HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC - Agendas - City Council - REGULAR - 8/29/2006 AIIIlk Extra Packet
� PRE
'` szs PRESCOTT CITY COUNCIL
4;t.0 4 VOTING MEETING AGENDA
-"re
PRESCOTT CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers
PUBLIC MEETING 201 S. Cortez Street
AUGUST 29, 2006 Prescott, AZ 86303
3:00 P.M. (928) 777-1100
The following Agenda will be considered by the Prescott City Council at its Regular
Voting Meeting pursuant to the Prescott City Charter, Article II, Section 13. Notice of this
meeting is given pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, Section 38-431.02.
CALL TO ORDER
INTRODUCTIONS AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Councilman Lamerson
ROLL CALL:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL:
Mayor Simmons
Councilman Bell Councilman Luzius
Councilman Blair Councilman Roecker
Councilman Lamerson Councilwoman Suttles
SUMMARY OF CURRENT OR RECENT EVENTS
NOTE: Anyone wishing to speak regarding an item on the agenda must address
the Council using the microphone at the podium.
THE CITY OF PRESCOTT ENDEAVORS TO MAKE ALL PUBLIC MEETINGS ACCESSIBLE TO PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES. WITH 48 HOURS ADVANCE NOTICE, SPECIAL ASSISTANCE CAN BE PROVIDED FOR SIGHT AND/OR
HEARING IMPAIRED PERSONS AT PUBLIC MEETINGS. PLEASE CALL 777-1272 OR 777-1100 (TDD) TO REQUEST
AN ACCOMMODATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING.
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting — August 29, 2006 Page 2
I. PUBLIC COMMENTS: (Please limit comments to five minutes)
A. Warren Parkes re Upcoming Air Show.
II. PRESENTATIONS
A. Introduction of new businesses.
III. CONSENT AGENDA
CONSENT ITEMS A THROUGH M LISTED BELOW MAY BE ENACTED BY
ONE MOTION. ANY ITEM MAY BE REMOVED AND nisei isPn IF A
COUNCILIVIEIVIBER SO REQUESTS.
MOTION: MOVE to adopt the Consent Agenda, Items III-A through III-M.
A. Authorize payment to Dell, Inc. in the amount of $39,291.02 to purchase
33 new computers for the downtown library.
B. Ken Lindley Field Tennis Courts
1 . Award playing surface bid in the amount of $62,936.00 to General
Acrylics.
2. Award contract in the amount of $30,188.00 to American Fence.
C. Authorize staff to enter into a contract with 3D/International for design and
construction services of a ten-acre park in an amount not to exceed
$781,000.00.
D. Authorize issuance of purchase order to Mohave Educational Services
Cooperative in the amount of $189,809.37 for construction of sidewalk
enhancements along the north side of Goodwin Street between
McCormick Street and Summit Avenue
E. Adopt Ordinance No. 4550 — An ordinance of the Mayor and Council of
the City of Prescott. Yavapai County, Arizona, accepting the granting and
dedication of certain streets and public rights-of-way within the Heritage
Subdivision, as public roadway.
F. Authorize purchase of an aerial lift (bucket) truck for street maintenance
and operations from Terex Utilities in the total amount of $61,968.00 as
detailed by their proposal dated August 2, 2006.
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting — August 29, 2006 Page 3
G. Approve contract/agreement with Sigma Communications Reverse 911
for the purchase and installation of Reverse 911 hardware and software in
the amount of $57,962.72 under GSA Contract #GS-35-F-023S.
H. Willow Creek Heights Subdivision:
1 . Adopt Ordinance No. 4552 — An ordinance of the Mayor and
Council of the City of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona, amending
the zoning of that certain property described as Parcel No. 106-20-
23 located north of Lakeview Drive and west of Broken Spear from
SF-35 to SF-18 in the City of Prescott.
2 Approve Preliminary plat for the Willow Creek Heights Subdivision,
creating five lots on five acres located at 748 South Lakeview Drive
(SP06-005).
3. Approve Water Service Agreement for 1.40 acre feet with the
Benson Family Trust for the Willow Creek Heights Subdivision,
located at 748 South Lakeview Drive.
Approve replat revising a portion of Tract C, Prescott Airpark, Unit II,
creating two lots from one, located at 6737 Corsair (RE06-022).
J. Adopt Resolution No. 3761 — A resolution of the Mayor and Council of the
City of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona, rescinding Resolution Number
3582 and adopting a new resolution establishing and adopting a Council
policy establishing application and review fees for annexations.
K. Award contract with Empire Machinery in the amount of $44,327.26 to
repair the D-9 Bulldozer for Solid Waste.
L. Adopt Resolution No. 3770 — A resolution of the Mayor and Council of the
City of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona, authorizing the City of Prescott
to enter into an amendment to an Intergovernmental Agreement with
Yavapai County, amending Contract #95,099, and Resolution No. 2815,
to provide for relocation of the County's Waste Tire Collection Site to City
property specified in this amendment to the IGA, and authorizing the
Mayor and staff to take any and all steps necessary to accomplish the
above.
M. Approve Minutes of the Prescott City Council Study Session of August 1 ,
2006, the Prescott City Council Regular Meeting of August 8, 2006, and
the Prescott City Council Study Session of August 15, 2006.
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting — August 29, 2006 Page 4
IV. REGULAR AGENDA
A. Homestead Subdivision:
1 . Public Hearing (August 29) and Adoption of Ordinance No. 4551 —
An ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of Prescott,
Yavapai County, Arizona, amending the zoning of that certain
property located east of Senator Highway and West of Summer
Field in the City of Prescott.
MOTION: (1) MOVE to close the public hearing; and (2) MOVE
to adopt Ordinance No. 4551.
2. Approval of Preliminary Plat for the Homestead Subdivision,
creating 36 lots on 19.5 acres located east of Senator Highway and
west of Summer Field (SP06-003).
MOTION: MOVE to approve the Preliminary Plat for the
Homestead Subdivision, creating 36 lots on 19.5
acres located east of Senator Highway and west of
Summer Field (SP06-003).
3. Approval of Water Service Agreement for 12.60 acre feet with
Tenney Feed & Livestock Company, Inc. the Tenney Living Trust,
and Jeanine Brown for the Homestead Subdivision, located east of
Senator Highway and west of Summer Field.
MOTION: MOVE to approve the Water Service Agreement for
12.60 acre feet with Tenney Feed & Livestock
Company, Inc. the Tenney Living Trust, and Jeanine
Brown for the Homestead Subdivision, located east of
Senator Highway and west of Summer Field.
B. Public hearing on possible increase in development impact fees.
MOTION: MOVE to close the public hearing.
C. Adopt Resolution No. 3771 — A resolution of the Mayor and Council of the
City of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona, accepting a grant from the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to provide funding for the Airport
Master Plan and ratification of acceptance of grant funding.
MOTION: MOVE to adopt Resolution No. 3771 .
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting — August 29, 2006 Page 5
D. Adopt Resolution No. 3772 — A resolution of the Mayor and Council of the
City of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona, authorizing the City of Prescott
to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the United States
Department of Agriculture to engage in fuel reduction and mitigation for
the purpose of reducing the risk of wildfire on Federal lands adjacent to
the Prescott Urban Interface, and authorizing the Mayor and staff to take
any and all steps necessary to accomplish the above.
MOTION: MOVE to adopt Resolution No. 3772.
E. Approve Final Plat for Downer 16, a subdivision comprising 16 lots on
approximately 18.63 acres, located on Downer Trail between Sierry
Peaks and Westridge Drive, FP06-007.
MOTION: MOVE to approve Final Plat for Downer 16, a subdivision
comprising 16 lots on approximately 18.63 acres, located on
Downer Trail between Sierry Peaks and Westridge Drive,
FP06-007.
V. ADJOURNMENT
ill- c
COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO — August 29, 2006
DEPARTMENT: Parks, Recreation and Library
AGENDA ITEM:
Prescott Lakes 10 Acre Park Site
Approved By: Date:
Department Head: Jim McCasland V/4/4 b
Finance Director: Mark Woodfill
I City Manager: Steve Norwood ce / e)
During Council Study Session of August 15, 2006 questions arose regarding what
improvements were to be included within the 10acre park that the 3D/I will assist the
City in developing. Consistent with the approved Prescott Lakes Park Master Plan the
following are some of the amenities to be included in the park:
50 foot event ramada
Two restrooms
Turf play area
Parking for 40 spaces
Sand volleyball court
Basketball court
Small playground area
Vista trail-head parking
Viewing stations along natural surface trail
Landscaping
The listed improvements appear on the attached Illustrative Plan that was presented at
a public meeting and approved by Council in 2002.
1
/ ' 10-acre Park - Presco Lake Development Agreement Park • esig h
•
\ event ramada 1 No athletic/event lighting included. r...••W
site parking(So) 2.All structures shall be sighted to Insure trail head
minimal Impact on view-sheds turf play area
/ '- turf play area 3.Park maintenance shall be provided by/
sand volleyball cow
City of Prescott,AZ. basketball acourt
entry plaza space 4.This Masia enmda
tD locations of elernantsterPlanis wd ill vary.grammatic,actual bass
rama
ra da
---- restroom - viewing station/ram
,..�� -_ - - trails
-' --concrete header security lighting
CS
C i restroom
si
nage
OS _ - ms c.a emanis:
seating,tables,d+
-- path • trash receptacle,
.. j� / (concrete)"
drop-off-___. ,
-sand volleyball ,
bus/overflow- �� ; - J.. / -
parking Ilb • iliV
basketball
Q 'r' _ l -P irll_d a d..
natural wash- � i _ \/i
/
area -? ,\ !/ (unisrestrex)
- al
T ',e0 . 1 3
entryr -
, 1 ramada/vlewing station ) ,
p:IeS)
i , ,' .. �� ` - 1
Ea' - 'I .r 11. _
iJ1
\ ,/1:
j
i •11 It
r f -- :
.
i
. �c : - A, b • +w.- • Ara. - ......,�
Q..
