City Council - Regular Meeting

Today is July 14th, 2026. This is the City of Prescott City Council voting meeting. Before we get started, I'd like to recognize a couple of dignitaries that are here today. In the back of the room, we have Arizona State Senator Mark Fincham. Please give us a wave. Thank you for attending. And we also have our former mayor, Phil Good. Where are you, Phil?

Oh, right there. Thank you.

Okay, roll call, please.

Mayor Rusing? Here. Mayor Potemperworth? Here. Councilwoman Fredrickson? Here. Councilman Gamboge?

I am here.

Councilman Gehring?

Here.

Councilman Grady?

Here.

Councilman Ruby?

Here.

All are present. Next item, announcements.

Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. I want to share several upcoming community events, projects, and opportunities for residents to stay informed and get engaged. First, the Watson Lake Playground improvements. Beginning July 13th, the Watson Lake Playground will be temporarily closed while it receives an exciting upgrade. The rest of the Watson Lake Park will remain open for visitors to enjoy during construction and the city will provide public updates as work progresses. Second, wildfire preparedness and emergency notification. As wildfires season continues, we'd like to remind residents that watch duty is a valuable tool for staying informed about wildfire activity, but it is not an official emergency notification system. If you want to receive official evacuation notices and other emergency alerts, Residents are encouraged to register with Yavapai County's emergency notification system at yavapiready.gov forward slash alerts. During an emergency, official alerts will also direct residents to the Genesis app, Protect app for evacuation notices, road closures, shelter locations, and other important information. So two things you should be signed up for. Summer Movie in the Park. Join us Friday the 17th for an evening of family fun at Watson Lake. Gates were supposed to open at 4, but as we all can see, we are having lots of rain, so my understanding is the event is moving to... The Armory? Grace Sparks. OK, so go to Grace Sparks at 4 o'clock. There's still going to be food trucks outside. There's still going to be free parking and a movie, but it will not be under the stars. It will be under a dry roof. Any other changes will be announced through city social media channels. Regional Trail Survey. Residents are encouraged to participate in the Yavapai Regional Trail Survey, which is still open through July 31st. The survey will help guide future trail planning through the Quad Cities, as well as the greater Yavapai area. Your feedback is important to shape the future. Visit ytrails.net to take the survey. Montezuma rain harvesting project community meeting. The city is inviting residents to attend a community meeting on the proposed Montezuma rainwater harvesting project Thursday, July 30th from 4.30 to 6.30. It's near the Air Village. area south of the city and it's on near the grass lawn located at 302 South Montezuma Street. The project will add landscaped rainwater basins designed to capture and naturally filter all the storm water before it reaches Granite Creek, helping improve water quality support native vegetation, and enhance downtown Prescott. Residents are encouraged to attend, ask questions, and share their feedback. And before I wrap up, I'm gonna throw it over to Dallin, who has a staff announcement.

Thank you very much, Mayor Pro Tem. I wanted to introduce our new Economic Development Director, Steve Prokopec. Steve has more than 30 years of economic development experience. We're delighted to have him here. He worked in Phoenix, Chandler, and Glendale before becoming the Economic Development Director in Peoria, where he attracted more than 4 million square feet of retail, 2 million square feet of industrial, Most recently again, he's worked public sector. He's worked private sector Most recently he served as the first economic development director in carefree with some major redevelopment projects and And again helping with tourism and all kinds of different things. He's excited to be here and Steve if you have any other

thoughts um welcome mayor council i'm really excited to be here and and i really thank you for the opportunity to to help push the economic development agenda for the the city of prescott i think there's so much opportunity here the staff that we've i've come into to meet over the last two days i think are fantastic really complimentary a lot of skill set a lot of energy and uh the leadership here seems to be the same um as well as both uh the elected leadership and the city managements. And I just think we're in a really good spot to be able to accomplish a lot of great things. And so I feel very confident that we're going to be able to really advance the economic development plan that's been created and create a really nice diverse economy for Prescott. So thank you very much.

So I guess the question is... Why did it take you 30 years to figure out Prescott's better than the Valley?

Have you been married? It's 33 years of marriage, so...

Actually, my wife and I, it's one of the things, we made the decision that Prescott's the place that we want to be. So we'll be transitioning here over the next year, and we're really excited to be part of the community. You really don't get the opportunity in a lot of cases. When you work in government, a lot of times, especially back in the Valley, you don't want to live where you work because then you have to answer all these questions. But to be in a place where you can actually... Increase the the quality of life in a place in the community that you live in This is the type of community that you want to do that with and so we're both really excited about it Well, welcome to you and your wife. Thank you.

Thank you And also I apologize I forgot to recognize our former Prescott mayor Greg Mangarelli, where are you Greg? I

All right, last announcement. The council meeting schedule. We want to remind everyone that this is our last regular city council meeting until August 11th. So while council may not be together at that time, city services will continue as normal. We encourage residents to stay connected to the city through our website and all of our social media channels. And of course, all of us individually are working. You can still send us emails. So thank you. We encourage everyone to take advantage of these summer opportunities and stay informed, stay engaged, and pray for rain. Enjoy the rest of your summer.

Thank you, Lois. Now, on a more serious note, we will now have a moment of silence to honor the three brave wildland firefighters who lost their lives in the line of duty on June 27th. They were part of the Rifle Colorado Hell Attack crew. Sydney Watson, age 27, of Alabama, started her career here with the Prescott National Forest. Nick Hutcherson, age 27, was from Glendale, Arizona, and also he has an Arizona connection. He worked with the North Kaibab National Forest. And lastly, Emily Barker, age 38, who was from Michigan. Now let's please stand as we honor their sacrifice with a moment of silence.

Let's begin this invocation by reading a small gospel passage from the gospel of St. Matthew. The similes of salt and light. You are the salt of the earth, but if the soul loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and tumbled underfoot. You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. just so your light may shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father. The word of the Lord. These words of Jesus hold profound significance for our roles and leaders within this community and city. Just as salt enhances and preserves the flavor of food, We are called to be the preservers and enhancers of the communal well-being and progress. Our actions, decisions and policies should reflect this commitment to enrich the lives of those we serve. Likewise, the light symbolizes our duty to illuminate paths and inspire hope in the darkness. lifting the shadow of injustice, inequality and division. Therefore, we pray. God of wisdom and love, we ask you to guide our decisions and discussions today. Bless our city and its leaders with the courage and compassion to serve for common good. May we represent the hopes and aspirations of all the Prescottians. Help us to build a community that is rooted in justice, compassion, and peace. We ask this through Christ our God. Amen. Thank you.

And now Mr. Ruby will lead us in the pledge.

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.

Next item, presentation to Citizens Academy graduates.

May I have all the Citizen Academy graduates come join me up here? Yay! Of course. All right. The City of Prescott hosts the Citizens Academy to give residents an inside look at their local government and how it affects their daily lives. This opportunity offers a clearer understanding of city services and allows for open communication for people to learn and ask questions. And above all else, the Citizens Academy connects people and helps keep that small town feel that many of us have stayed here or moved here for. I'd like to thank all of our graduates here today for taking the time to participate in this wonderful program. And thank you all to our involved city staff for once again making this such a successful class. We will now present the certificates. So please step forward on this side of me when I call your name to receive your certificate. Oops, I guess I should do that. Okay. First up is Alvin Berkey.

We will get that to you.

Stacy Brown. Oops, congratulations. Thank you. Next up is Patty Brown.

Oh, we'll take her.

Okay. And Kim Douglas. Anybody else want to get that to her? All right, we will. Peter Frost and Maureen Frost. I might as well get the couples together.

Thank you. Peter, for you.

And Maureen, for you. Thank you. Congrats. And Brody Green. We love when our local media actually participates along with us, not just reports on us. So you've seen it from the inside. Congratulations. Nancy Gribble.

Did I say that correctly? Yes, that's right.

Fabulous, thank you. Sue Griffin. Yes, that's it, fabulous, thank you, congrats. Lee Hill. Thank you so much.

Thank you, appreciate it.

Serpa Lee. Leslie Nienemann. Thank you. Bob Nieto.

Nice to meet you.

Fabulous. Thank you. Christy Patterson. All right. This was a big class. George Randall. Fabulous. Thank you. Kay Brack-Steward. Thank you. Michelle Tassoff and Ken Tassoff. For you and for, oh, no worries, no worries. Ken, there you go. And Joanne Truffillo. Marty Verriere. And Brian Weingart? Is that it?

Okay, all right, well, congratulations you all.

I hope you had a great time. We always have expectations that we're gonna see your names signing up for boards, commission, and committees, or maybe running for council next year. So that would be fabulous. I'm gonna ask you all to slide over here a little bit, and we'll have a photo taken. All right, yeah.

The graduates. I take several.

No, I can't get one that way. I'm late.

Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. Great program.

Next we have a proclamation for the 65th anniversary of the Prescott Sunrise Lions Club.

Hi, good afternoon. It's my honor to present the mayor's proclamation for the 65th anniversary of the Prescott Sunrise Lions Club. Do we have any representatives from the club right there?

I think we do. Amanda.

Couldn't miss that. Couldn't miss that.

Hi, good to have you here. Thank you.

Yeah.

Nice to meet you.

Hi.

Great turnout. I know you all do great work in our community, so thank you. So I'm going to read the proclamation here on July 14, 2026. Whereas the Prescott Sunrise Lions Club has faithfully served the Prescott community for 65 years, exemplifying the Lions Club international motto of we serve, and whereas the members of the Prescott Sunrise Lions Club have dedicated themselves to humanitarian service, vision care, youth programs, and community support throughout their distinguished history. And whereas this milestone anniversary represents a legacy of compassion, leadership, civic pride that has strengthened the fabric of the Prescott community. And whereas the city of Prescott is honored to recognize and celebrate the enduring contributions of the Prescott Sunrise Lions Club and its members past and present. Now, therefore, Kathy Ruesing, Mayor of the City of Prescott, does hereby proclaim July 14th, 2026 as Prescott Lions Club's 65th anniversary day. We encourage all citizens to join in honoring this outstanding organization for its decades of service and commitment to others.

I'd just like to thank the city of Prescott and our community for helping us over the last 65 years. And if you ever want to be a member, we meet at the Waffle Place on Iron Springs Thursday at 7. And everybody's welcome to come and join. Thank you.

Thank you. And we'll gather over here. Got to move around that way.

There you go.

Our next proclamation is the 38th Arizona Cowboy Poets Gathering on August 7th.

Do we have any representatives from Arizona Cowboy Poets here today? Yes, we do. Thank you. Whereas Arizona Cowboy Poets Gathering is continuing with the 38th gathering in Prescott, Arizona. Whereas their purpose is exclusively for the education and literary furtherance of cowboy poetry, music, western heritage, culture, and history. Whereas Prescott, Arizona is an iconic western town known for its rich and long history of cowboys, ranchers, and western history. Whereas Prescott, Arizona was the home of the late Gayle I. Gardner, a true cowboy and known worldwide as one of the greatest of all cowboy poets. Whereas cowboy poets and cowboy musicians bring that legacy to life through their poems and music presented to the public through oral and written poetry, continuing the tradition of artful reflections on life through the eyes of the cowboy. whereas August 7th, 2026 marks the official opening of the 38th Arizona Cowboy Poets Gathering. Now, therefore, I, Kathy Rusing, Mayor of the City of Prescott, do hereby proclaim August 7th, 2026 as Arizona Cowboy Poets Gathering Day. And I encourage everyone to support the Arizona Cowboy Poets and express our gratitude for their efforts in continuing to highlight western heritage cowboy poetry and cowboy culture does anyone want to say a few words i will be okay thank you thank you very very much thank you mayor rusing council thank you citizens of prescott we are honored

We're a committee of 75 plus all volunteers that work and have worked now for 38 years putting on the Arizona Cowboy Poets Gathering. Some of us are here today. Our president, Jim Jensen, board member Ralph Girardi, our committee chairman, Don Fernwalt, and our sponsor wrangler, Greg Farrell. I myself am Jim Buchanan and I'm Probably the oldest guy on the committee at this point with 36 years of service on a committee of absolutely wonderful people in a wonderful community. Thank you. If I may say one other thing, I'd like to thank the city and the tourism department for the grant, which will be awarded to us and many local organizations later in this meeting. Thank you.

Thanks. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you so much, I appreciate it. You have a great success.

Next item, open call to the public. City of Prescott welcomes public engagement and residents may comment and address council regarding matters not included on the posted agenda during the call to the public. Please complete a green speaker card and submit it to the clerk prior to the meeting being convened. 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 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 this topic. Topics of a primarily national concern may be limited at the discretion of the mayor, and call to the public shall not be used to address the council on current or pending legal matters by a party or their representative. I have one speaker card at this moment. It's Walter Kosar.

How's that? Okay. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, Council Members, thank you. My name is Walt Kosar. I'm a resident of Granville and Prescott Valley. I was reviewing the Water Subcommittee meeting from about a week ago and specifically the work going on for the Willow Lake Restoration Project. And I was curious if anybody, you know, as far as restoring water levels in the lake, if anybody had considered using the treated effluent and putting that into the lake to help restore the water levels. You have a project right now that will be starting on Route 89 to replace that effluent line. If you were to use... Now would be the time if you were to consider something like that, if you needed to put a branch connector off of that to feed into the lake while you're doing that project. If you were to transfer water treated effluent into the lake, because it's surface water, you're not really losing the credits that you might otherwise store underground. You'd also be helping to restore habitats and have an immediate impact on the area. So I think it's something that should be considered if it hasn't been to this point. Thank you.

Thank you. And please direct city staff to contact Walter and respond to his idea.

Thank you.

No more public comments?

That's it, Mayor.

Okay, great.

