.114, recreational marijuana, specifically section 17.114.040. Council, are there any, is there any further discussion? Councilor Heisler.

Just one question. In this particular motion, it doesn't talk about the square footage.

We're just complying.

That particular code does not address the square footage because it's covered in the dual.

Thank you. We can't have just a recreational marijuana dispensary in town.

I understand from the state statute. I was just wondering why we didn't reference the square footage like we did in the other one. So that makes sense. Thank you.

Is there any discussion from the council? Okay, Vice Mayor.

I move to adopt an approved ordinance number 26-492, amending Town Code Title 17, Chapter 17.114, Section 17.114.040.B.4. Recreational marijuana dispensaries require dispensaries to be located at least 750 feet from the property line of movie theaters, bowling alleys, miniature golf facilities, and sporting facilities, and to ensure reasonable and lawful regulation of dual-licensed marijuana dispensaries as presented. Second that.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? Okay, all those in favor.

I'm sorry mayor. I think he just did that as Presented and weren't you guys amending that to the 750 sets?

I did say so.

Okay, so not as presented.

I'm sorry Well, I retract the last one as presented that shouldn't have been.

Oh, thank you It was conflicting. Okay, all those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand Thank you that carries unanimously Thank You Jennifer and Frank Item D6, which is Discussion and Consider Legal Action of Resolution Number 26-1816, Approving Contract Amendment Number 1 for On-Call Civil Engineering Professional Services Contracts with Ironside Engineering and Development, Inc., Ardura, and the WLB Group, Inc. Milena, welcome.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council. Pleasure to be here as always. The item before you tonight, back in 2024 in June, actually in April, we advertised a request for qualifications for on-call engineering, civil on-call engineering services. And we selected four firms from that. However, we only entered into contracts with three of those firms. Those firms are, as presented, Ironside Engineering and Development, which is located here in Sholo, Ardura, formerly Woodson Engineering. and the WLB group. Bill Bess is here from the WLB group. He drove all the way up from Tucson. And I don't believe that Zach Barlow came tonight because he and his wife welcomed a new baby. So certainly we congratulate them. We have worked successfully with all three of those firms over the last two years on various projects, and staff would recommend extending these contracts for another two years to allow us to be able to continue working with those on-call engineering services. Additionally, we have no professional engineer on staff anymore with the departure of Jeremiah Lloyd, so this gives us that advantage to be able to have that professional engineer. Be able to review plans if necessary as well as several projects that we have coming up mountain out of water storage tank They just completed some some new designs and engineering on that Ardura did and then Ironside engineering will be working on some road design for spring mountain or yes for your mountain drive, so I'd be happy to answer any questions Questions counselor Heisler

I just, for maybe my own ignorance, but why do we have three companies? Because I noticed as I was looking through that there's very different rates, and so I was just curious.

They all specialize in different areas, and then depending on what the project is, they have expertise in those different areas. One of the things that's an advantage for us is having Ironside Engineering. They have local surveyors here, and they have some knowledge and expertise of the area, but they don't have as broad of knowledge and the staff that might be able to do something like the water tank design, whereas Ardura and I believe the WLB group have electrical engineers that can help with the electrical design part of it, structural, all of those kind of things that can go into making a project whole so that makes total sense then why the rates are different for different services and if you would like i do have all copies of their statements of qualifications in at public works and i believe that all of them got scanned in as well with the clerk's office so if you want to see those um certainly i can provide those for you as well

I don't need to see their safety qualifications. I was just curious about why the rates were different and why there's three different firms. Thank you.

Any other questions?

I just have a question. Say we were to bring somebody on who was qualified and a professional engineer, then we could use them for whatever they could do. We wouldn't have to use these companies. Is that correct?

Yes and no. So a civil engineer's typically specialize in certain areas. Some will specialize in development. Some specialize in drainage. Some specialize in just road design. So having these firms, it increases our area of expertise.

And I guess to go back to my question, that's why I said if they're qualified in Whatever areas they were qualified in, we could just use them if they were on staff rather than have to go out to these others. We still have these others available for the areas they were not qualified in. I just wanted to clarify that. Yes, yes.

If we had so many, yes.

All right, thank you.

Any other questions? I would just like to thank Bill for driving all the way up here and gracing us with your presence. You're welcome. We appreciate that. Nice to see you as well. Any other? Yes, Councillor Heisler.

I move to adopt resolution number 26, 18, 16, approving contract amendment number one for on-call civil engineering professional services contracts with Ironside Engineering and Development, Inc., Ardura, and the WLB Group, Inc., and authorize the town manager to execute all documents necessary to complete the agreements.

I'll second it.