�p•� ".. L - --- -
Olustrativo plan = PRESCOTT LAKES PARK MASTER PLAN
.v:NI - Juno.2002
••w-a'1 'X ..,. "s SiahL *w,,. 7'7 r..T ,t a'ri'*F..�. u 5,. , . 1,�,3
0 ® Q 7-�#' I + ;f 'A, 1 4 ` -.. "."�6_., � -is .�t-, s� ,T� _E4:T " •v Y ;;,5. r x'./ —._._...
.LocAN S,,f)s„,DEs cN ING s
ORDINANCE NO. 4550
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PRESCOTT,
YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA, ACCEPTING THE GRANTING AND DEDICATION OF
CERTAIN STREETS AND PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY WITHIN THE HERITAGE
SUBDIVISION, AS PUBLIC ROADWAY
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Prescott has determined that certain right
of way is necessary for the construction and maintenance of public streets for purposes of
constructing the east/west connector from the Sierry Peaks Drive/Downer Trail to Gail
Gardner Way; and
WHEREAS, the property owners in compliance with the agreement for construction
of the east/west connector, Development Agreement No. 2005-409, approved in Resolution
No. 3746 therein, have agreed to convey said roadways to the City.
ENACTMENTS:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PRESCOTT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. THAT the dedications and conveyances from the Morgan Reserve LLC
dedicating that certain right of way described as Lot 43, Heritage Subdivision, Unit III,
Phase 2 as recorded in Book 53 of maps and plats, at pages 61-62 and deeded to the City
of Prescott as part of said Development Agreement is hereby accepted by the City of
Prescott.
SECTION 2. THAT the Mayor and Staff are hereby authorized to executed any and
all documents to implement the foregoing.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the City of Prescott this 29th
day of August. 2006.
ROWLE P. SIMMONS, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ELIZABETH A. BURKE, City Clerk GARY D. KIDD, City Attorney
III - �--1 -1
ORDINANCE NO. 4552
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PRESCOTT,
YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE ZONING OF THAT CERTAIN
PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS PARCEL NO. 106-20-23 LOCATED NORTH OF
LAKEVIEW DRIVE AND WEST OF BROKEN SPEAR FROM SF-35 TO SF-18 IN THE
CITY OF PRESCOTT
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the owner of certain properties within the corporate limits of the City of
Prescott has requested a rezoning of its property; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Prescott has held
public hearings regarding said rezoning, subject to certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Prescott has determined that it would be
in the best interest of public necessity, interest, convenience or general welfare to rezone
certain properties; and
WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 9.15 of the City of Prescott Land
Development Code have been complied with.
ENACTMENTS:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PRESCOTT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. THAT, the following described parcel of land, generally located North
of Lakeview Drive and West of Broken Spear in the City of Prescott, Parcel
No. 106-20-23 Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona, consisting of approximately 3.1 acres
shall be and is hereby reclassified from the Single Family Residential SF-35 to Single
Family Residential SF-18, to wit:
Lot 13, WILLOW CREEK HEIGHTS, according to the plat of record in the office of
Yavapai County Recorder, Book 7 of Maps, page 60.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the City of Prescott this
29th day of August, 2006.
ROWLE P. SIMMONS, Mayor
ORDINANCE NO. 4552 PAGE 2
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ELIZABETH A. BURKE, City Clerk GARY D. KIDD, City Attorney
L
RESOLUTION NO. 3770
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PRESCOTT,
YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF PRESCOTT TO ENTER
INTO AN AMENDMENT TO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH YAVAPAI
COUNTY, AMENDING CONTRACT # 95-099, AND RESOLUTION NO. 2815, TO
PROVIDE FOR RELOCATION OF THE COUNTY'S WASTE TIRE COLLECTION SITE TO
CITY PROPERTY SPECIFIED IN THIS AMENDMENT TO THE IGA AND AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR AND STAFF TO TAKE ANY AND ALL STEPS NECESSARY TO
ACCOMPLISH THE ABOVE
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the City has previously entered into an IGA with Yavapai County to
provide a site for waste tire collection and such site benefits the citizens of Prescott and
those of Yavapai County: and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend this agreement by relocating the site provided
to Yavapai County for waste tire collection to a site other than that previously specified in the
IGA to a site owned by the City of Prescott and located approximately one-half mile south of
the current location.
ENACTMENTS:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PRESCOTT AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. THAT the City of Prescott hereby approves the attached Amendment to
the IGA with Yavapai County pertaining to Waste Tire Collection, and which amends the
location for such waste tire collection, and further, that Resolution No. 2815 and IGA
Contract No. 95-099 are hereby amended to reflect the new location for waste tire collection.
All terms of the previous IGA and Resolution not specifically amended by this Amendment
to the IGA, attached hereto as Amendment No. One, shall remain in effect.
Section 2. THAT the Mayor and Staff are hereby authorized to execute the
attached Memorandum of Understanding and to take any and all steps deemed necessary
to accomplish the above.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the City of Prescott this
29th day of August, 2006.
ROWLE P. SIMMONS, Mayor
RESOLUTION NO. 3770 PAGE 2
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ELIZABETH A. BURKE, City Clerk GARY D. KIDD, City Attorney
AMENDMENT NO. ONE
TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR
WASTE TIRE COLLECTION
THIS AMENDMENT dated , 2006, by and between the
County of Yavapai, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, hereinafter called
"COUNTY" and the City of Prescott, a municipal corporation of the State of Arizona,
hereinafter called "CITY."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the COUNTY is a recipient of funds under the provisions of A.R.S.
§44-1305 for the purpose of establishing and operating waste tire collection sites, and;
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the COUNTY's activities pursuant to A.R.S. §44-
1305, the Parties have previously executed an Agreement for Waste Tire Collection,
dated September 25th, 1995, as recorded in Book 3084, Page 458, records of Yavapai
County (the "Waste Tire Agreement"), which included provisions allowing the
COUNTY to use specified CITY-owned property as a waste tire collection site; and
WHEREAS, the Parties wish to amend the Waste Tire Agreement to provide for
the relocation of the COUNTY's waste tire collection site to CITY-owned property other
than that originally specified in the Waste Tire Agreement
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS
1. Exhibit A to the Waste Tire Collection Agreement dated September 25th, 1995
shall be replaced by an amended Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by
reference herein.
2. Pursuant to ARS §11-952(G), this Amendment shall be recorded in the Office of the
Yavapai County Recorder upon its proper approval and execution by the authorized
representatives of both Parties.
[Approvals on Following Page]
APPROVALS
YAVAPAI COUNTY
Thomas Thurman Date
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
CITY OF PRESCOTT:
Mayor, City of Prescott Date -
ATTEST:
Clerk, City of Prescott
— DETERMINATIONS OF COUNSEL
Pursuant to A.R.S. Section 11-952(D), the foregoing agreement has been reviewed by the
undersigned attorney for the City of Prescott, who has determined that the agreement is in
proper form and is within the powers and authority granted under the laws of this State to
the City of Prescott.
Gary Kidd
City Attorney
Pursuant to A.R.S. Section 11-952(D),the foregoing agreement has been reviewed by the
undersigned attorney for the Yavapai County, who has determined that the agreement is
in proper form and is within the powers and authority granted under the laws of this State
to Yavapai County.
David Hunt
Deputy County Attorney
( 1 (
ST= THE STO AGE SIT- `�
FENCE COR.
N 9540.2993 WA
E 19176.5701
c
•
•
CONSTRJCT VEW QT ,' •• • h
ry
6' HIGH CHAIN UNK ,• 0 20 40 80
SECURITY FENCE
AROUND PERIMETER / 'b. ss�i I `� I elks
I ry h�y �%9F HORIZ. elf?
':..:\* ^) `T2o SCALE IN FEET VV
. ' . 4 /c
P" FENCE.COR.834 b 4
`C- N 9395.8347 1 'c
E 19071.2045 1♦ A.,
f\ 7 O, FFNCF COR. ,S�Q'
'N.:,
TOE OF BERM 0.'q,Q `So' e ♦ P
\� e` ,A , NORTH GATE POST
,� M
qie. -. \ N 9305.7431 EX. UT LITY
.... `7� �V E 19401.3353 RISERS
....-0 .
—
........................................ .\ ��VP
A i \ EX. DRAINAGE
• �"`� u`V 28' DJUBLE ' CULVERTS n
ry�6' 3,� cP SWING GA"I - ,
P 5l ••� `N PROPOSED -• _
ACO
ENcE COR. �/ dig, SITE ACCESS —I
'1 9207.4134 • yVw LOCATION
19329.1184 oy� 4
1 f
PROTECT EX STING UTILITY , EX. POWE /' D
PULLBOX IN PLACE P POLE ---J'
1
(SEE NOTE) o — QQ
ry T
, -�....„ /, FOUND
,` }" RCDAR
Thi`• NEW 6' HIGH CHAIN LII\K I PEAVINE TRAILHEAD ��'
I !zP NO1F THE EXISTING UTILITY PULLBOX AND UNDERGROUND
PERIMETER SECURITY FENCE, PARKING AREA r CONDUIT LOCATION SHOWN IS TC BE PROTECTED IN
ADOT STD.C-12.20, PLACE. A MINIMUM 2' CLEARANCE BETWEEN THE
TYPE 2 WITH TOP RAIL ADDED BOX AND FENCEUNE SHALL BE PROVIDED. THE
II QG SOUTHERNMOST FENCE CORNER MAY BE ADJUSTED
i ,\�O A.000RDINGLY TO ACCOMODATE SPACING. BLUE
�' �v STAKE UTILITY LOCATION IS REQUIRED BY -HE
CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO PROJECT COMMENCEMENT,
TIRE STORAGE PAD AND POTHOLING MAY 3E NECESSARY IN THE
/ - `.`�\` ;� VICINITY OF MARKED UTILITIES TO VERIFY NO
J CONFLICTS.