Next item. Consent agenda.

I NEED TO PULL ITEM D BECAUSE I'M ASSOCIATED WITH ONE OF THE GROUPS WITHIN ITEM D AND WILL NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM ANY VOTE ON ITEM D. OKAY.

THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON ITEMS A, B, C, E AND F. Do I hear a second?

Oh, I want to pull item F item F OK well.

Will exclude item F so word. I move that we vote on item A, B, C and E second. Please vote.

Passes 7-0.

Mr. Ruby, please.

I will now recuse myself.

Excuse yourself. And when the vote is over on this item, we'll bring you back in.

Mayor, I had also indicated that I would like item D to be pulled.

OK, thank you.

and actually the the reason why I pulled it is that there's a list of I didn't count however many contracts being considered and when I was looking at the packet it indicated organizations and amounts but nothing to differentiate one from the other and I had asked staff to help me understand why certain amounts were being given to certain organizations and how that came about. And be careful what you ask for because Several trees have died because I have asked for this. And so now I have an understanding of the methodology used to select the individuals to be getting these amounts and why they're getting the amounts. But I still asked it to be pulled because I thought it would be of interest to the citizens at large as to how these came to be. And I believe... A very nice staffer has agreed to come and tell us about it. Thank you.

Hello, Mayor and Council. I'm Mike Kelly, the Tourism Manager. I'd like to give you an overview of our Tourism Advisory Committee, or as we call it, TAC, and our TAC grant process. The Tourism Advisory Committee was formed in 2009 when the transient lodging or bed tax dollars were brought under management of the City of Prescott. In 2017, TAC was officially made a standing committee to act as an advisory role to the Mayor and Council. TAC committee members advise on matters related to marketing, promotion, and programming. They also participate in the delivery of the annual tourism grants. So for FY27, which is July 21st, 2026 through June 30th of 27, the City of Prescott allocated $90,000 through the bed tax, which will be awarded to grant funding for special events that generate a marketing message with a strong emphasis on marketing outside of 90 miles. These special events must create a positive economic impact with an emphasis on overnight stays, the percentage of out of area visitors, and direct spending. Additionally, TAC grants are solely available to registered nonprofit organizations for events taking place in Prescott proper. The amount available for any event is $5,000, and awards may be distributed on a sliding scale depending upon the number of successful applicants. In this case this year, there were 28 successful applicants. And at least 75% of the award must be used as part of the event's marketing budget. So a little kind of chronological order of our grant cycle. On March 1, our grant application opened. And every applicant could go online through Experience Prescott for that digital application. A few days later, on March 5, we had a grant meeting to go over any type of items that any particular applicant might come across, how to apply, questions on what information to put in. So that was on the 5th. And it closed April 3. And then on May 13th, our TAC committee got together for about three or four hours going over each individual grant and scoring individually, you know, based on a, you know, criterion of three key areas, economic impact, strategic marketing efforts, and community benefits. The reviewing committee members score each application based on a 100-point scale. For example, in the event you receive a 75, you would receive 75% of the max awarded, which would be that $5,000. So that's kind of an overview of it, and if you guys had any more questions for anybody?

Could you please explain to the public the source of these funds?

They come from the occupancy, the bed tax.

Which is like when people come and stay in our hotels, right?

Yes, 3% on those stays.

And didn't it used to include, did it include the residential tax on long-term rentals and apartments? It used to. And then that was taken away?

Yes, ma'am, that's correct.

OK. Well, I would just like to thank all of the nonprofits who work tirelessly year round to put on these events. And the city is more than happy to support them, because that's what keeps our community vibrant. and enhances our quality of life and brings people to Prescott to enjoy our community. So I just wanted to thank all those wonderful nonprofits, and we have quite a variety. I was looking at that list, and there's something for everyone.

There is.

So any other comments?

Thank you. I appreciate that. Absolutely. I will move to accept consent item 9D. Second. Okay. Please vote.

Passes 6-0. And could someone retrieve Mr. Ruby, please? He was in the cone of silence. And Mr. Gamboge? Item F, do you have some comments?

I do. First of all, I want the public to know that I am the council liaison to PB Tech, and I was not consulted as to who would be the members, so I have three questions. Who chose the members, who are they, and what are their credentials?

Mr. Gamboge, we have a subcommittee on appointments that involve I'm a member Lois Freworth is a member and Mary Fredrickson and we met and reviewed the applicants They all had a list of their qualifications filled out the application and had references and we chose it was kind of a routine thing second question was who are they who are all the applicants who are the people you chose Let's see, for the Pedestrian Bike Traffic Advisory Committee, Jacob Robinson, whose term serves from 4-24 to 3-27, I mean 3-28. And for the Tourism Advisory Committee, we chose Catherine Dufort, whose term is from April 2025 to March 2028. I'M SORRY. I'M LOOKING AT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. IN FACT, IF THEY'RE HERE, WE'D LIKE TO RECOGNIZE THEM. I GUESS NOT. BUT WE'D LIKE TO THANK THEM. SO DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, MR. GAMBOGGI?

THAT'S ALL THREE QUESTIONS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I MOVE TO APPROVE APPOINTMENTS OF MEMBERS TO THE PB TAC AND TOURISM ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

SECOND.

Passes 6-1. Next item, Adoption of Ordinance 2026-1945, an ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona, levying upon the assessed valuation of the property within the City of Prescott, subject to taxation, a certain sum upon each $100 of valuation, sufficient to raise the amount estimated to be required in the annual budget, lest the amount estimated to be received from other sources of revenue providing funds for the general municipal expenses for the fiscal year ending the 30th day of June 2027.

Madam Mayor, I'd like to pull this item.

Thank you. I'm glad you did. I think we need to discuss this. Would you like to start the conversation, Councilmember?

I sure would. I think it's important for the public to know that We passed Proposition 478 which raised sales taxes. Earlier we increased impact fees. We had a proposal from Public Works for garbage collecting fees where we're currently losing money and I think we should break even. I'm in support of that. I've supported the other three. But this is a council that's running away with spending money. according to my estimates, we're going to lose $30 million on 89 because we didn't expand it when we had the opportunity to do that. And we're just hell-bent on buying everything in open space. So this is not to be blamed on the staff. This tax increase... can be blamed by the people behind this dais. And so I'm not in support of this.

Thank you, Mr. Gamboge. I would just like to make a few comments. As you heard earlier from our tourism advisory committee staff liaison, Mike Kelly, we lost several million dollars last year thanks to the state legislature that removed the bed tax on our long-term rentals. And the Arizona State Legislature continues down that path, and every year they keep telling us that there's less and less money available to us, even though last year we sent down $123 million to the state of Arizona. And we only get approximately 18% of that back. Approximately 26 million come back. So we have to keep looking for everything, every penny that we can raise. And this property tax is, it's only a, I believe $188,000 a year. And on a $500,000 home, the proceeds that would be generated come out to about $2.25 per property owner. And this is money that will stay in the community and will help out our services, our library, and our parks and rec. And it will be spent here in the community for the benefit of you, the people of Prescott. So that's one reason why I support this tax. Anyone else would like to make a comment? Lois?

I've been thinking long and hard over the last two weeks, talking to a lot of members of the public, reading what people are saying. And while I voted yes on this property tax two or three weeks ago, that was with a heavy heart. And the more I look ahead with what we're going to be doing with raising our trash fees, definitely once in the next few months, maybe even twice in the next few months, and I look at other things that are being considered with changes to to all sorts of fees in our fire and community development area I am really struggling with I get I get that it's like what the state legislature is doing to cities and towns is really really tough um but for me it comes down to uh What we got to have, we got to have a solvent trash system. It's its own enterprise fund. So I am going to be voting no today. And it's not because I don't think we shouldn't do this. This is a strategy we've been on for several years. to chip away at the actions that our state legislature are taking. But I just think with this year, with what's happening, with several things going on in the community and the fees that will be raised, I think for me this is a nice to have versus a gotta have right now. So I wanted to explain my vote.

Thank you. Mr. Ruby?

A couple questions probably for Lars. Is it accurate that a home, this is only gonna be paid by property owners, correct?

That's correct.

Okay, how many people in this room rent? Okay, so the people who are renting would not have to pay this tax?

Maybe in an indirect way, the landlord could pass it on, but definitely it's to the property owner.

And for, let's say for a million dollar home, What is the increase going to equal?

Yes, Councilman. So the million-dollar home here I'm talking about is limited property value, which is not the same as the market value. That calculation is $237.40, which is an increase of $4.50 over last year.

So $4.50 is the total amount that somebody owning a home that's assessed at $1 million would have to pay with this?

And that's if the value stays the same. Now we know property values go up. The maximum allowable is 5%. So that would be $16.37 with that 5% increase.

When someone goes out to buy groceries and they pay sales tax, How much money do they have to spend before they pay the equivalent of that $5?

Sorry, I'm not following the question.

When you get sales tax assessed, when somebody working in this city goes out and buys groceries, and they're paying sales tax or diapers, my guess is right around $50, and then you've paid the equivalent of $5 for sales tax, right?

Yeah, I guess I'm doing math in my head, but $100 of groceries, it's the city-only tax on groceries, so that's 2.95%. So that would be $2.95 on $100 of groceries.

Somebody spending $100 on groceries is going to pay about the same as someone. I mean, everybody's doing that on a constant basis with sales tax. I mean, I know people who are spending quite a bit of money every month on groceries, and it's hard on them. I'm looking at the property owners of this city and the benefit that it's going to bring to the city. I'd like to see some relief for people who are at the lower end. And the one thing about this tax is that it does not impact people who don't own homes. And that is why I'll be voting for it.

Mary? Thank you. I don't remember who it was that I said it to, may have been Brody, I think it ended up in the paper. But nonetheless, I think what I said was sometimes principle needs to bow to reality. And the fact is prices have gone up. It's gone up for all of us. And for the city who might need a new truck or pay their people, none of those are static. inflation impacts the city just as well as anybody else. So to the extent that we have a very limited selection of ways that we can raise money, this is one of the few. And the fact that we only look to adjust our tax levy every two years, three years?

Every three years we've been increasing to the maximum allowable.

that seems pretty prudent in my view. And I know the example that Lars gave the last time he spoke to us about this on a, what would around here be kind of an average price home, maybe on the upper level, but nonetheless, that the increase over the year was, ten bucks um and somebody i think the mayor said something like well that's like a fancy cup of coffee and somebody from the audience got up and said yeah well not everybody can afford a ten dollar cup of coffee and being a frugal i was going to say cheap person i wouldn't spend 10 bucks for a cup of coffee but nonetheless I did the math and looking at it the other way, it's less than 3 cents a day. I don't know any property owner that is going to crash because their property tax went up 3 cents a day over the course of a year or $10 over the course of a year. So I can appreciate Councilman Ruby's talking about, well, some relief, please, to the lower end of the socioeconomic scale. But the fact is they're going to be hit with any kind of property tax increase as well because people who own rentals aren't going to just swallow it. It will show up in increased rents as people who rent know your rent goes up. So I think there's... A relatively minor increase the city faces increasing pressure on cost of goods and the cost of staffing. I will vote yes on this. Patrick.

I'm actually simply going to echo Mary's comments. I thought that was very well argued. I think it is an extremely modest amount, and I think it's a prudent step to take because we do have very limited options on addressing the increasing service costs that we're facing.

Mr. Goering.

Just to remind the audience, I was born in Tucson, but I got hauled off to California when I was six years old. We sold in California six years ago, and at that time our property tax was about $8,000 a year. When I moved to a very nice home in Prescott, our property taxes dropped to $3,400. Thank you.

Do we have any public comment? Oh, I'm sorry. I thought maybe you'd forgot to...

I didn't forget.

Okay. Okay. More comments, please.

Let's take a few minutes and go through some pros and cons. The logic behind the property tax is solid. It's a steady state. Unlike the sales tax... Depending on tourists, it goes up and it goes down. So there's some rationale to this. But from what I've heard from this council, this is a good example of incrementalism. I lived in Illinois. My property tax was five times what I pay here in Prescott. Now, why do I bring up Illinois? I bring up Illinois, and the house I grew up in in New Jersey was 800 square feet, and the property tax is five times of what I have here in Arizona at 3,500 square feet. The states that have gone down this slippery slope, you know, it's only a few bucks, it's a cup of coffee. Well, the problem with property tax is it keeps growing. and people are leaving Illinois and they're leaving New Jersey. I go back to the resident survey of 2023 and the southeast quadrant is where the residents, you in the room, you watching at home, and the people that are not watching said, that the southeast quadrant is where it's very important and you're doing a bad job. There are two entries. One is healthcare, that I can personally attest to, and the other is the economy. Now what you're hearing, is more taxes and no emphasis on growing the economy. You know, you can get tax revenue through growth, or you can get tax revenue by increasing taxes, but everywhere they've practiced increasing taxes, people have left the state. They're leaving Illinois in droves. Morton Salt has lost, left, Boeing has left, Caterpillar has left. You don't want to go down this slippery slope of property taxes. If you have to raise, if you need money, then raise revenue through growth. Don't do it by taxation or this place will turn into New Jersey. God forbid.

Thank you, Ted. Any public comment? No, Mayor. Okay. Thank you. And then we also might want to attend a few Board of Supervisor meetings. It's already too late for this year, but they're the ones that set our property tax rates for all the different districts. So I move to adopt Consent Ordinance Item 10A, Second. Please vote. Mayor, yours didn't come through. Yeah, I don't have anything on my screen here to vote on. I'm assuming you're a yes. I'm a yes.

Passes 5-2. Thank you. Next item, liquor license. Public hearing and consideration for a new Series 12 restaurant liquor license application from Lauren K. Merritt, applicant for Meg Indian Cuisine, location 220 West Goodwin Street, Suite 1.