Thank you. We have a motion to second. Further discussion? All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. Thank you. That carries unanimously. Thank you, Milena. Appreciate your work on this. Okay, the last two items are a little bit related, and Annie is going to present, but we need to consider them separately. So we'll start with D7, which is a discussion and consider legal action of resolution number 26-1817, approving a community event sponsorship program policy. Annie explained that the presentation is related to both, but, well, like I said, we'll consider them separately. So go ahead, Annie.

For the sake of you not having to listen to the presentation twice, Most of the information applies to both, and I will walk you through the differences. So good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council. Tonight I'm presenting two proposed sponsorship programs, the Community Event Sponsorship Program and the Tourism Event Sponsorship Program. These policies are intended to create a clear and transparent and equitable process for distributing sponsorship funding and supporting community and tourism events. Why are we changing the process? Since I've been here, sponsorship funding has been handled through a variety of methods. I have seen funding process through Adam Pro get earmarked during budgeting or be allocated as requested while funds lasted. Bottom line, we have not always had a consistent method for evaluating requests or allocating funds. These policies are intended to address those concerns and create a more structured process. The goal of the new program is simple. We want the process to be transparent, consistent, measurable, equitable, but also providing documentation to support funding decisions. The community events sponsorship program is funded through the general fund and focuses on quality of life and community engagement. The tourism sponsorship fund is funded through bed tax revenues and focuses on tourism generation and economic impact. Each program has its own policy, application, and scoring matrix designed around those objectives. It starts with the annual funding process. Each year, the available funds will be established through the budgeting process. Applications will then be open from July 1st through August 1st. Because this is a new program this year, we'll heavily promote it. In fact, we will reach out to anyone who has received funding in the past and make sure that they hear from each one of us personally that this is the new process, that they don't miss out on the opportunity. The goal is to ensure everyone has equal awareness and access to the program. Application review process. Applications will be reviewed during August by a five-member review committee. The committee will consist of the department director, one council member, if one of you agrees to it, and three community members. The committee's role is to independently score applications using the adopted scoring matrix and provide funding recommendations. In addition to the policy, I have provided each one of you a draft of the application and draft of the scoring matrix. These are intended to demonstrate how the program will function operationally. They're not necessarily the final documents, but they help illustrate the information that the applicant would have to provide and how the applicant would be evaluated. So why are we going to use a scoring matrix? One of the most common questions that I received and what led us to developing this is being asked why one event gets funded a certain way and another does not, or why the amounts differ between organizations. So this matrix will allow us to explain how recommendations were developed and creates a process that is much easier to defend and administer fairly. While the committee provides recommendations, final funding decisions remain administrative function. The town manager will review the recommendations and make the final determination. Funding will be distributed no later than September 1st and applicants will be notified by both phone and email so we have a public record of the communication. Funding may be awarded in full or in part depending on available resources. The biggest benefit of this program is consistency. This improves transparency, creates better planning opportunities for event organizers, and provides an objective support for funding decisions. Ultimately, it creates a more fair and predictable process for everyone involved. So now we're going to talk just on D7, and I'm going to walk you through some changes, some suggested changes that I have made. I've had a little bit of feedback since the packet went out last Friday. So if you look at the community event sponsorship program policy, I should name it something easier to say this many times. I've made some edits a couple of places, predominantly changing the word may to shall. Upon additional reviews, we thought that may gave too much flexibility or maybe created some confusion, so we wanted it to be crystal clear that it was an absolute expectation or an absolute decision. So I have highlighted the changes in yellow. The first one is going to be in section five. This was just simple change from May to shall. In section seven, we added a little bit more information on the application process. Having some understanding that this is new. I have an idea that potentially an application is going to come in and it's not going to be 100% complete. We're going to skip some things or maybe some documentation isn't going to come with it. And being the community that we are, we will help people and go back and say, wait a minute, this isn't complete. I don't want it to be an automatic denial. So provided that the application comes in before the very last day, we will work with that entity to make sure the application is complete. If it does come in on the very last day and it's not complete, then it won't be accepted because I don't have the time then to work with that entity. So that wording was added into Section 7. The next change is on Section 10, and this is just on the notification process, which I explained a little bit earlier in that we will notify them by telephone and an email, no matter if they're getting full funding, partial funding, or if their application is being denied. Section 12, we change to required because we do want follow-up reporting on each event within the 30-day time frame of the event. now if they decide to apply again the following year funds are available we will pull that reporting and use that towards their application the following year but this way i can give or priscilla because she'll do community services actually can give council a follow-up report on where we allocated funds and how that impacted the community and that will help us make decisions for how much money we allocate in the next budget year Those are all of the changes recommended on the community event sponsorship program policy, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

I have one under Section 10, payment of funds. These will be awarded during the month of July, essentially, and paid out by September 1st. What if an event is for April of the following year, and for whatever reason it's canceled, we've already paid them their money? given them their funds. I think that there needs to be something in here that payment will be thirty days ahead of the event or something to that effect. Okay. As opposed to giving out money September 1st for an event that's going to happen next year and it may not happen.

