City Council - Regular Meeting

Take your seats, the meeting is about to start, thank you. Good afternoon, today is August 25th, 2026, and this is the City Council voting meeting. Roll call, please.

Mayor Roussing.

Here.

Mayor Pro Tem Furworth. Here. Councilman Fredrickson. Here. Councilman Gamboge.

I am here.

Councilman Goering.

Here.

Councilman Grady.

Here.

And Councilman Ruby.

Here.

All are present. We'll now have introductions and announcements from Mayor Pro Tem, followed by a moment of silence from Mayor Roussing.

Good afternoon, everyone. A couple of announcements coming up in the next few weeks. This Wednesday, August 26th, please join Mayor Roussing, the council, and city leaders for a public safety tax initiative town hall that's happening at 4 p.m. at the Federal 101 West Goodwin this Wednesday. We'll be doing an update on the current status of the initiative. how the current plans and costs compare with the original plans and costs so some public reconciliation going on so please come to attend ask questions and learn more where we're at hope to see you all there ion water information and sign up wednesday september 2nd at 1 pm the city's water resources team will host an ion water information and sign up event at the prescott public library residents can learn more about upcoming water meter upgrades, water conservation tips, and how Ion Water can help you better understand your water use or your water leaks. Free water saving items will be available and staff will be on hand after the presentation to actually help you set up your account so you can monitor it from your phones. A general plan open house. On Thursday, September 3rd at 5.30 p.m., the city will host an open house at the Grace Sparks Activity Center at 824 East Gurley regarding Prescott's general plan. The general plan establishes the community long-range vision for the next 20 years, and residents are invited to share their thoughts on growth, development, neighbors, hoods, transportation, and so on. Meet your city at the Farmer's Market on Saturday, September 5th, starting at 7.30 a.m. You can stop by and see Councilman Patrick Grady, joined by members of our airport staff. So come on by, say hello, connect, bring your questions, and Patrick can answer them or get you an answer. Labor Day closures and schedule changes. In observance of Labor Day, city offices, the Prescott Library, the transfer station will all be closed on Monday, September 7th. No trash collection will occur on Monday the 7th. All trash and pickups are delayed by one day throughout the entire week, so advise your neighbors too. Normal hours for the City Hall Library and the Transfer Station will resume on Tuesday, September 8th. And the last piece of news for September, did you know it is the September Pollinator Challenge? Throughout the month, Recreation Services Team is joining parks and communities across the country in a fun challenge to see how many pollinator species may be documented. The month-long event will culminate with a final event at Watson Lake on September 30th, So for more information or to participate, contact Recreation Services at 928-777-1121. Thank you. Thank you.

We will now have a moment of silence. We have a large number of city employees here to honor the memory of Scott McClinton. He was a dedicated employee of the city for 29 years, and he was currently the capital projects manager. And also please remember his wife who was in the hospital as a result of this accident. I'd like to ask the city employees to please come in a little closer to the room and come in out of the hallway. Thank you. And after the moment of silence, we'll have an invocation by Pastor Lance Duffield of the Restoration Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilwoman Mary Fredrickson. Everyone, please stand if you're able. Thank you. Thank you. We'll have the invocation. Please remain standing.

Heavenly Father, we thank you for the privilege of living in a beautiful city. We thank you for these elected officials, for the fact that they've stepped up, to the calling that you have for them to make decisions on behalf of the people of Prescott. We pray today that you will, by your spirit, guide us. We know that your scripture says that if we ask for wisdom, that you will give it. And so we ask for it today. I ask for unity, for compassion, and for justice. In Jesus' name, amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands,

We'll now have a presentation from Vitalant Blood Donations regarding the Battle of the Badges blood drive.

Mayor, vice mayor, council members, my name is Jim Galoon. I'm the senior account manager for Vitalant Blood Donations. On June 26th and 27th, our community came together.

Hey, Jim, could you pull the microphone down?

Can you hear me now? On June 26 and 27, our community came together for an annual Battle of the Badgers, which was the first year. This year, stakes were higher, the spirit was stronger, and the impact was deeply personal. This successful event was held in honor of a true community hero, Sergeant Rick Lopez. Sergeant Lopez's legacy of service inspired every single person who walked through the doors. We want to extend our heartfelt thank you to Kim Lopez, Logan Roberts, and the community for their dedication and strength and leadership that kept Rick's memory alive and drove this event to unprecedented success. Our local first responders brought their passion, their spirit, and friendly competition. While it was a closely fought battle between our dedicated emergency agencies, Team Law Enforcement officially secured the victory and took home this traveling trophy. We congratulate the law enforcement officers, though we know the ultimate winner was our community. At Vitalant, our mission is to save lives. but we cannot do it alone. We truly appreciate every single community member who rolled up their sleeves and stepped up forward. So we had 81 appointments for those two days, resulting in 72 completed donations. Our target was 98 units. We successfully collected an incredible 92 actual blood donations. But what's even more inspiring was that we had 23 new first-time donors who started off their journey and their legacy to help the community out and donate blood. So with that, you multiply that, multiple lives saved, we saved up to 144 lives saved. So thank you for the law enforcement. Congratulations, sir. Kim, you want to say anything? So thank you for the community. Yeah, this is going to be a floating trophy. So we're going to have another one the last week of December. So I think the fire department is going to be really pushing on you. So thank you for your time. And thank you for the community for supporting our blood donations throughout the year. You want to say anything, sir?

Oh, sure, sure. I'll move it up just a little bit. No, it was a great thing. Rick Lopez was a very good friend of mine. So it meant a lot for us to be able to be part of it. And yes, law enforcement outdid fire. So if Chief was here, I'd tell him that too. But it's a pretty amazing thing that we were able to do and, again, give back to the community. and help to protect people in our community and save lives. So we are very honored to be part of it, and again, for Rick's memory. So thank you.

Thank you. And I'd just like to say one unit of blood can be spun down to many different factors, and the blood donations are used to save lives of preemies, mothers who have just given birth, accident victims. It has so many uses, so if any of you are able to donate, please give Vivalant a call, and they'd be happy to get you in. Thank you.

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

Mayor, Council, my name is Carter Labarge, resident of Prescott. Prescott has doubled, more than doubled in population in the last 20 years to about 50,000 people and we've increased our department headcount on a steady basis. It fascinates me that the city's directors and managers are so laser focused on just a single assigned compartmentalized component of every project that we undertake. I watch as projects are dissected by adding more and more city staff. Questions from council are partially answered and then passed on to others for further expansion and clarification. The division of a single work project doesn't stop with staff. After diluting a project into tiny pieces, then you need to get a consultant to actually do the work. Doesn't anyone on city staff own a project from the cradle to the grave? That's the way I was raised. Now, we're paying our top administrator $250,000 plus annually. As a taxpayer, I have no conflict with paying for good help. I do, however, have a great deal of heartburn when our top administrator then hires out his job to one consultant after another and creates a culture that allows the department heads to follow his lead. Six weeks ago, we hired a new economic development director who supervises an economic development manager who works in tandem with a tourism manager. Mimicking Dallin, and with guidance from staff, his first time at bat, in front of the council. The new director did not tell you what work he and his two partners were going to do themselves. Instead, he laid out a magnificent plan to pay for really talented consultants who know what they're doing to come in and do the staff's work. All this for an amazingly low price of $306,000 plus. Now, all of these will come with extras because the consultancy is going to be here for immersion week in September and bring all their staff. It's gonna be cool. We're gonna have a great time. It's my belief that each member of this council and the mayor, all of you, have worked diligently all your lives. You've learned and overcome every obstacle placed in your way, and you have been successful in each of your specific fields. Each of us were required to deliver our own complete work product, or you just didn't stay around very long. That is clear and straightforward rule and that does not seem outlandish to me. If my views are out of line, perhaps we need a consultant to oversee all the other consultants. Then we can dispense with double paying salaries at levels where an individual is supposed to be trained and capable of doing their own work. So if you're up to it, I would like to task this council with a difficult assignment. It is up to you to find a way to inculcate our city manager into hiring staff that are capable of executing their own work. The culture he has built, which allows staff work to be passed on to consultants, includes the practice that this council must require him to tear down. We pay a fair amount of money to staff and we expect them to do their own work. Or maybe we just need more consultants. Thank you.

Thank you, Carter. Michael Marchand.

Good afternoon. Michael Marchand here. My topic today is Eye on Water. And Lois just actually stole some of my thunder with her announcement on the open house happening. I think that's wonderful. The main question I have for you guys on Eye on Water is what took you so long? I think it's a wonderful tool for the community. A couple of questions I have for you is I wonder what percent of people have actually signed up online for... for ion water to monitor their own water. Ted. Oh.

Excuse me. This is a call to the public. No comments from the council. Thank you.

The second thing I wonder is, since Ion Water has been implemented, what kind of savings have you seen or not seen throughout the community? I think those would be two good things, you know, the percent of the population that's signed up and what the savings might be. I'll also add that I'm the... the head of our landscape committee for our HOA, Walden Ranch. And I've managed to set up a unique email for our community and a password to go in it. I've linked together our five meters. And so anybody from our board or the landscape committee can log in and see how our water usage is doing. So nothing but compliments for the... for the system that you set up, good work.

Thank you, Michael.

Deb Thalassitis.

Good afternoon, Council. Deb Thalassitis, Prescott. In May of this year, you got a presentation from Terracon Consultants on a facilities condition assessment. And in his introductory remarks, Trent stated his consulting firm had provided a very detailed report to the city. He stated it again when he said Mr. Tim Legler also had a full report and that it could be provided to you all. Mr. Legler then stood up and affirmed he had a thousand page report and was working it into the city's budget. The consultant then reiterated the report was a thousand pages and full of pictures. So on August 11th, I submitted a public records request for this report and I got this response on August 14th. The city has yet to accept a final report and is currently working with the vendor reviewing the document for accuracy. Currently, there are no responsive documents for this request. I'm sure this response was an oversight since Mr. Legler stated he was already using the report in May. So I'm asking for your assistance in getting my records request completed or in moving the city's acceptance of the report along since it's been almost three months since the meeting. Thank you.

I'D LIKE TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO LOOK INTO THIS AND MAKE SURE THAT THE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC GETS THE REPORT AS REQUESTED AND I THINK THE COUNCIL WOULD BE INTERESTED IN GETTING THAT REPORT AND HAVING A STUDY SESSION.

All right. Our next item is the consent agenda. I did receive a request from Mayor Pro Tem to pull item A, but I have not received any other requests. So unless there is anything, council can take action on consent items B and C. Do I hear a motion?

To approve consent agreement agenda items B and C. Second.

Please vote.

Passes 7-0.

Thank you. And I believe Lois Freworth pulled this item and we'll begin the discussion.

Yeah, I'll begin. I pulled the item because we had something that I didn't hear but I went back and listened to the video and apparently some member of the council had asked for one public letter to be included in the minutes. We get... Depending on the meeting, we get somewhere between 20 to 100 or 120 public comments coming in the days before the meeting. To isolate one for me versus on one person's opinion is not the way it's supposed to be. I went out and looked at state statute about the purpose of minutes and what should be included. and just including a member of the public's comments versus all members. It doesn't state any of those, but for me, the minutes are supposed to be what was discussed here at the meeting or publicly commented on at the podium. So I'm moving to amend our minutes to remove the one public comment and approve the minutes as amended.

yeah i'd also like to comment the person that submitted the letter was welcome to come here and read the letter but we just received it which was wonderful all the council received this letter and i believe it was mr gamboge that asked that it be submitted to the minutes and i'm all for public input but i think that that kind of showed some sort of a favoritism towards this one person and either we start submitting everyone's letters or we develop a policy governing submitting these letters. Does anyone else have a comment? Oh, do you want to finish?

Yeah, you went right where I was going, so I did end up talking to our city attorney and also our city clerk, and I think there should be something added to our council rules of procedure and a decision made by this board of which way we wanna go. Is it all or is it nothing? But rest assured, if you public records request to see what all is being stated, you can get everything, okay? It's just a question of isolating things in minutes for me was peculiar. So that's my amended motion. Do I have a second? Second. Please vote.

Passes 6-1. All right, our next item is the consent ordinance. I've got a few to read through, so please bear with me. Item A, adoption of ordinance number 2026-1953, an ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona, authorizing the purchase of a parcel of land totaling .9905 acres, as well as an easement totaling .22 acres, from Prescott Broadcasting LLC, as well as the purchase of a parcel of land totaling 0.65 acres from the Williams Family Revocable Trust, authorizing the mayor and staff to execute any and all documents to effectuate said purchases. Item B, adoption of ordinance number 2026-1954, An ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona, authorizing the acceptance of three public sewer easements from the affected property owners of the Sundog Phase 3 Capital Improvement Project, authorizing the Mayor and staff to execute any and all documents to effectuate said acceptance. Item C. Adoption of ordinance number 2026-1955 in ordinance of the mayor and council of the city of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona, authorizing the acceptance of seven public water line easements from the affected property owners of the citywide water main replacement project phase one, authorizing the mayor and staff to execute any and all documents to effectuate said acceptance. Item D, adoption of ordinance number 2026-1956 in ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona, authorizing the acceptance of one public water line easement from the affected property owner of the citywide water main replacement project phase three, authorizing the mayor and staff to execute any and all documents to effectuate said acceptance. And item E, adoption of multiple ordinances related to city court fees as follows. Ordinance number 2026-1957, an ordinance of the mayor and council of the city of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona, amending Prescott City Code Title II, Chapter 2-7. by adding a new section 2-7-8, establishing the Prescott City Court capital construction fee and renumbering subsequent sections. Ordinance number 2026-1958, an ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona, amending Prescott City Code Title II, Chapter 2-7, by adding a new section 2-7-7, establishing a Prescott City Court sustainability fee and renumbering subsequent sections.

Boy, that was pretty good. I'd just like to clarify some of these, the purpose of some of these easements. We had some very wonderful members of the public that donated their property for an easement so that we could run water lines to improve fire flow in the Taylor Hicks neighborhood area. And we also had other members of the public that donated and sold some of their property to us so that we could realign our sewer system and make it more efficient. And then also the last ordinance is to establish some fees for our new municipal court that we are remodeling over there off of Goodwin. And these fees will not be borne by law abiding citizens. but will be borne by the defendants that have been convicted. I believe that if you're going to use our court system, then you should be happy to pay for that privilege. Thank you.

Madam Mayor, I'd like to make a motion. I'm sorry, I already pulled something.

Oh, yes. Yes, I pulled item 9E, and it's just a math update for purposes... of the discussion. I think our.

I'm going to approve the consent coordinates A through D. Second, please vote.

Passes seven zero. Okay, aye to me. I think the city judge is here to come up.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, members of council.

Welcome.

My name is Patrick Gann. I'm the city judge. Before I begin, there is one correction I need to make. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem, for bringing that to my attention. I dropped a decimal when I typed the surcharges. As we all know, 1% of $20 is 20 cents, not $2. It does put me in mind of the old joke for the businessman who was so successful, and they asked one time, how are you so successful? And he said, I have a 3% rule. I buy the item for $1, I sell it for 3%. So I have to tell you, that's not the way we do business in the court. We try for 100% accuracy. Unfortunately, we're very busy. And so I did make a mistake, and I own it. The actual amount of the surcharges is the $35. Total with the surcharges is $35 and some cents. So it's $1.80 too much. You are correct. These fees, we did approximately 8,000 cases last year based on the numbers I was able to get from the Administrative Office of the Courts. Unfortunately, we keep our numbers by charges, not cases, so that's a special report. I'm not the owner of the database, so I have to have that run. When I'm doing arraignments, which is the first time somebody comes in for a charge, I see the address because that's one of the things I ask people is, what is your address? What is current? About 50% of our cases are coming from outside of Prescott. That means we have 4,000 defendants of our city who are using our court system. That's less than 10 percent. The goal of these fees is to spread that out on the users as opposed to the other 92 percent of citizens to pay for the court building. And we desperately need the core building. We've got people who are using file cabinets for desks. You see the numbers. The numbers that I gave, those are the fiscal year ending 2026. They're updated as of August 7th. The reason I always give a date of when the numbers are updated is, as you're aware, we're about 60 to 90 days closing out matters, processing things. So those numbers continue to grow for about 90 days after the close of the fiscal year. What this does is this helps pay for the two new clerks that you authorize us to hire. It also puts the burden on everybody, whether you're getting a criminal charge or a civil traffic offense, a local ordinance charge, whatever it is, but it only applies if you're found responsible. If you're found not responsible or not guilty, there's no fee. It's only for people who are found responsible or guilty. Any other questions I can answer for the council members? Yes, Councilman Grady.