Is the applicant here?

Also the applicant fees have been paid and the sign has been posted for the required 20 days. Staff has reviewed the application and determined their compliance and no public comment have been received.

And I take it the applicant's not here to speak? I do not see them. Okay. I would just like to say this is going into the Firehouse Plaza area. And the word M-E-G-H, Meg, is Hindu for clouds or monsoon. So I think it's very appropriate that we approve this liquor license. So I move to close the public hearing.

Second.

Please vote. Passes 7-0. And I move to approve liquor license application number 401061 for a new series 12 restaurant liquor license for Meg Indian Cuisine location 220 West Goodwin Street, Suite 1.

Second.

Please vote.

Passes 7-0. Thank you. Next item, please. Liquor license public hearing consideration for a new series 12 restaurant liquor license application from Jesus Manuel Altamirano, applicant for Filiberto's Mexican Food, location 555 Miller Valley Road.

Is the applicant here?

Application fees have been paid. Signs have been posted for required 20 days. Staff has reviewed the application and determined their compliance. No public comment has been received.

And I believe this is going in where the old Kentucky Fried Chicken used to be. I think this gives us our 12th Mexican food restaurant list. Especially all on that one part of town on Miller Valley Road area. So I move to close the public hearing. Second. Please vote. Passes 7-0. And I move to approve recommendation for liquor license application number 397301 for a new Series 12 restaurant liquor license for Filiberto's Mexican Food, location 555 Miller Valley Road.

Second. Second.

Please vote.

Point of order, Madam Mayor. It's the mayor's job to call for motions, not to make motions.

Thank you for your opinion. Passed 7-0.

Congratulations to them all. Next item, public hearing and discussion and possible action regarding the opening of a public comment period in accordance with resolution number 2023-1862 or adoption of an amendment to resolution number 2023-1862 and revised public comment period and process related to the adoption of the Rodeo Master Plan.

Okay, good afternoon, Mayor and Council. FOR AS YOU RECALL, I THINK MOST OF THE INFORMATION IS IN THE FOR AS YOU RECALL, I THINK MOST OF THE INFORMATION IS IN THE PACKET AND SO I'LL BE BRIEF WITH PACKET AND SO I'LL BE BRIEF WITH PRESENTATION AND I'LL ANSWER PRESENTATION AND I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS. BUT THE CONVERSATION I THINK BUT THE CONVERSATION I THINK REALLY STARTS WITH RESOLUTION to govern the process for public comment and input in the approval of a master plan zoning and leases at the rodeo fairgrounds. resolution anticipated that all of those things would be packaged together and come forward through the same sort of process. And that isn't the way that it has worked. Since January 25, we've set a little bit of a different course from the past where we've said we're going to focus on the master planning first, and then we're going to work on zoning after that, and then we're going to work on leases after that. So with a little bit different process, it hasn't been entirely possible to comply fully with the resolution as written. Additionally, with the master planning process, which is going well, I'm really excited about all the members of that steering committee, all the time and effort they've put in. As we get close to the point where we'll be showing final drafts and bringing a plan back to the council for the vote, we recognize the importance of public input in that process and getting as much feedback as we can as we approach that vote. in the original timeline there was a 60-day comment period kind of plugged in prior to the vote that the council could open today that's one option unfortunately that wouldn't allow the public to see a final draft of the plan before before we start accepting comments and leaving open the possibility that people could comment on maybe different versions that they'd seen And it doesn't fully comply again with the resolution that I mentioned. So what I'm recommending, what I'm hoping that you'll do today, is that we make a couple of changes. So one, after meeting with the group that helped to draft the original resolution, here there is a proposed amendment to that resolution laying out a new process. including the 45-day comment period that will lead us into the vote. It includes a public meeting, like an open house. It includes a public hearing, and it would get us to a vote on October 13th at that council meeting. So that amendment is one piece. The second part of that course of action would include opening a 45-day public comment period effective August 5th, That is the day of the open house. That is the day when we should have final drafts of the master plan available for the public. And so everybody will be able to comment on the same plan. And with the amendment, we'll be able to be in complete compliance with our own resolution. So that is in brief what we're proposing here. Again, there are some options for council to consider if you'd like. But with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

SO DID YOU SAY AUGUST 5th, NOT 25th?

CORRECT. SO THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WOULD OPEN AUGUST 5th, AND THEN THERE WOULD BE A PUBLIC MEETING, AN OPEN HOUSE AUGUST 5th, PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 25th, AND THEN THE FINAL VOTE ON THE 13th OF OCTOBER.

WELL, THIS MAKES SENSE THAT WE AMEND IT. because obviously we're putting the cart before the horse here and it makes no sense to have public comment before the final draft of the master plan. So thank you for working with the committee and getting this straightened out because we do value our public comment on something as important as this rodeo. SO ANY COMMENTS FROM THE STAFF? MR. RUBY?

MR. RUBY IS NOT PART OF THE STAFF.

I'M SORRY DID I SAY STAFF? I'M SORRY FROM CITY COUNCIL.

I think it's really important that the public comment comes. As we know, and all of you are part of this, being able to speak about what happens in this community and how it impacts us is part of the fabric of who we are. So having the public comment period after we have something to comment on seems utterly logical to me. And I'm glad that this revision was made. I was surprised that we ended up in this situation. It felt like... There was a really good process at the last study session, and it felt like a hiccup. So I'm glad that it's being addressed. There's something about the word final, though, that I'm a little concerned about here, because it would seem like the public comment would be there TO ADDRESS ISSUES IN THE PLAN THAT'S PRESENTED, I HOPE THAT THERE ISN'T THIS IDEA OUT THERE THAT IF THERE'S A FINAL PLAN, THEN THAT'S IT AND YOU JUST GET THE COMMENT ON IT AND YOUR COMMENT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE COMMENT THAT WE CAN BRING TO WHAT IS PRESENTED ON AUGUST 5TH IMPACTS HOW IT IS PRESENTED LATER AND VOTED ON.

Yeah, it'll still just be a draft.

It's the word final where you hear final and go, is that it? I just kind of want to go, your comment should be able to influence the ultimate outcome. Thank you.

Mr. Gamboge?

As I've said many times before, the rodeo is the crown jewel of brisket. And the concern I have is every time we say rodeo in this town, this place goes Hatfields and McCoys. So I'm in support of the August 5th start date with the final version and a 45-day comment period. And I would beg of you, stop finding problems with the rodeo and come to a resolution so we can move on to more important things. Thanks.

Okay. Do we have any comments from the public?

We do. Our first one is Sundrop Carter.

Thank you.

I was not prepared.

How are you all doing today? Good to see you. So I just wanted my comments very quick and this actually includes both this agenda item and the next one because they're both rodeo related. And just to encourage council to treat the funding for this rodeo with the same diligence and transparency that you're treating other taxpayer dollars. I have heard several quotes from people saying no taxpayer dollars are being used for rodeo improvements, and yet that $15 million is our money. We send, as the mayor and council have mentioned, we send money, quote, send money to the state. This is $15 million of our money that we paid in sales taxes coming back. Just as Mayor Pro Tem Freworth has asked that our Prop 478 have transparency on our website with an accounting of exactly how that money is being spent, I would hope council is treating this $15 million with the same diligence. We have seen in the master plan that people are concerned about many more things on that property than just the rodeo. They want to see things that are being used year round. This is our money and this money should be used to spit on things that everyone in the community wants not just a small number of people and not just a decision made by a couple people on For whatever criteria they used it for but the whole community should have input on how this 15 million dollars of our tax dollars is spent Thank you Next is Kim Lopez No, I lost my pen

good afternoon mayor mayor pro tem council i'm actually going to be speaking on the second one so um it has to do with the statue so i understand that you guys have created a design for the statue that my insurance has to cover on the property and i have not yet seen this design so you guys are voting on something that we have not actually looked at so i would like to actually take a look at it and make sure that our insurance company is going to cover it before we do a vote thanks Rosalie Darby?

I'm grateful that we're going to put this 45-day thing in place. We've put a lot of work into this, and I hope that we can keep the culture of what the grounds is put in place for so that we can keep the heritage of that and keep the culture of what it's meant to be there. Thank you.

That's all, Mayor. Thank you. Do I hear a motion?

Madam Mayor, I move. Excuse me. to that council, let me see, we don't have a proposed recommended act. Following discussion, council.

12A.

I move to option number two, which is the August 5th start date with a 45-day comment period.

Resolution number 2023, 1862.

Thank you very much. Although it would be a modification. It would be 2026, and there's... Oh, amendment. Right.

Amendment, which is now called 2026-1965. Is that correct? We'll assign it at a later date. Okay. We all know what we're talking about. It's the resolutions and the package. Thank you. Do we have a motion?

You did it.

I think you just did it. Do I hear a second? I'll second it. Please vote.

Passes 7-0. Thank you. Next item, please. Presentation, discussion, and possible approval of the revised design and purchase order for installation of the horse statue at the Prescott Rodeo Grounds.

Before we get started, I would like to say this statue is probably one of my favorite statues in the city of Prescott. As you remember, its home used to be in front of our old city hall, and it was commemorating the 100 years of rodeo. It was a centennial cowboy horse statue commemorating rodeo from 1888 to 1988. And I always thought it was installed backwards at our old city hall, because it was on a very prominent corner. And you would drive by that corner, and you couldn't see anything. It was a rearing horse, and all you saw was the horse belly. You never saw the cowboy unless you walked up the steps and stood at the front door of the city hall. So I think that was an example of no public input And I don't know who made that decision, but I drove out to the site yesterday to look at it. And it's a very nice site. It's got a lot of traffic goes around it. There's like a road that kind of circles it. And we have to be careful that if we place the statute there that cars don't bash into it, that it's protected. And also the way it's, the rendering there is from Rodeo Drive. As you're going up Rodeo Drive, it's on your right. There's a natural outcropping of boulders there and it's going to be nestled in those boulders. And I think it's going to be done very well. And it's placed horizontal so that you can actually see the work of art. So I was very happy to see that. But I do have a concern, and I know you're going to give your presentation, but I just wanted to say one of my main concerns when I was looking at the proposal done by the architect here is there's no lighting. And the rodeo mostly takes place at night, and so people are going to be coming and going, and the statue will not be lit up. And it's going to be seen mostly one week a year, basically, by most people coming in on Rodeo Drive. And so I think some solar lights would be a good idea to light up that statue so that as people are entering the rodeo, they can see the statue. My other suggestion would be a drip irrigation system. I have a xeriscape yard and I have to water, you know, I have a drip system. But when you put in fresh plants, even though they're low cactus xeriscape plants, needs a couple of years to get going, especially with this drought. and through the dry season. And so I would highly recommend a drip system for the vegetation around the plants. Thank you. So please.

Well, thanks, Mary. You did my presentation for me. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. So kind of going into a little more detail. So, yeah, this statue is the one that was at Old City Hall, which ends up going to the rodeo grounds. So we had an initial concept for the statue, had a variety of plans. different issues with it. So speaking with the rodeo, a couple of things that they wanted to make sure that happened is, A, people can't climb on it. B, that it's elevated off the roadway and away from the roadway so that if a car hits it, it's not hitting the statue. It's more hitting boulders. Or hitting the foundation or that kind of stuff so more protection around it to touch on the lighting piece and the water piece so that comes with part of the master plan extending water or Power to that there are solar lights that would be put in so that it would Illuminate it at night as far as the initial plannings and watering those would be done through a watering tank and which will be on site that will take care of filling and have those so they can become established. And then once they become established, they require less water on that. I did present this plan when it was first drawn up to the manager at the rodeo. We did a couple tweaks on it and then ultimately came to an agreement with it. We sent it out to eight different landscape companies within the area. And basically what we told them is, here's the concept. Here's what the thought is, building it in the boulders, trying to use a lot of the natural land, also using the natural boulders to protect it. So four of those companies responded. One of those fours basically declined the installation, said we can do the plannings. So that doesn't get us too far. And then we had Prescott Roots, RE and Sons Landscaping, and then Yavapai Landscaping. All of those bit details were in the packet. with what they're going to do, number of plants and millennial feet of concrete and whatnot that it's going to take.

The project is going to take anywhere from Excuse me, Lois has a comment and Mr. Grady has a comment.

I'll hold mine until you finish your presentation. I have a question.

Same. Okay. I'm almost done. So I was just going to say, so the installation will begin once we get the purchase order issued and is expected to take probably 60 to 90 days because there's about a 30-day period that the concrete needs to cure before we can mount the statue in it. And of course, when the statue is mounted, the positioning and all that stuff, as you see in the picture on the screen, we'll take note of that.

Lois? Yes. I much prefer this design versus the previous concentric circles and stuff. I think this is beautiful. The one thing I didn't see in the bids was, which I actually enjoy seeing in this picture, it was not on our package in our picture, the lettering there. Is that metal being installed? Or is that painted onto the concrete? What are we looking at? And was that bid? With the world's oldest rodeo.

So the landscape architect added that. That was on the second revision, which is why we put it up here. It would be metal lettering. It's not part of the bid. It's something that we would do separate of that once it's completed. But that's just an idea of we can put something on that wall.

Mr. Grady?

Yeah, thank you, Mayor. So back in February, we approved a bid by Ridgeline Builders, a lump sum bid for $1.5 million that included planting and landscape materials, installing all trees, shrubs, grasses, accent plantings. So why did we have to go out for a separate bid on the planting to other landscaping companies?

OK, so thanks for bringing that up. So, yes, originally in the original bid with Ridgeline Builders, we had the bleacher sound system and then it was supposed to be the statue install. The design at that time basically got rejected by the city. So we went out and came up with this plan. So I've amended the original contract with Ridgeline to remove that money from his original contract. And so that's why we are here today.