\ !
2 vi CALL TWO WORKING DAYS
.< y BEFORE YOU DIG
SECTION A /c,�:P 01-8U0-STAKE
Q9-QP BLJE STAKE CENTER
NOT TO SCALE .A,
`? REVISED 7/5/06
TIT-
PRESCOTT CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
PRESCOTT, ARIZONA
AUGUST 8, 2006
A REGULAR VOTING MEETING OF THE PRESCOTT CITY COUNCIL WAS HELD
ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2006, in the Prescott Municipal Building, 201 S. Cortez
Street, Prescott, Arizona.
Mayor Simmons opened the meeting at 3:00 P.M. and asked Councilman Luzius to
lead the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mayor Simmons asked City Clerk Elizabeth Burke to call the roll, which was as
follows:
Present: Absent:
Mayor Simmons None
Councilman Bell
Councilman Blair
Councilman Lamerson
Councilman Luzius
Councilman Roecker
Councilwoman Suttles
SUMMARY OF CURRENT OR RECENT EVENTS
Manager Steve Norwood announced the title and deed to the property on Montezuma
Street for the downtown fire station were in the City's name and there were some final
escrow issues as far as the cleanup of the property was concerned. Staff hoped to
get a Request for Proposals out in 30 days for the design of the new fire station and it
had been a high priority of the Council to get this done.
I. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
A. Bob Park (Veterans for Secure Borders) — Immigration Issues;
Solutions not Problems.
Mr. Park explained to the Council there were local and State laws the City
could use in looking at the illegal immigrant situation that so many cities and
states were facing and it would take local communities working together to
have an impact.
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting —August 8, 2006 Page 2
Councilman Lamerson inquired about environmental damage and Mr. Park
replied Lake Pleasant was a good example where the Minutemen Project and
Hunters Who Care got together and cleaned up the trash. The desert areas
along the border were especially littered with trash.
Councilman Roecker commented he had met with Mr. Park and was very
impressed; Mr. Park had a lot of data and the City could learn a lot from him
and he could help with its problem.
II. PRESENTATIONS
A. Dallas Hammit, ADOT Prescott District Engineer, re State Route 69.
Mr. Hammit commented he had been the district engineer for one year now.
He said that a Hazard Elimination Study had been done on State Route 69
(SR69) and there was a Federal program where State agencies could look up a
safety study done in a specific area, but it was not a public document.
Mayor Simmons asked why it wasn't a public document and Mr. Hammit
replied the information gathered was protected from discovery and that was
part of the Federal legislation; the study was done between Milepost 290 to
292 from Stoneridge Boulevard to Sunrise Boulevard; they looked for patterns
in the accidents; for each study there was $3 million available to tap from to
make improvements to those areas.
Mr. Hammit presented the following information:
SR 69 Hazard Elimination Study Overview
A Hazard Elimination Study (HES) was performed on the section of State
Route 69 between mile posts 290 and 292. This is a four-lane roadway with a
yellow painted median. There exist seven crossroads within the study section,
all are stop controlled. The posted speed limit in this area is 55 miles per hour.
There have been a total of 126 reported collisions in this section between
October 2000 and October 2005. (Six collisions involved fatalities and 35
involved injury or possible injury).
Of the six fatal collisions, four were crossover collisions and two angle/left turn
collisions. Three of the four crossover collisions listed drugs or DUI as a
contributing factor, the other listed reckless driving as a contributing factor.
A thorough review of the Arizona Traffic Accident Report indicated six collision
types. These collision types are:
1. Rear End Collisions: 37 collisions (29%)
2. Median Crossover Collisions: 23 collisions (18%)
3. Angle/Left Turn Collisions: 22 collisions (17%)
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting —August 8, 2006 Page 3
4. Collisions Involving Deer: 22 collisions (17%)
5. Run Off Roadway Collisions: 5 collisions (4%)
6. Other Collisions: 17 collisions (13%)
The following table lists the potential mitigation measures for the type of
collision with pros and cons for each.
Collision Potential Pros Cons/Inapplicability to Study
Type Measure Area
• Warns motorists of • No discernible darkness pattern in
Rear End Reflective roadway conditions collisions
Signing • May increase fixed object collision
• Alerts inattentive • Noise
Run Off Longitudinal drivers.
Roadway Rumble Strips • Mitigates some run-
off-road collisions
• Alerts inattentive • Mitigates some collisions involving
drivers inattentive driver
Centerline • Mitigates some
Rumble Strips crossing over center
line type collisions
Recessed • Illuminates travel lanes • No discernible darkness pattern in
Pavement collisions
Markings
• Eliminates conflicting • High maintenance cost
movements at minor • Intersection widening needed
roads • Fixed object collision frequency may
Median High Tension • Mitigates crossover increase
Cross Over Cable Median collisions • Emergency vehicle response time
Barrier • Reduces severity of increases
collisions • Impacts operation of existing
• Easy to install and signalized intersections
uninstall • Maintenance of end treatments'
• Restricts access • Restricts access
• May impede snow removal
• Eliminates conflicting • High implementation cost
movements at minor • Drainage improvements necessary
roads • Fixed object collision frequency
• Mitigates crossover may increase
F-Shaped collisions • Emergency vehicle response time
Concrete • Reduces severity of increases
collisions • Impacts operation of existing
• Restricts access signalized intersections
• Maintenance of end treatments'
• Restricts access
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting —August 8, 2006 Page 4
Median Islands • Eliminates some • Restricts access
in cross streets conflicting movements • Impacts operation of existing
to restrict • Restricts access signalized intersections
access to right
in/right out
• Refuge for left turning • Requires advanced maneuvering
vehicles • Creates speed differential2
Two Way left • Reduces the • Can introduce other types of
turn lane necessary intersection collisions
sight distance
Left • Mitigates left • May increase other type of
Turn/Angle Traffic Signals turn/angle collisions collisions
• Mitigates left • Unable to redirect errant vehicles
turn/angle collisions • Does not mitigate median
Curbed Median • Restricts access crossover collisions
• Drainage improvements necessary
• High implementation cost
• Restricts access
• Vaulting may occur
Reduction in • Lowers speed • Creates speed differential2
Speed Limits • Promotes weaving
All • Introduces other collision types
Photo Radar • Enforces posted • Does not mitigate reckless driving
speed
With the information listed above it has been determined that a concrete 32 inch F-
shaped barrier in the center of the existing median would be the preferred mitigation
for the median crossover and angle/left turn collisions. This barrier would be installed
within the study limits with one opening. This opening would be signalized when
signals warrants3 were met. Once comments are gathered on the study, ADOT is
prepared to begin final design and would expect construction to begin soon after the
completion of the design.
' End Treatments—A protective device placed at the end of barriers to mitigate damage in the event of
a collision
`. Speed Differential—The difference in speed between faster and slower moving traffic.
' Signal Warrants—8 warrants or tests that one or more must be met to justify the installation of a traffic
signal.
Councilman Bell asked how long it would take for Federal Highway approval
and he was pleased to see a recommendation. Mr. Hammit responded
approval would take approximately one week; the report would be reviewed
and the review process was done locally.
Mr. Hammit added the estimate was $2.4 million for two miles and if a traffic
signal was warranted it could be funded through a State-wide Signal Fund or
Hazard Fund; but a signal didn't mitigate accidents.
Councilman Bell asked how long it would take for the design and Mr. Hammit
replied that the design would be done fairly quickly and the project completed
within the fiscal year, possibly next summer.
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting —August 8, 2006 Page 5
... Councilwoman Suttles asked if more studies would be done and the project
would continue into Prescott Valley and Mr. Hammit replied Prescott Valley
was working on a different approach for the development expected along
SR69, such as a curb median and added the barriers could be taken out as
signals were warranted along the route.
B. Presentation by Representative on State Proposition No. 105, State
Trust Land.
Bas Aja, representing the Cattleman's Association, presented the following
information regarding Proposition 105:
• Both Proposition 105 and 106 were Constitutional amendments and
should not be taken lightly.
• Proposition 105 had two components: (1) was a new, modern planning
tool, and (2) was a mechanism for conservation for State Trust Land.
Also allows for public right of way with no publication requirements.
• It allowed for the disposition of easements and public rights-of-way
without advertising, auction or compensation.
• Proposition 106 allowed the bureaucrats at the Land Department to take
money from the Trust; the fund which currently was designated for
education and schools should remain untouched and allowed to grow for
the future.
• It did not create a Board of Trustees.
C. Presentation by Representative on State Proposition No. 106,
Conserving Arizona's Future.
Patrick Graham, State Director for The Nature Conservancy, presented the
following information:
• Primary goals were to (1) conserve land for open space and protection
of water sources; (2) require State Land Department to follow local
plans; (3) achieve more timely disposal of State Trust Land suitable for
development; and (4) increase funding for classrooms and teacher
salaries.