Yes, thank you. So I'm just curious, I applaud your financial creativity to put those fees together that certainly impact our budget. Did this come up during the budget process itself?

It did. It was one of the things that we added. And actually, in all fairness, what I did was I looked to other cities. I talked to other judges. Mesa was the first one to come up with these fees about 30 years ago. They were the ones who were the first ones to come up. You notice that the capital improvement fee, there's no surcharges because we're paying the city back because it's a reimbursement to the city. That's why we don't have to. acquire surcharges on it. So they did it. What they did just do, they built their $50 million court building. They've collected that fee for about 30 years. It was set to expire next year. I just read their minutes in front of their city council. They have asked to convert that fee into an ongoing maintenance fee, just so that you know.

So it's anticipated then that the Goodwin Street property renovation costs will be covered by these fees up to a certain point in time and then And then the fees drop off.

Absolutely, unless, of course, the council were to decide at that point, or a future council, hey, now we have the opportunity to purchase the building, as Councilman Ruby keeps asking. They could then convert that in, okay, we're gonna extend this fee towards the cost of the building. But that's up to council.

That's not something we can do.

Well, again, thank you for your creativity and your follow through.

Thank you. And I'd also like to mention that if you can't pay the fee all at once, we have a payment plan that you can join.

That is correct, and actually state statute allows the judge, based upon certain criteria, they can be waived. If the person is under the poverty line and only receiving disability, there are reasons and there's very specific criteria in statute that allow it.

Okay.

Madam Mayor. Yes. Point of order. I believe Councilwoman Freworth pulled this item because there was a typo, not to relitigate the justification for this. So I suggest we move on.

Thank you, Judge. Good to hear from you.

Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, Councilman Gamboge. Thank you.

Do I hear a motion? Yes. I move to approve the, oh my goodness, 2026-19. If you adopt, sorry. Item 9E. Second.

Please vote. Second.

That passes 7-0. Presentation, discussion, and public hearing regarding the CDBG Program Year 2025 Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report.

All right, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Council, Michael McGinnis with the Community Development Department. I'm your CDBG, your Community Development Block Grant Coordinator here with the city. This presentation will be covering the CAPER document. It's a HUD document. But before I get into that, I'd like to recognize our Citizen Advisory Committee, a seven-member volunteer committee selected by Council. If any committee members are in the room, if you could please stand to be recognized for all your hard work on this committee. Thank you very much. Those members include the chair, Mary Ann Suttles, the vice chair, Deborah Savoini, members Dan Hurlburt, Ginger Cutting, Betsy Howe, Deborah Miller, and Denise Minton. Thank you for your service. Okay, the CAPER, what is the CAPER? Well, it's a HUD acronym. It stands for Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report. It was in your agenda. It's a report that goes directly to HUD. It's not a pretty-looking document. It's a bulky, kind of clunky thing. But we send it to HUD to show what the city of Prescott has accomplished with their CDBG funding over the years. It measures progress towards our five-year consolidated plan, which we had completed last year with a lot of public input in our annual action plan. It's also a compliance document, so HUD uses it to see how the city is managing these HUD funds. And the last piece to it is it's meant to inform the public on what the city is doing with CDBG funds. There is a 15-day public comment period that ends today. This acts as a public hearing. And at this point, no public comment, but there might be some today. After the public hearing closes, I'll send this document to HUD for review and acceptance. So looking at the year, it was a big year for CDBG. We spent into the community close to half a million dollars, which is the most that we've spent since I've been working here the last three years. A big piece of that, and I'll get into it in a minute, was the CDBG-CV funds, that's COVID money that we got, I think four or five years ago during the pandemic, that was around $427,000 we finally spent. the rest of it this past year. So the money went towards goals and strategies found in the five-year consolidated plan. Transportation's a big part of that with people who care, New Horizons. Wrapped in Love Diaper Bank was also funded with CDBG funds for diapers and incontinence items for low to moderate income households and families in our area. And then the Prescott CARES phase two, that's, again, the CDBG-CV money. And what we were able to do with that leftover is a little bit over $110,000 was rental assistance, six months of rental assistance to 24 low-income households. They were primarily elderly individuals on fixed income, many of which were residents of the Bradshaw senior community. We were able to administer the Prescott CARES Phase 2 with the help of the Prescott Chamber of Commerce Foundation, Ms. Sherry Heine. We also had some infrastructure projects come to an end, finally. U.S. Vets Officer Quarters renovations, this was about four or five years in the making, a lot of hoops, but it did complete this year. On the slide are the pictures of the officer's quarters that were renovated, 23 units of veteran supportive housing. and being lived in by veterans, so really good news. Agape House transitional housing renovation was completed, serving 40 individuals within 14 families. And the last item here, these aren't all the accomplishments, just highlighting some of the bigger ones, was Prescott Community Cupboard was a new applicant, and CDBG, we always like seeing new applicants. And it was a big year for Prescott Community Cupboard. We helped them with CDBG funds, convert their space to a shopper's choice model. With your permission, Mayor, I have a representative from the Prescott Community Cupboard would like to say a few words.

Yes, we'd love to hear that. Okay.

Mr. Jim Phelps. the executive director with Prescott Community Cupboard.

I'm the new guy. Madam Mayor, Madam Pro Tem Mayor, city council members, thank you so much for supporting the block grant program. It is meaningful. Last year, fourth quarter, the state of Arizona took 400,000 people off of SNAP benefits. The direct impact on food banks was that our unique households increased by 40%. in the fourth quarter of last year. So far this year, we've maintained a 22% growth rate on the number of people we're serving. This renovation was essential because of the growth that we are experiencing. It's interesting that the US Vets is up there. Right today, as I speak, I have three members of my staff out at Fort Whipple arranging food delivery for the people who live in the 103 units there. This renovation made that possible. These vets are those who may have been formerly homeless. They're disabled. They're older. It's a food desert. And this renovation enabled us to serve food deserts all around the Quad Cities. But there are food deserts right here in the middle of the city of Prescott. If you can't get to a grocery store, you live in a food desert. And so we are approaching those places within the city to help bring food to them because they can't go to where the food is. And so this renovation was essential to that. It enabled us to expand our warehouse space, our shipping and receiving space, and then most certainly helped us create the shopper's model. The shopper's model is one where when someone comes in, they're not just given a bag or a box of food. They get a shopping cart. They make a rotation, as you can see, where they get to pick what they're going to eat. not told what they're going to eat. What it does is it creates dignity. And I know for our veterans, Shame is a big thing. So many of them don't want to come. So by us coming to them, we reduce that, that level of feeling like, oh, why am I here? In fact, I had a conversation with a man in our line. I asked him, what did you do for a living? He said, I'm a retired aircraft mechanic, US military. And I never thought I'd be in this line. But I have a 44-year-old son who can't work. He's disabled. He's on the spectrum. And so I'm here. That's who we serve. And especially within the city of Prescott, that's who we serve are these veterans. They deserve that honor. And we want to honor them by coming to them. And it's because of the block grant that made that possible. So thank you so much for doing that. And I should say that doing the numbers, more than 10% of the city of Prescott's population is served by us. So 10% of your constituents are receiving this food access. The elderly, those who are unhoused, veterans, moms with kids, that's who the food bank serves. And it's because of your support in helping us to expand our facility, we're able to serve even more. We're able to absorb that 22% where we're at right now. We've served 1,700 more households today. right now versus last year. That's where we're going. And it's because of support from you that makes that possible. So Mike is an awesome block grant guy. I've worked with many in the past, and he's terrific. So we're lucky to have him. So thank you so much.

Thank you. Well said. And our community is grateful to all of you for serving for our betterment.

All right, that's my presentation. Mayor, the last slide here. If there are any questions about the CAPER, I'm here to answer any questions. Lois, did you have a question?

No, no, I was going to make the motion. Okay.

Okay. Go ahead.

Oh I lost it.

Jay.

I just wanted to say I've been following the CDBG committee and just wanted to acknowledge Chair Suttles and her work and the people that are there. And while you can see that a half million dollars are being spent and that's through federal funding, the annual allotment is somewhat closer to like 250, right? And that is only a third of what was applied for. So just know that the need is far greater than what we're able to serve right now. And the heartbreaking decisions that that committee has to go through gives you a real idea of the needs within our community. So I thank you all for your work. And I make a motion to approve.

Close the public hearing.

I make a motion to close the public hearing.

Second. Please vote.

Passes 7-0. All right, thank you. All right, item B, adoption of ordinance number 2026-1959, an ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona, amending Title VII, Chapter 7-4, Section 25, C through H, and adding a severance clause, and adoption of ordinance number 2026-2000, declaring Chapter 7-4, Section 25, entitled Solid Waste Management, and the attachment entitled Exhibit A thereto as a public record.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Mayor Potem, and Council. My name is Emily Shai. I'm the Deputy Finance Director for the city. I'm here before you today to bring back before you the solid waste rate increase that we were directed to pursue during the May 26 study session. You'll notice that these slides are largely the same slides presented to you at that session, so I'm going to keep this presentation fairly brief. Direction was given to staff to stabilize the solid waste fund with the rate provided at that study session. And to recap, the primary changes are as follows. Residential monthly base rate increase will be to $31. The weekly four yard dumpster would increase to $144. And the transfer station tipping fee would increase to $125. These rates will become effective on October 1st, 2026. So as a quick reminder, staff was redirected to take a two-step approach. The first step was to do an internal analysis and propose a new rate, which we did in May. The second step was a more comprehensive consultant-led study that will look at future rates, service delivery options, and the long-term needs of the solid waste fund. Brady will be talking about that after this presentation. The rates before you today are intended to address the immediate financial need of the solid waste fund and will not replace that study. Why is this needed? The primary financial issue for the solid waste fund has been the increasing cost of providing service while the revenues have not kept pace. For example, hauling and disposal costs have increased 48.5% since 2020, and vehicle replacement costs are 50% higher than they were in 2020 as well. The insufficient cash flow has required solid waste to borrow from the general fund to pay for the vehicle purchases and has led to a negative net operating result, which resulted in the amount of approximately a deficit of $929,000 at the end of this last fiscal year. This is a visual. As you can see, in 2020, our hauling and disposal costs were approximately 3.6 million, and in 2025, those costs increased to over 5.4 million. On the right side of the slide, you'll see that a collection vehicle was $300,000 back in 2020, which was increased to $450,000 in 2025. These are the increases that have led to the solid waste deficit. This here is scenario one which includes the current rate structure that we have in place. As you can see this scenario, the operating deficit continues and the unrestricted fund balance continues to get worse. The second slide here just gives you a more in depth view of all the different costs that go into this and a five year projection. This is scenario two, which we discussed in May. Under this scenario, the operating deficit is eliminated within this fiscal year, and the unrestricted fund balance gets closer to breaking even. This scenario provides for solid ways to become more self-sufficient and to eliminate borrowing over time. Just a reminder that the future years depicted here are financial modeling only and do not replace the comprehensive rate study. And here is a more detailed look of all those costs and how they come into those projections. So in summary today, we are asking you to adopt resolution number 2026-2000 and ordinance number 2026-1959 to stabilize the solid waste fund while we are awaiting a new rate study to be completed. Thank you.

Emily, I have a question. What happens if we don't adopt these rates at this moment? What if we wait for, I know you've already done an internal review, but what if we wait for the more comprehensive consultants

Well, the deficit would continue and it would take us longer to get out of it. But those new rates would be, I believe, January of 2028 or as early, you know, it could be in 2027, but... That would push it out till January.

Because, so this is pretty much a Band-Aid approach until we can come up with a plan. Yes. Because I don't feel like we've, at this moment, we've taken enough time to look at all the options because I just want to let the public know that our options are basically cut services or increase fees. And we're a full service community. So do you want your trash picked up only every other week? Do you want to have to haul your Christmas tree to the transfer station? Do you want to haul all your hazardous waste whenever you clean out your garage to the transfer station? Because that's what we used to do. but now we have a curbside pickup. Recycling, our recycling program, we're losing money. 20 to 30% of it, I looked it up, we haul it to Phoenix. In the city of Phoenix, their statistics are 20 to 30% of it goes to the landfill anyway because we bag it up and it spoils it. So we need to look at our recycling program. I love recycling, I think it's a great idea. but we need to educate the public so it's more efficient or would we save money by just throwing everything into the landfill out on Cherry Road? Should we decrease the hours of the transfer station? And you know half of our users now are coming from the county and they pay the same rates as the people of Prescott. Should we ask the county to help ease the burden of their users? So we have a lot of questions here and I don't think we've had the time to answer them and we need fresh eyes to come in and give us some options. Does anyone else have some comments that they would like to make?

Madam Mayor, I've pushed my button.

Okay. I see you there. Lois is first, though. I have her on first in line.

Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. I am also where Kathy is. We've gotten a lot of public comments, very concerned about such a sizable rate increase. The public hasn't understood everything that's going on. We obviously have these kinds of questions that were being asked, and frankly, you come to the point that I don't know those of you, but I've moved a lot in my life with my career. This is the first community I've ever lived in that the community, the city, provides the service of hauling trash. Everywhere else I've lived, it's been outsourced to other companies. And the question is, when we think about Chino Valley and Prescott Valley, the two other closest municipalities don't provide these services. Is there scale to be had by joining and maybe outsourcing this and finding better costs options for the community. So I too am having problems with approving this right now. I have no problem with the Scenario 1 original slight increase from $24.33 to $25.30. That was part of the plan. I have no problem with continuing on the plan, but I really do think on our next item, the consultants that we've hired to do this who really is good at this kind of stuff I think we need to change the scope and we need to do a giant timeout and is this is this a service line that we should be providing as a city okay Ted where's Carter Labarge what I need him I think we're making I

MORE OUT OF THIS THAN IT REALLY IS. PUBLIC WORKS HAS DONE THE CALCULATIONS TO SEE WHAT IT TAKES TO BREAK EVEN. WE'RE TAKING IT FROM 24 TO $31. CORRECT. THANKS TO BRADY I ASKED WHAT OTHER COMMUNITIES CHARGE. PHOENIX CHARGES 51. BUCKEYE IS 31. TEMPE IS 31. Some of the surrounding cities are less, and that's because they don't provide the services we do. They don't do recycling. They don't do bulk item collection. They don't do hazardous waste collection, brush collection, or Christmas tree collection. I don't think we need to continue to lose money waiting on the study. And back to my good friend Carter LaBarge, I don't know that we really need a study. I mean, when someone brings up, well, why are we doing it? Why don't we have a private do it? Well, other privates do it and it's not an apples to apples comparison. I received a number of letters from residents. One was, he was on some trail and he saw refrigerators and all kinds of junk and his conclusion was we ought to make the transfer station free. If you don't do the services like we do, like Christmas tree pickup, you're gonna find Christmas trees on the side of the road, like I'd throw mine in Councilman Grady's yard. So I think we have a pretty good system. We just need to break, we don't need to lose money, we just need to break even. I think this is a good proposal. I don't think we need to spend $94,000 on a consultant to tell us we shouldn't collect Christmas trees.

Thank you, Ted. Let's see. Mr. Ruby, you're next.

Yeah. As I understand it, we're basically if this was a business, we're like running at a deficit. It's not bringing in what it needs to maintain. Unfortunately, this is kind of an essential service. I think we all want to have our trash taken away. So to me, this increase seems. good in that it keeps gets us back to being stabilized and and that seems something that we should vote on now I don't want to like see this type of deficit continue to grow.

Okay Mr. Grady.

Yes, I too am concerned with the growing deficit and I think it's better to take action today, but I have a couple of questions. So on page three of your presentation, we have included higher hauling costs and disposal expenses, 48% increase. One, do we expect to see that similar level of increase over the next several years and what's causing that?

For the hauling and disposal expenses, that's largely based on, you know, things that are out of our control. We have, you know, they have increased fuel costs and stuff like that, which is passed on to us. And we have a limited supply of people that are, you know, vendors that do that. And so that was a big contributor to this.

Do we expect that increase to continue? Is that what we're projecting currently, that that expense will continue at that same rate?