Thank you.

And so for the solar lighting and the drip system, is that something that we could install so that the bidders don't have to re-bid the job?

Correct.

Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? Let's see. We have Jim Gehring, Mary Fredrickson, and Jay Ruby.

Thank you. I'm just gathering that the actual location is just off Ferris Street. Oh, it's Rodeo Drive. Well, that's not the main entrance. It's going to be. Going to be. Okay. Well, that would raise the other question if we're going to be looking at Rodeo Drive via traffic study at some point and whether that should be the main entrance. Mm-hmm.

And I agree. I think that's a good idea. It's part of our rerouting the circulation, improving the circulation. The road's in pretty bad shape. I guess we are going to be planning on improving that road sometime soon.

Yes.

Yeah. Kind of show off our rodeo grounds. Okay. Let's see. We have Lois.

Yes, I did send some questions ahead of time or comments to Tim about the bids. And I know the staff recommendation was for Roots, but I started looking at the details and comparing Roots versus R&E Sons. And I actually prefer and prefer RE Sons plan and design and bid. It's a little bit more money, but you know exactly what you're getting. You know what you're getting in the size of the plants. You know what you're getting in the size of the length of the walls and other items that were, for me, if I was the recipient of this from my own home, I would much prefer the details and the explanation with what we saw with R and E. And so I did ask Tim if I was allowed later on to consider something that was not part of the staff recommendation because of the bid process, and his answer was yes, we are allowed to consider. taking a look at the other options that are there in the package for ourselves. So I just wanted to draw everyone's attention to take a look at some of the details and compare them. And I really think it's so important that this be you know, a beautiful, appropriate entrance to our world's oldest rodeo. And I love the orientation, and I love the new sign you'd add to it. And I think it is Prescott, and it is Western, and I love it. Thank you.

I just might want to chime in. I agree with Lois. I like the Ari brothers, is it Ari brothers?

Ari and Sons Landscape.

Sons, okay. Bid and the examples of work on their website was very creative and had more of an artistic touch to me. Mary?

Thank you. Just stepping back to the used to be Ridgeline and now we're on to making a choice other than Ridgeline. The line item in the February acceptance as the 1.5 million got broke down, the Ridgeline line item for the statute was $226,000 Was that including things beyond what these vendors are bidding on?

No, it was not.

That seems like quite a jump from the amounts these people are quoting, which topped out at 109 and Ridgeline was saying 226 for the same work.

A little bit different work. Yeah, so different design entirely. They had, when the budget was drawn up with the 15.3, there was a dollar amount earmarked for the statute relocation. The quote that they had at the time was around $220,000. They put that in as we were combining everything in there. In fact, after the award, I went back to Ridgeline and said, hey, can we get some more quotes and let's see where we're at? And then that's when that concept got kind of taken off the table. So then everything was amended and the money was pulled back.

Okay, great. So that line item on the Ridgeline for the statute is off the table.

It's already been pulled back a couple months ago.

Thank you.

And Mr. Ruby.

Yeah. This is responding in part to Kimberly Lopez's concern. The city currently owns the statue, right?

No.

The rodeo owns the statue. The rodeo owns the statue. So it was at City Hall. OK. Got it. Because my question was, if it's on our land and it's ours, why would the rodeo have to pay insurance for it? But now I understand better.

OK. OK. Very good question. And I think a lot of people need to get that cleared up because i thought the city owned the statue originally and then found out it was owned by the pfd um okay um if uh count mr gearing

Thank you, Mayor. I just want to remind the audience and the council that the consultant on our master plan, our last study session, recommended a traffic study. And I don't know how we're going to get one done before August 5th, for instance, and whether we need to have it done. But if we're going to look at... work on Rodeo Drive and making that the main entrance to the rodeo. I'm under the impression that Public Works has got some sort of a plan line plan in mind for realigning Rodeo Drive. Is that right?

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council, Councilman Goering. As part of the Miller Valley Drive, or Miller Valley Road sidewalk project, we're realigning a couple of different intersections, if you will, and this is one of them. So we did ask them to look at realigning the rodeo drive entrance from Miller Valley Road. They're still in the process of that. We have some challenges with that. There's some topographic challenges. There's some property owner challenges. We have overhead electrical lines. But as part of the Miller Valley Road contract, we had some extra monies in there. So we asked them to look at potentially realigning rodeo drive. So that at number one, it's more of a 90-degree intersection with Miller Valley Road. The rodeo, as well as the fair groups in our committee meeting discussions with them, they need a wider entrance for the semis to come into the facility. So the road is very narrow, and it comes in at an angle to Miller Valley Road. So we're looking at all of those conditions, but we don't have the solution yet. But we are already looking at that approach. for the potential realignment of the road.

Okay, thank you. My question though regarding that would relate to whether that's going to have an effect on where we ought to put the statue.

So the statue location is quite a bit, it's a pretty good distance from Miller Valley Road. It's actually kind of where the road goes up in topography. And when it hits the top of the road where the double yellow lines end, that's where the statue will be. So it's not near Miller Valley Road. And it's actually in a very wide area where several roads converge. So it's very well protected there. It's a good place for it. Everything sort of opens up when you hit that top of that road, rodeo drive. It sort of opens up and you can see the rodeo grounds. You can see the parking area. It's very obvious that you've arrived. So it's a really good place for the statue.

And you can see the statue, like you said, you can see the statue from the grandstand and from the rodeo. So I think that would be great to have it lit up.

It's very near the actual facility where people will be.

If I could add just quickly as well, in the master planning process, we've looked also at statue location, and it's been consistently in this location with each iteration. So we're pretty comfortable that that's where it would continue through the final drafts.

Okay, thank you. Any more?

Lois? So a question. The president of PFD raised a question or concern about insurance, and then you had mentioned at the beginning you were dealing with the general manager. So how do we reconcile the concern?

The general manager says we're good.

Yay. If Jim's happy, then we're happy. Okay.

So I want to touch one more thing. We kind of started on it. So you talked about the two different quotes, the lowest. So our job is to send out the quotes. We send the same thing out to everybody to get the quotes. And then obviously recommend the lowest one. We can do exemptions to that. And Lars can talk more on this if I missed the mark here. If you choose not to go with the lowest one and we have justification for that, a different kind of bid, more details, any of that kind of stuff, we can do that. It's just one more piece of paper I fill out.

Yeah. Thank you. You know, because this is a very high-profile project, and we need to make sure we get it right. And I, you know, like to thank all of the bidders that submitted their bid. We really appreciate it. But I just feel that the RE Suns Might be a little more For fourteen thousand dollars more. I think it would be well worth to have them add a little more artistic creativeness that was reflected in there on their jobs on their website and also in their bid and Patrick, do you have a comment?

So candidly not anticipating that. I think some council members like myself may be reluctant to decide between the two bidders. I guess my question to the two of you would be, so Roots has identified the following plants and trees that they're going to be providing. Did you feel that there was more depth in that because we're not asking them to design the project, we're asking them to basically install according to the specs?

May I respond? Yes, Lois. Yeah, so in my analysis, you know, I was looking at them as if this was my home, and what am I seeing, because I think it's really important that the quality be good. If you look at both demolition prep and statue and transport install, R&E is actually lower than Roots' bid, and it's also more comprehensively outlined. in what they're going to do during those two steps. So, you know, in total, that's a $2,300 difference just in those two. But the real difference for me came in both the dollars and the construction quality and clarity in the construction of the retaining wall, the pedestal footing, and the plantings. You ended up with raw concrete finish versus a wood-like concrete finish. So you actually have some... interest to the base That you would see from the road the plantings one was very clear It's going to be 35 gallon plants and they outline them one didn't give the number nor the size And then finally with the retaining wall, one was very clear, 75 feet, la la la la la, 2500 PSI concrete, with a concrete footing for, especially important for both the wall and the pedestal. The other one was zero foot long. I said, huh? Zero foot long. By four foot tall and gravel footing and a rough finish. So when it's all said and done for me, this is, you know, you want to talk about art discussion we had earlier. This is, this is, there's, there's getting it done and then there's a level of professionalism in doing the job. And for me, you know, the $14,000 difference where we're investing it in plantings and retaining wall is exactly what the public's going to notice. So that's why I was recommending R&E. Yeah.

And I agree. Do we have any public comment? I have another.

I have a button pushed. Oh, I'm sorry.

Thank you, Ted, for bringing that to my attention.

This is a prime example of micromanaging. This is a decision that the staff ought to make, but if you don't want the staff to make it, we have two big issues on the agenda for the rest of this meeting, and I don't want to spend any more time on this. I would, after public comment, let's make a proposal and move on.

I disagree. I think 50 years from now, people are going to remember the statue because they're going to be looking at it.

um let's see uh Patrick thank you so um I'm not asking you to debate uh between the mayor and Councilman Furworth regarding um the planting itself and the install but I am asking do you feel that in the roots uh submittal that you were getting a similar quality and level of planting?

Based on face value, I don't know that I can answer that. I know looking at RE, you know exactly what you're getting. You're getting 35 gallon native cactus yucca plants. The other one just talks about plantings. So it doesn't talk about volume of plantings. So that being said, again, sending out just this proposal, All I sent them was this. It talks about the plants and stuff. It doesn't go into quantities. So like with RE, they took a step further and said, we're going to do this many. We've got this much space. This is what we can fit in there. This is what's going to look like. The others may have just looked at it, I don't know, and said, we're just going to put plantings in there. But there's no number. So to answer your question, yes, we know exactly what we're getting.

Yeah, so if it's not bid and, you know, specific enough, you could end up with, I don't know, one gallon, six inch plants. you know, according to the roots bid. And the RE bid is more specific. And I think in this day and age, you know, we just need to look at these bids and see who bid it the best, bid it with the most detail. Because the last thing we want is to have to go back and spend the money to do it all over again. if the plants are too small and aren't specific as to what we want.

anyone else Mary I guess I would just ask if we're thinking about what the staff is thinking other than the dollar amount and going with the low bid amongst these four is there any other other than the dollar amount is there anything else that drove the staff to picking Prescott roots over the other ones or was it just the dollar issue simply the bid process the dollar issue I'm comfortable with changing it up. Yeah.

It's like I said, this is very high profile, and I think we need to make sure we get it right and don't have to come back and redo it. Do we have any public comment? We do not, Mayor. OK. Anybody would like to talk? If it hasn't filled out a form, please, or forever hold your peace.

OK.

Would you like to make a motion, Lois? Thank you. I recommend approving a purchase order with R&E Sons for the $77,111.13. Second. Please vote. Passes 6-1.

Thank you. Next item, approval of multiple city contracts with Core Construction Inc. for construction manager at risk, pre-construction services for multiple fire station projects as follows. City contract number 2027-002 for fire station 76. Number two, city contract number 2027-003 for fire station 73. And number three, city contract number 2027-004 for fire station 72. FUNDING IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $352,743 FOR ALL THREE CONTRACTS IS BUDGETED AND AVAILABLE THROUGH PUBLIC

Good afternoon, Marin Council. Tim Sherwood, Public Works. Two Tims today. As the clerk mentioned, this is for approval of multiple city contracts for upcoming fire station projects. Station 76 proposed location will be at the northwest corner of Prescott Lakes Parkway and Sundog Ranch Road. Station 73 is proposed to be located on the west side of the State Route 89 at the northwest corner of the Fitman Roundabout near the Constellation Trailhead. And Station 72 is an existing station on 6th Street. And through the early part of the assessment, Station 72 will be a full ground-up reconstruction instead of a remodel. The building's just not sufficient to today's standards to go any further with that. So it'll be a ground-up rebuild. Perlman Architects was awarded the design contract by council on October 14th of 2025. Through the early part of this year, we've been moving through the design process. There's been design meetings ongoing all through the late winter into the spring. As the design process has gone forward, when we neared the 30% design stage, we advertised for a CMAR. It is the... most recommended, most often used method of construction for public safety improvements. Myself and the chiefs, as well as my project managers, attended a public safety conference last year down in Phoenix, and based on all the information that we got at the time, this is the method that is preferred within the industry. Projects of this complexity, to do a hard bid, it would be very difficult. So again, it's for a construction manager at risk or the acronym we use is CMAR for pre-construction services contract or guaranteed maximum price or GMP. It's a qualifications-based procurement. We advertise for request for statement of qualifications in February. Our statement of qualifications were opened on March 5th. Some of the evaluation criteria we used in the RSOQs was experience and qualification of the firm and their personnel. this type of work, understanding the project and a proposed project approach, subcontractor selection processes, and previous public safety facilities construction knowledge and experience. The city received nine statement of qualifications. Three firms were disqualified because they didn't meet the minimum requirements, so we reviewed six of the statement of qualifications. A five-member select panel was put together to evaluate the SOQs. The SOQs were reviewed. The three top-ranked firms were selected to bring in for an interview and presentation. Some of the interview criteria, again, just a little bit to get a deeper dive with those firms were experience and capabilities of constructing fire facilities, observation of existing conditions, looking at the sites that were selected and understanding them, creative approaches to mitigate any challenges that they could see, Project management, scheduling, phasing, identification of issues that need to be considered, approach to planning and construction, and previous CMAR experience. The review committee ranked and selected Core Construction as the highest ranked firm out of the three firms we interviewed. Pre-construction scope and fee negotiations were initiated. And pre-construction GMP was approved on June 29th. Prescott Fire and Public Works is recommending award of a contract. I'll give you the individual amounts for Station 76 in the amount of $114,768, Station 73 in the amount of $108,630, and Station 72 in the amount of $129,345, which totals out to $352,743. Funding for this project is budgeted in FY27 in the general fund and the funding source is the dedicated sales tax established by voter approved proposition 478 or the public safety tax initiative. And with that, I would be happy to take any questions you may have.