• The initiative would reportedly designate nearly 65,000 acres of State
Trust Lands within the Big Chino Subbasin and Prescott area as either
permanently or provisionally reserved.
• The U.S. Congress would have to amend the Arizona-New Mexico
Enabling Act by 2009 before this could be enacted.
• Proposition 105 would reduce revenues by conserving lands without
compensation.
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting — August 8, 2006 Page 6
Council questions:
• Starting another layer of government with a Board of Trustees?
• The Board would take on new responsibilities and look at the
recommendations of which lands to keep and which to dispose of;
these decisions had lasting impacts on the community.
• Would the Board members be volunteers?
• Yes. Board would be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by
the Senate.
• How could a Board member be removed?
• Not sure.
• Who approves recommendations and moves into action?
• Land Commissioner
• Does Commissioner have veto power over the Board?
• No.
• Where does the money come from for management?
• Money came from leases of the land or from the sale of the land.
• A percentage of sales went to maintenance. If Badger P Mountain and
Glassford Hill were preserved, would there be a management plan and
how would maintenance be funded?
• Not sure.
Council comments:
• The Board should have representatives from the Counties with State
Trust Lands.
• Highest and best use of the State Trust Lands should be considered as
the money went to education and the property was owned by the
taxpayers.
• Proposition 106 allowed spending of the principal, not just the interest.
It was clarified the funds could be used to supplement the State budget
and the funds would first come out of earnings, not the trust and when
the trust reached $7 billion it would come out of the principal.
• Proposition 105 was referred by the Legislature and Proposition 106
was referred by initiative.
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting —August 8, 2006 Page 7
Ill. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Simmons announced Item G was being removed from the Consent Agenda for
discussion.
Councilman Roecker MOVED to APPROVE Consent Agenda Items III-A through III-F
and III-H, which was SECONDED by Councilman Lamerson. The motion passed
unanimously.
A. Authorize purchase of call recorder for Police Department from Mitel in
the amount of $40,134.00, plus tax.
B. Approve Renewal of Off-Track Pari-mutuel Wagering for Turf Paradise
at Matt's Saloon, 112 S. Montezuma Street.
C. Approve Final Plat for Centerpointe West Medical Center, located south
of Centerpointe West Drive at Distinction Way, creating a new street and
utility easements, FP06-006.
D. Approve Final Plat for Prescott Vistas, 11 lots on 10 acres located north
of Newport Heights, FP06-013.
E. Approve Final Plat for the Reserve at Willow Hills, a 54 lot residential
oft- subdivision located south of Willow Lake Road and east of Lakeside
Village Drive, FP06-012.
F. Approve Final Plat for the Reserve at Willow Hills Commerce Center, a
commercial subdivision containing 17 lots, located south of Willow Lake
Road and east of Lakeside Village Drive, FP06-011.
H. Approve Minutes of the Prescott City Council Workshop of July 18,
2006; the Prescott City Council Study Session/Regular Voting Meeting
of July 18, 2006; the Prescott City Council Regular Meeting of July 25,
2006; and the Prescott City Council Special Meeting of August 1, 2006.
Mayor Simmons presented Item G for discussion —
G. Adopt Resolution No. 3761 — A resolution of the Mayor and Council of
the City of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona, rescinding Resolution
Number 3582 and adopting a new resolution establishing and adopting
a Council policy establishing application and review fees for
annexations.
Community Development Director Tom Guice explained the language in
Proposition 400 drew a distinction with annexations of over 250 acres and
some under 250 if the properties were under the same ownership for 10 years
or more. The new proposed fee schedule presented the question if someone
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting — August 8, 2006 Page 8
annexed 240 acres and then a couple of years later annexed 100 acres, how
would that be handled as there was no fee for annexing under 250 acres and
at what time would fees kick in.
Mayor Simmons commented there needed to be some harmony between
Proposition 400 and the fee schedule and asked staff to come back with new
annexation fees reflecting how that situation would be handled and establish a
trigger to collect the fees.
Councilman Lamerson suggested having a mechanism in place for the
situation when someone wanted to annex 1,000 or 2,000 acres to consider the
water situation and maybe pay the fees as the property was developed.
Mr. Guice commented development plans often changed and it would be his
suggestion to establish a fee on the number of acres as part of an overall
planning process.
Councilman Lamerson concluded saying it was a high Council priority to annex
as much land as possible to get everyone on sewer and control the
development.
Attorney GaryKidd suggested puttingthis on the agenda next week for
99 9
discussion.
IV. REGULAR AGENDA
A. Public Hearing and consideration of a liquor license application
from Brian Lowe for a Person Transfer of the Series 6, Bar, License
at Brian's Irish Pub, located at 218 West Gurley Street.
Clerk Elizabeth Burke explained the public hearing was being held today; the
application was a person transfer for Brian's Irish Pub; the property had been
posted July 14 and no protests or comments had been received.
The applicant was in the audience.
Councilman Lamerson asked the question, unrelated to this item, why the
State Liquor Board overturned Council decisions and why the Council bothered
voting on them. Attorney Kidd responded State Statutes required approval or
disapproval at the local level which recommendation was then forwarded to the
State.
Councilman Roecker asked staff to invite someone from the State Liquor
Department to address Council and explain why a local vote of denial could be
overturned by the State. -�
Mayor Simmons redirected the Council to today's liquor license application.
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting —August 8, 2006 Page 9
Councilman Bell MOVED to CLOSE the public hearing, which was
SECONDED by Councilman Roecker. The motion passed unanimously.
Councilman Bell MOVED to APPROVE the liquor license application from Brian
Lowe for a Person Transfer of the Series 6, Bar, License at Brian's Irish Pub,
located at 218 West Gurley Street, which was SECONDED by Councilman
Lamerson. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Public Hearing and consideration of a liquor license application
from Anna Maria Garcia, Agent for Annalina's Authentic Mexican
Food, L.L.C., for a new Series 12, Restaurant, License for
Annalina's Authentic Mexican Food, located at 126 S. Montezuma
Street.
Clerk Elizabeth Burke explained the public hearing was being held today; this
application was a new Series 12 Restaurant license for Annalina's Authentic
Mexican Food; the property had been posted July 10 and no protests or
comments had been received.
The applicant was in the audience.
Councilwoman Suttles MOVED to CLOSE the public hearing, which was
SECONDED by Councilman Lamerson. The motion passed unanimously.
Councilwoman Suttles MOVED to APPROVE the liquor license application
from Anna Maria Garcia, Agent for Annalina's Authentic Mexican Food, L.L.C.,
for a new Series 12, Restaurant, License for Annalina's Authentic Mexican
Food, located at 126 S. Montezuma Street, which was SECONDED by
Councilman Lamerson. The motion passed unanimously.
C. Public Hearing and consideration of a liquor license application
from Benjamin Alvarez, Agent for Ben Alvarez, L.L.C., for a Series
12, Restaurant, License for Casa Alvarez to be located at 810 White
Spar Road.
Clerk Elizabeth Burke explained the public hearing was being held today; the
application was for a license for Casa Alvarez, to be located at 810 White Spar
Road; the property had been posted July 14 and no protests or comments had
been received.
The applicant was in the audience.
Councilman Luzius MOVED to CLOSE the public hearing, which was
SECONDED by Councilwoman Suttles. The motion passed unanimously.
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting — August 8, 2006 Page 10
Councilman Lamerson MOVED to APPROVE the liquor license application
from Benjamin Alvarez, Agent for Ben Alvarez, L.L.C., for a Series 12,
Restaurant, License for Casa Alvarez to be located at 810 White Spar Road,
which was SECONDED by Councilman Roecker. The motion passed
unanimously.
D. Public Hearing for ANX06-001, annexing approximately 157 acres
located south of Centerpointe West, (Ty Myers, Agent).
(Centerpointe South)
Community Development Director Tom Guice explained the property was
located east of Highway 89 in the vicinity of the Phippen Museum, owned by
Ron and Laura James, and was proposed as Centerpointe South to be
developed by Chamberlain Myers L.L.C. Ty Myers was in attendance today if
Council had questions.
There being no public comment, Councilman Roecker MOVED to CLOSE the
public hearing, which was SECONDED by Councilwoman Suttles. The motion
passed unanimously.
E. Public Hearing for ANX06-002, annexing approximately 25 acres
located north of Prescott Municipal Airport (Ty Myers, Agent).
Community Development Director Tom Guice explained the property was
located northwest of Highway 89 on the north side of Ruger Road adjacent to
the Prescott Municipal Airport; the property was owned by Ty Myers and was
proposed for development as the Prescott Airport Development; signatures
would be solicited beginning August 15.
There being no public comment, Councilman Roecker MOVED to CLOSE the
public hearing, which was SECONDED by Councilman Bell. The motion
passed unanimously.
F. Appointment of City Council representative to the Upper Verde
River Watershed Protection Coalition Executive Board.
Councilwoman Suttles MOVED to APPOINT Councilman Luzius to the Upper
Verde River Watershed Protection Coalition Executive Board, which was
SECONDED by Councilman Bell.
Councilman Lamerson asked Councilman Luzius why he wanted to be on this
committee when he had voted not to have the committee. Mr. Luzius replied
the formulation of the committee had gone on for four or five months with
clandestine meetings spearheaded by the County Board of Supervisors; there
were violations of the Open Meeting Law and he didn't see the need for "1
another committee. He said there was a directive from Senator John McCain
stating municipalities on this side of the mountain should have representatives
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting —August 8, 2006 Page 11
at the Verde meetings; he wanted to try to keep the city on the straight and
91111. narrow so citizens knew what was going on and meetings and business should
be transparent; he was qualified to be on the board and had attended
numerous water meetings.