I would have to refer back to probably Brady on that. He's done some pretty extensive research into that.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Council. Councilman Grady, as far as what we can expect going forward, the hauling expenses, that contract I've gone over a couple times with you guys, so right now it's getting ready to end the initial term, which is in March 30th, 2027. There are two one-year options in there. As part of their contract, they are eligible for the full CPI, as well as biannual fuel adjustments. Now, that can either be in their favor or our favor. If it goes up, those get changed every April and October. Those get looked at. But as far as this contract, if we were to, in October, we'll have another fuel adjustment. And then when it comes up to the first year of the extension, they would be eligible for the full CPI on April 1st. So as far as the 48% increase, it's not going to be a 48% increase going on to extending that one year. Yeah, that was over five years, but they will be eligible for the full CPI.

Okay, thank you. And another question. So looking at the operating deficit, when we come out, obviously we come out gradually, but I see for the four years projected fiscal year 28 through 31, we're a fund balance of 2.8 to 2.4. Is there an industry standard on where we should be?

on the fund balance. So the industry standard from the GFOA is that we have 45 days of operating expenses available. So if everything went sideways, that we would still continue to be able to operate for 45 days. What we're seeing here is we're roughly at that unrestricted fund balance, which is what we can use, that's about 30 days. So we're not, we're actually behind what the industry standard is. So we're not carrying a whole bunch of unrestricted cash on hand.

Thank you. I would just add, Mayor, that I think that we do have a fiduciary responsibility. We're getting a lot of citizen feedback with respect to rate increases all across the board and I think we owe it to the community to do an assessment despite the fact that it's another consultant.

Thank you. Mr. Gehring.

Thank you, Mayor. My view is that this is an enterprise fund that needs to be in balance. The longer we wait, the further out of balance we're going to be and the higher the rate increase will have to be in the future. So I would support a scenario two.

Thank you.

And if we want to do a study for alternatives, that's fine. I think that's a good idea. But I don't want to continue the deficit. Thank you.

Yeah, apparently this deficit's been going on for, I don't know, several years, and we just weren't made aware of it until this year's budget discussion. Let's see. Mr. Ruby, did you want to speak still?

I have a question. Do you think there's effective ways for this department to be able to run more efficiently?

I believe they've already looked into all of those options before they ever presented the $31 at the study session. They did try different rates that were lower, but it just didn't stabilize the fund. But they did look into different numbers that weren't as high.

SO CITY STAFF HAS TAKEN SOME TIME TO LOOK INTO THE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS AND THIS IS THE RECOMMENDED SCENARIO.

YES.

THANK YOU.

Yeah, I understand where you're all coming from with scenario two. My only concern is I'm looking at the very bottom line of this chart, and we're starting to go positive. If we take the full price increase, we're going positive, and it keeps growing every year thereafter. But also built in there is I don't know how many vehicle replacements is 1.1 to 1.7 to 2.5 in the next two to three years. I would wonder if we could hold off and maybe take our commercial rates down, I mean not a commercial, our residential collection fees lower than the proposed $31. So we buy the time and not overcharge the citizens while we look at the question that will be the next item on the agenda. Um, and if we can buy some time, I think that helps. We have a lot of, we've heard from a lot of citizens that this is a, you know, this is a big amount. It's going to cause more people to go to our friends over at the food bank because it's going to add up for them. So those, that's my, alternative scenario too is to find if we held off on vehicle replacements for a year while we're doing this study or six months while we're doing this study, can we come in a little bit lower for the raise?

Mayor Pro Tem, in regards to holding off on vehicle purchases, obviously we went over the slide that shows what they are. They're about $450,000 for a vehicle replacement. Of course, if that was going to be council's direction for us to push vehicles, I will just caution just a few things. I mean, as part of the last forecast and fee study that we had, Prior to that, we were running vehicles anywhere from 10 to 15 years, and industry standard is seven years. As far as O&M and maintenance costs, years one through three, No problem. Go on regular oil change, a few hydraulic hoses here and there. Four or five years, it gets more and more expensive. Six and seven, it's very, very expensive. We have already been pushing off vehicle replacements in FY26 and FY27. We have already began pushing off vehicle replacements. Um, if it was council's direction for us to look and see what options we do have to push those future years, um, as far as an FY 27, um, some of the vehicles, I don't know if we have gone, we, I don't think we have purchased the front loader, which was the only collection vehicle. that was in there this year. And then FY28, I believe that there is two side loaders that had been pushed from FY27. Those already got pushed to 28. So if it's something that we wanted to look at a little bit harder, we could and consult with our fleet department and see what implications that would have.

I would appreciate that, especially the one that you said you had for this year. That will buy us the time to get through should we be in this service line before we start purchasing more. That's my point of view. And the other thing from a services standpoint, at least waste management, whose services I believe Prescott Valley and I'm not sure what other communities, they have a la carte services. So if you want household waste and those kind of things, you can pay for them. That's why... The citizens that have been reaching out are saying it's cheaper to go with them, and I know their service isn't as good as what our city employees do, but I think those are options we have to study and make up our minds, so that's where I'm coming from.

Yeah, Brady, I have a comment too. We're currently spending $30,000 a month to haul our recycles to the city of Phoenix. And is it just, are those, is that hauling a job going out to bid? Do we get tons of bidders for it or do we just get one bidder every year? How does that work?

Yes, Mayor. The last time it went out to bid, we did only receive one bid. There's not a whole bunch of people lining up to, in years past, haul for us. The contract before that, I believe it was in 2017, there was a total of two bidders at that time. So just historically, there has not been a whole bunch of people signing up or putting in a bid on this hauling opportunity.

But we need to make an effort to put the word out and get more haulers to bid because there's a lot of people out there that would love to have the city business. Another question I have, this contract came across my desk for $370,000 for plastic refuse and recycling containers with related technology services. solutions to extend the expiration date and add funds. Do you know what this means? Plastic refuse?

Mayor, if I may, I just am worried we're off topic. We will get to that contract. I think it's in two items. But for this item, I think it would be off topic.

All right. Thank you. I'll get back to that at the next item. Any other comments? Mary?

Thank you. It's an enterprise fund. I don't think we should be operating in a deficit. I'm on board with the $31. As shocking as it is to the individual residential customer, it's a big jump. And that's can be harsh. I have no doubt about that. Inflation was what it was through the COVID years and beyond, and that was, as was mentioned, out of our control. But the fact is, it's an enterprise fund that's supposed to carry its load, and we need to have the consumers of this service pay for it. But I do like the study session that's coming to address all of these issues and with the goal maybe of changing our services, putting them in a different posture that would prevent the need for any extraordinary increase later. But for the moment, this is what our service costs and we need to have the people that use the service pay for it. So I'm in support of the $31 for residential.

Okay, anyone else?

Madam Mayor, my light's lit.

Yes, Ted, you are lit.

How many years have we been losing money at this?

I can go back to that scenario. You see the first...

I can't read the screen, so you'll have to tell me.

It's a bit out there. I believe we first experienced the deficit in fiscal year 25.

Last year? Yes. You said 2025? Yeah, fiscal year 2025. And how much did we lose?

So our net operations was a negative $95,000. And then this year we're at a deficit of 1.2. So it's growing.

Deficit of 1.3 roughly? Yes, 1.283. I don't want to leave the impression that with the new rates that we're making money, we've already lost 1.3 million at this. So this, to me, is getting to the point where we break even. And I think it's important for... I want you people online and in the audience to know that what you're seeing is a lot of micromanaging. These people know how to collect trash. So our job is to help them do a better job, not to tell them how to do their job.

Thank you. Do we have any public comment? We do. Ken Fedeck?

Good afternoon, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, City Council, Ken Fittick, Soaring Avenue, City of Prescott, Arizona. I kept changing my notes as I heard the discussion, so I'm gonna cover a variety of topics, and I may even dip into the next one to save time in the future. Okay, so I understand there's a deficit. I'm hearing numbers 1.3 million if we take two years together. If that's accurate information, I understand the concern of council to address the deficit. How we got here, I guess is immaterial, we're here. Okay, so I get that part. But why don't you charge for Christmas tree pickups? Why don't you charge for hazardous waste? In California, There was hazardous waste. You brought it to the facility. You brought your Christmas trees to a facility. If you did that, they weren't going to charge you because you brought it. They may have a processing fee depending on what it was, but most of the time, you didn't get charged if you brought it to their facility instead of having somebody come by and pick it up at your residence. So there's a difference. So that's just one example. You could charge more for those special items. Those that have artificial Christmas trees are paying for people who have their Christmas trees picked up. Those that have old appliances are picking up for those that have new appliances. I understand covering the basic service one day a week, Mondays, Tuesdays, whatever it is, the regular service, if that's where the deficit is, then cover the regular service to cover the deficit. the alternative and i think one of the council members i won't go to who exactly but uh... How about allocating it across the board with an alternative? And we don't need a consultant to do this. Why can't staff figure out if Waste Management, that's headquartered in Phoenix, because they support a golf tournament down there, so they're a pretty big player in the state of Arizona, why don't staff just get a quote from Waste Management to do everything that you want to do and see if that compares to what they're proposing? I just think that's one simple way. You don't need to spend $93,000 on a consultant to figure that out. Somebody on staff should be able to call waste management and get somebody to come up here and make a presentation to city council. So, those are just some various comments, I could make more, but whatever you decide, remember, we don't want four three. Five two, six one, or unanimous seven oh votes on whichever direction you go. I'm not saying it's easy, but as a taxpayer, I want you to do what's traditionally right for the city, but for the people that are struggling now, you gotta look at the fee increases, and is there other ways to address that that's more productive and more efficient for us residents. Thank you.

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

Madam Mayor, I move to approve ordinance number 2026-1959 and resolution 2026-2000. Second. Please vote.

Passes 6-1.

Thank you.

Item C, approval of city contract number 2027-052 with Burns and McDonald to conduct a comprehensive solid waste rate analysis.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, Council, Brady Higgs, Public Works. Like Sarah said, this item before you is a contract with Burns & McDonnell to conduct a comprehensive review of the city's solid waste rates and financial structure. I know Emily had spoke about it before and showed the slide. On May 26th at the study session, council directed staff to look at option A. Obviously, the prior item was the first four bullet points. That was the public notice. Refine this scenario. Conduct a council consideration on the 25th. and the rate's effective. But that last bullet point was continue with a consultant-led rate study to identify future increases, timing, service delivery, policy decisions, and ultimately come up with a fee structure beyond what was just approved, which would be January 1st, 2028, 2029, and 2030. This study will look at the full cost of service providing each solid waste service to determine whether current rates or interim rates that were just decided upon are generating enough revenue and develop a five-year financial forecasting structure. It'll evaluate potential changes and service fees for recycling, transfer station rates, hauling services, commercial dumpsters, roll-off services, and the additional services that we were just talking about, household hazardous waste, bulk item collection, Christmas trees, brush collection. The study will also compare Prescott's rates and fees with other Arizona communities, as well as private haulers in the area, and make recommendations for fair cost-based rates supporting long-term financial sustainability for the division. The study, if approved today, is expected to be completed in the spring of 2027 and will give City Council the information and financial tools to make informed decisions about future rates, the services that we provide, and future capital needs. Before we kind of open it up to some of the questions, I was gonna go to this slide that we had seen kind of throughout the budget workshops. And I know that multiple council members and Mayor Pro Tem had made comments about wanting to see specific items throughout this study. So just a couple ones that I just wanna highlight for you. Task 2A, that's on page 506 of the agenda packet or page 15 of the contract packet. That is going to be associated with all of our additional services or possibly looking at a fee structure implemented for those additional services. That was something that we heard and we wanted to make sure there was a specific task allocated to that. On task 4A, which would be page 509 of the agenda packet or page 18 of the contract packet, that will specifically address Transfer station self-hauling as well as looking at contracted hauling and seeing if there is a way to be able to stabilize our rates in the future by looking at self-hauling versus contracted hauling. Task 4B. on the same page 509 of the agenda packet and page 18 of the contract packet there's also a section in there for a specific analysis for potential service changes and operational costs for recycling in the scope it talks about other municipalities across the nation that are looking at every other week recycling collection or ultimately not participating in recycling so that had gotten brought up previously as well as today too so there will be those items will be looked at Specific on task 4E, that'd be page 510 of the agenda packet or page 19 of the contract packet. That one is the specifically looking at city residents versus county residents at the transfer station under the long standing IGA where we do not differentiate city versus county residents. So I just wanted to make sure and highlight a couple of those ones that we had at least already provided, you guys had provided us feedback. and make sure that you guys knew that those items were in there. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions if anybody has any.

Thank you. Let's start with Mr. Lois, you're first.

Mr. Lois.

Mr. Lois, sorry. My answer to anything that resembles Lois. So I wasn't sure as I was going through the contract. I appreciated that you were taking a look at self-haulers and other operations, waste management, whatever, as alternative service providers. But I didn't really see in the... in the contract of the project that it was like, are we really going to, is that just for information or would we seriously look at if we were to outsource our solid waste to a third party company? Is that seriously being looked at? Because it didn't look like that to me reading this.

So, Mayor Pro Tem, as far as in this contract, that is not specifically looked at. We are comparing our rates. They would obviously, the consultant would reach out to all the local haulers in the area, understand what they are charging, and that could provide us a baseline. But inside this study, this is looking at current...

That's all I saw was rates. This is just about rates. This is not answering my bigger question of are we reaching the point that we should consider like all our fellow cities here in the Yavapai Quad City area of outsourcing this. So if I wanted that after seeing this, which I think this was due in March, so if I wanted that answer, we'd have to what, hire another consultant with another study? I'm just trying to understand.

Mayor Pro Tem, I don't think that you would ultimately need to hire a consultant to understand the pricing, but I think that this study is gonna give you guys the tools to understand what the budget implications are, that if we started charging for additional services, or if we started charging county residents different, or if we looked at self-hauling versus contract hauling, that it might be able to reduce our net operating costs and not have to have rate increases, or possibly the rate could go down.

And I appreciate that that's what your scope is, but I'm pushing for looking at the bigger, is this the tipping point that we should be looking to outsource like most other cities are to people that this is their specialty? And so what we're being asked to vote for today is simply a rate study.

Yeah, so I'll add a little bit to that. So with the couple of things. First of all is with the data, with the rates and that information that would be included here, we can have that conversation. We can talk about, hey, here's the rates of doing it differently. How does that compare with the rates of keeping it here? And... and i think the other part of that conversation would be um do we you know in a lot of other places like the county they're not outsourcing it they're just not doing it and then private companies are coming in and going wherever um the the um maybe concern we would have with that is then you might have three or four or five different trash trucks coming down every road in the city and now you're paying more for roads. And so what we might do is look at the procedure we would use or the instrument we would use to say, okay, if we decide the rates look better, then can we bid the service for a single company to come in at a better rate and provide the service? So you've got one set of trash trucks running everywhere, or do we want to back out? And we say, you know what, we'll let everybody run their own trash truck wherever they want to go. I think those are all conversations we can have. Once we have the data of what does the pricing structure look like to consider a private solution to trash collection. Even, and I would distinguish too for the council two things. The bid scenario or the scenario where we're still involved with the transfer station but allowing a private company to do distribution would still mean we have significant costs related to operating that transfer station. And so that will be something we'll have to consider and talk about as we get more data, is are we talking about outsourcing the whole thing? Are we talking about getting out of the game altogether? Or are we talking about we own it, but we bid it where it makes sense? And maybe I'll just give you one other example is, I know for a long time, I haven't looked if it's this way recently, but I know for a long time in the city of Phoenix, they took their seven districts and they bid each one separately and they had city services bidding against private services just to ensure that in each area of the city where the details may be different, the topography might be different, the whatever might be different, The service that could provide it most efficiently and effectively was the one that was being used. And so there are solutions like that that we can absolutely consider as we get data to compare the options.

I have a comment. Didn't Patriot Disposal go to the state legislature and get a law change so that they could compete picking up trash here in the city of Prescott and they can pick up businesses but not residential? So we already have private haulers servicing our businesses.

Yes, Mayor, that is correct. That is for commercial service. For commercial service, but not residential. Mayor, it is residential to a certain degree, but it's considered as multifamily. So four and under must be collected. Four units or under must be collected and it's considered residential service. Five or more is considered commercial service and we compete for.

OK, so we are being competitive with some of the private haulers and people can change if they want. They don't want to use the city of Prescott. They can use another hauler if they have a business.