Okay.

Just a thought.

And because we've never set a policy for a procedure like this, I'm 100% open to changes like that.

And because this is projects for the whole upcoming year, it could be an event that would happen, the Festival of Trees or something that would happen in the summer.

We've had several that have gotten cancelled in the past year for unforeseeable events. I understand that.

I would would like to see something some verbiage to that effect okay would it be better to just put in there that if the event doesn't happen they're responsible to pay the funds back because even if we give it 30 days prior well and they cancel the event they still should pay the pay that money they should but I think it's a little bit easier if we haven't given it to them nine months in advance I just feel would feel better if we did it a little bit closer to the event I'm not opposed to that, but just to say, oh, you'll have to pay us back. This is a little bit unrelated, but we gave a facade grant to somebody that didn't open for a whole year. They ultimately opened, but that was probably poor form on our part. Maybe you could incorporate both of those changes in there.

Absolutely. So in Section 10, I will probably change the wording to checks will be distributed no later than 30 days prior to the event date. And then we'll add some verbiage that funds will be required to be returned in the event, the event, in the situation the event is canceled.

Does 30 days give them enough to buy the things that they need to bring it about? Some of these may be big projects. I mean,

Well, but I don't think we're financing the entire thing.

But I think the wording that you just said would allow us actually to give them the money earlier than 30 days.

It does say no later than.

You said no later than 30 days.

And that was somewhat intentional because I do have people that ask for it further in advance than that. They tend to, the only ones that I can think of are very set.

If you guys had worked with this would have a better idea of how far ahead of time they need it.

Okay.

And then.

So we have the flexibility to do it earlier, but no later than.

That's fine.

Okay.

Maybe, I was just going to say, maybe it should be in the application, like by what date are you requesting funds?

We'll add that to the application, yes.

Otherwise, I think this is a great resolution to the challenging question.

Annie, I've got a question.

Yes.

The post-event... information is that something you need for to gauge what you know if it was worth our investment is that why you're requesting the post event information yes i want to be able to report to council how the money that we spent

impacted the community. For community services, it would be quality of life impact. And then that will also help us in discussions the following year, not only setting the fund, because this is part of general funds. So in my mind, if we move stuff around, I'm taking it from somewhere else. And so we need to make sure that it's worth it for the community. And then it will be used in the following year's application scoring.

Would it be... Wise to put something in there that if they fail to submit it, that they will not be considered for future donations?

It does say in the scoring that if you had a previous year and you didn't, that you have to, you earn points based on turning it.

Okay, so it's a point-based thing. Yes, it is a point-based thing. Kind of like hunting tags.

So you will get a zero on that section if you don't turn it in.

All right. Thank you.

Anything else on this? So keeping in mind, we're just looking at the community event sponsorship policy program.

Correct. And just in case for this year, all the budget's not set, this is looking to be about a $3,000 fund. Looking to be.

All right. Anything else? Councilor Heisler?

I move to adopt resolution number 26, 18, 17, approving the community event sponsorship program policy for the town of Pinetop Lakeside with changes as discussed. I'll second that.

Thank you. We have a motion to second. Is there further discussion? All those in favor, please signify by raising your hand. Thank you, that carries unanimously. Thank you, Annie. So we'll go ahead and move on, and I know your presentation covers both, so to item D8, which is discussion and consider legal action of resolution number 26-1818, approving a tourism event sponsorship program policy.

So this one is tourism, and it focuses on the tourism impact and the economic benefit to the community. The funding source is the bed tax that is applied to RFP. short-term lodging, which is anything 29 nights or 30 nights and under. Currently, we have $19,500 slated for this fund. An example of the funds are the events that have been funded in the past were Tour of the White Mountains, the movie festival. We did discuss in the budget workshop that funding for Alpine Trail, while it used to be a separate item, would now fall into this funding bucket, and they would apply for it in the same manner. The changes on the policy are exactly the same as the previous policy for the changes from either the may to shall, the requirement for the reporting, and how the application, the deadline, completion expectations.

And I would also, under Section 10, payment of funds like that same verbiage ad.

We'll copy the same verbiage, yes.

Councilor Heisler.

Make a motion. Of course.

I move to adopt Resolution Number 26-1818, Improving the Tourism Event Sponsorship Program Policy for the Town of Pinetop Lakeside, with the same changes as discussed in Item D7. I'll second that.

Thank you. We have a motion to second. Is there further discussion? All those in favor, please signify by raising your hand. Thank you. That carries unanimously. Thank you for your work on that, Annie. I think that's a good step forward. This concludes our business tonight, so this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.