Mayor Simmons clarified the organizational meetings were not clandestine
meetings and there was never a quorum present.
Councilman Luzius responded the meetings weren't publicized and Mayor
Simmons said it wasn't necessary.
Councilman Blair commented Council discussed their missions and goals at
the retreat at the golf course clubhouse and made the commitment without a
formal vote that the waterline project be moved forward, yet Councilman Luzius
didn't vote for the waterline either and he was a negative influence.
Councilman Luzius explained his vote wasn't going to stop anything.
Councilman Roecker clarified the City had not broken off their relationship with
the Coalition or Verde River Partnership, but there were some details to work
out.
Councilman Bell commented ADWR had told the City the only way to reach
` m- safe yield was to import water from outside the AMA and that was the City's
plan; Councilman Luzius supported safe yield but voted against the pipeline
project and wondered if the water would be trucked in instead and Councilman
Luzius replied he wasn't against the pipeline, only against not having a
mitigation plan.
Councilman Roecker called for the question.
The motion failed 1-6, with Mayor Simmons, Councilmembers Bell, Blair,
Lamerson, Roecker and Suttles casting NAY votes.
Councilman Roecker MOVED to APPOINT Mayor Simmons to the Upper
Verde River Watershed Protection Coalition Executive Board, which was
SECONDED by Councilman Bell.
Councilman Blair suggested naming an alternate in case Mayor Simmons
wasn't available to attend the meeting and Councilwoman Suttles suggested
the Mayor Pro Tem and MOVED to AMEND the motion to include naming the
Mayor Pro Tem as an alternate, which was SECONDED by Councilman
Lamerson.
The motion to appoint Mayor Simmons and Mayor Pro Tem passed 6-1 with
'� Councilman Luzius casting a NAY vote.
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting — August 8, 2006 Page 12
G. Authorize staff to purchase the Nature Center property for $1,810,000.00,
and to approve the purchase agreement with the Prescott Unified School
District No. 1 for the purchase of said property.
Attorney Gary Kidd explained staff from the City and School District had been
negotiating the purchase agreement and there was a lot of give and take on
both sides; the legal department approved the agreement which would
authorize the purchase of the 18 acres for open space.
Manager Steve Norwood said there was one item that had caused the School
District some concern and that was in having two payments made, one by
September 2006 and the second one in 2007. There would be no interest
earnings and he suggested cutting one check and paying them as there was $5
million in the Open Space Fund.
Councilman Luzius MOVED to AUTHORIZE staff to purchase the Nature
Center property for $1,810,000.00, and to approve the purchase agreement
with the Prescott Unified School District No. 1 for the purchase of said property
with the modification to make one payment, and authorize the Mayor and city
staff to execute all necessary documents to effectuate the purchase, which was
SECONDED by Councilman Lamerson.
Ed Parry, 228 Park Avenue, asked if the agreement contained any reference to '11
the school district helping with the maintenance of the property.
It was clarified the agreement specified maintenance costs would be shared
50/50.
The motion passed unanimously.
V. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Prescott City Council, Mayor
Simmons ADJOURNED the meeting at 5:00 P.M.
ROWLE P. SIMMONS, Mayor
ATTEST:
ELIZABETH A. BURKE, City Clerk
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting —August 8, 2006 Page 13
Aow
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of
the Regular Voting Meeting of the City Council of the City of Prescott, Arizona held on
the 8th day of August, 2006. I further certify the meeting was duly called and held and
that a quorum was present.
Dated this day of , 2006.
AFFIX
CITY SEAL
ELIZABETH A. BURKE, City Clerk
7T"--M
PRESCOTT CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
PRESCOTT, ARIZONA
AUGUST 15, 2006
A STUDY SESSION OF THE PRESCOTT CITY COUNCIL WAS HELD ON
TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 2006, in the Prescott Municipal Building, 201 S. Cortez
Street, Prescott, Arizona.
Mayor Simmons opened the meeting at 3:00 P.M. and asked City Clerk Elizabeth
Burke to call the roll, which was as follows:
Present: Absent:
Mayor Simmons None
Councilman Bell
Councilman Blair
Councilman Lamerson
Councilman Luzius
Councilman Roecker
Councilwoman Suttles
SUMMARY OF CURRENT OR RECENT EVENTS
Manager Steve Norwood announced the Yavapai Food Bank was in desperate need
of food and the City would be aggressively accepting donations for the next two
weeks; employees and the public could bring in non-perishable food to City Hall and
there would be collection boxes available in the lobby.
Councilman Luzius remarked the Arizona Shakespeare Festival was over and there
were some great performances; everyone should plan on attending next year.
I. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
A. Eric Bewley re Prescott High School Badger Football season
Eric Bewley from the Badgers Booster Club said they were all excited this year
as the team was made up of undefeated freshmen and there was even a
soccer player from Brazil playing this year; there was a new Badger
merchandise line and he presented the Council with hats and t-shirts; they had
an on-line store, a photo gallery, and other school information on their website;
he thanked Council for bringing families into Prescott and raising school
attendance by 4%.
Prescott City Council Study Session —August 15, 2006 Page 2
Mr. Bewley requested the football banner be strung between the Hassayampa
Inn and Elks Opera House each Friday before a game; and concluded saying the
kids did a great job of representing Prescott.
Mayor Simmons commented he understood this was Eric's last year to come to
Council to do this presentation and he commended Eric for doing a great job and
being the representative for the Badger Booster Club.
B. Mike Vax re Prescott Jazz Summit
Mike Vax remarked music was an important part of education, as was sports; he
provided two complimentary tickets to the Mayor and each of the Council for the
Jazz Summit that would be held August 25-27; each year they have a bigger
turnout and 150 music students attended last year and it was fun to watch the
professionals from all over the United States work with the kids; on Saturday
afternoon there would be performances by five high school jazz bands at the
Ruth Street Theatre; a free concert would be held on Friday at noon on the
Courthouse Square and the event concluded at the Elks Opera House Theater
on Sunday; he hoped the Mayor and Council would attend and those in the
audience; he hoped more events would be done at the Elks Theater as it was a
great venue; he had recently attended the Arizona Review and they had all types
of music in their show and it was very entertaining. He thanked Councilman Bell
for providing a quality show for the community to see.
II. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Authorization of payment to Dell, Inc. in the amount of $39,291.02 to
purchase 33 new computers for the downtown library.
Recreation Services Director Jim McCasland explained the Prescott Public
Library was getting closer to reopening and new computers for public use were
needed. This request was to purchase 33 computers from Dell, Inc. in the
amount of $39,291 .02.
Councilwoman Suttles asked why the money came from the Yavapai County
Library District Property Tax funds and Mr. McCasland responded the County
collected a library district tax and the proposed expenditure was from Prescott's
share of the tax.
B. Ken Lindley Field Tennis Courts
1 . Award of playing surface bid in the amount of $62,936.00 to
General Acrylics.
2. Award contract in the amount of $30,188.00 to American Fence. ''�
Prescott City Council Study Session —August 15, 2006 Page 3
,.. Recreation Services Director Jim McCasland explained the project included the
removal and installation of new synthetic fabric at the Ken Lindley Field tennis
courts, as well as new net posts and tennis nets; one bid was received from
General Acrylics of Phoenix in the amount of $62,936 and they installed the first
phase of the project in FY05; the second project to be done was to remove and
replace the fencing around the courts.
Councilwoman Suttles asked how the current costs compared to the first phase
and Mr. McCasland replied the first phase was slightly less than this bid but
inflation had to be factored in; the courts were installed in 1984 and this surface
seemed to work very well.
Councilman Blair asked about the second action for Council relating to the
removal of the chainlink fence and the installation of new chainlink fencing and
Mr. McCasland said the fencing removal and installation would be done by
American Fence of Prescott Valley through the State of Arizona Purchasing
Contract.
Councilman Lamerson asked for clarification of whether the total price was
$62,936 or $93,000 and Mr. McCasland said they were separate projects and
one could be done without the other being done.
C. Authorization of staff to enter into a contract with 3D/International for
design and construction services of a ten-acre park in an amount not
to exceed $781,000.00.
Recreation Services Director Jim McCasland explained the Development
Agreement with M3 for Prescott Lakes included the dedication of a ten-acre park
to be developed by the City; a plan was developed in 2002 and the City had to
wait for the infrastructure to be put in place; the engineering and development of
the park were combined into one project and the estimated maximum cost was
$781,000.
Councilman Blair asked to see the proposed improvements and Mr. McCasland
presented an overhead of the proposed project; it would have one entrance and
exit, basketball courts, two restrooms, parking lot, trailhead to the Vista Park,
landscaping, and more.
Councilwoman Suttles inquired whether more employees would be hired and
asked about the Parks and Recreation Master Plan that would be done soon.
Mr. McCasland replied no new employees would be hired and the Park Master
Plan was currently in the preliminary stage; this 10-acre site as well as the 19-
acre site of the Adult Center had been planned for 10 years; this park was
included in the original development agreement with Prescott Lakes in 1992 or
isew 1993.
Prescott City Council Study Session —August 15, 2006 Page 4
Councilman Lamerson asked why City employees couldn't do this work and if
there was a big rush to get this done as that the $781 ,000 could be used for
streets. Mr. McCasland replied parks employees were already very busy and the
money came out of the Park Impact Fees which was derived from building
permits and the Prescott Lakes development had contributed a lot of the money
in this fund which could not be used for streets.
Jack Wilson, 1514 Eagle Ridge Road, asked if the park would be a public park
and Mr. McCasland replied it would be public and could be accessed from
Samaritan Way or Sarafina Drive.