Yes, that is correct.

OK. All righty. Let's see, Mr. Ruby.

Yeah. So I heard a lot of comments and you probably heard them as well as Carter brought up. Is there a reason why city staff could not do this fee study itself? I'm curious. I mean, this may require a certain kind of expertise. It's an open question to kind of answer what came up from the crowd.

Yeah, Councilman Ruby, I think that there is a certain standard outside of just this company being a Prescott location or looking at the five surrounding haulers or the three closest municipalities. A lot of these consultants have national ties and have faced similar instances or communities facing the same struggles, whether it's hauling costs or disposal costs or looking to get out of it, that I think that it comes with a certain set of expertise that they've handled numerous cities in numerous towns and certain applications fit that. I don't think that city staff is completely incapable of rounding up and understanding the idea and the forecast and working with finance. I mean, we just did that in May for you guys to come for the item before you as far as looking at our financial status. But I think that there is a certain value of maybe somebody else at the podium giving you, I'm not a city staff member point of view of looking at this holistically from the outside, it looks like your roll off service is not utilized and maybe should not be part of your guys' program or you guys only have so many participants in your additional services that maybe look at doing something different.

It's kind of like an audit of sorts where you might have some blind spots within the department that doesn't see these things and these people are doing this all over the country and they would be able to organize that better. Is that a way of saying it? Yes, correct. Thank you.

Is there a representative from Burns and McDonald's here?

There is not, Mayor.

Would it be possible to ask them to increase the scope of their study to look at maybe privatization and efficiencies rather than just studying rates?

Yes, Mayor, I believe that is something that we could ask them in their scope. I don't know if that's going to be necessarily in their purview as far as the contract to today. I don't know if that would look at possibly holding this contract up or approving it and amending it for an additional item to be included in the scope, but not having a conversation with them, I don't want to say yes or no, but the question could be asked.

Okay, thank you. Let's see who's next. Ted?

I just want to present a caution. Cardinal LaBarge has talked to this. Ken Fittick's talked to this. We seem to have this crutch where instead of solving the problem with common sense, we go out and hire a consultant. And our track record is not very good. The consultant we hired on workforce housing, in my humble opinion, was an abysmal failure. Same goes with the guy that we hired for the general plan. I think this is a simple matter of breaking even. every year and adjust the rates accordingly. Given the rates you've shown me from the communities down south, even when we raise the rates, we'll be lower than just about everybody. To Ken Fittick's point, take for example the Christmas trees. A lot of people do have plastic Christmas trees. It's a nice feature. Now if I go to the email from the resident, and I've said this before you spoke, so if we don't spend the money to collect Christmas trees, we're gonna find Christmas trees in Patrick, I'm suggesting everybody that has a natural Christmas tree to put it in Patrick Grady's yard when you're done with it. You know, some of these conveniences keep the city clean. And I think that's a value that you really can't put a price tag on. Carter, I quoted you and you missed it again. So I'm not big on hiring a consultant. I think you guys know enough to break even. We don't need to destroy the whole process we have just because somebody has an idea of going out and hiring Dewey, Cheatham, and Howell garbage service.

Any other comments? Yeah, I'm wondering if we're overthinking this. You've been with the city for how long in the solid waste department, Brady?

Mayor, 12 years.

12 years. So I think you and your team, I'm a frequent visitor to the transfer station, and I think you run a pretty... efficient operation out there. So maybe we're just overthinking this and maybe we really don't need a consultant and we can just solve this problem ourself by looking at getting some public input about maybe consolidating our services, maybe having one central point for people to put their Christmas trees. I have an artificial one myself. I haven't had a real tree in years. And maybe we'll have to go back to if you clean out your garage, you have to wait till we have our annual hazardous waste drop off where people just line up and drop their stuff off. But we need to keep, like Ted said, we need to keep our city clean. And it also includes the forest. I don't like it when I'm out hiking and I see mattresses and couches dumped out there in the woods. So I don't know. That's just an option. Do we really need to hire this consultant? Or maybe we can take care of it ourselves and shave off a million dollars from this debt. Any comments before we vote? And we have the public, too, to speak.

I'm just curious about do we have the capacity within the city to analyze the self-hauling impact? Because that seems to be a critical part of saving money.

Yeah, Councilman Ruby, I can tell you back in, I believe it was 2016, the city had done kind of a preliminary estimate to ultimately put a, like, look at the cost of what it would cost to, what it would cost to purchase these type of vehicles and equipment to do the self-haul, but as far as it came down into price per ton, we didn't get that far, but We have the resources inside the city to understand how much the vehicles are going to cost, HR and finance for employee costs, and finance to figure out if this was going to be a capital outlay and it was going to cost 10 years to pay off this $2.5 million worth of capital, that maybe you'd be money ahead after the third year. I believe that that's something that we could look at internally.

And would that be like a burden on your department or is that something that can work within the workflow of the department?

Councilman Ruby, I don't think it's a burden on the department. Obviously, it's going to take staff hours and rounding up quotes and understanding if this is a direction that we really want to go. And we're in the market of trying to keep the cost as low as possible. So I would say that we would make the time to get that looked at.

Thank you.

Okay, do we have any public comment? No, Mayor. What?

There is a God, he is merciful. Yeah.

Okay, well, I did get a letter from Matthew Cordua. He couldn't make it here today because he is a caretaker for his wife. And he says, I understand the solid waste fund is facing a deficit, but asking residents to pay the full increase on October 1 before the planned consultant-led rate study is finished means we are being asked to cover the shortfall without seeing the full plan for efficiencies, service options, or long-term cost controls. I respectfully ask council to postpone this vote or at a minimum consider a smaller interim increase, a senior or low-income consideration, and a phased approach tied to the results of this rate study with clear public reporting. That is one public input that we have from a citizen. I think we can handle this internally, and we may have to cut a few feet. I mean, cut some services. You know, what's basic? Let's look. We're offering Cadillac services at a Chevy price. So the question to the public is, do you want to... get paid Cadillac prices for Cadillac services or should we all just get back to the basics and drive Chevys? So do I hear a motion?

Madam Mayor, I move to not approve city contract 2027-052. No second. Motion fails.

Do I hear another motion?

Mayor, I move to approve City Contract 2027-052. Second. Please vote. Passes 6-1. Thank you.

Next item is a discussion regarding city contract number 2024-204A2, an amendment to city contract number 2024-204 with City of Phoenix to receive and process recyclable materials collected by the City of Prescott.

Good afternoon again. I'm Brady Higgs, Public Works. So this item was an item that was approved on the FY27 AEL list, but I understand that they think that there may have been some confusion or a couple questions regarding this contract. Like Sarah had said, this item before you is an amendment for the City of Prescott to continue its existing recycle processing partnership with the City of Phoenix through an intergovernmental agreement. For the past 10 years, the City of Phoenix has accepted and processed residential and commercial commingled recycling at their North Gateway Transfer Station. The annual cost of this service is tied to market value of recycling commodities. The City of Phoenix charges us a standard processing fee that's based on a price per ton and that processing fee can be offset by their average quarterly outbound blended rate. So to simplify that, when commodity values are low, the City of Prescott receives a smaller offset resulting in a higher net processing to process recycling fees. So when recycling commodities are high, the value of the recycled materials provides a larger offset in our net recycling costs, and in some cases the value of this material can exceed the processing fee, allowing the City of Prescott to receive a revenue share from the City of Phoenix. This agreement allows us, the Prescott, to continue providing recycling services to our residents and our businesses while sharing in the potential financial benefits when the recycling markets are favorable. And with that, I'll answer any questions.

Yes, this contract is costing us $30,000 a month to haul our recyclers, recycles to the city of Phoenix. I looked at their website and they said that 20 to 30% of the recycles are rejected because it's not clean. Apparently your recycling items have to be clean. They specifically talked about greasy cardboard pizza boxes. So they're pretty strict, and especially if you put a liner in your blue can and bag it, it automatically goes to the landfill. So if we're going to continue with this program, we need to re-educate the people and have more clear handouts so they understand what they can recycle and what they can't recycle. There is a 30-day cancellation notice. So I think that in order to prevent our recyclables from building up while we wait for the consultant's plan to come through, that I recommend that we approve this just to keep things moving. And then if we find a better way, a different person, entity that will take our recyclables at a more cost-effective rate, then we can just break the contract with the 30-day notice. Like I said, I support recycling, but these plastic bottles, individual, plastic bottles, we're drowning in them. Why people can't use stainless steel reusable bottles that'll last them the rest of their lives, I don't know. But we definitely need to change our habits. We need to educate ourselves if we're going to be good stewards of our community. Any comments? Jay?

Yeah, you mentioned that sometimes we get a return on our recyclable materials. Just in the past year, what have our best months been and has the offset ever been in a positive for us so we're not paying 30,000 a month but getting some money for the materials? I'm curious just how that looks.

Yeah, Councilman Ruby, I'll tell you that it hasn't been the last few fiscal years. We've been paying for recycling, processing of recycled materials. Last time we received revenue from the city of Phoenix was in FY23. FY22, another couple years where there was nothing, and then FY14 to FY18 when the recycled market was pretty favorable, we were receiving anywhere from $50,000 to $80,000 a year in revenue from the recycling.

Is there any, it's the cost or the value of the recyclable materials has decreased, so they're not giving us what they used to give us.

Yeah, and just finding domestic markets for this.

Because that's true, the Chinese decided they didn't need any of our recyclings, they had enough from other sources. And so there just isn't a market for them anymore. Mary, do you have a comment?

Brady, maybe you know just from your contacts in the industry, do you perceive any change coming by which recyclables will have more value, or are we just doing a feel-good mechanism here that does not have any impact in the world's status of trash?

Councilwoman Fredrickson, I'd say possibly a little bit of both. The recycle market fluctuates. I can tell you in the past two fiscal years, processing recyclables has been cheaper than hauling that same material to the landfill on an average year. We've been $20 to $30 cheaper price per ton, but there still is a cost associated with it. We're not receiving that revenue, but it is cheaper for that material to be processed as recycling compared to hauling it to the landfill.

Do you have a number as to how much money we're losing or how much it's costing us, the recycling program?

Yeah, Mayor. Yes, Mayor. The NFY 26 recycle processing fees cost $181,000. I think that that's kind of a, I mean that's for a year. I mean obviously it's a tonnage game is what it comes down to, but historically the city of Prescott holds roughly around 5,000 tons of commingle recycling that's collected from residents and commercial businesses in the area.

5,000 tons? Correct. Wow. That's a lot of recycling. Okay, any comments from the public?

No, Mayor.

Okay. Any comments? Jay, do you have another comment? Okay. All righty. Ted?

I'd like to make a motion.

Okay.

I move to approve city contract number 2024-204A2. Second. Second.

Pass the 7-0. Thank you. It's about 5 o'clock. I think we should take about a 10-minute break, stretch our legs, and then we'll continue with the rest of the agenda. Thank you.

Thank you. She said go ahead.

you know

Thank you. So now, Thank you. Thank you. I saw Paul earlier at the BCU.

All right, our next item is approval of city contract number 2027-044 with fan contracting for construction manager at risk pre-construction services for the effluent and wastewater pipelines and SR 89 improvements project.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Tim Sherwood, Public Works. As Sarah mentioned, this item is for approval of a construction manager at risk or CMAR contract for pre-construction services for the effluent wastewater pipelines and SRAD9 improvements project. The project is an important part of the city's centralization effort by replacing the failing effluent line and installing a second gravity sewer main and also making necessary traffic improvements along SR-89. We started outreach for this project back in the summer of 2023. We've been in front of Council several times in study sessions and in open houses. Through the summer, through 24, 25, last year, we held a couple of public comment periods where Kimberly Horn was selected as design engineer for the project. They presented three 15% design concept reports to council, and council ultimately selected alternative 2C, which was a non-widening option in the project. Sure. So we're at the point now where we received our 30% plans from Kimberly Horne. They've been reviewed by staff and returned to the consultant. And the city advertised for a request for statement of qualifications for a construction manager at risk in May of this year. Statement of qualifications, or SOQs, were received on June 11th. A five-member selection committee was selected and reviewed and ranked the SOQs. Fan contracting was ranked as the top firm, and city entered in negotiations for a pre-construction services guaranteed maximum price, or GMP, contract. As part of the pre-construction services, Fan Contracting will collaborate with Kimley Horne and city staff throughout the remainder of the design process. The CMAR helps kind of bridge the gap between that design and construction portion. They're on board through the whole phase of the design, so they're able to look at value engineering proposals, provide alternatives, anything that they can look at from a construction standpoint as opposed to a design standpoint. The CMAR will act as a key consultant during design phase to help optimize buses and schedules as well as constructability. City anticipates starting construction spring of next year. Funding is budgeted and available in FY27 in the wastewater and streets funds for this project. And public work is recommending approval of the contract to fan contracting in the amount of $358,208. And with that, I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Well, thank you. This is moving along. It's been a long time coming to this point. I have a few questions. First of all, I'd like to ask legal about this contract. I understand that you reviewed it, but you didn't negotiate it. Is that right?

I do not negotiate these contracts. I did review the form that we've approved over the years. But to answer your question, no, I didn't negotiate the contract.

Okay. So we just don't negotiate any of these public works contracts? That's just the rule of thumb?

No, it's negotiated. It's just not negotiated through legal. The public works department has kind of a whole team who negotiates, and I think Tim can address that. So it's negotiated, just not through the legal department.

It is negotiated through public works staff, through the project manager, myself, public works director, et cetera. It's very rarely that the first submittal we get from a contractor is the one that's accepted. Usually there's some back and forth. In this instance, there was some back and forth until we settled on a price that was agreeable to both parties.

Okay. Thank you. Fan contracting has been around for a long time, local. They employ about 300 people. They serve northern Arizona. They've done a nice job in the past. They built our terminal. I remember when they redid Park Avenue, Copper Basin. We've had a long relationship with them. They have a wonderful reputation. I have a question on the contract. The signature line for fan contracting is blank. It doesn't have a name. Who's the principal now for fan contracting that is going to be?

I believe that will be Jason Phan. I did not see that there was not a name on the signature line for the contract.

Yeah, I was just curious. So it's Jason? Yeah. Okay, thank you. One of my concerns was the contract didn't have an exhibit that included the Kimley Horn plans that said option 2C, alternate plan 2C. And if we're going to have a contract, I think it's important that we include, because it says nowhere in the CMAR, which design we're gonna work with. And so, I think I would feel a lot better and it would be a lot clearer for the scope of the design if we included something as an exhibit that's narrowed it down to 2C.

I can see if we can get that language added in there to make you more comfortable with it. I will say that the CMAR is not... They are consulting with the design team, but they are not implementing any design. So they will evaluate the design at all the design submittal levels, that 30, 60, 90, et cetera, provide cost estimates at those levels, but they're not designing any of the work. They're evaluating the work that the design engineer does, saying, okay, have you guys thought about this alternative, or have you thought about that alternative? If we put the line here, it will be difficult to construct. Have you guys considered moving it over here? So they're not providing design services. They're providing consulting services essentially through the remainder of the design in conjunction with both Kimleyhorn and city staff.

So it's irrelevant whether it's alternate plan 2C or one of the other 20?

Well, I would say that Kimleyhorn's already working on alternate 2C, but I could ask legal or finance if adding that into here, into the contract itself, an item that identifies 2C is possible. I mean, we all know as staff and the consultant which direction we're going and what design we're working on.

Well, I didn't know that. And I think just for members of the public and for the record, I think it would be nice if we included something that said this is the design that you're heading towards.

I will definitely see what we can do before the contract gets signed.

And then... About the sewer design, please refresh my memory. We're going to have one treated affluent line that's going to go from the airport wastewater treatment plant south to serve Prescott Lakes Golf Course.

Prescott Lakes and any other obligations we have within where we currently serve out of Sun Dog, yes.

Do you have any ideas what those other obligations would be?

I know it's Prescott Lakes. Yeah, so currently we serve, yeah, the Antelope Hills golf courses, Prescott Lakes golf courses, and the rock and sand operation, Martin Marietta out by the golf courses. Those are the areas we serve now. Obviously when we centralize our operations out at the airport, we'll still have to provide to Prescott Lakes, but we'll be much closer to where the airport obligations are.

So the affluent somehow heads south through Prescott Lakes and then goes back up?