Well, first of all, I'd like to say that thank you very much to staff. A lot of work went into this. I wish we were actually, this was actually a study session because it would have helped to bring us up to speed because the agenda, there's so much information and we have so many questions because like I said this is such a high-profile subject and I learned more from the article that Chief Holger put in the paper today then I learned from the from the packet and this is a I mean it doesn't even mention what the projected, you know, as a, you know, we have a fiscal responsibility here as the elected body. And I've had to kind of ferret out that each one of these stations is going to cost approximately an estimate of $17 million. Am I right? For a total of about $51 million. 46 and I think that no mention of costs have been addressed in any of the decisions that are that are made so I completely Agree that a lot of effort went into this there was a project team that consisted of I guess Public Works and the Police chief?

Public Works has been working closely with both departments. So this is for fire. So we've been working closely with the fire department. They've been involved in all the design meetings. A pretty extensive group that's involved so they can get the items that they desire in their stations, both not just, you know, safety aspects and and uh their input because they live in these quarters uh 24 7. so like i said it's been a collaborative effort public works has been our role has been more of managing the contracts and walking them through the processes they're not typically doing procurement of this type so that's where our role comes in but the fire department is really the lead on

Of course site selection and all the finishes fit and finishes that will go into this process And they've been very good at collecting the data as to the necessity of the locations but our public has had some Questions as to the locations, especially, you know two of them being right there on trail heads But my second comment involves page 18 of the contract It says that the city additionally will contract separately with one or more design professionals to provide architectural and or engineering design services for the project. Now, shouldn't that have been included? Why is that going to be contracted separately?

I don't have that in front of me, so I'd have to read it again and get clarification for you. I don't have that right in front of me.

Yeah, because that's in all the contracts. And so I was kind of surprised to see that. Maybe Gwen can shed some light on this.

So I don't have it right in front of me either, Mayor, but I will tell you that I believe what they're referring to is that they are not the design architect for the project. This is the construction manager at risk. So this is a contractor or their professional that we're bringing in to advise us in value engineering. They're going to help us find ways to save money and achieve the same thing. They're also going to look at the constructability, in other words, the challenges of the site, right? The challenges of the facility, because it's a specialized facility. They're also going to, at each phase of the contract, give us their estimate. So they're going to create a cost estimate for us as we hit the milestones of the project. We're still very early. We're... I know when we did Highway 89, we kind of explained to you that we have a 15% design, then we go to 30, then we go to 60, and then we hit 90, right? So right now, we're somewhere between 15% and 30% design. Cost estimates are very, very high at that stage of a project. The CMAR is going to be able to look at the plans that the architect is drawing and the civil engineer is drawing for the site improvements. And look at that to see the things that I just mentioned, right? Is it constructible? Is there a way we can save money through value engineering? So they're going to assist the design engineer and the architect in the full development of the plan. At this point, we've been working with the fire department on what they call the programming level of the project. Which is what are the things that you need in this station? What's important to you? How much space do you need? So we've identified what their needs are, but we haven't nailed that all down yet because we're still only at about the 15 to 30 percent level of the progress of the design. So these questions that you're asking us, the CMAR is going to assist us in answering those questions for you. This first GMP with them is only for the design phase of the project. It has nothing to do with the construction. It has to do with them assisting us in completing the design in a way that can be bid for construction. So that's really what's before you today. When they say that other contracts are not included in their work, that's because they're not the architect and they're not the design engineer. But they will assist those people in completing those tasks. I hope that answers your question.

Yes, it does. Thank you, but I would I would like to add that you know we're also looking at the the police department and their needs and They would like to build a property and evidence center warehouse and also a police substation and Unfortunately the cost for that the the property that they bought on Prescott Lakes Parkway is a slope and And they're connected because in order to save money, I was going to propose that the design team look at co-locating just the police substation with one of the fire stations to save money. Because as it is, the site they picked involves an $8 million expense for just dirt and retaining wall work. And if we separate the property and evidence building from the police substation, which should be not in an industrial area, but the property and evidence could be in a more industrial area. so that was one of my thoughts is it too late to save some money and have them look at designing a police substation along to be part of co-located be part of the fire station either at the uh phippen roundabout or a block away from where it's currently going to be at the peavine trail point of order that's not on the agenda Well, I know, but we have not had a chance to have any comments about this. So unfortunately, we're having to turn a voting session into a study session. Was that even considered?

Yeah, I mean, I think you can answer the question. I think we're getting to the point where it might be outside the scope of a CMAR approval for fire. So to the extent that the question is would we be able to save money with the CMAR in construction if we co-located, you can answer that question. And then I think if the inquiry doesn't end there, we need to put it for another agenda item.

Okay. Could they be co-located? They could have been, had we looked at that option much earlier in the process. The two sites that we are considering are not big enough to have both facilities located on them. The portion of land that we bought from Yavapai County has an option for the remaining acreage that is that is on that site that the city has first right of refusal on? Should we want to purchase the other half of that lot, which may? We've spent several million dollars already getting to this point, buying land, hiring design firms that are diligently working at the contract that council approved for them to begin the design of these facilities. It would be a big step backward to try to co-locate them at this time. The Fippen location is not big enough for the needs of both facilities. It's too small. But the county location on Prescott Lakes Parkway, as I said, there's additional acreage there the city has first right of refusal on.

See we were not privy to that information at all and there were no elected officials kept in the loop either on the previous council, the previous mayor, myself or other council members and that's why we're going to have a discussion at our next meeting in August as to how we can get more public input and more input from the electeds as this process moves forward. Patrick.

I have a question specifically to the three fire stations. So at what point in the design process will we get the first cost estimate, let's say, to compare that to what we presented to the voters in the Prop 478 package?

I believe it's at the full 30, isn't it?

Yes, at 30%.

I did read the scope, but it was a couple of weeks ago. I apologize. I believe it was at the 30%, but it is in the scope that's attached in your packet of the work that the CMAR will perform. There are at least three cost estimates that the CMAR will perform as we proceed through design.

So just from your past experience, I mean, you have the dates for when you expect the whole design process to be done. When do you think we might get those first cost estimates?

Do you have the schedule in front of you, Tim?

I know that we're anticipating, they're kind of staggered in design, so we're looking like a March, April, May design. So like I said, we're right coming up on 30% now, so the design will take the rest of the year to do. The early part of the design always takes a little bit longer. 60% will be a little bit shorter period. So it'll probably be another two or three months, and then we'll be moving to 60s. And we can come to you with our estimates as we get our design submittals turned in and our updated engineer's costs.

In my experience, the first time you see an estimate that doesn't change a whole lot is generally around the 60% mark, if that's helpful.

And if I can add something to both, both of our contractual architects both also have public meetings or whether it's a study session or open house built into their contracts and we can get those scheduled as we get a little further along into the late summer, early fall.

Lois? Thank you, Mayor. A question that, and I'm not sure, I see the police chief in the back of the room. Oh, there's Holger. Please come up. I have a question. I asked this to you online. Two things. We discussed back in the fall, and I can remember Mayor Good was the mayor, so I don't remember the date, though. that we discussed with the FIPPIN location when we gave authorization to purchase that land. We talked about, and maybe this is for Joe, we talked about potentially annexing that land into the city, and the council approved the contract to purchase the land and gave direction to follow up on that. So I'd like to know where are we with that. with the potential of annexing that. And I think we also talked about the trailhead that we also own, since it's contiguous to city-owned land.

I'm going to kick it to the city attorney.

I was really hoping we could talk about this. The answer is we did look at whether we could annex that property. And at the time, we couldn't without annexing adjacent property, meaning other property not owned by the city, whether that be the Fippen Museum or other. However, and I think we talked about this a little bit, but State statutes have changed. It's not in effect yet, but it has been signed by the governor, which changes the requirements for annexation if the annexation is done by the city of property owned by the city. So it'll be a couple of weeks. The statute will be updated and we will be able to annex those two pieces of property without having to worry about annexing adjacent or neighboring properties. And what would be the cost to do that? I think that it will be nominal. We may incur some costs in surveying some of the properties if we don't have those already, but I think we probably have all of the stuff we already need and we can waive our own fees.

Okay. So that was the direction we gave last time because we thought it was important if we were spending millions and millions of dollars that we have it within the city limits. So that was my first question. But the second question, we've gotten a ton of public comment regarding, just in the last week since everyone heard about this, regarding the Sun Dog location. And specifically the concern about, I wasn't... cognizant enough to realize a giant flood coming out of Yavapai Hills washing across that land. And so I'd like to understand what are your plans so far, to be able to mitigate those concerns, because we're going to spend a lot of money, we want to make sure it's not full of mud.

Yep, yep, absolutely. And actually, you want to start with that one. And I can

You betcha. So on the drainage front, there is currently a waterway that comes through the north side of that parcel there at Sundog and Prescott Lakes Parkway. We know it's a major drainage thoroughfare, and so it's in the design. And we will be channelizing that water. Rather than it sheet flowing across the site, it's going to be channelized to the north side, closest to Prescott Lakes Parkway, if you will. That's already in the preliminary plans that we have seen from the engineer of record. And again, we'll continue to refine that as we work with the CMAR and the engineer to complete the design of that channel.

That add a lot of costs to the plan versus what we've put in the budget as a placeholder?

So it's planned to be an earthen channel, not a pipe. So there are costs with moving dirt, but it's not to the extent that it would be if we were to pipe it.

An earthen channel, because I'm not a construction person.

Made from the ground.

I understand, but is that going to hold up to a 100-year flood dashing down the hill?

That is the design that we require, and that is the design that we will get, yes. And there are pipes that run underneath of the Peavine Trail. I don't know if you were here a few years ago, but we had quite a storm, and it washed out part of the Peavine Trail because the water that came through there was not controlled. It was pretty devastating to the trail and so we had to rebuild it. So we're looking at that whole, you can't just address the water on your site. You have to, it's called pre and post development. Councilman Gehring's familiar with this term. The water at the rate that the water comes in and historically has come in is the rate that it must go out. So that's what we'll be mitigating when we do the design for the channel. And yes, there will be some costs involved with that. We've spoken with Chief Duret here about that, and we have some flood control money districts set aside for this project to help mitigate the cost of the drainage because the drainage was here before we built. It's not really a part of the fire station, although we have to mitigate that on the site in order to put the fire station there. So we're going to use some flood control district monies. But again, we're not really far enough along in the design for me to tell you how we're going to remedy that. But it is on our radar, and it's a big thing on our radar that we are addressing. Okay, all right.

Yeah, and I can head on to that as well. I think the council session you're referring to is October 28th, when we brought the three sites and had the public discussion regarding that. And the due diligence that led us to the site, in part, was early conversations with us and Public Works to mitigate that flooding concern, and exactly what Gwen just reported to you. As you recall, we also looked at, for instance, next to the adult center, We looked at property near Watson Lake, and those were either due to response locations or charter restrictions, prohibitive. And this was the site that we were able to, with that due diligence at that time and that public process, settle on.

Thank you. And remind everybody in the public that you were doing those options analysis, and it was to reach what goal for public safety?

Absolutely. So it is to reduce response times to an eight-minute, 90th percentile total response time, hello to hello, with these capital investments.

So you were looking at, I believe, three or four locations in total around that heart of what you needed. Yes. And this is the one that was deemed by, and it was part of a public discussion in a council meeting.

Correct.

Correct. So I know there's a lot of people that are surprised to hear it is at the Sun Dog, but this had been a public discussion. And I just wanted to make that point. And they've moved down the road with council input.

Yeah, and to that, we had about four years of analysis in the station locations. As soon as I got here, I think probably in 2022, we presented to the council at that point. And these stations were iteratively chosen with GIS models that were always in a public session. Now, that being said, I do want to emphasize the public's input matters significantly in this case. And even if the comments come now, we're still welcome to hear them. I'm open to addressing those questions. And of course, if there's perspectives we're not seeing, that's really, really important.

And I'm assuming you're working very closely with Christy Diaz Trahan because of the trailhead, the parking. So that's all part of the site plan you two are working cooperatively with.

Yes, and she actually had met with our design team, with Perlman, as well as with our public works folks. And one of the things that we decided was to relocate the trailheads before the station starts so we don't have to take the trailhead out of commission. And there are some cost-neutral improvements to those sites, including moving, for instance, the trailhead parking closer to the Peafine Trailhead, actually, which will actually have some improvements for recreation services and their end users as well.

Good.

And is the parking the same as today or greater? As far as I understand, it might be a little bit greater. I don't want to go on public record and say that's what it is, but that is the concept. It's at least the curve. As good or better.

Good. Thank you. Well, I'll chime in on that. What we've seen from the early designs, kind of the mandate going in was we do not reduce parking spaces on either parking lot. So as the parking lots get redone, I think any opportunity to increase parking spaces we'll take full advantage of.

Holger, while you're up here, I have a few questions about the staging of the crews as these fire stations come online. From what I've heard, you're very creative. For example, the crew at the air station at the airport, that station's going to be closed down. And as the fire station opens at the Fippen, then they'll be transferred right there. So you'll already have that station already staffed.

Correct.

And I assume that's okay with the airport and the FAA to have the fire service for the airport close, but doesn't have to be right on airport property.