Mr. Wilson asked why the project wasn't bid and Mr. McCasland responded the
City had a contract with the Mohave Educational Service Cooperative and this
project would be done under the job order contracting program. The work would
be performed by local contractors who were familiar with local working conditions
and costs could be controlled better under this job order contracting system.
Manager Steve Norwood added it was similar to the Construction Manager at
Risk concept.
D. Authorization of issuance of purchase order to Mohave Educational
Services Cooperative in the amount of $189,809.37 for construction
of sidewalk enhancements along the north side of Goodwin Street
between McCormick Street and Summit Avenue
Engineering Services Director Mark Nietupski explained the project would include
concrete curb and gutter, sidewalk and installation of decorative street lights
along the north side of Goodwin Street between McCormick Street and Summit
Avenue and would provide a continuation of the existing streetscape theme
within the downtown area. One driveway onto Goodwin Street would be
eliminated; a parkway area between the sidewalk and property line would be
created and the adjacent property owner would landscape this area and maintain
it. The project would be contracted through the Mohave Educational Services
Cooperative and the cost estimate was $189,809.37, which would come from the
1% Street Fund. The project was planned but mistakenly omitted during the
budgeting process this year and as some money was saved on the recent
overlay project staff would like to get the project done; the project would use local
contractors and could be started soon and probably finished in October.
Councilman Lamerson asked why Willow Creek Road was part of the chip seal
project as it was a new road and Mr. Nietupski replied the ACFC was a pavement
preservative product and additional sections of Willow Creek Road would be
done each year.
Councilwoman Suttles remarked this was in front of the Goodwin Street Plaza
and asked if the other side of the street would be done and Mr. Nietupski replied
Prescott City Council Study Session —August 15, 2006 Page 5
4111.. there was no sidewalk on that side of the street. There were discussions with
Sharlot Hall Museum to make some improvements to Beach Avenue between
the Goodwin Street Plaza and Sharlot Hall Museum, and more improvements
were planned for McCormick Street and on Goodwin Street in the future.
Councilman Luzius asked how much the decorative street lights cost and
Mr. Nietupski replied he could get that answer by next week; the City was
furnishing the lights.
E. Adoption of Ordinance No. 4550 - dedication of right-of-way north of
Sierry Peaks Drive and west of Downer Trail.
Engineering Services Director Mark Nietupski explained the dedication of right-
of-way was a requirement of the development agreement adopted by Resolution
No. 3746 for construction of the East/West Connector from Sierry Peaks
Drive/Downer Trail intersection to Gail Gardner Way; and the dedication was
being made by Morgan Reserve, L.L.C., at no cost to the City.
Mayor Simons asked if the right-of-way would be 50-feet on each side and
Mr. Nietupski replied the property was actually a triangular piece that would allow
for a T-type intersection.
,,... F. Authorization of purchase of an aerial lift (bucket) truck for street
maintenance and operations from Terex Utilities in the total amount
of $61,968.00 as detailed by their proposal dated August 2, 2006.
Public Works Director Craig McConnell explained the bucket truck would be used
for tree trimming, putting up Christmas banners, and the Parks and Recreation
Department could use it for their lighting needs; it was a budgeted item; the
Traffic Signal Crew had a smaller truck with a 45' maximum reach; this truck
would have a 55' maximum working height; the truck would not be used full time
initially and staff located a high quality, used vehicle; the truck would have a
service life of 10 years; it had been checked out mechanically and the price of a
new truck would be at least twice as much.
Councilman Blair asked how old the vehicle was and Mr. McConnell replied it
was a 2000 GMC cab and chassis.
Prescott City Council Study Session —August 15, 2006 Page 6
G. Approval of contract/agreement with Sigma Communications
Reverse 911 for the purchase and installation of Reverse 911
hardware and software in the amount of $57,962.72 under GSA
Contract#GS-35-F-023S.
Deputy Police Chief Mike Kabbel explained this item was a contract for the
purchase and installation of Reverse 911 hardware and software for use in the
Prescott Regional Public Safety Communications Center and the funding was
from a Homeland Security Grant accepted by Resolution No. 3725 in December
2005.
Councilman Blair asked Deputy Chief Kabbel what Reverse 911 meant and
Mr. Kabbel explained it was two different things, it was a product and a company;
the program utilized information already in the Emergency 911 system,
specifically addresses and phone numbers, and it would automatically do
emergency notifications as well as utilizing the city's GIS maps.
Deputy Chief Kabbel gave a couple of examples of how the Reverse 911 system
could be utilized. The first example was a hazardous materials spill that created
a plume of smoke; the GIS system would show the exact location of the smoke,
tell the dispatcher who to contact first, notify residents in the area of the situation,
and provide other valuable information to get a quick emergency response
underway. The second example was a water main break or a large sinkhole — a
message would be created and the program would automatically contact
residents in the area by phone and notify them of the problem in their area. In
the case of an evacuation, it would plot a map and give a list of residents in that
area and also provide a list of those contacted; the system could also provide
potentially life-saving instructions to the dispatcher who could then relay those
instructions to an individual.
H. Homestead Subdivision:
1. Public Hearing (August 29) and Adoption of Ordinance No. 4551 -
Rezoning for the proposed Homestead Subdivision from SF-35 to
SF-18 on a 18.81 acre parcel located east of Senator Highway and
west of Summer Field (RZ06-003).
2. Approval of Preliminary Plat for the Homestead Subdivision,
creating 36 lots on 19.5 acres located east of Senator Highway and
west of Summer Field (SP06-003).
3. Approval of Water Service Agreement for 12.60 acre feet with
Tenney Feed & Livestock Company, Inc. the Tenney Living Trust,
and Jeanine Brown for the Homestead Subdivision, located east of
Senator Highway and west of Summer Field.
Prescott City Council Study Session —August 15, 2006 Page 7
.•► Community Development Director Tom Guice explained this was a three
part item - the first was the public hearing scheduled for August 29; the
second was to consider the preliminary plat of 36 lots on 19.5 acres; and
the third was the water service agreement for 12.6 acre feet of water.
Following a query by Councilman Luzius regarding input from the public
today, Mayor Simmons clarified there would be no input until the Public
Hearing on the 29th, as that was the date published for the Public Hearing.
A gentleman from the audience asked to be heard today as he would not
be able to attend the August 29 meeting. Mayor Simmons clarified today
was not the Public Hearing and no input would be taken.
Attorney Gary Kidd reminded the Council State Statutes required a Public
Hearing be noticed and the notices said the 29th and the agenda clearly
stated the Public Hearing would be August 29th. If the Public Hearing was
opened today it would violate State Statutes because it wasn't properly
noticed that way. Written comments could be submitted to Mr. Guice if
residents couldn't attend the meeting.
The gentleman asked if he could make a brief statement; Mayor Simmons
said there would be no public input today because it had been published
for the Public Hearing to be held on the 29th; however, he would read the
gentleman's statement on the 29th if he would submit something in writing.
Mr. Guice responded to an audience member (whose comment was
inaudible) that notices were sent out that the public hearing would be held
on August 22nd; then the Council cancelled the August 22nd meeting and
rescheduled it for August 29th and new corrected notices were then hand-
delivered to residents in the surrounding areas.
Christina Johnson, 252 South Virginia Street, remarked they had received
several notices from the City and others and asked Mayor Simmons what
would be studied today and he replied nothing would be studied today and
explained the public hearing was noticed to be held on August 29t and
that was when everyone would have an opportunity to speak.
Attorney Gary Kidd repeated the Statutes required the property owners
within 300 feet be notified by mail, the notice be posted and the public
hearing held. All Statutes had been followed properly.
Robert Reuillard, 7848 N. Sunset Ridge in Prescott Valley, said it was
clearly communicated that the 15th was the Study Session and the voting
session would be the 22nd, which was later revised to the 29th. Many
,., people had showed up today, including the Tenney's and surrounding
Prescott City Council Study Session —August 15, 2006 Page 8
residents, but reiterated it had been communicated properly that the -�
Public Hearing would be held August 29th.
Councilman Luzius commented he was not happy with the way this had
been handled and suggested another notice be sent out stating that
people who wanted to speak on this subject be here on the 29th; there
were 20 to 30 people here today expecting to be able to talk and the City
owes it to them to let them know where they should be and when.
Eric Birtic, 123 South Mt. Vernon Avenue, asked if the audience could talk
at Study Sessions and Mayor Simmons responded they could talk unless
it was noticed on the agenda a Public Hearing would be held on a different
date, as today's agenda read.
Councilman Roecker said that if there was someone wanting to speak,
and couldn't attend the 29th, they could give their comments in writing to
Mr. Guice or the City Manager's secretary and those comments would be
added to the Council's packet for that meeting.
Mayor Simmons added they would be publicly read at the Public Hearing.
Councilwoman Suttles proposed there may be a need to have more than
one public hearing on this in which case the Council would continue the 41)
Public Hearing to another specific meeting date.
Councilman Luzius remarked collecting the letters and reading them
weren't the same thing as the property owner being able to speak with the
passion they felt and not being allowed to speak today was
unconscionable.
Willow Creek Heights Subdivision:
1. Adoption of Ordinance No. 4552 - Rezoning for the proposed
Willow Creek Heights Subdivision from SF-35 to SF-18 on a 3.1
acre parcel located at 748 South Lakeview Drive (RE06-004).
2. Approval of Preliminary Plat for the Willow Creek Heights
Subdivision, creating four lots on 3.1 acres located at 748 South
Lakeview Drive (SP06-005).
3. Approval of Water Service Agreement for 1.40 acre feet with the
Benson Family Trust for the Willow Creek Heights Subdivision,
located at 748 South Lakeview Drive.