No, eventually there will be a storage facility when Sun Dog comes offline that Prescott Lakes will draw off of. Initially, when this project was originally scoped, there was going to be a tank associated with the project. That will come further along as Sun Dog decommissions. Currently, we can't build the tank, and the hydraulic grade line between the existing ponds and the tank wouldn't work. So until Sun Dog comes offline, the tank will be constructed. Then we'll start pumping it to that location where Prescott Lakes will draw from. And the infrastructure is fundamentally, except for the effluent line coming back into the city, the infrastructure is already located within the area of the roundabout to do that.

And then we're going to have a line for raw sewage that's gonna go north to the wastewater treatment plant at the airport. That is correct, yes. And then is there, there's gonna be a third line, I seem to remember a third line, just two lines.

Just two lines. Yeah, there's an existing 24 inch gravity sewer main in the corridor already along the west side of the highway.

Okay.

Okay, all right, any other, anyone else have any other comments, Mr. Gehring?

Thank you, Mayor. Tim, I've been told that there are differences between the city's request for a proposal and the actual contract with FAN. Are you aware of that or know about that?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, Mr. Goering.

For instance, well, the issue whether it identifies 2C, but the mayor's covered that. But what about traffic control and traffic planning?

And that's why they're on board. As we go through design process, the CMAR will help us to discuss traffic planning, traffic control. If we just did a design bid build on this project and went out to bid, we wouldn't get that information from the contractor until after they've already given us a price to do the project.

So you're saying that FAN's gonna do traffic?

FAN will do a traffic evaluation, constructability evaluation, look for value engineering opportunities, et cetera, through the process.

And that's part of the contract?

Yes, sir.

Okay, thank you.

Let's see, who's next? Mary Fredrickson.

Thank you. Speaking of that, as you were saying, yeah, they'll be doing traffic, I noticed as I was going through this documentation that there's an exclusions list. This is on page 617 of the packet. Exclusions include traffic control. Traffic plans. And traffic plans are designed. So are... Would this fan contract include traffic control or not?

The clarifications and assumptions, the very first thing in bold says pre-construction services only. So they will not be providing any traffic control through the design. They'll just be giving us alternatives or options for traffic control as we go into construction.

Okay, and that's actually leading to what my initial question was going to be. So this CMAR contract is for pre-construction services only?

Only. There will be no construction activity associated with this project. They did have a couple things in their scope that we asked them to take out because we just don't feel like it's necessary, some geotech work, things like that that are being done by the consultants. So we took that out of the contract in the first submittal they gave us. So this is just pre-construction services activity. There will be no construction as part of this. There are options to potentially enter into additional GMPs if we find out that we may have to, if we anticipate long lead items. Sometimes pipe can become difficult to obtain, HCP, things like that. If we determine that there's a really long lead to get, we may enter into a GMP to procure those items ahead of actually putting a shovel in the ground.

and at least the staff's write-up on background, it indicates that the city anticipates starting construction in spring of 2027. What is it, eight, nine months from now? So is this pre-construction CMAR contract just for the couple of months between now and spring of 2027?

Yes, it would expire at the end of the design contract, or at the end of the design submittal.

So 358,000 for the CMAR, for the pre-construction contract.

Yes.

Run through spring of next year. Okay. And is there, maybe by industry standards, of which I'm completely ignorant, the fact that FAN has a CMAR for the pre-construction, does that, at least by usual practice, mean that there'll be the CMAR once construction happens?

I would say traditionally, yes, but there's no obligation by the city to do that.

THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS, TOO, ABOUT THE EXCLUSIONS. INSTEAD OF HAVING NUMBERS, THERE'S BULLET POINTS STARTING ON PAGE 617 AND GOING TO 618. THERE'S 18 EXCLUSIONS. AND THE SECOND BULLET POINT FROM THE TOP SAYS DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES. Isn't this going to be a design, they're consulting on design and engineering?

Yes, Kimley-Horne's providing the design and engineering services. So? So FAN would not be obligated under this contract to provide any engineering services.

And then I understand all the other exclusions, but then we get down to insurance. They've got insurance as an exclusion, but then they have a big, you know, we have a page that covers insurance. Is that a mistake?

I'm looking at it and kind of nodding my head a much.

Does anybody have a comment? Gwen, is there someone from FAN here?

Not that I'm aware of, no. I can get clarification for you on that.

Yeah, because that's a pretty big issue. What's the question? Well, if you look at page 618 of the contract, the very third page from the end, under exclusions, it says insurance is one of the exclusions. So I was confused about that because there's a big discussion here.

Page 604 and 605, they get into what they will be insuring and what they won't be insuring. Yeah, page 32. So I agree with you. There is insurance in the contract.

So there's insurance in the contract, but then it says here that insurance is excluded. So I think we need to clear that up because insurance is very important. I'll make sure that happens. And that does bring me to the insurance question on page 32, paragraph 9. You know, insurance is very important, and you can never have enough insurance. And it seems to me like it's... pretty, pretty minimal. It talks about just like million dollar coverage. And, you know, I think I have more coverage for my home and auto and it talks about minimum. And then also it says they may have an umbrella, a liability umbrella. And, you know, those umbrellas are very important to have. And I'd like to change that to, uh, must not may so that they do cover have liability insurance and it's very important to have insurance because down the line if there is a problem with the design you know will be protected and

Yeah, and I believe what you're reading from is the sample contract that was in the packet, and I would have to defer to legal and finance both on that.

And Mayor, I think I understand now where the insurance exclusion comes. It comes from that letter from FAN, not the actual contract. In the contract, it does require insurance. And it's fairly robust, but you're right, $3 million is primarily the caps on insurance. But in a case like this, we're not actually dealing with construction where you're looking at big liabilities. You're dealing with construction or the design services where liability type insurance questions are pretty minimal.

I understand that, but if the design is faulty, there's a lawsuit you know that's what they go after was it the construction faulty or was the construction faulty because it was based on a faulty design so i'm just saying uh from just my gut feeling i'd like to see the insurance uh aggregates everything increased to more of a maximum coverage and throw in that umbrella for liability

What is the maximum?

I don't know. I would like to find out what the maximum is, because like I said, from experience, you cannot have enough insurance, especially this is a pretty big ticket item that we're dealing with.

To answer your question, it's $1 million per occurrence. It's a $3 million aggregate.

And that's the maximum allowed?

It's not the maximum allowed, it's the minimum required.

Minimum. But my question is, can we go above the minimum?

WE CAN REQUIRE MORE. THIS IS OUR FORM CONTRACT. THIS IS WHAT WE REQUIRE IN CONTRACTS. SO TO THE EXTENT COUNCIL IS SAYING WE WANT TO REQUIRE MORE, WE CAN PUT THAT IN OUR CONTRACT. GENERALLY IT'S A COST, RIGHT? SO WE REQUIRE MORE IN INSURANCE THAN THE CONTRACT COST US MORE MONEY BUT IT'S ALL SORT OF A RISK AND WEIGHING THE BALANCES AND WE CAN DO THAT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. Anyway, any other comments?

I now have a comment because you brought up a point that I think we need to understand. They're not going into construction. They're just doing design. Right. So your contention is, if I understand it correctly, if they give us a bad design and we don't fix the pipes, then they only have $3 million insurance. Now my question to our city attorney is, during the construction phase, There's, because of design, there's a failure. Do they apply the insurance for the design section or do they apply the insurance for the construction section?

Keep in mind that This contract is not for the design. It's for management services during the design phase. If there's a problem with design, we would recover from the design firm, not from this company. This is about keeping costs in check. rather than the actual management of the design. So I actually think that potential liability under this contract is fairly limited because of the scope of what they're doing under this contract. The liability would be against the design confirm, and then when construction starts, the liability goes against the construction company, but that's another contract to be done in the future.

So I would caution against postponing this vote today.

I WASN'T GOING TO POSTPONE IT. I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET SOME INFORMATION AND MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE AS MUCH LIABILITY COVERED AS WE CAN. THANK YOU SO MUCH. LET'S SEE. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? LOIS? NO. OKAY.

ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? YES. CARTER LABARGE.

Mayor, Council, my name is Carter Labarge. I'm a resident of Prescott. During the SR-89 expansion hearings, there was a brief moment of clarity when our consultant engineer, Kimley Horne, identified one of the main causes of the pipeline failures. This moment was probably missed by many as it was quite brief. Kimberly Horn advised that there was an inadequate fill over the pipeline, which caused the outages and all of the additional cost to the city. Now, based on the analysis of our consultant engineer and my personal experience on heavy construction projects, It's probable that towards the end of that original project, a payloader scraped the demolition waste consisting of all the remaining granite rock and road debris and just pushed it right into the trench. So road vibration and water migration settles heavily to the bottom and sharp edges of the granite rock then wear down the external pipe wall and the produced cracks and years of leaks. Had adequate bedding and backfill over the pipeline been installed, the service life of this pipeline should have been 100 years. and it would not have been cut short, and the cost of many repairs would not have been paid by the city and the taxpayers. Even though many years have passed, the consequence of a poorly executed project should not give way to putting the original contractor in charge of its replacement. Our city manager is asking you to prove a partnership giving construction manager at risk, CMAR, to FAN without knowing and confirming if he was the contractor who originally installed these pipelines. Mike Phan said himself, he's been in there four different times, and he's done a lot of work in there. I'm asking you to pause this contract until you have an answer to this question. Vendors and contractors should not receive repeat work, regardless of how many years have elapsed, to correct a poorly executed project. This city is not the gift that keeps on giving, at least it shouldn't be. I'm also asking this council to instruct our city manager to pay close attention to contractors and vendors who fail to bid and execute their work as stipulated and pay attention to contractors who provide the lowest bids and then subsequently file change orders that drastically increase the contract amounts. These are trends that should be incorporated into our bid reviews and to the selection processes. Thank you.

Michael Marchand.

Good afternoon, Michael Marchand, back again. So I have a simple message for you today. I compared the roadway requirements in the city's document, the request for statement of qualifications, RSOQ from now on. That's a city document, that's the basis for supplier selection and approvals. I compared that document to the roadway requirements that you had in front of you when you voted. They don't match, as you will see in the handout. It's not even close. To be clear, I'm talking about things like frontage roads, right outs, acceleration lanes, things like that. It's all in the handout. Just as a reminder, you voted for alternative one, the baseline safety improvements, alternative 2C, and a Michigan left term. I compared what you voted on, word by word, to the requirements in the RSOQ, section 3.2. It did not go well. Only two requirements matched. The rest either did not match at all, or there was serious ambiguity and confusion. Take a peek at Appendix C. It's yet another set of requirements I just found this morning that also don't match. So what does this mean? First, the fan bid Span bid according to the requirements in the RSOQ, the city's document that's the basis for supplier selection and submittals. But if the requirements within the document are ambiguous, missing, incomplete, or just plain wrong, the pre-construction bid may not be accurate at all. Second, it's one more example of a lack of quality insurance and thoroughness that I'm seeing within this department. It's both sad and alarming at the same time. It's also perhaps a canary in the coal mine for deeper systemic cultural issues. So I have a prediction. In the project's documentation, you've been promised a general turnaround. In a study session, you've been promised a specific turnaround, a Michigan left turn.

That's what you voted on.

I predict that you will be told that the Michigan left turn doesn't fit, or whatever, but a roundabout happens to fit like a glove. Whether it makes sense to do it or not, you heard it here first. Finally, please don't approve the motion today contingent on cleaning up requirements. That's like signing a contract for a new car and saying, we'll just figure out the exact price down the road. Make the requirements in the RSOQ exactly match what you voted on. Have FAN re-bid if necessary. Then come back to the council for a vote. Do it right. Thank you.

Bonnie McMinn. Thank you, Mike.

Sorry, it's quite loud. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council, Bonnie McMinn-Prescott. In February 2026, Council selected alternative 2C, no road widening, safety improvements in the Michigan left turn. In May, you approved the two-plus-million-dollar Kimley Horn contract to complete final design. Now you're looking at the $358,000 for the pre-construction services. My comments are not in objection to the CMAR contract. As Mr. Sherwood has indicated, it can save money. Councilman Gamboge also mentioned the same. But the concern is whether the project documents, as many council members have actually already brought up, align with each other and with your decision on 2C. There's a lot of inconsistencies, as you've heard. Kimley-Horn's contract identifies 2C. The CMAR generally describes improvements, doesn't specify 2C. I think if we're spending this kind of money, we do want to see exactly what we're doing and what is being scoped. The missing items, those were already covered, but there were a lot of things that were in the RSOQ that apparently the city and FAN have negotiated separately, but of course we're hearing this for the first time today. And there could be change orders, as has been alluded to. So it's not clear where one begins, where the other one ends. We've seen this script before. The SR-89 predesigned the scope called for several days of traffic counts. They conducted only one. You had to make your decision based on incomplete data. We also saw other changes from the original scope. With the police project, inadequate due diligence failed to identify the site's constrained building envelope and landlocked city property. Now council's being asked to purchase another eight acres. Council must exert their... oversight authority and direct staff to bring this contract back there's so many questions right now and I don't think anybody's really paying attention hopefully somebody is taking the notes but we need to have this done right we continue to spend money and then it's oops we forgot this and we forgot that so we need a written reconciliation showing the city's RFP the consultant's responsibility that matches with council's 2C alignment You're committing another $358,000 of taxpayer money. This contract isn't ready. Thank you.

THAT'S ALL, MAYOR.

THANK YOU. I HAVE A FEW MORE QUESTIONS FOR YOU, TIM. ALSO I NEED TO LET THE PUBLIC KNOW THAT THERE'S A TERM CALLED SHADING AND THAT'S WHEN YOU HAVE A TRENCH, YOU DIG UP ALL THE BROKEN ROCK, GRANITE, AND YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO CREATE A BED FOR THE PIPE. Until recently we allowed the developers to use plastic PVC pipes which are as water mains which are under pressure and all of our subdivisions are full of those plastic pipes and Unfortunately, the shading wasn't properly done and I don't know what happened to the city inspection the city was supposed to inspect these trenches and And unfortunately, the broken, jagged granite rock was just dumped back in over these pipes. So as a result, we've had numerous water main breaks. And that's what apparently happened with this pipe. water main, I mean, these mains that were in SR 89, at the time, the question is, was it still a state route? And was it the state that did this? And was the state responsible for inspections? Or at the time, was it the city that was responsible for the inspections if it was already turned over to the city? It was kind of back when Sam Steiger was the mayor, as I understand it. So going forward, we need to make sure that we have the proper shading and that the city is going to be inspecting this pipe so that we get as much longevity as we can out of it. And I'm kind of disappointed you mentioned concrete asbestos pipe. I assumed it was all going to be ductile iron.

I don't believe I mentioned concrete asbestos pipe, no.

I thought I heard.

I said HDPE pipe. And what's that? That's hydro polyethylene pipe. It's basically plastic pipe, very thick wall. Plastic pipe. Fused together, yes. We use it in several applications.

And is that for the effluent?

It would likely be for the effluent because it's a force main, yes.

And what's the life of that?

Could be 80 to 100 years.

And what's the life of ductile iron?

Approximately the same, maybe a little bit less than that, depending on the material that you're running through the ductile iron pipe.

So you're telling me that plastic's gonna last just as long as ductile iron?

Yes, especially HDP. mm-hmm and we're gonna get a warranty on this warranties on all our projects and I can assure you this pipe will be shaded and backfilled and everything correctly I can't speak for the pipe when it was installed I've lived here for 33 years it was done before I got here yeah but I can assure you that the group that I manage will make sure that this pipe is installed correctly bedded shaded backfilled and and what about the

The pipe for the raw sewage that's heading north, is that also going to be plastic?

No, it'll likely be. We haven't clearly identified that at 30%, but it'll likely be what we call Hobos, or it's a fiberglass reinforced pipe. It's currently the 24-inch pipe that we have on the other side of the road is a Hobos pipe. The 48-inch pipes that we put out on the earlier phases of the airport trunk main are all Hobos pipes, and those all have the same projected longevity. Okay.

And they'll come with a warranty? Yes. Okay. Any other comments? Mr. Grady?

Yes. This document that we just received now, have you seen it? No, sir, I have not. So it's unfair really for us to ask questions about the data that's being presented. I would say this, that with the level of concerns and controversy and citizen input that we had on this project, we need to make sure that we have appropriate definitions to what does 2C mean, and I'm not asking you to answer that today, but I think it's worth bringing back at another council meeting with some responses to all of these lanes, and I can't rely on my memory, but there's six or seven items in here I do recall being talked about, but I don't know where they show up, and have you all reconciled that?