Yeah, so a few things addressing Station 73, particularly in the strategic plan that we present to you in April. There's a specific goal in there for the airport and us to work collaboratively to ensure that relocation of the structural component, the engine, Engine 73, to the FIPPIN does not impact FAA compliance. Matter of fact, there is FAA funding currently for the mixed ARF and ops facility that will move that part of our fire suppression capacity closer to the center point of the runway, which is our bogey for the FAA. So we're going to have improved coverage for the ARF response. The rest of the response we can, by FAA guidelines, under those regulations, bring from outside the airport. So not having the structure engine doesn't directly impact our ability to be compliant both with future and current needs on the FAA. The other component on the staging that you bring up, the biggest staging need we're going to have is at Station 72 on 6th Street, because that's an existing station with existing firefighters. And we're basically putting a fire station right where the current one is at. So we're going to have to relocate either with temporary trailers and housing. That's going to be the biggest impact. But you're correct. Station 73 with existing staff will relocate that component to improve response coverage. Station 76, engine 76 is currently in service as a daytime engine. And as we get closer, we'll ask this body for more staff to finalize that so that we can have 24-7 coverage. And the projected idea is that they'll then move into that new station 76 at Sundog. So they won't be relocated. They're currently working out of our training center.

So you already have a crew that's kind of a roving crew, and so they're kind of homeless. So they'll be going into the Peavine Trail. I call it the Peavine Trail station. And so you've got that one taken care of. So that's wonderful. So the Sixth Street station, as it's being built, that crew will be moved into temporary quarters. Do you have any ideas or... details what's going to happen to them.

As a matter of fact, the contract you're considering today, in part, will have that diligence in the Station 72 considerations. A lot of times you can get job site trailers that are retrofitted into fire stations that are onsite. The site is very constrained, so we don't know how that's going to work out. There's also potentially room at the fleet yard a little bit further away. And our last option is to relocate Station 72 or the engine to Station 71 and then to use that daytime engine as a roving engine to backfill that gap. Okay.

And my last question is, I had mentioned co-locating a police substation. It would save us a lot of money because, like I said, currently the excavation costs, if we have the station and the property and evidence warehouse together, it's going to cost us a lot of money in the land prep. So I've already heard that both the Peavine and the Fippen Museum, Fippen Roundabout stations are already too small then. So we could look some other place.

Yeah, as you recall, when we were doing the diligence for the sites, for instance, the Rosser location, as well as the Fippen location, we even had discussed the potential for having library and fire also co-located to some extent. And you're absolutely correct. The sites that we ended up that were in the coverage area that would actually do what we wanted it to do with 478 all were too constrained to have the setbacks and the necessary components to allow for substantive co-location. Could we have officer spaces at some of these stations where somebody can come in and do a report late at night? Absolutely. But the scoping of the substation, and Chief Parambilla can talk to that a little bit better, is beyond the ability for us to have that type of a co-location. Now, that being said, I also want to make sure that you understand fire and police get along extraordinarily well here. and we have no problem saying, hey, if an officer needs to come in and do a report in an office area, that is something that the current sites can, but it doesn't meet the needs of the police department in terms of the substation idea that they're really looking for.

Okay, thank you. And Mr. Gamboge, you have a comment?

I've got a couple questions for the fire chief. But this is another example of micromanaging. I mean, it's five o'clock, we still haven't, we got three more issues to resolve. Holger, how many different locations did you look at before you settled on these?

including these sites, it was in serious consideration, seven to eight sites total.

And you had a computer program where you ran simulations. And the key for this, and I think it's important for everybody to understand, because you're going to get, we're going to hear from the public, we're going to hear about aesthetic issues and open space, but your focus... was primarily on response times, and response times means saving human lives. So as we hear this debate on issues that I believe are off topic, the important thing to remember is our fire chief is doing an excellent job. I've been with him as he's run these simulations. This work is very exhaustive, and the whole goal is to save human lives. Let's not forget that.

Holder, I have one question. PFOS and PFOAs are on the front page every day now, and firefighting foam is one of the culprits. And these stations are located close to drainages. I mean, Prescott, we're in a bowl. Everything is in a drainage. Is there any way you can look into firefighting foams that are more environmentally friendly, that are based on borax or something. Because I know that there's some, you know, I have a little fire extinguisher that's based on something like that. I mean, please bear with me here.

I totally get it. I can put your mind at ease. First of all, all structural engines in the city of Prescott and actually beyond do not use PFAS-containing AFFF anymore. The only place we currently have a triple F foam still in stock is on foam 73 at the airport because it's an FAA requirement. However, because of the PFAS requirements, it is being phased out. We can't replace it. So we're right now getting ready, especially with the new FAA facility. There's also scoping for a new truck. that wouldn't even run on AFFF or PFAS-containing foam. And those alternatives are coming on the market as we speak. But the station at both Peavine as well as the new station, the relocated station 73, would not have any type of AFFF. The other thing is the training center tower that just went in. We also have very strict training requirements. We don't use any kind of foam, regardless if it's AFFF or not. It's just water. and we have runoff containment to make sure that Watson Woods and the repairing area isn't negatively impacted by our training center or by the new fire station.

Thank you. I think that was a concern not only of mine, but also of some members of the public. Anyone else before we move on? Tim, do you have any more comments?

Nope, that was it.

Okay. All right, thank you. Thank you.

Do you have any public comment? We do have two. First is Joanne Ohlers.

Hello, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Council. I'm Joanne Olores, and I'm speaking on behalf of Save the Dells today. I want to thank you so much for the information that I heard. I was really concerned about the public being in the dark about a number of things that I'm still going to mention to you here today. And I did what I thought was a pretty good job of looking for information about things like trailhead placement and possible location decisions and so forth. And I really couldn't find anything about that. And I know these are issues that the public's been talking about. I think that a lot of anxiety and stress could have been alleviated with having this information out sooner and in a way that was accessible to most people. A lot of people aren't here right now to hear what's been said. Some are going to listen to the recording, some have been online watching, but The word is not out that some of these concerns have been addressed. And the list of things that I had to mention today include many that I have been reassured about just now in the last few minutes. And that's really great. But there's many other members of the public and community members who would not have heard that. So I was really very reassured that there was an effort for public participation, not so much for the locations of the fire stations, which I see has gone through a vetting process I did not understand or know about before. But there are other things that we don't see addressed. I was looking at the contract for the core company and didn't see certain things that we think are important. So one of my points is that the community engagement has been absent from this, whether it would have been premature or not, just knowing that maybe the public could be reassured that some of these issues were being addressed. So I did hear something about the knowledge of public or the choosing of alternative locations, which is something that I saw was missing from the information that I had access to. I see now more about the process of that. And I would like to know more. Maybe this would come out in a public meeting later. Also, another item on my list was the information about the fate of the trailhead, which was very upsetting to many people, what's happening to the Peavine Trail. There was nothing for us to go on about that. So that would be, I know, maybe, again, premature. We don't really know how that's going to come around, but it would be nice to know that there was real thoughtful concern for that. Then thank you about the conversation about the PFAS that has come up with people I know and people have also contacted council about that pollution, especially since we know that the fish in Watson are now, you know, not able to be eaten. And we also have these beautiful bald eagles that we have so much love for that could be affected by continued pollution in the lake. Also, I wanted to mention something that hadn't come up, and this is the recognition of the Watson and Willow Lake ecosystem as an important bird area. This ties right into our economic development. To have that bird area be disrupted by whatever is going to be planned out there just really needs to be a concern and to be addressed and to be thoughtfully considered. Because again, we have birders that come here and spend a lot of money. in our town, and they come to see those migrating birds and water birds. And also something I hadn't heard addressed was the amplified stress for the animals at the Humane Society, which is, it's hard to hear them there when you're at the Peavine barking and, you know, being maybe stressed out from their situation as a whole, but the fire station presence and the sirens would be even harder on them. I don't know if that's been considered to have some respect for those animals there. So I'm going to close by saying I really think it's important to get the information out to the people about these things that I just mentioned. I see that Brody's not here anymore, so it's not going to be in the paper tomorrow, but how can that be broadcast so people can be reassured? Thank you very much.

Thank you, Joanne.

Next is Walt Anderson.

Well, good afternoon, mayor, council, city staff, and members of the public who are interested in this. Oh, sorry. Yes, I am a little tall. Well, I appreciate hearing some of the new information too that we didn't have before, like Joanne. We worked on our comments separately, even though we have many similar concerns. And I really have a lot of concerns about Station 76 at that intersection of the Peavine Trail and next to Watson Woods. And I just think there hasn't been enough sufficient public participation in the choice of those sites. None of us, of course, would want to endanger human lives, but the site selection process could have been much more public involvement, and I think that would have helped us all feel a lot better about it. I'd like to say that I've been part of organized efforts to create a Willow Lake management plan. I'm on the steering committee and all four of the working groups. And it's a tremendous process. It's coordinated by Southwest Decision Resources, the consultants. They've done a terrific job. They've brought together city staff with others whose combined expertise and participation have been a model in how to work collaboratively and proactively to find solutions that have positive benefits to a broad range of constituencies. So I really want to commend the city for that particular process, for the Willow Lake Management Plan. And it feels like we haven't had anything similar in this situation here, which has kind of left us in the dark. And we're just getting some information now, and it seems to be a bit too late. So I think some of the public may feel that they've been dismissed and unheard, just as they were when some previous city councils failed the public by prioritizing roads over acquiring open space as was promised. We know that didn't end up well in terms of the public recognition of the city council and of the staff at that particular time. It has changed much to the benefit of our community since then, and I commend all of you for that sort of thing, but it's something we need to watch because public perception is very important. Well, it's been mentioned that both of these sites, at the Constellation Trails or Phippen and at the Peavine Trail, kind of impinge upon our open space, which the public is very involved in, and Watson Woods being an important bird area, which is a significant designation. And Watson Woods is pretty amazing. We turned up, and the city, I'll commend them on that. They turned an industrial site into a riparian preserve that's beloved by the public. But I would hate to see anything to jeopardize that particular thing. So the Grenadales Preservation Foundation generously created a much more visitor-friendly access point with a steel wall visually blocking the ugly industrial site next to it and putting up an attractive welcoming sign. And we wonder what would happen to that investment. We simply have not been told. And so this is part of our problem. We don't know what's going on. The flash flood was mentioned. That's a significant concern. Mitigating that, I think, could be a very, very big expense. And I would hate to see a station like that threatened by something as significant as a flash flood. Mother Nature bats last. So anyway, there are economic consequences to be considered here that exceed those economic costs of building a station and some of those things. And some of that, of course, is the engine that tourism drives along the Peavine Trail. It's our most important trail. So we have models of good public engagement, but I haven't seen it here. It seems like the analysis was focused narrowly on the station itself and not on the bigger picture. So I ask everybody here to look at the bigger picture as much as possible, to share that information with the public more widely, and consider other sites that might be less controversial and perhaps a better deal financially, too. I worry a little bit that these sites are so small that they can't be expanded in the future if the need should persist and the... The size would inhibit that so costs are not limited to fire protection alone. So think holistically.

Thank you Thank You Walt That's all any other comment from council members Jay?

Yeah. I remember the October 28th session, and I do remember Eric Moore pointing out that often recreation areas have had building or development put in right next to them, and that is to the detriment of those areas. But I also remember that there is an urgency to getting these fire stations put up. And I think it's important to remember, we are not in the lowest tier of insurance right now. And getting these fire stations put in is going to help lower everyone's insurance. We're not talking a pristine area. And I think we need to protect our pristine areas. I'm curious, and this is a question, in agreeing to this CMAR, how much leeway is there on planning after this point, Gwen? Or is it like once we agree to a CMAR, there's no more deviation?

So Councilman Ruby, the CMAR, again, this CMAR GMP is only for the design phase. So if the city decides to discontinue this design or do something different, then... we have the extent of this contract that we're obligated to meet. It's not until we decide to move to the construction phase that, you know, that's a different GMP with hopefully the same CMAR because that's why we bring them in at this phase. So really the extent of your risk is what we're asking you to approve today is for pre-construction design services for the CMAR.

MEANING SOME OF THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MEANING SOME OF THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP AT COUNCIL CAN BE BROUGHT UP AT COUNCIL CAN BE CONSIDERED AS WE GO FORWARD. CONSIDERED AS WE GO FORWARD.

WE ARE TAKING NOTES. WE ARE TAKING NOTES.

GOT IT. GOT IT.

WE WILL TRY TO ADDRESS THE WE WILL TRY TO ADDRESS THE THINGS THAT ARE COMING UP IN THIS THINGS THAT ARE COMING UP IN THIS MEETING THAT WILL COME UP IN THE public open house will attempt to address those concerns as well. So that's why the CMAR is along with us as we proceed through the project. We're very early in the project. We have a good ways to go and we can continue to incorporate comments and requests and things like that as we can into the design of the sites. So we're very early on still.

This is just kind of a procedural step to move it forward.

We need the professional expertise of the CMAR to continue the design and address some of these concerns that we've heard, cost only being one of those things.

Thank you, Gwen.

If I can add to that, too. As we move through design there, there needs to be opportunities where we bring the work that's been done so far to the council. The council is able to weigh in on different options. We might want to do A, B, or C. And so we need council to be able to weigh in. Those are also opportunities for the public to weigh in. to get updates on where we are, to see what the options are, to weigh in on what one they think might be best. And that needs to be built into our process so that the council is involved, so the public's involved. And as we get to construction, we've been working as a staff we read a book recently about projects that talks about you don't want to think fast and act slow right where you just have an idea and then you start and it takes forever and you go over budget you know you want to think slow and act fast you want to be prepared You want to know all the details. You want to make sure all the ducks are right there in a row. And then you go to construction, because once you go to construction, that's when it starts to get very expensive very quickly. And so having as much public process as we can and council involvement leading up to construction will help us to make sure that when we actually build something, it's something that the community is happy with.