Community Development Director Tom Guice explained this was a request for ",
rezoning, consideration of preliminary plat approval and a water service
agreement at 748 South Lakeview Drive; there was an existing home on the
Prescott City Council Study Session —August 15, 2006 Page 9
property; Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to approve the
preliminary plat and the rezoning with a suggested change to the preliminary plat
that the flag lot created in the northern part identified as "not a part of this plat" be
identified as Lot No. 5 with public access from the cul-de-sac.
There were no questions from Council or the audience.
J. Approval of replat revising a portion of Tract C, Prescott Airpark,
Unit II, creating two lots from one, located at 6737 Corsair (RE06-
022).
Community Development Director Tom Guice explained the replat would create
two one-half acre lots from one one-acre lot at the Prescott Airpark, Unit II and
was zoned Industrial Light.
There were no questions from the Council or the audience.
K. Adoption of Resolution No. 3761 rescinding Resolution Number 3582
and adopting a new resolution establishing and adopting a Council
policy establishing application and review fees for annexations.
Community Development Director Tom Guice explained the revised new Section
3 in the proposed resolution would ensure continuity with Proposition 400.
Councilwoman Suttles asked those involved with Proposition 400 if this worked
for them and Jack Wilson commented all they wanted was transparency and
openness of the process.
L. Award of contract with Empire Machinery in the amount of
$44,327.26 to repair the D-9 Bulldozer for Solid Waste.
Assistant to the City Manager Laurie Hadley explained a bulldozer that had been
used at the landfill and was now used for maintenance of the landfill as well as
jobs at the transfer station, was 17 years old and recently had an engine
malfunction. It was the only bulldozer the City owned and staff wanted to repair it
instead of replacing it as a new one would cost between $850,000 and $1 million.
Bids were received for repairs and the low bidder was Empire Machinery in
Phoenix; the quote included transportation to and from their facility in Prescott as
the City had no way to transport the machine.
Councilman Blair asked if there was a warranty and Ms. Hadley replied there was
a one-year warranty and the City would buy a service agreement for ongoing
maintenance.
Prescott City Council Study Session —August 15, 2006 Page 10
M. Adoption of Resolution No. 3770 authorizing an amendment to the
Intergovernmental Agreement with Yavapai County for the tire
collection yard.
Assistant to the City Manager Laurie Hadley explained an amendment to the
Intergovernmental Agreement with Yavapai County for a Waste Tire Collection
Site was necessary; the agreement was entered into 10 years with the County
leasing land adjacent to the transfer station; the land was now needed for the
transfer station expansion project and the tire collection site was being moved
further south on Sundog Ranch Road; the Board of Supervisors had already
approved this; and everything else in the agreement would remain the same.
Councilwoman Suttles asked how long the tires were held, who picked them up
and if they were recycled. Ms. Hadley responded the County was required to
have this service under State Statutes; an authorized tire dealer took the tires;
and the City received a small amount of rent for the land.
N. Approval of Minutes of the Prescott City Council Study Session of
August 1, 2006 and the Prescott City Council Regular Meeting of
August 8, 2006.
O. Selection of items to be placed on the Consent Agenda for the
Regular Voting Meeting of August 29, 2006 (rescheduled from
August 22, 2006).
Councilman Roecker presented the Consent Agenda Items: all but Item H was
placed on the Consent Agenda.
III. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Prescott City Council, Mayor
Simmons ADJOURNED the meeting at 4:19 P.M.
ROWLE P. SIMMONS, Mayor
ATTEST:
ELIZABETH A. BURKE, City Clerk ',
lV -A _ i
ORDINANCE NO. 4551
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PRESCOTT,
YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE ZONING OF THAT CERTAIN
PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF SENATOR HIGHWAY AND WEST OF SUMMER FIELD
IN THE CITY OF PRESCOTT
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the owner of certain properties within the corporate limits of the City of
Prescott has requested a rezoning of its property; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Prescott has held
public hearings regarding said rezoning, subject to certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Prescott has determined that it would be in
the best interest of public necessity, interest, convenience or general welfare to rezone
certain properties; and
WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 9.15 of the City of Prescott Land
Development Code have been complied with.
ENACTMENTS:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PRESCOTT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. THAT, the following described parcels of land, generally located East of
Senator Highway and West of Summer Field, Parcels No. 110-06-005Z 110-06-005R, 110-
06-005Q, 110-06-006A Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona, consisting of approximately
18.81 acres shall be and is hereby reclassified from the Single Family Residential SF-35 to
Single Family Residential SF18 to wit: See Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part
hereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the City of Prescott this 29th
day of August, 2006.
ROWLE P. SIMMONS, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ELIZABETH A. BURKE, City Clerk GARY D. KIDD, City Attorney
ORDINANCE NO. 4551 PAGE 2
Exhibit A
Parcel 1:
The West half of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 3, Township
13 North, Range 2 West, Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Yavapai County,
Arizona, EXCEPT the following described parcel:
BEGINNING at a point 300 feet East of the Southwest corner of the West half of the
Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 3, said point being the POINT
OF BEGINNING;
Thence South 88°46'00" West along the South line of the said Southeast quarter of the
Southwest quarter of Section 3, 109.92 feet to a point of curvature on a circular curve,
concave Northerly, having a radius of 100 feet and a central angle of 75.92 feet;
Thence Easterly, along said curve a distance of 75.92 feet;
Thence North 44°14'00" East, 112 feet;
Thence North 88°46'00" East, 187 feet;
Thence South 02°16'24" East, 182 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
AND EXCEPT THEREFROM the hereinafter described Parcel 3.
AND EXCEPT any other portions having been sold.
Parcel 2:
A tract of land situated in the East half of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter
of Section 3, Township 13 North, Range 2 West, Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian,
Yavapai County, Arizona, described as follows:
COMMENCING at a brass cap monument marking the South one quarter of the said
Section 3, thence South 88°36' West, along the South line of said Section 3, a distance of
620.51 feet to the East-West 1/64 corner of said Section 3; Thence North 01°02'50" East
along the West line of said East half of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter, a
distance of 639.14 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence continuing North 0 1°02'50" East, along said West line of the East half of the
Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter, a distance of 208.93 feet;
Thence South 88°57'10" East, a distance of 208.49 feet;
Thence South 01°02'50" West, parallel to the said West line of the East half of the
— Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter, a distance of 208.93 feet;
ORDINANCE NO. 4551 PAGE 3
Thence North 88°57'10" West, a distance of 208.49 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT that portion of Summer Field Road as dedicated on the plat of THE FOOTHILLS,
recorded in Book 32 of Maps, pages 94-96, records of Yavapai County, Arizona.
Parcel 3:
That part of the West half of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 3,
Township 13 North, Range 2 West, Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Yavapai
County, Arizona, described as follows:
BEGINNING at the Northeast corner of said West half of the Southeast quarter of the
Southwest quarter of Section 3;
thence South 88°25'06" West along the north line of said West half of the Southeast
quarter of the
Southwest quarter, a distance of 363.61 feet;
thence South 05°26'35" West a distance of 242.78 feet;
thence South 85°14' 09" East a distance of 142.43 feet;
thence North 05°26'35" East a distance of 108.16 feet;
thence North 85°14'09" West a distance of 92.43 feet;
thence North 05°26'35" East a distance of 78.88 feet;
thence North 88°25'06" East a distance of 317.91 feet to a point on the east line of said
West half of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter;
thence North 01°03'43" East along said East line a distance of 60.91 feet (to the POINT
OF BEGINNING).
Parcel 4:
All that portion of the Southwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 13 North, Range 2 West,
Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Yavapai County, Arizona, more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter
of said Section 3, an iron ring set in concrete, from whence the Southeast corner of the
West half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 3, a brass tablet
set in concrete, bears North 88°31'35" East, 620. 10 feet (record per Book 28 of Maps,
Page 44, on file in the office of the Yavapai County Recorder, as North 88°36' 00" East,
620.51 feet);
ORDINANCE NO. 4551 PAGE 4
Thence North 00°46' 09" East (record North 00°41'50" East) 85.07 feet to a point marked
with a one-half inch rebar capped "LS 13941 " on the south right-of-way of Nathan Lane
per said Book 28 of Maps, Page 44 to the beginning of a non-tangent curve concave to
the left with a radius of 125.0 feet;
Thence, Northeasterly along said right-of-way and curve through a central angel of 44° 06'
25", a length of
96.21 feet, to a point of tangency and the end of right-of-way per said Book 28 of Maps,
Page 44, marked with a one-half inch rebar capped "LS 13941";
Thence, North 44°14' 00" East (record) along the northeasterly prolongation of said
right-of-way, 118.30 feet to a one-half inch rebar capped "LS 13941" and the TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence continuing along said northeasterly prolongation or said right-of-way, North 44°14'
East, 238.49 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the right with a radius of
124.44 feet, marked with a one-half inch rebar capped "LS 394;
Thence, Easterly along said right-of-way prolongation and curve through a central angle of
30°41'04" and
a length or 66.64 feet to a point on the Easterly line or that certain parcel described in
Joint Tenancy Deed recorded in Book 2257 of Official Records, pages 861 and 862, on
file in the office of the Yavapai County Recorder;
oft
Thence South 31°39' 21" East (record South 33°35' 33" East per said Book 2257 of
Official Records, page 862) 125.05 feet to a one-half inch rebar capped "LS 13011";
Thence, South 11°18'27" West, 132.64 feet (record South 11°18' 36" West, 132.58 feet
per said Book 2257 of Official Records, Page 862) to a one-half inch rebar capped "LS
13011";
Thence, South 89°58'21" West, 85.24 feet (record West, 85.18 feet per said Book 2257 or
Official Records, Page 862) to a one-half inch rebar capped " LS 13011 ";
Thence, West 16.77 feet to a one-half inch rebar capped "LS 13941".