Like I said, I can review the document and get back to you on this. Like I said, I have not seen it before right now. And again, I will say that FAN's contract is working with the design engineer. This is not related to the design contract that Council approved. They're not providing any design services.

Well.

So the SOQ that basically the Kimley Horn was selected bond and the contract that was approved by council is for, like I said, for design services for 2C for this project.

And this is like for what, 30% design or is this going to go to 60?

We'll go 30, 60, 90, 100. We'll hit every step of the way. Yeah, so this is. There will be no bypassing any designs and metals.

This is for 30%.

Well, like I said, typically you don't want to bring your CMR in before 30% because you're too early in the design for them to provide you any value. Once you get to 30%, you've kind of got a horizontal and a little bit of a vertical layout. Then you can start talking to, you can bring them on to start helping bring it along. And then a lot of these changes are things that they'll see that they'll want to help implement will be between 30 and 60s.

So which percentage are we at with this contract?

This contract, like I said, starts at the 30% design phase. So it starts at 30%. Yes.

I just am uncomfortable. I really think that, you know, we have our city contract and then we have an exhibit A, which is FAN, put in their stipulations. And I really seem to think that we need to add some of our own exhibits explaining in detail what the Kimley Horn design is, their elevations, have maps, and also just KIMLEY HORN DESIGN AND WHAT TO SEE IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE THIS IS ALL, THIS IS NOW WHEN WE SHOULD BE DESIGNING RATHER THAN when it's at sixty or a hundred percent going back and having all these change orders saying oops you know this isn't going to work you know like the michigan left turn my question is are we designing michigan left turns into a single lane that's not going to work should we have a traffic light there instead and another question i have is if you look at the north end of that map where the uh... fit and roundabout is uh... There's actually a plan, maybe Gwen can help me out with this, to just widen that section to five lanes and then have it narrowed down to two lanes. Is that gonna be in the plan? That makes no sense.

We are, I will say that we have been looking at possibly extending the current merge going southbound. We have talked to the design engineers. Tim. To look at, yes.

I'm sorry. Mayor, with all due respect, I understand that there's a lot of questions about the design on this project. Those are all very valid. That's not what this agenda item is. Yes, you're right. And we are getting very, very, very off topic at this point. And I think that we need to focus in on what the council would like to do about this contract, which is a construction manager at risk pre-construction services contract and not the design.

Thank you. Any comments from Council? Jay?

All of the different items that you heard come up, to integrate that into the contract, how much time would that take?

I would have to get with finance and legal to see what can be changed or how it can be changed. All I can stand up here and say is I assure you that Kimley Horn is working on design for 2C as approved by council.

OKAY. I DON'T LIKE TO DELAY THESE THINGS. AND AT THE SAME TIME I THINK THERE IS A PUBLIC NEED TO HAVE CLARITY. BUT I AM CONCERNED THAT WE'RE GETTING LOST BETWEEN DESIGN PHASE AND THE NEXT PHASE. THANK YOU.

Thank you, Mayor. I would just say, in my view, I'd just soon delay this until Public Works gets a chance to review Michael Marchant's concerns. Lois?

I'm aligned with what Mr. Gearing just said.

Okay, and Ted?

For my good friend Carter Labarge. The Phoenix contractor put those affluent lines in, Fann didn't. And I've got to confess, I can't convince this council not to try to design a horse and make it look like a camel. You're micromanaging again, so I'm good with delaying it till you're happy. So let's finish this up.

Any more public comment?

No, Mayor, that was all.

Thank you. You have to take action. I know, I was just about ready to speak but we have, Mr. Grady has a comment.

Yeah, I hear that last, one of those last points being made with respect that this is not the design contract. It certainly raises a question though that I think Public Works needs to respond to. I would frankly vote for this particular contract, but I think as city council, we need to direct city staff to get back to us on the elements of this particular paper, which we're all just seeing for the first time. that we actually have a clear definition of what we thought we agreed to a year ago on the scope of the design for the whitening the no whitening component thank you um

So I'd like to move that we postpone till the next city council meeting. Do you think two weeks is enough?

I think we can get your answers in two weeks, yes.

We just postponed it for another two weeks to review the public input and addressed council concerns about whether or not we should include 2C to be crystal clear as to what exactly it is we're designing. So I'd like to move that we postpone this for two weeks and as council has directed, and bring it back with the amendments that are recommended. I second that. Thank you. Please vote.

With that, I'm going to excuse myself.

Councilwoman Fredrickson? Yes, I was going to vote up on what Mayor Roussing just said, but what I'm looking at on the screen, excuse me, on the screen is approval of city contract number blah blah with fan contract. So it's, I have in here that it's a postponement.

but the system defaults to show what the recommended action is. So if you're in support of postponing, as Mayor Hussing outlined, then that would be a yes vote if you'd like to do so.

Thank you.

Passed 7-0.

Thank you. Next item.

Presentation and discussion regarding public hearing number one in accordance with resolution number 2023-1862 and resolution number 2026-1997 for a public hearing and presentation with an update on the rodeo master plan.

Good evening. Thank you for having us today to present an update on the status. My name is Kayla Oddie. I'm a principal with GH2 and serve as our equine specialty practice director.

And my name is Robert Wadsack, principal architect with GH2, and I run our Arizona office. We want to start briefly on just an update on what's transpired since our last meeting with you all in June of this year. We've reconvened with our steering committee two times since then, met with the stakeholders for each of those groups before publishing the current draft master plan that is available on the city's website. The presentation we have today is an adaptation of the prerecorded presentation we had previously, just it'll be a little bit briefer to give kind of an update and overall status of the project. And so with that, I just want to share here, this is the current concept master plan in full build out. Just to back up a little bit, we do have the public comment period was opened at the beginning of this month in August and coincided with a community meeting where we presented the current master plan. with steering committee. We've had those meetings with the steering committee and stakeholders since then. We know that there are updates that we're making. We've heard comments both at those meetings and read some of the comments online. So we are making revisions. But what you see here is what was presented at the beginning of the month. Sorry, I'm just going to go back. So what's on the screen here represents the full build out of the master plan. This shows all phases complete as we have presented it to date. Please note that each of these phases and everything here for the different stakeholders don't have to happen at the same time. The improvements for the rodeo are not tied to the improvements by the Extension Office, the Auto Club, or anyone else. We've really set this up in a way that should allow us to implement the different changes for each of the stakeholders as they see fit and as funds become available. Um, for instance, um, improvements for, um, the auto club, um, possibly moving the IT, uh, offices off this site, um, extension office, um, the compost area and the park, um, are all single phase improvement. Um, they can happen at their, at their leisure and as the funds are available from each of those stakeholders and as I identified, um, and do not affect, um, the other portions of the site. Oh, um, sorry. Hopefully it's advancing as I click. So the bigger player on the site is, of course, the rodeo and the fair. Their improvements are phased and would be phased accordingly. The first improvements that they see Being implemented is actually the erection of a new equipment barn that is identified in the top right corner as number three. This needs to happen in order for what is currently known as Barn B to be demolished and removed from the site. This area then becomes a paved parking area to serve both the rodeo during those rodeo events and other events on site. Also would serve as the identified site for the farmer's market that is hoping to relocate to this site. The next two phases that they've identified, there's been discussion about what would need to happen first. As we've identified and are showing here, the phase two is really the erection of the new pole barn to replace the existing warm-up arena. This new pole barn would have the warm-up arena and livestock areas within. Once that's complete, they have the ability to erect the multi-purpose pavilion. The multi-purpose pavilion really becomes the front door for the site with new ticketing offices, multi-use rooms, and serves as kind of an indoor vendor area for the project. It sits adjacent to a new paved vendor area just to the west of the existing arena. As I mentioned, the next or third phase, and this could flip depending on availability, is really the realignment of the spectator parking area and what's known as the contestant parking area. This flip is really contingent on some that's being addressed now at Rodeo Drive to realign it with Miller Drive. There is the possibility that with this change that they could still access the contested area from fair for the time being if they wanted to move forward with this change now or earlier in the phasing. Oh. Again, this here shows, as we've talked about, just really kind of the overall phasing. Kayla is going to talk a little bit more about the different parts of the buildings.

Kicking it off, we'll discuss the multi-use pavilion. That'll serve as a primary arrival point for a lot of the visitors that are coming to the site, and that is where the adjacent vendor area will be located. 3D concept rendering is shown here to help you to visualize what this may be, and then also a floor plan diagram in the upper right. This is showing that the pavilion is a flexible multi-use space. It is designed with the intent to serve as either in hosting events, banquets, gatherings. Additional support elements within the building would include a ticketing office, restrooms, catering kitchen, gift shop, and a museum area for historical exhibits that are on site. Now showing on, yes ma'am.

Lois. Is it one story or two stories?

One story.

Thank you.

Yep. Then moving to the next slide, the area that's highlighted in red, this would be proposed as two stories. This is a restroom pavilion. It's located in the same location where there's previously restrooms and this is really to address the deficit of restroom fixtures that are not provided on site to be able to be aligned with current code requirements and to be able to access from multiple levels of the grandstands is why this is being proposed as the two levels. The next slide is highlighting the covered arena or what is called the pole barn. This is where we would have rodeo warm-up activities or it could host smaller 4-H or fair shows and events at the facility. This has been designed with the concept of being a pre-engineered metal building with clear span. to be cost effective but to allow for the arena function to occur. There would also be support elements of restrooms and stalling. The stalling and arena has been proposed as being portable to give maximum flexibility for how it is utilized. One thing to note here is during the public comment period, we've been hearing a few refinements to the site plan. One of the adjustments that we're studying is the potential of making this a little bit less wide, a little bit more narrow, and a little bit longer. Same footprint to carry forward, just seeing if we can maximize function and make it more cost effective in that way. Next on site is that equipment barn that's being highlighted. That is being shown at the north portion of the contestant trailer and RV parking area, and that would be able to house the storage and offices, maintenance equipment, tractor storage, be able to allow for PFD to keep all of their equipment maintained and to increase their lifespan by having an enclosed area for them. Next slide, the red area in the lower left of the screen is highlighting the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Building, its dedicated parking area, demonstration gardens, and hoop house. And then also adjacent to that would be another community anchor with a proposed public park area, and then expansion of the existing composting facility that is already on site. And then this rendering is showing a concept for another single story building that would be proposed for housing offices, meeting rooms, family resource center, a teaching kitchen, and shared community spaces to be able to support both University of Arizona Cooperative Extension and also potentially have offices for Farmer's Market or other community elements on site. Now we're showing you a proposed 3D rendering so that you can see what the full build out, the implementation of the master plan would potentially look like in a conceptual 3D form. This is layered in with the additional surrounding sites and also highlights some of the proposed additional landscaping and environmental features. The bioswales have been extended that are along the northeast of the property. ADDITION TO THAT, WE HAVE THE PARKING AREAS SHOWN, THE BUILDOUT OF THE PUBLIC PARK, AND THEN IN A SECOND VIEW, YOU CAN BE ABLE TO SEE THAT SOUTHWEST CORNER ANCHORING AND THE TRAFFIC FLOW WITH THE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING AND PRIMARY ENTRY POINT IS IN THE UPPER AREA OF THE SITE FOR CARS COMING IN. and you can see the flip of having the covered arena in lieu of the outdoor arena that currently exists for warmup, and then anchoring that west side with that new multi-use pavilion as an arrival point for people coming to the site.

Again, we wanted to keep this brief tonight and really answer any questions you might have. Our next steps really do include kind of implementing some of the responses we've heard. We know that we had some issues with our spectator counts and parking counts. We're making improvements to that in the next draft to clarify any of that. And we're happy to answer any questions right now.

I have a question. Are you planning on any seating above the bucking chutes? Because I've been to other rodeo grounds where they have seating right above the bucking chutes so people can see the cowboys as they get on the animals.

That is one of the comments that's come up in steering committee meetings since we started this draft was expanded seating above the bucking chutes and on the north side of the arena. our next iteration that we'll share with the steering committee of the draft this next week will include some of those changes that will be published in the final draft, or the final.

Okay, any comments here? Patrick.

Yes, thank you. I don't know where all you're going with the presentation, but in this presentation, are you planning on giving us a summary of what occurred, what responses we got at the last public meeting?

The update for the draft, the public meeting comments that are open, those close on September 22nd. Those will be available to the council and will be implemented into our design report. Sorry, the public comment period that's open right now, those comments, the period closes September 22nd. Those will be added to the end of our design report.

And also to clarify as part of your question, in lieu of a survey at community meeting number three, we had done that at community meeting one and two, we surveyed. In lieu of that, the public comments is serving as the results for that.

We have Lois.

Thank you, Mayor. A couple of questions. The first one is I had heard from the fair they were looking for some more dedicated storage for their stuff on site versus the many garages and barns all over the country, county that is being used. Is that currently being included in the input that you are integrating?

Some of those storage decisions will be made as leases are probably renegotiated. I know that we've identified with the relocation of the extension office that their current space that was once serving as storage in a barn becomes available with these changes. That's one of the areas we've identified or have noted in that. We also know that there are some current city storage taking place in Barn A and in the Pritchard building. Once that becomes available with future moves and changes, that's also an option.

Okay, wonderful. Can I add to that really quick?

Yeah. Also, Barnet. So, the fair uses Barnet pretty extensively, and that's another option in terms of future storage. We need to have that conversation about what does that actually look like in terms of a lease, but that's another option that could happen sooner than some of the others.

I'm sorry, you know these things better than me. Barnet is... It's down by the Cooperative Extension. Okay. Gotcha, good. Yep, 24, I just found it. All right, second question is this public park. What's the purpose of this public park? Is it designed for children? What are we doing in this park?

The public park was definitely charged by the neighbors and community as a new asset on this site, knowing that the city owns this site now. It's no longer owned by the county. It was a request and in charge for them to create more public available space. I think it's really kind of envisioned as... just a placeholder right now. We've kind of identified some pavilions, keeping that space really rustic in the way that it has the rock outcroppings, but some improvements would be needed.

Well, I was trying to understand the little path I'm seeing. I'm like, is this a walking track? Is this a skating track? What are we doing here in this park?

Again, most of the things that we've identified in this are kind of at that 10,000-foot level, so that was definitely up for discussion and adaptation.

So still to be determined.

Absolutely.

Okay. The other question I've heard from people in the public is right now we have the Buckle Club as a tent on one side. Are they going to have their own space or is that still to be determined or are they going to be integrated into one of these other buildings that we're seeing?

As far as any kind of seating or areas like that, I think that's really a question more for the Rodeo and how they plan to establish operations in that area. We've identified the seating and the capacities. How that's laid out, I think, is ultimately their call.

All right, I'll come back and talk to you all later.

Okay, we have Mr. Ruby.

Yeah, a couple of things. I'm thinking of some items from the last meeting. First of all, great to see this moving forward and getting synthesized. And I'm sure that's a lot of work, so I appreciate it. I am wondering about a couple of things that seem to be quite important to people. And one was the environmental remediation. And so I know that's not an architectural plan, but that is part of...

the plan to make this a viable space so has there been any work done on that and if so could you update um we met with public works um and had a great presentation from them on recommendations that they've made for this area we kind of touched on it briefly with the expansion of the biobasins there's a current biobasin that runs along the north property but it's a very LIMITED THEIR RECOMMENDATION LIMITED THEIR RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS SITE WAS EXPANDED FOR THIS SITE WAS EXPANDED BY A BASIN ALONG THE NORTH BY A BASIN ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE AS WELL AS THE PROPERTY LINE AS WELL AS THE WEST. WEST. WE'VE ALSO IMPLEMENTED THE WE'VE ALSO IMPLEMENTED THE MANURE MANAGEMENT FACILITY ON MANURE MANAGEMENT FACILITY ON THIS SITE. THIS SITE. IT IS LOCATED JUST NORTH OF THAT IT IS LOCATED JUST NORTH OF THAT POLE BARN. POLE BARN. I DON'T THINK WE MENTIONED THAT I DON'T THINK WE MENTIONED THAT AS WE WENT THROUGH THAT. AS WE WENT THROUGH THAT.