Thank you. I'd just like to comment. This is unprecedented. I don't know of any communities that are building three fire stations at the same time. And I think we're going to do a very good job at it. I just want to comment. We talk about fire, but a large part of the fire department is EMS. Emergency medical services medical services and having a fire station strategically located next to Willow Lake They've had had to rescue people in kayaks that have been caught in the monsoon storms They're out on the trails Rescuing people that are lost or have broken bones So I think being strategically located next to the lake and the trail I think is definitely a big asset And they're going to do it cost effectively, too. From the numbers that I've seen, their land acquisition is out of three stations, they only had to buy land for, what was it, $200,000. And that's a pretty good deal. And the crews are all up and running, ready to go, trained. So I think it's going to be a very smooth transition. So I commend Holger and his team for all their hard work. And we're moving along swiftly. Mr. Gamboge.

Councilman Ruby mentioned Eric Moore back on October 28th, was it? I want the public to realize that Eric Moore voted in favor of this. So if there's no other council comment, I'd like to make a motion. Go ahead. Can I make this in one or do I have to make it in three, Joe?

You can make it in one if you'd like.

I move to approve city contract number 2026-002, 2027-003 and contract number 2027-004. Second. Please vote. Passes 7-0.

Next item, approval of city contract number 2027-005 with Wilming Construction for construction manager at risk pre-construction services for the police substation and property evidence project in the amount of $534,042. Funding is budgeted and available through the public safety tax initiative funding.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Tim Sherwood, Public Works. Again, a lot of what I'm going to talk about, I talked about previously with the fire station, is very similar. But I'll give you some of the differences. So, again, it's approval of a construction manager at risk contract for construction of the police substation and property evidence facility. Staff evaluated seven sites for this new multifunctional facility. The city purchased a seven and a half acre parcel from Yavapai County at the northwest corner of Prescott Lakes Parkway and Storm Ranch Parkway. The location was based on police response times, proximity to the Yavapai County Justice Facility. and it met adequate size for the department's needs now and into the future. Purchase of the property was approved by the County Board of Supervisors and ordinance number 2025-1906 was adopted by council on October 14th of 2025. Arrington-Watkins was also awarded a design services contract on October 14th of 2025. They have been working through the programming and schematic design since that happened. And as we're approaching 30% design, it's time to bring a construction manager at risk on board. Again, we advertised concurrently with the fire stations, advertised in February of 26th. SOQs were opened on March 5th of 2026. Pretty much all the same evaluation criteria were used for both SOQs. City received seven statement of qualifications. All seven submitted were qualified. Five-member select review committee was chosen. Evaluation process consisted of reviewing the SOQs, and the three top-ranked firms were selected for interviews on May 29th, 2026. After the interviews, the review committee ranked and selected Wilming Construction. Pre-construction scope and fee negotiations were initiated, and the pre-construction GMP was approved on June 29th of 2026. Prescott Police Department and Public Works is recommending award of a contract to Wilming Construction in the amount of $534,042. Funding for the project is budgeted in FY27 in the general fund, and funding source is a dedicated sales tax established by voter-approved Proposition 478, the Public Safety Tax Initiative. And again, we can open it up to questions.

Thank you. There's no question in my mind that we do need a new police and evidence facility and that we do need a a substation, but during the budget process when we were looking at all the expenditures for next year, we just happened to find out, it wasn't discussed, that the property that was bought on Prescott Lakes Parkway for 1.5 million, we knew it had a slope, But we did not know the extent of the cost of the land excavation, the site prep, which is going to be $8 million for basically taking down the hill and putting up retaining walls. And so we just approved a change to our land development code to protect our hillsides. and then we're going to turn around and do this major excavation, very expensive excavation cost that I don't think is necessary if we would just separate, because you have two different uses. You have the property and evidence, and then you have the police substation. Police substations should go in neighborhoods, in areas where there's potential for crime, have more public access. A property in evidence doesn't really need to have public access. And it can go out on a flat piece of property that we already own out by the airport and the wastewater treatment plant and where the FedEx Facility is and I noticed none of that that property was not Even looked at from what I could tell so you know we're trying to be fiscal conservatives here, and if we can save eight million dollars in Excavation I say let's take a step back and look I called I talked to the email Mesa because they just did a new property in evidence facility and Mesa's 10 times the size of Prescott. They're half a million people and their property and evidence facility is about 32,000 square feet. How big is this one going to be?

The combination of the building, the substation and the property evidence facility is over 40,000 square feet.

Just the property and evidence.

I don't know that I've got a breakdown of what property and evidence of that building and substation will be total.

So you were talking about $40,000 for a police station and a property and evidence facility? Yes. Because they built their just property and evidence with basically a giant warehouse. And I see that's going to be a metal building, which I think is a great idea. They built theirs for $750 a square foot. Their construction cost was about $20,000, I mean $20 million. And then it was $23 million if you include furniture, fixtures, and equipment. So I think there's a lot of room for cost cutting here. And we need to take a step back and be a little more creative. And I think we could save a lot of money if we separated these two facilities. They don't have to be related. And if you need a firing range, you can put it out in this warehouse. and put in the labs. The lab doesn't have to be next to the public or anything. It can be anywhere. So I think we need to be creative, put on our thinking caps, and look at being more cost-effective and the property that we already bought for 1.5 million, you know, we could resell that and put it to a higher and better use for like a neighborhood-oriented business or something that would produce jobs and some taxes. So anyway, that's just some of my opinion. I think this still needs a lot of consideration. A lot of work. I have some questions on the contract, too, but I'll let other people speak. Anyone else have some comments? No? Speakers? Is this... My button's pushed. Oh, is it? Oh, there it... Okay, you just came up. Thank you, Ted. Got it.

If you drive out there, you've already seen that they've cut slope in that location. And since we have the court there and we have the jail and the court there, it makes it convenient for someone who is released from court to go pick up his stuff at the retention center. Once again, we're... I got to ask the question, why do we have staff if they come to us with a recommendation and we redesign it? This is a fine location for where it is. You're talking about $8 million to cut the slope. But Tim, tell me, if we put this on Rosser Road between... The Raleigh-Simmons Center and location for the Greek Orthodox Church, what would excavation cost be there?

I don't think you'd see a significant savings there. There's quite a bit of slope at that location as well, as well as some significant drainage matters that we'd have to deal with. We've had a couple of projects over my time with the city just to mitigate drainage in that corridor. So it's not as flat and level as... Maybe you might think, if you look at it from an aerial, there's quite a bit of earth to move to make that site viable. And if I may add to your comment, Mayor. Wait a minute. Okay, I'm sorry, go ahead.

Just give me a number.

4 million? If I can real quick. So it's not 8 million versus zero. No, sir. It's 8 million versus whatever it costs to excavate in some other location. You're probably $2 to $4 million. Part of this process, like we're talking about, when we talk about the earthwork and the $8 million you mentioned, these are very early preliminary numbers. Somebody looking at a site, maybe looking at topography, we received the 30% design estimate, and that number has already been reduced down to $4.5 million. As far as retaining walls go so like said at the 30% when we start getting further in design Costs start coming down because it's a deeper analysis done into the site itself So the the eight million dollars it was on the kind of the high-end Early we're just looking at the site has already been reduced down into 30% estimate from the engineer is down to four and a half million dollars I know that's still a lot of money. I understand that. But like I said, as we move through design opportunities, especially with the CMAR on board, opportunities are created to find ways to save money.

Well, I would like to say that none of these locations that you're talking about, I don't know why he's bringing up the Greek Orthodox Church.

Because you're talking as if it's $8 million versus $0 million. It's $8 million versus how much to excavate in any other lot you pick.

I was going to suggest that the police substation, we look at the cost of a police substation on the property that we already own next to the adult center on the east side of the adult center. We need to look at that, because this is a big decision. And we also need to look at relocate building the property and evidence building on a level piece of ground that's easy build, not on trying to take down the side of a hill to put an impound lot on. A giant warehouse. I mean, why didn't we look at the property we already own out by the airport next to the FedEx Center and the wastewater treatment plant? We already own that.

As I mentioned very early on in my presentation, we analyzed seven sites, and I can let the Chief or Brian Sparks elaborate on the sites that were looked at and evaluated before landing on this one. Again, as Public Works, we are working with the police department to manage their projects for them, but the ultimate decision is going to be the police department's and how it meets their needs, not just today, but in the future.

Yeah, and I completely agree 100%. I support our police and all the facilities that they need to function at a high level. But I still think we need to do a lot more options analysis. This is a big decision. There's a lot of money involved. I mean, it's a $50 million project just for this one facility, whereas the fire department's building three. for the same amount. And I don't understand why we didn't look at separating one facility from the other because they don't really have to be located together. So if Mr. Brambillo would like to speak, our new interim police chief. Thank you.

And good afternoon, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Council. Thank you, John Brambilla, Deputy Chief until Sunday, Interim Chief come Sunday. But excellent questions. And it is a huge project. And this is probably in the lifetime of our police department, probably the only time we'll have something this large. The last time we built a station was 1991. I was a senior in high school that year. I worked for Parks and Rec. I actually went over there to help clear that lot where that station is. It served us extremely well. We've outgrown it. As the city has grown, as our department has grown, we have definitely outgrown that station, which facilitated a lot of the conversations around the public safety sales tax. And so we did. We had a lot of discussions. And you bring up excellent points about co-locating. Chief Dura did a lot of research, as Councilman Gamboge already talked about, that he had specific needs for where his stations needed to be. And if we could co-locate with those to meet the same needs that we have for our response times, we looked at those possibilities. They were a little bit different. His needs are very different than our needs as far as where his stations are. Because most of the time, they're responding from their stations, where we're responding sometimes from our station, but sometimes we're out in the public. Obviously, we're driving around being proactive. So we did look at those possibilities. And that's why we thought taking the original plan that we presented to the public, where there was essentially three different projects. There was a standalone property and evidence building, which we absolutely need. Those that have seen our property and evidence facility, it's full. The other facility we use is at the rodeo grounds. I don't think it fits into the master plan. I didn't see it up there. And during the rodeo, we can't even get to it. And that's where we store a lot of evidence and property, large pieces that it's very inconvenient. And then we have the vehicle impound lot at Heritage Park. So looking at where we needed to be to reduce response times, where we could create efficiencies for the things that our patrol officers do, looking at how we could be more efficient from the property and evidence standpoint, when we evaluated with Brian Spark's assistance, seven different locations throughout the city. That's the one that we landed on because it hit all of those key points that we were looking for, the location. It gives us efficiencies because we're right next to the jail. We're right next to the Juvenile Justice Center. We're right next to the Humane Society where we do a lot of business with our animal control, and we're just down the street from our police range. So looking at moving the majority of our operations out of the downtown area, building and maintaining that as a headquarters. Administration would stay there. Records would stay there because it's convenient for the public to be downtown to get records and not have to drive all the way out to Prescott Lakes Parkway. Detectives, for the fact that the courts are located in the downtown, there is a court like Mr. Gamboge talked about there at the jail as well. And then community services, our bicycle officers, we need to keep them downtown. But moving the bulk of our operations, which is about 70% of our personnel, to this new facility, which would then house patrol, Traffic safety, animal control, and our canine units, as well as property and evidence. And you asked a great question about the square footage. We're at the schematic design, so we have overall square footage. The individual square footage for those areas is still being moved around. We just got our first look at what it could look like. just a few weeks ago. So we actually have a schematic design of what the building could look like and what spaces are. We're also building for the future. So that site gives us that ability that we're looking at not 10 years, but 30 years. What does that look like for us? And it gives us expansion where we're at on that site. So the location, creating the efficiencies, consolidating all those police functions, And property and evidence does need to be co-located because officers have to go there to get evidence to take to court. Also, citizens need to go to that location to obtain their property that we have, because it's really two functions. Property, which is sometimes found property, things that we're holding for safekeeping, somebody that's in jail and we're holding onto their belongings for them. So we have that side of it where the public does need to have access to that and it should be convenient for them to come to get their things. The other side of that is the evidence side and the officers do need to bring it in to the station. And again, if we're looking at efficiencies, if we have the substation in one location and the property in the other location, like on the other side of town, we're spending a lot of drive time back and forth. So looking at creating those efficiencies for us and consolidating everything. I know parking in the downtown is not an issue here, but It's an issue, right? Once City Hall moved out, we lost two parking lots for our staff. So we're down to one parking lot, which has about 35 spaces. We're parking, our employees are parking on the street. Those spots are for our visitors and our residents, and we have no place to park. So this alleviates a lot of that. It frees up a lot of parking in the downtown area and gives us a better place. It's a great location for the security of that facility. So we took all those things into consideration. Is that site a challenge to build on? Yes. And we've had those discussions with our design team and with the CMAR even though they're not on board yet, they've already been talking with us and Gwen did an excellent job of explaining it. We're going through a process and that's why some of this information is just now coming forward because that's where we are in the process. Like literally we didn't see a design concept until just a few weeks ago. It's all just programming and needs and how big is this space and what do we need for the future and making sure we do it right so that we don't have to do it again. The only other thing we would, you know, like Chief Dura talked about, yes, those substations that you mentioned, but those typically are very small, maybe an office where we have computers that officers can stop in. We used to have a lot. When I started 27 years ago, we had a substation at the Fry's on Fair Street. We had a substation out at the airport. We had various substations. But as property has become very valuable, we were kicked out of all those places. So we have no other substations. We have the main station downtown, and this would be another station with the bulk of our operations moving to that station. So I hope that clears up some of the questions. But if you have others, please let me know.

Anyone else have any comments?

Mr. Ruby? When you were looking at all your needs and assessing them and looking at the kind of your optimal space, was cost consideration part of that conversation? And if so, how?