IT LOOKS LIKE ITEM NUMBER IT

WHAT'S SHOWN IS BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PUBLIC WORKS FOR THE MANURE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

AND WITHIN THAT, MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR GWEN, WHO ARE YOU WORKING WITH TO DETERMINE THE MANURE SYSTEM?

So our environmental team is working on that. It'll be integrated as part of the stormwater improvements for the site. So they're looking at several different options. So I can't tell you which one we're going to choose yet, but we are looking at various types of equipment that we can put in there that will provide manure management for the entire site and different kinds of activities. So the fair needs it, the rodeo needs it, there may be other. So we're putting it in a good location so that it can be used for anyone that's using the site.

And does this plan also include the remediation of the manure that's been kind of ground in that's contributing to the runoff into Miller Creek?

So I can answer that that's not part of a master plan. That'll be part of some of the work that Public Works is doing as part of the infrastructure improvements to the site and then in our partnerships with the Rodeo, we'll work with them for that. But yes, we do have runoff from the site. A good amount of it goes through the biobasin, but that that does not obviously runs directly into the creek and we do take readings in the creek after rodeo events and such and elevations of Those types of materials are higher after rodeo events. So we do know that we have a containment issue, and that's part of the infrastructure that we'll be building in order to send the stormwater where we need it to be so that it can either go through the biobasin or it can go through other types of filtration systems on the site. But that'll be part of the public infrastructure that we build that's outside of the master plan here. That's part of the $15 million that came from the state of Arizona. Okay.

So that information won't be available to us when this plan is completed?

No, sir, that's part of the ongoing work that Public Works will be doing this year to develop the infrastructure improvements that are needed for the site.

Okay, good. I'm also wondering if any work has been done, because there was a request for archeological assessments. Has that been addressed?

not beyond just notes in our design report. That would be a next phase, next step, similar to geotech or other investigations. When improvements are identified and the location is solidified, that's when you'd start to bring in archeological, geotechnical, and different investigations. The site's so broad and so large right now that to come in with a broad sweeping archeological investigation would be very cost prohibitive in my opinion.

And so will that also, will that be included in the plan that comes in September or not? Or is that?

That is noted in the narrative of the next steps as far as recommendation, but that wasn't part of the master plan scope. So the study would be a next step item.

I can add to that a little bit too. So part of the permitting process requires a first level of environmental study. And part of that purpose is to look for other things you might need to do, archaeological work, other environmental work. So as projects are ready to go, they will have to do an environmental study. They'll have to find out what the likelihood is of certain cultural artifacts or other environmental elements that they'll have to mitigate. And then you do that kind of project by project. If you do it over the entire site, it's very expensive and very... I don't know what we get out of that. Because then when you go back to the permitting process, you come back to Okay, you have to do that again. Right. So as projects are ready to go, they have to do that work to understand the archaeological in that area. And they'll do a project by project. So the archaeological will happen before things are built. But it will be as that happens over time.

Thank you.

I'd also like to add that archaeological studies are very expensive. And my impression from the Native Americans is the less the ground is disturbed, the better. And so I don't think we're going to go dig up the whole site looking for trouble. If we need to put in a trench from A to B, AND WE COME ACROSS SOMETHING, THEN WE CAN STUDY, YOU KNOW, THAT AREA. BUT THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO RATIONALE FOR US TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE SITE. THE LESS DISTURBANCE IS THE BETTER. MORE RESPECTFUL, I THINK. THANK YOU.

I'M FINISHED. THANK YOU.

Thank You mayor I'm curious you spoke somewhat generally on the order of things to be done but it seems to me that all the items in the program summary need to be set in terms of when they get done and why they get done then and that hasn't been done yet as far as I can tell it's not in the current master plan document and

So as I generally identified, each stakeholder has a vested change. A lot of them, for the most part, outside of the rodeo and the fairground itself, is kind of a single-phase approach. I think it's really kind of through the negotiations of the leases of what those improvements need to look like, when they need to happen, and if they don't happen, what the next trigger is. Does that answer that question?

Well, does that become part of the master plan document?

It's already described. Yeah, it's already described as the phases as we've put them in there as far as what we've identified as really the rodeos improvements because they're the ones that are probably looking at a multi-phase approach.

Okay, thank you.

If I can add on that too, sorry to keep jumping in. But one of the things I think we should keep in mind is some of the phasing is so dependent on individual groups' ability to raise funds and put their projects together. It's possible that we'll see projects that never hit that threshold, that never raise enough funds to actually trigger the project. And if that's the case, then we won't do those parts. And so it's possible there will be parts of the master plan that are not completed just because there's not funds to do them. Obviously, we hope that everybody is wildly successful with their capital campaigns and that kind of thing. But I think it's important to understand with the phasing that some of the phasing might mean we don't necessarily complete everything that's on the plan.

Yeah, and I'd like to clarify a few things. The $15.3 million appropriation from the state is just for the rodeo, okay? It's not gonna be used for this master plan for all the other entities. It's just for the rodeo. And that $40 million, that isn't something the city's planning to spend. That's going to be for the different entities to take care of. If we're done up here, we have one more comment from Mr. Grady. Thank you.

Thanks. At the open house, there were a lot of questions around parking and seating and capacity and fire marshal requirements, et cetera, et cetera. Have we done more investigation of that?

Yes. Yeah, we heard a lot of those comments. So we went back and checked our own numbers. And we did find errors that we'll make updates. And I can give you some of that general overview. I think we had originally identified that the existing total on-site seating was somewhere around 5,300. Miscalculation was in just a ratio factor for the portable seating. The true number is really in there closer to 4,500 for the existing seating on site. And that's the entire site. Once we recalculated and checked it against just the grandstands and what we understood the fire marshal to analyze, we were within about 70. And that could be a rounding error or just a measurement error based on one or the other. Thanks.

So what's the seating capacity going to end up as?

So with that, part of the charge after the steering committee meetings was that Rodeo did have a desire for the additional seating on the north side and above the bucking chutes. Thank you. They have a target of 5,000. So I know the original estimate we had at 5,300, this is lower at 5,000. But that means that the per code and or a city code for parking that there should be 1,667 parking spaces on site.

I'm sorry, how many?

Oh, I'm sorry.

1,667? Which number do you want me to clarify?

How many parking spaces?

Yeah, so for 5,000 spectators per city code, you are charged with having basically a parking space for every three. So the total comes out to 1,667 spaces is the target. We are currently at about 1,100 spaces, so we're about 500 short. That was expected and has been discussed throughout the project. We talked about the different ways we could overcome that deficit, removing, go ahead.

Are you examining the shuttle system that we've operated for you?

Ultimately, that's where it came down to is an alternative parking plan, which is allowed through city code. We explored eliminating program, a structured parking garage onsite, which ultimately was mixed by the steering committee and most people we talked to about it. The alternate parking plan, more or less what the rodeo is implemented now with shuttling from offsite locations is viable.

Let me ask you this. When the cowboys come with their horses and their trailers and they have RVs where they stay, are they going to have hookups?

Yeah, a portion of them. We've identified a space just north of the livestock areas for RV hookups. It's in a similar location to where it is now. It's just pushed a little further north with some changes with the livestock area.

Are we going to provide a pump out for them?

I don't know if I can speak to how that would work or if it would be tied into sanitary sewer at this time.

Okay. Just a question about convenience. Okay. Mary?

Did I just hear you mention the fire marshal and I'm wondering if there's been a recent assessment by the fire marshal as far as either the plans that are within the master plan or for example how the current seating and row structure is currently. I know we've heard from people who question the way the seating runs in the concrete bleachers now as far as people being able to get in and out of any particular area. And I don't know, I haven't heard whether or not the fire marshal has given his blessing for the current configuration and or what's considered in the master plan.

the rodeo can clarify. I know that they're here, but I know that it's my understanding that they have that certified every year. The fire marshal comes and gives the capacity based on their layout prior to the event to give his blessing for having the event and holding the event and addressing any egress issues. As for him evaluating or anyone evaluating the current master plan, not at this time. We basically lay our stuff out based on current codes and understanding. And again, at the level we're at, there's not enough detail for them to evaluate much beyond. It's once, yeah, it'd be triggered through the building permit process.

Jay? So I'm looking at 33, which is where our current IT place is. What are the plans for where all those folks go? Because they do some pretty important stuff for us.

Yeah, and that's one of those that they flex and move if that becomes available in a future build. If they never move, they just remain at that site. It was just as we went through the master planning process that that was identified as an option that they could relocate during that period.

And then I really like all the green space around or the planted trees around Gale Gardner and Fair Street. Is there any possibility of having some of those trees in the parking aisles there to just kind of reduce heat, increase aesthetic value?

So where we've shown new paved parking, implementing tree islands is definitely something to consider at the actual gravel lots because of the way they're used and the flexibility needed. It's not advised, especially like, and I'll reiterate that the number we show for parking in the gravel area is based on a balance of circulation and layout. Because that's a gravel area, it can actually be laid out however each of the events feels is better for them. So it may not even look like that. So to introduce islands into the actual gravel area would greatly limit that flexibility.

Thank you.

Any more comments?

If I can add on to that one too, just for clarity. For example, the fair might not use the parking area as a parking area, right? They might have a carnival in that area. And so if they have a carnival in that area, the parking islands with the trees start to become a problem for how do you fit the rides between all those kinds of things. And so the gravel creates a really flexible space. And then the paved parking would be where we would have more shaded parking.

Yes, we want to keep everything as multi-use as we can, as flexible as we can. Okay, well let's go to public comment. I see the rodeo people back there. Carter Labarge. Oh, Carter. We just need to get you up here on council. You need to run.

I'm so sorry Ted's not here. Mayor, Council, my name is Carter Labarge, resident of Prescott. Long before we began with the rush to buy the new seats and sound equipment in time for the July 26th rodeo, Mayor Goode, remember him? Mayor Goode had asked a serious question of the staff and it's never been addressed. Mayor Goode asked that a structural engineer do an analysis of the grandstands to ensure that the structure was stable. And I can find no place in any document or plan that asks for a licensed structural engineer or prioritizes having this work done on the front end before we spend most of the $15 million and commit $40 or $80 million more. The city consultants... Terracon and GH2, they performed visual inspections of our almost 100-year-old grandstand. I don't know that that meets standards. Earlier this year, the council issued a contract to Ridgeline Builders for several line items and components for the rodeo. The PFD and state legislatures and a lot of others pushed hard to fast-track spending of the $15 million, and it was done. Ridgeline's contract included replacement of the wood bleachers with recycled plastic benches and seat backs, and it appears that they did not do a proper takeoff of their purchase to purchase enough plastic lumber to complete that project. When they ran out of plastic seating, Ridgeline then installed as much 2x12 wood lumber in remaining seats for the remaining seats that was available, and that was also not enough. Then they finished up with two by six lumber. And I even noticed one two by six wood seat back that was notched and still installed. There are splits and knots, but the most glaring indication that the design and engineering is off is the installation of wooden blocks under the seat supports. This begs me to ask, who was responsible for the execution and inspections on this project? As important as this project seems to be, don't you find it curious that the city failed to advise you of the problems when this first large spend of our $15 million was completed? Why is that? If there had been project management on this large tranche of cash spent on the rodeo, the debacle would not have happened. The truth is there seems to be no management on this segment in this contract, and I'd like to know why is that? Inside the grandstands, there are numerous ingress and egress and safety issues. There's a lack of handrails on stairs, standing columns that abut seats, as well as blocking walkways. I'd like you all to think emergency and fire marshal. We've got rows of plastic seat backs with serpentine curves designed in engineering, again. There's exposed anchor bolts that are obvious trip hazards. Before you approve this master plan, I encourage this council to take a field trip with the fire marshal and then execute Mayor Good's request. Let's hire a PE and get this structure inspected so you know what we're dealing with before we just spend millions upon millions of dollars. All right. Thank you. I think that's all for me for today.

Thank you, Carter. Gwen Parker.

Levi Darby. Hello, everybody. Chairman of Yavapai County Fair. Mayor and y'all want to say it's always memorable when I'm speaking.

Microphone.

Yeah, it's right here. There's been a lot of trash talk and a lot of shit talk going on in these meetings today. Gambodi left, and I wanted to know where he got his sunglasses, because I kind of liked them. There's a lot of stuff that goes on at the rodeo. There's been a lot of meetings with this GH2, the council. There's been a lot of hard work, a lot of sweat and tears put into this master planning, city council. Dallin over there has put a lot of work, a lot of yard, a lot of hard work in doing this. We're not making anybody happy. Rodeo's happy, fair's happy, rodeo's not happy, fair's not happy, public's not happy, public's happy. I understand this is a huge project. But if we take a fine tooth comb and start looking at everything in the grandstands, why don't we just take a piece of dynamite, blow the damn thing up, go out, buy some more property and build a whole new rodeo grounds. That's 100 years old because it's historic. We don't come to the rodeo, we don't come to the fair that's 113 years old. because it's brand new. We come because it's old and it's rustic. So if we're gonna let everybody tell us that we need to redo everything and make it new, Buy some dynamite, blow it up. Let's go buy another 200 acres out there and build a community rodeo grounds complex that makes everybody happy. Because we're not going to make everybody happy with this complex. It's old and it's small. Are we going to make the public happy? Hell no. We got 51,000 people coming in two weeks. I was going to give you a prompt. You forgot to say that the county fair was in September, September 10th through the 13th. And I'd like to invite you all to our mixer August 27th, but you probably won't come because I'm such a jerk and I'm up here, but please come. I'll try to dress up for once. My daughter told me I had to, so I'll try to dress up, but I probably won't. But this is what you guys got to understand. The rodeo is getting bigger. The fair is getting bigger. The events are getting bigger. How do we make the public happy? How do we make the city council happy? How do we spend this money? It's $15 million. First thing that needs to be fixed, electrical, water, sewer, runoff. Barn B needs to be torn down. If we're going to get rid of Barn B, we got to build a building to put all the equipment in the store. That building needs to be set to where it can be set. Next thing that needs to be built is the pole barn. Once the pole barn's built, then we can build the the other hall for the main entrance of the fairgrounds, the rodeo grounds, all that. Everything south of Rodeo Drive is all pending who has the money to build it. If the U of A is going to put in $10 million to build the $10 million building, it's going to be built tomorrow. If they don't put a penny in for it, it's not going to get built. I get it. Truly, Everything south of Rodeo Drive is parking for us, parking for the rodeo. The park is a park. But until you put a fence around the trailhead and keep all the drugs and the crap and the people sneaking into the fair and the rodeo through the mountains, it needs to stop. People sneak in all the time. When we have a problem at fair, guess where everybody runs? Right to the rocks. Because is a cop going to chase five kids, five guys running in through the rocks? Hell no. I'm dumb enough. I probably would. But I'd shoot first and ask questions later. That would probably be why I didn't cop. But you guys got to understand something. The public is never going to get happy. You're never going to make the rodeo happy. You're never going to make the fair happy. But first things we got to do is water, electrical, sewer, runoff. And like the phasing of GH2 said, at one time I picked on GH2. GH2 has listened to many complaints from me. Me and Robert spent many hours, five hours exactly, sitting and talking and got to know each other. There's things that they wanted to do that has moved across the rodeo grounds to keep the public happy. move the rodeo, the indoor arena away from the public, help with parking. People don't understand that people don't show up to a rodeo from the 1960s in a two-horse horse trailer that has a front axle, a rear axle, and pulled by a Cadillac. They show up with two horses with a 45-foot living quarters that stretches out to 16 feet wide, and they got a $300,000 rig and a $100,000 truck pulling it for two horses. I have a lady that lives in Williamson Valley, showed up multiple years ago with two horses and said she'd come back tomorrow. There's where you guys got to understand. I'm probably running out of time because she's going to rub it to you.

I was afraid to say anything.

You know, it's the way it is. I'm just, you know me. I don't care. If you don't like me, you like me. If you don't, I don't care. That's just me.

Thank you, Levi.

Thank you guys for everything. Appreciate your hard work.

Thanks for all your hard work making our fair such a success.

I just want to remind everybody you have three minutes to address the council. There's a lot of people that have comments. Council's been up here a long time. Staff has been up here a long time. So let's try and keep our comments respectful and to three minutes. Robin Woolsey.

Thank you. I'm Robin Woolsey with the Prescott Antique Auto Club. I'm a director. for the club. The Auto Club has a separate lease with the city for its little corner of the world on the north end of the rodeo. And it actually sits a little bit lower than the main dirt parking area of the rodeo. We're fine with what? is going to be done at the rodeo itself. We have no objection to that and we shouldn't probably. We are concerned about the ramp that is proposed to be built from the upper dirt area down into our little corner of the world because it's right near our buildings where we store the restored 1931 Seagraves fire truck that was the city of Prescott's fire truck for decades. And we bring it out for parades and other public activities. And if we have to try and negotiate it up that ramp right outside the door of the building where it's stored, you're never going to turn that monster around. I have driven it. To make a U-turn, you need about a half a mile. It drives like a truck, and it is a truck. It's a fire truck. And we're restoring and finishing up on a... 1947 Prescott School District bus that I think is probably about 30 feet long. Same problem. So really our concern comes down to where that ramp is coming down from the upper parking area. And not to speak for Levi, and I hate getting lost in the weeds of this, We wanna see and Levi has told me that he would also like to see the equipment barn shifted east towards our building. And instead of the ramp being on the east side of the equipment building, put it on the west side of the building and we would have enough ability to get our fire truck out. Otherwise, we're gonna get stuck. Now we do have access now at the good graces of the county. But the county has made some noises that they might want to try and cut off our access through the gate that is behind the county administrative building. And if that happens, then we have to get out through the rodeo and simply getting vehicles out. that are very large and hard to steer would be not a good thing. It would be a real problem. That's our only objection. And the current design doesn't provide for that problem. And we hope that it is redesigned in that small way to accommodate it. Thank you.

Thank you, Robin. Kathy Messinger.

Good day, Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Kathy Messinger, and I reside in Prescott. I'm here today regarding the Prescott Rodeo Grounds Master Plan. As a taxpayer and resident, I want to ensure that this $42 million transformation respects our community's financial guardrails, public transparency, and local neighborhood balance. Serious governance questions remain regarding the $42 million master plan scope. Prescott Frontier Days is expected to shoulder the vast majority of this cost. However, because this is city-owned land, the taxpayers need absolute, legally binding assurance that zero municipal operational funds or structural debt will fall back on the city if private fundraising targets fall short. We need a transparent, ironclad operational agreement established before the master plan is adopted. Finally, we must address the commercial footprint. Expanding extension facilities and gathering spaces cannot turn a tax-exempt rodeo operator into a direct competitor against local private hospitality businesses. Furthermore, the final plan must mandate finalized traffic metrics, stormwater runoff protection, and manure management solutions to protect the surrounding historic neighborhoods. Before the final vote scheduled for October 13th, I urge the council to consider your approval on two things. First, a formalized financial indemnity clause protecting city taxpayers from project overruns. And second, an independent traffic and environmental impact study. Let's preserve our historic rodeo heritage without compromising municipal oversight. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Kathy.

Thomas Hillock.

Mayor, City Council, thank you for allowing me to speak. When I was living in the Valley, going to the Prescott Rodeo on the 4th of July was always a highlight of the summer. When my wife and I relocated to Prescott, one of the first things we did was to become members of the Prescott Frontier Days Rodeo. I presently serve as the vendor chairman, and I was the vendor assistant chairman prior to that. We have 52 vendors up from 35 a couple of years ago. The main thing we want our vendors to do is to be profitable. We want to provide a safe and enjoyable experience for them. While a majority of our vendors are local, about 40% are from the Tucson or Phoenix area. We have two vendors that are out of state. The longest term vendor that we have is from Reno, Nevada, and has been a vendor at the rodeo for 14 years. We have a waiting list to become a vendor, and we people want to be a vendor at the world's oldest rodeo. Alan's Lids is a fan favorite and he travels from Frisco, Texas to be a part of the rodeo. He has over three million followers on social media and mentions Prescott and the Prescott Frontier Days prior to, during, and even after our rodeo. Last year, Alan and his crew stayed for an additional four days because they enjoyed the event so much and the community. This year, Alan sent his father out early with the trailer because he wanted his father to experience the community and the world's oldest rodeo in Prescott. Our vendors, our members, and our volunteers are proud Americans to be part of the world's oldest rodeo in the city of Prescott. Thank you.

Thank you, Thomas. Rex Henshaw.

They don't want me to speak no more. You go better than that, Rex. Apparently, I have to speak once.

Mayor, council, my name is Rex Hinshaw. I'm the vice president of Prescott Frontier Days. I'm a member of the steering committee. I have a 65-year history with this facility and this site. I had my first job here in 1960 when I was 11 years old. And my family and myself have worked at this facility over all these years. I have a 40-year experience with the rodeo. And I just... My comments are just to say that... This process with GH2, they've done a great job. We have not always agreed in our meetings, and some of the meetings have been intense, but I think that the end result will be something that this community can be proud of. We have a 140-year history with the rodeo. This site has been part of Prescott since 1913, And I think that this master planning process will allow this city to be proud of what will remain for the next 140 years. So those are my comments. I'd be glad to answer any questions you might think I might be able to.

No, I think that explains it pretty well.

All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Deb Palacides.

My name is Deb Thalassitis, I am a Prescott resident and I'm also on the steering committee. One thing we hear a lot about is how important this property is to Prescott, to Prescott's history. Except the plan that we were just looking at doesn't preserve history, it's an expansion plan. All you have to do is look at all the new buildings. So other than replacing roughly 2,400 grandstand seats, this plan does not address safety or potential structural issues that Carter Labarge referenced. But that's not all that's excluded from this plan. On page 22 of their report, GH2 identifies construction-related costs that they've excluded from the almost $42 million estimate. This includes site preparation, design, engineering, hazardous material mitigation, and more. Who pays for these? We don't know. The $42 million estimate also excludes important community priorities. Council Member Ruby mentioned environmental remediation. There's no cost in the $42 million for that. The Miller Valley Rodeo Drive intersection improvements, not included. Traffic bollards, not included. Again, who's going to pay? Then there's the taxpayer requirement to pay for underground infrastructure. Those costs remain uncertain and the property already has known sewer challenges. The plan calls for the city's IT building to be demolished. This means taxpayers will have to pay for a new IT location with the associated equipment and relocation costs. The plan also ignores recent visual inspections from two different consultants hired by the city. And finally, if you read pages 35 through 37 in the report, there's a list of nine additional costs that are not included in the plan, which includes archaeological. So at best, almost $42 million is an incomplete estimate, leaving taxpayers on the hook for some unknown number. And this is over and above whatever the stakeholders pay for their individual buildings. When neighborhood representatives asked what is the public purpose of this plan, we were told the rodeo needs a way to make money so they can pay fair market rent, except that public dollars should not be spent to expand a venue so a private organization can make more money. And that goes for any organization. As a member of the steering committee, I don't support this plan. This version was presented to neighborhood representatives on July 23rd, less than a week before the community open house. There were items included that we'd never seen, like the 5,360 person venue capacity and the corresponding shortage of parking spaces. When we objected, we were told the plan wasn't going to change, and yet I hear today that, oh, maybe we had a mathematical error. I am asking you to honor our history. I want you to protect what's already there. Please use the remainder of the $15.3 million to fix the existing problems and not create new ones. There are too many expensive unknowns, and this plan shouldn't be adopted unless and until we get a better handle on two things. One, costs and who's going to pay, and two, the zoning. Right now, you cannot turn a shovel of dirt or demo a building because PFD operates as a legal non-conforming use and it is prohibited in our code for them to do any renovation. The last full fire inspection was 2021. I did a records request. There's nothing else except for a 2026 inspection of fire extinguishers. I will say, though, that Levi Darby and I finally agree on something. With the crowds that are coming to the fair and the rodeo, they really do need 200 acres not in the middle of a neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, Deb.

Sue Manuel.

Good evening, Sue Manuel, Prescott resident, Lifetime. Mr. Darby, just to clarify something, the county was offered you guys like 600 acres several years ago on Commerce Drive and Rodeo and Fair turned them down. The master plan should not be adopted until lease agreements with all users have been negotiated and approved and the rezoning process has taken place. I have counted at least nine entities that use that property with their separate taxpayer numbers. Probably four of them have a lease agreement with the city. February 2026, a lease amendment permits PFD to construct anything as long as it's part of the master plan. This master plan is a premature before zoning change. This master plan lacks the specificity to provide any protection to residents, neighbors, and the Prescott community. A single tenant should not simultaneously serve as a property manager. This allows a single tenant to exert too much power over the other tenants and their use of the property. I have seen this firsthand at our steering committees. This gives the sense of ownership to that tenant, and they are not the owners. They are renters. They are leasees. None of the existing tenants have the proper property management credentials required by Arizona state law to be property managers. The current lease is not enforced by the city. What and when will this occur? There needs to be guardrails incorporated into all the leases and consequences for tenants for not following the lease. The city's existing noise ordinance and camping ordinances are being violated, especially by PFD, for non-rodeo events. Events are not grandfathered as a non-conforming use. When will these ordinances be informed? They're short, 700 parking space. This is a business code. When you build a building, their off-site shuttle has some questionable ethics attached to it. As you have heard or will hear, some of the users of the community fairgrounds property will use retaliation against the neighborhood if they don't get what they want in response from the city. Thank you.

Thank you, Sue.

Bonnie McMinn.

Thank you again. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Bonnie McMinn, Prescott. The number of people this venue is designed to accommodate should be the starting point for this master plan. Every major planning decision that follows depends upon it. Capacity drives parking, traffic, circulation, ADA requirements, restrooms, infrastructure, public safety, neighborhood impacts. What gets built and how tens of millions of dollars of public dollars are spent? During the master plan procurement, a bidder asked how many seats were at the rodeo fairgrounds. The city's June 3rd, 2025 minutes show staff's response was approximately 3,800. In February 2024, Lee Engineering used approximately 4,000 as the current maximum single attendance event, contemplating that to maybe increase to 4,500. This master plan now identifies a current venue capacity of 5360. I understand, with all due respect, there was a typo, but that's something that needs to be rectified, and whether it's 5,000, 53, that's not a big difference. What is the real number, and what are we teeing everything off of? Whatever the number is, is larger than Findlay Toyota Center. when they do sporting events. So keep that in mind when you think about the size of a venue. There is no explanation for that increase. So based on the previous number, I didn't do the math, but it's about a 41% increase from 3,800, which was in the RFP. So a year ago, it was 3,800. Now it's 5,000. Maybe it's more than that. So it's not just a seating number. Everything in the master plan is based on that capacity, the scale, the impacts, what gets built, what it costs. So all of it depends on whether this property can actually accommodate a venue of that size. That's a lot of people. So was that number established before the multi-million dollar master plan was built around it? Which number is correct? What are we even looking at here? So I'm not asking you to resolve that number today. It needs to be resolved, certainly by the next public meeting. But we've seen this before. We get data, we don't follow the data. SR 89 is an example of that. We've got the police project, I mentioned that before. We're acting on incomplete information and the taxpayers end up paying the cost at the end. But why does it keep happening? So we're here again and we have to get to the basic number. If you can't know what your number is starting with, the capacity, How do you base anything after that? So when the master plan is based on that number, trust us doesn't work. I mean, a verbal order doesn't go and it shouldn't go. So council's oversight responsibility is to require answers before this master plan moves forward. Because if we cannot trust the data, we cannot trust the plan. Thank you. Thank you, Bonnie.

Ruthann Norris. Tony Hamer.

I'm Tony Hamer. I'm a 20-year resident of Prescott, and I've seen this fight now go on for 20 years as well, and I'm sure it's going to continue. GH2, great job of leadership here, and also herding the cats, and we've got plenty of cats. I'm a co-owner of Ion Prescott, and we test the community all the time in terms of whether they want a rodeo in town or not. And the majority of our community recognizes the degree of importance of the events, of the ground, of the rodeo itself. And the value of the brand, the value of the brand of the rodeo is huge for us. But there's two things that worry me right now, and I think they should be in your bailiwick in terms of going forward. The governance of the rodeo fairgrounds and its continuing operation, its upkeep, its maintenance, and the capital required for the future should be part of your thinking in terms of this project. Secondly, the initial ticket is 42 million plus or minus, who you believe, et cetera. But we are assured that that's not going to go to the taxpayers. Well, in which case there's a heck of a job to do in terms of private, public partnerships and or grants to get this thing done. So that is a big barrier going forward for the rodeo. Thank you for listening.

That's all, Mayor.

Well thank you, we've got a lot of input here and I would like to thank our consultants. We appreciate all the hard work you did and also it was fun the way you embedded yourselves in the community and got to know us. So with no more comments, this meeting is adjourned. Sorry, one more.

Thank you, Mayor. I waited till the end of the public comment period to put forth some thoughts. First thing I would say is if you haven't read the Prescott Pulse article of Friday, you really should. They raise a bunch of points and hit most of the questions right on the mark. Mr. Young, are you able to comment on the seating contract?

I don't know what you're talking about.

Well, the departures from the specifications.

Yes. They don't match our requirements. So having looked into it a little bit, just didn't have time to finish by the time that the rodeo hit. Now we need to require them to finalize their construction. But as it stands, as it stood at the time of the rodeo and stands now, no, it's not complete. It hasn't been fulfilled. Okay. Sounds like you had handled it.

The comments I'm going to make are not against the rodeo, but they are questions that a careful owner of a historic public asset should ask before committing lots of funds. The answers are really intended to ensure that the rodeo is a going concern in Prescott for another 113 years. Carter raised the issue of structural analysis. There is a very excellent reason to conduct a thorough structural analysis of the grandstands by a licensed structural engineer. The reason for that is if you look at the upper concourse, there have been added 2,286 bleacher seats. Those are not part of the original design of the grandstands. They're added. If you add up the weight of the bleachers and the people that sit in them, you arrive at pretty close to 400,000 pounds. When you look around the upper deck, you'll see cracks and in one spot what appears to be a deformed vertical support beam. Just to visualize 400,000 pounds, think three Boeing 737-600 airliners, fully fueled and loaded, put on that upper concourse. So that really needs to be done. And it's probably something the city should have done as part of the 15.3 million. If we need to reinforce the grandstands, now is the time to do it. Now is the time to know. The next question is, where did those 2,286 bleacher seats come from? Who approved that? When did that happen? That's not in the fire marshal's set forth seating limit of 3573. He wrote a letter to, well, I don't remember who he wrote it to. The fire marshal who was also the deputy chief at the time two years ago wrote a letter saying that the 3573 was based upon and standards that they reviewed. So in my view, another review by the fire marshal is needed to see if the seating that's being proposed is doable. I see we still have Gwen here. Gwen, I'm thinking that the environmental mitigation is gonna involve a footprint that we're not showing. Can you comment on that?

I think I'm going to need more context to your question.

Well, in order to reduce the amount of coliform reaching Miller Creek, especially during monsoon events, we're going to need some kind of a treatment system and it's going to cover some property. Do we have any idea? Because we should have something reserved in the master plan document for that.

So Councilman Gehring, I believe that's part of the public infrastructure that we'll be looking at as part of the stormwater system that runs through the site. Matt and I, Matt Killeen, our environmental manager, and I have discussed using first flush devices as well as the bioswale to achieve what you're talking about. But we're going to have to do a whole lot more work than we've done up to this date to tell you for certain what that might look like. The other thing is that currently the water sheet flows across the property, and we'll be channelizing some of it in order to push it towards these kinds of devices so that we can filter the water, so to speak, in a natural way through the biofilter to the degree that we can and or through the first flush devices before it gets to the creek. But we are aware that that is a big issue on this site, and that's why it's part of the public infrastructure.

Okay, thank you.

Mm-hmm.

On page 14 of the master plan document, you identify eight deficiencies, and I'm thinking that those deficiencies should be answered in the final document. The proposed activities in the multipurpose center include 500 seats, 12 functions a year. That's a substantial increase in the scope of activities on the rodeo site over what has been occurred in the past. The surrounding neighborhoods have grown up around the rodeo as it exists, but they didn't grow up around a much expanded scope of activities, and there must be a way to mitigate Dust, noise, traffic jams. I mean, if you've seen pictures of Gale Gardner, Ferris Street on rodeo night, they're backed up for a long, long ways, and the locals can't get around. That should not be allowed to continue. All right, thank you.

And Mayor, just before we close, I just want to say public hearings have to be closed by motion. So when you're ready or if you're done now, it needs to be closed by motion to do so.

Do I hear a motion?

I make a motion to close the public hearing.

Second. Please vote.

Pass 6-0. No, it's absent.

Meeting is adjourned.