And thank you for that, Councilman Ruby. I appreciate it. Yes, obviously we know that the tax revenue is going to be a certain amount. As Gwen stated, early on the estimates coming in were high. But as this team has worked together, just bringing the CMAR into the conversations, they're already doing a lot of that value engineering. So, yes, we're very concerned about what that overall cost looks like. In the last two years, construction costs have gone through the roof. That Mesa facility, we talked with them. We toured that facility. Tim mentioned the Station Design Conference. 2024 and 2025, we attended the Station Design Conference, which is an entire conference dedicated to building police and fire departments. And we listened to different stories and projects. And after every single one, I'm like, that's a great project. How much did that cost? And they would tell you, and I go, how much would it cost now? And it's almost double in a lot of the cases. So we did a lot of our due diligence to look at the different facilities to tour them. We toured Glendale's new property and evidence facility, Mesa's, and we feel like we've done a really thorough job of looking at what our needs are and understanding that there is some constraints on budget.

okay Mary thank you I appreciated the the grid that was part of our packet noting out the considerations of the seven sites that were evaluated and I was very strongly online with the choice that was made. If you looked at the grid from residential compatibility all the way down, it's all no problem, excellent. I like the synergy involved with having the police station, the evidence, and all those other elements that are going into it. right across the street from the county's justice center, the youth court, the youth detention, the jail. I hadn't even been thinking about the interaction between the police department and the Humane Society and of course the gun range at the end down by the transfer station. And really the lack of not having it around residential is a big factor for me. So between not having any interaction with people as they're living their lives out in their residence, and the quick dash to go into our city court, the county court downtown, no site is gonna be perfect. The topography is a mess as far as how we're looking at it now, but I appreciate the idea that the CMAR can bring value to the construction choices that are still to be made. And the numbers we have now are not necessarily the numbers we're gonna have in the future. I suppose there's always a chance that they could go up, but from the CMAR's perspective, from what I understand, their goal is to bring value to the choices made and numbers will slide down as some choices and some adjustments to the plans can be made. I'm all on board with the site you guys selected, not perfect, but certainly amongst the sites that have been considered, I'm on board with that. I guess my only other thing is, And again, kind of comments made earlier. I don't know that we're here to study and or vote on site selection. We're here for the CMAR, which I think is a clear choice of thumbs up for that.

Thank you, Ted.

I have a question for the interim police chief. The mayor's trying to make a point that we ought to build this next to the fire station as much as we love Holger, and I look on him as a brother. If I understand your presentation, there's more synergies putting it where it is, not just with the JV and the courthouse and the jail, but also its relative proximity to your office right here. Is that true? There's more synergies to be had where it is than co-locating with the fire station.

Correct. If, you know, Councilwoman Fredrickson pointed out that the matrix that Brian put together for us, if you look at one of those, it talks about proximity to our downtown station, which this, unlike the fire department, we have been housed in one building. for a long time. That separation is gonna take some doing on our part. When I say our part, the command staff to maintain the culture that we have, the communication that we have. So there are some challenges, but keeping it close to downtown makes it simple for myself to go there, Lieutenant Kassoon, whoever it might be, to keep us close enough together. But we also get out of the downtown area, like specifically like last weekend, During the parade or we're trapped down there.

So from a strategic standpoint, that's again that site checks that box for us Thank you, you're welcome Lois This has been helpful Honestly the most helpful thing Not only you explaining the operations and why but hearing that you've already cut almost $4 million out of the project from dirt work. Because I have to say, I was coming in with no way am I going to improve $8 million for moving dirt. That's a lot of taxpayers' money. So you've made me more comfortable with your recommendation. And the only thing I would ask, because I think you're hearing it from several of us, eventually Holger is going to have yet another station up north. Please consider in the scope of that other station your need to have some substation up north that you do find a place that's co-located, that we find some synergies down the road, because it'll be brownfield and it'll be flat. And I think you're hearing from the council we would like to be very efficient with taxpayers' money. So that's all I have to say.

Excellent. Excellent point, Mayor Pro Tem. And that would, you know, as we look at airport expansion and we look at TSA requirements for us to be there right now, we're under if they call with an emergency, we're under a 10 minute window. We get tested on that. It's if you're leaving from downtown Prescott to the airport, even running lights and siren, it's close. Right. So we do like and I know Chief Dura will be happy to house us. They'll probably put a wall to separate us from them, but that's okay. But there will be that need out there as the north continues to expand. And if we see TSA requirements change, that we have to be at every flight, because right now we don't. But that could come at any point. So it would make a lot of sense. And he and I have talked about that. So it will make a lot of sense for us to co-locate.

So I'm hearing it's an excellent location. There just happens to be a mountain on it.

Yes, Mayor. Unfortunately, Prescott is short on flat areas. But yes, other than that, it did meet a lot of the needs that we have.

Mr. Ruby. Is there any scenario in which separating the evidence center and the other needs, if that did create a cost savings, is that something that you could feasibly consider?

Yeah, Councilman Ruby, excellent point. Again, we're so early in the design that if we do see that we could separate and it saves money and it doesn't impact efficiencies, to the point that it's become inefficient, we could definitely still look at those options. But keeping it co-located, it is important. People that do show up to retrieve their property sometimes are not real happy. So having it in a facility where there are officers that can respond is important for our civilian staff to make sure that they're safe. So that was the other big factor we took into consideration, that we don't want to isolate them to where if something did happen, we don't have anybody there to keep them safe.

Let me just make this suggestion. When you make the big cut in the hill and make the scar, can you terrace it? so that it can be landscaped and prevent all the storm runoff. Because we haven't been doing that. If you come into the entrance of our town when ADOT did the interchange there, they just took out that hill and they didn't step it back or terrace it. And it's just an ugly scar that's been sitting there for I don't know how many years. Nothing's growing on it. and it's right at the entrance to our community, whereas if they had taken a few minutes to just think about it and terraced it a little bit, and stuff would have started growing there.

to, to our city managers point at some point when we can show you options, we have some renderings that we can show of how we're terracing and tearing that off to account for a lot of that. Uh, it would be wonderful to have everything flat, but we know that that's not possible. So that's one of the main things that we've had our design team, our architects and our civil engineers working on that, um, for that very reason. And so when we, when we get those renderings, um, to the point where they're good for you for you all to see well we're happy to bring them forward so you can take a look at the I know again I give Chief Holger Dura a lot of credit like he has big foam boards of the potential and I think you commented once on the different styles so we're a little behind them in the process but when we get to that point we'll do the same thing so you can kind of see the different options that we have and what's the plan for the dirt

Where is it going to be sold or fill in a ravine or where is that dirt going?

There could be some efficiencies with what they need for their sites versus what we have on our site.

And again, just like Chief said, there's gonna be multiple options. We'll see how things progress in the schedule. There's a need for dirt at 76. That site needs to come up a little bit. There's a need for dirt at 73. So the dirt could be hauled to that location. If the CMAR has a big project they need to haul dirt to, we could see some economy there if they have a project where they need to haul dirt to do a fill on another site. So there's multiple options. It can just depend on our contractor. who's there at the time, and like I said, there could be multiple options and see where it lands, but there are needs around the area for dirt, and we'll move it as efficiently as we possibly can.

Well, hopefully there's more dirt than rock.

No problem.

Because you can use the rock for the retaining walls. Okay, are we about done here? Do I hear a motion?

Mayor, I'd like to make a motion. I move to approve city contract 2027-005. Second. Please vote.

Passes 7-0.

Thank you all very much. Appreciate it.

Next item, adoption of resolution number 22. 2026-1996, and ordinance number 2026-1952, ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona, amending the City of Prescott City Code Chapter 2-1, Public Works Department, Section 2-1-8, Utilities Division, PROVISION OF WATER TO THE AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS, RULES AND REGULATIONS BY ADOPTING THE PUBLIC RECORD DOCUMENT ENTITLED REVISIONS TO CITY OF PRESKET CITY CODE CHAPTER 2-1, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SECTION 2-1-8, UTILITIES DIVISION, PROVISION OF WATER TO AREAS OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS, RULES AND REGULATIONS.

GREAT JOB, TORI. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, MAYOR PROTEM, COUNCIL, CHELSEA WALTON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. Here to introduce an item that council asked us to bring back during the May 12 meeting, so a very brief recap. Currently, city code allows service of city water outside city limits for one single family dwelling unit on a parcel of land provided it is connected to both city water main and a city sewer main. So city staff, the issues around bringing this item originally is that city staff received numerous inquiries for water service for parcels outside city limits, which are adjacent to city water lines, but nearly all are not close enough to feasibly connect to an existing sewer line. Additionally, policy has changed throughout the years on water service outside city limits and these areas have existing water lines that service other existing homes, but there is no water service agreement in place. Additionally, some properties have had water boxes installed at their property line and these neighborhoods are within the city's water service area. So at the March 3rd, 2026 Water Issues Subcommittee meeting, staff received direction to forward a proposed code revision to Council. At the May 12 meeting of Council, staff presented you all with a list of five alternatives and staff was subsequently directed to bring back a code revision that applies to only an eligible definitive list of parcels. So the resolution on page 474 of your packet contains that definitive list of the 53 parcels in question, and the ordinance on page 469 of your packet contains the verbiage of the proposed code change that would allow these particular parcels to connect to City Water. We've gone over this several times. I know it's late in the evening, so that concludes my presentation, but I'm available if you have any questions.

Thank you, Chelsea. And I want to thank you and city staff, Brian Ruiz, Water Resources, and Legal for all their hard work. This is a problem. These are old lots. They're out in the county. Paperwork was lost. Things weren't recorded. But to me, it's obvious that the There's the intent that city water was supposed to be Supplied to these lots if you look at Vista Del Ciero They've got the water box right at the property line. They have a water main right out in the street and all the neighbors are hooked up and We didn't help with our new water policy by change. We moved the goalposts So these good people of the county are in limbo. And I was first made aware of it when Supervisor Chris Cucnio contacted me and said, hey, can you help me out? And so we swung into action. And I think we've got a list. This is kind of a one and done thing. It's not going to set up precedents or anything. I support this 100%.

Mayor, may I address a few of the questions that came up?

Yes, I was going to ask.

Yeah, thank you. So as you mentioned, it was the 2022 water policy that sort of created this requirement to connect to sewer. And this policy is still important to council. So the intent is not to loosen that requirement, but to address those specific properties that had In indications of an intent to serve by the city and so the water was available at the time but for whatever reason these properties didn't connect and so one of the questions or Directions that was brought up in our last meeting was how do we make sure there's no slippery slope? That this just opens up for many properties to come through and so we address that primarily through the specific list of the 53 parcels And that's in the resolution. And then secondarily, by placing into the actual ordinance the kind of exhaustive or comprehensive review that we had done to make sure that we are only capturing those properties that had an indication of an intent to serve. There's three other things that was brought up at the time of our last meeting that I want to address. One was to make sure that if there's any wells on the properties, that those be abandoned. And we included that in there. That in terms of water conservation, that there be a prohibition on turf. grass turf at those properties which we included in in the ordinance and then finally there was a question about a in lieu of fee for these properties where since they weren't connecting to sewer that we would charge it in lieu of fee and Looking at that we felt like we were not able to do that Especially as it applies to the specific 53 parcels. I think that's something we could do in general But it would have to be applied And a blanket matter across all properties that receive city water but are not on city sewer. And we didn't think that this was the appropriate vehicle for doing that. So that's how we tried to address the concerns brought up. And like Chelsea mentioned, I think we did that.

Thank you, Joe. Mr. Gamboge.

Kudos to city staff and our attorney. I think this is a very rational process. Many of us have been out to the site. It makes all the sense in the world and it clears the decks. So it's after six o'clock. Unless we have any resident input, I think we ought to limit the bloviating and make a motion.

I THINK WE HAVE A COMMENT FROM MR. RUBY. Go ahead. I didn't know that was a word.

I mean, I think the principle, this is one of those cases where principle and practice is really important to look at. The principle that we have of making sure all new development that is annexed into the city has sewer for wastewater recharge is really important. I kind of broke down the numbers. I knew that some of us had requested the numbers. We never really got them. But I went up there. I broke down the numbers. We'd have recovered like 200 acre feet over 20 years at best. And the cost for putting sewer in is just extraordinary. So for those of you out there who are very concerned about this, this is a smart financial move. And it helps these folks out. Is my bloviating done, Ted?

That was very well done.

You're among the masters.

Yes, Sensei.

Well, what's a few more minutes? Shall we take some public comment? We just have one from Arthur Klein. Thank you.

Good evening, Mel. I'm on the board with Mrs. Alcero, and you pretty well covered everything. I just wanted to point out that some of the lots that were sold were nobody built on them yet. They're going to be worthless if they don't get the water rights. That's about it. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

And Mr. Shingledecker is traveling, so he couldn't be here. But I do have a letter from Alan Marchione. I would just like to read a few of his comments. There is zero cost to the city. And there are 10 lots in phase two that were denied connection because a water service agreement couldn't be located. It must have been lost or not recorded. This doesn't mean that it didn't exist. When phase two was developed, the developer oversized the water main and put in a water pumping station built to city requirements. and it was handed over to the city. And like, as we all know, phase two, they all have existing taps on the water main and water boxes. So there's obviously a clear intent by the city to provide water. And at least two lot owners have already been negatively financially impacted by the denial of water. I think that we just need to do the right thing here. So do I hear a motion?

Madam Mayor, I'd like to make a motion. But I have a point of order. Joseph, can you make a motion on a resolution and an ordinance together?

Yes, sir, you can.

Therefore... I move to adopt resolution number 2026-1996 and move to adopt ordinance number 2026-1952. Second. Please vote. Thank you.

Passes 7-0. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone, for hanging in with us for another record-breaking. But we will be taking our summer break, as Lois had noted. We'll see you back here at August 11th.

I know I didn't.