Thence, North 78°49'00" West, 163.49 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
All of said parcels to be known as:
Lots 1 through 36, inclusive, THE HOMESTEAD SUBDIVISION, according to the plat
recorded in Book of Maps, page , records of Yavapai County, Arizona.
..
TV, E,
M COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO — August 29, 2006
DEPARTMENT: FINANCE
AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing on Intention to Increase Development Fees
Approved By: Date:
Department Head:
Finance Director: Mark Woodfill
City Manager: Steve Norwood I ��`j fib
BACKGROUND
The City first imposed impact fees in 1994. The state approved legislation in 1982 that
permitted cities to assess development impact fees to offset the costs incurred for
providing public services to new development. We project that through fiscal year 2006,
the City will have collected over $12.6 million in impact fees that have helped to defray
the cost of growth related projects totaling $10.6 million.
The fees were last updated in June 2001. In January 2006, the impact fees were
reviewed internally to ensure that the charges, and the underlying assumptions, were
meeting the needs for which they were established. Both the demographics and
projected projects resulting from increased growth have changed since the previous
update. The accompanying Impact Fee Public Report provides the details for each fee.
The public report includes information on non-residential fees. Impact fees have not
been levied on non-residential development in the past because of the economic benefit
and privilege tax revenue generated by commercial development.
The current residential fees and the maximum fees from the public report are
summarized below.
Impact Fees Current Maximum % Increase
Library 253 747 195%
Parks 715 2,466 245%
Recreation 401 708 77%
Police* 84 589 601%
Fire* 167 525 214%
Streets 469 469 0%
Public Buildings/Fleet 275 511 86%
Total 2,364 6,015 154%
* - The City Manager is currently recommending residential fees be increased
only for Police and Fire, at the maximum level with only a modest increase for the
remaining areas.
1
Agenda Item: Public Hearing on Intention to Increase Development Fees
This update also proposes annual inflation adjustments to the impact fees based on the
change in construction costs according to the Engineering News Record (ENR 20 City
Construction Cost Index). The escalators would be triggered on January 1, 2007 and
each succeeding January 1.
Council adopted a notice of intention to increase development fees on June 13, 2006
and set the public hear for August 29, 2006.
ITEM
This item is the public hearing for the increase in development fees.
The timeline for modifications to the impact fees follows:
August 29, 2006 Public Hearing
September 26, 2006 Council Considers Action on New Fees
January 1, 2007 Fees Become Effective
Recommended Action: Public Hearing
2
roe `N.1
'rktzo�r
City of Prescott, Arizona
Public Report
Parks, Recreation, Library, Police, Fire, and Public Buildings & Fleet Impact
Fees Update
January 24, 2006 (Revised June 6, 2006)
Background
In 1982, the state legislature responded to the rapid growth in the state by passing legislation that
allows municipalities to assess development impact fees to offset the costs incurred in providing
public services to the new development. Arizona Revised Statutes Section 9-463.05 provides the
statutory authority for the imposition of impact fees. The City of Prescott Charter also provides
authority in Article 1 Section 3.
A development impact fee is a one-time fee paid when a building permit is issued; it is intended to
have new development pay a fair and proportionate share of new capital facilities required to serve
the development. There must be a reasonable relationship between costs of facilities required to
service the new development and the amount of the impact fee. The new facilities must be a direct
result of the new growth; they are not intended to be used for operational expenses or to pay for
capital improvements to correct an existing deficiency or shortfall.
Development fees are required to evaluate possible credits. Future revenue credits were considered
to avoid potential double payment for capital facilities.The Streets impact fee was the only impact
fee that has a credit to offset the Streets and Open Space 1% privilege tax. The Streets impact fee is
not part of this study and will be presented separately in the future.
The second type of credit is a site-specific credit for system improvements that have been included
in the development fee calculations. Project improvements normally required as part of the
development approval process are not eligible for credits against development fees. Specific
policies and procedures related to site-specific credits for system improvements are addressed in
the ordinance that establishes the City's fees. However, the general concept is that developers may
be eligible for site-specific credits or reimbursements only if they provide system improvements
that have been included in the development fee calculation schedule.
City History
In 1994, the City contracted with nationally recognized impact fee consulting firm Tischler &
Associates, to perform a feasibility analysis of potential impact fees for the City. A Citizen Advisory
Committee on Development Impact Fees was formed to analyze the fees and underlying formulas
and determined the methodology to be valid.
In May 1995, the City collected the first impact fees for recreation, parks, library, police, fire, and
streets.
In 2001, the impact fees were updated to reflect the rapidly changing demographics and the
continued strain on our existing facilities and to ensure that the charges, and the underlying
assumptions, were meeting the needs for which they were established. In addition to updating the
fees, a new public buildings fee for was initiated.
Since 1995, the city has collected nearly $13 million in impact fees that have helped to defray the
cost of growth related projects totaling $11.1 million. Details of each fee and the related use of
proceeds are shown in the appendix of this report.
The City Council has authority to reduce or eliminate any of the impact fees, but cannot arbitrarily
increase the fees. Increases require revisions to the public report to demonstrate justification and
formula revisions. This report provides such an update.
Process and Proposed Fees
There are three methods used to calculate the various development impact fees. A plan-based
method is best suited for public facilities that have adopted plans or commonly accepted service
delivery standards to guide capital improvements.
The incremental expansion approach documents the current service level (SL) for each type of
public facility. SL standards are determined using the City's current inventory of capital facilities and
assets as well as current costs to construct or acquire comparable facilities or assets. An incremental
expansion cost approach is best suited for public facilities that will be expanded in regular
increments, with SL standards based on current conditions in the community. This approach was .romik
used extensively in this study.
A third approach, known as the buy-in approach is best suited for facilities that have been overbuilt
in anticipation of growth and have excess capacity available. New development would "buy-in" to
the excess capacity of the facility. The basis for the buy-in approach is that new development will
pay for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of recently constructed or purchased
facilities.
Each department provided updates and improved information based on current replacement costs
for the various impact fees as well as new projects anticipated as a result of growth. The updated
information is presented in the supporting impact fee calculation section. The public building fee is
restructured to reflect the addition of the City's vehicle fleet.This update proposes a 154% increase
to the residential impact fees as shown below:
Impact Fees: Residential Units 1994 2001 2006
Fire 128 167 525
Police 48 84 589
Parks 500 715 2,466
Recreation 400 401 708
Library 208 253 747
Public Buildings& Fleet N/A 275 511
Streets(not included in this update) N/A 469 469
Total 1,284 2,364 6,015 -�•.
AOilk
Although previous councils have opted against nonresidential impact fees, the recent studies have
factored nonresidential use into the calculation in an effort to alleviate the shortfalls created by a
residential only impact fee. The nonresidential fee is not imposed for nonresidential services such
as parks, recreation and library since nearly all of these services are geared towards residential
users.The table below reflects the proposed nonresidential fees per 1,000 square feet:
Proposed Impact Fees: Nonresidential Units (per 1,000 s.f.) 2001 2006
Fire 435 871
Police 365 624
Public Buildings & Fleet 275 282
Streets* 469 469
Total 1,544 2,246
*The streets impact fee is not included in this update will be considered separately. The
proposed fee from 2001 is included in the proposed 2006 amounts.
It could be argued that commercial development places an increased burden on our police and fire
departments as well as many of the public buildings. Commercial fees are reflected in the report
update in the event that the Council desires to expand the fees to include commercial
development. Most jurisdictions are imposing nonresidential fees that average $3,513 as shown in
the survey results in the appendix.
These fees presented in the report should be considered the "ceiling" or the highest allowable
,r. based on the methodology used. The City Council has the discretion to reduce or entirely eliminate
any of these fees as long as it is done in a nondiscriminatory manner. However, a reduction in
development fee revenue will dictate an increase in other revenues, a decrease in planned capital
expenditures and/or a decrease in the City's SL standards.
Development Fee Inflation Escalator
All costs in the development fee calculations are given in current dollars, we recommend an annual
inflation adjustment to the fees based on the rapidly rising construction costs we have experienced
on our large projects. The adjustment factor should be based on the change in construction costs
according to the Engineering News Record (ENR) 20 City Construction Cost Index. The first
escalation should be imposed on January 1, 2007 and each succeeding January 1 until the study is
revised or updated.The Appendix includes an example of how the escalator will be applied.
Demographics
The table below reflects the demographics at the time of each impact fee study:
% Increase
1994 2001 2005 from 1994
Population 30,815 33,938 41,050 33.2%
Average household size 2.11 2.11 -
Estimated residential units 15,029 17,916 21,005 39.8%
Estimated nonresidential square footage 4,646,551 7,784,105 11,732,249 152.5%
Annual new residential units 519 503 715 37.8%
Annual new nonresidential square footage 128,341 627,511 789,623 515.3%
4111.
Projected dwelling units at build out 21,894 24,092 31,000 41.6%
Additional demographic information is contained in the appendix.
Additional considerations and fees imposed by surrounding communities:
1. Impact fees are based on maintaining current capital facility Service Levels. The City Council
may choose not to do so. The Council may determine that the City can't afford to continue this
level. A decline in service level would reduce the impact fee.
2. Impact fees can't fund maintenance and operational expenses. Consequently, these costs must
be absorbed by other revenue sources. The expansion of capital facilities has a correlating increase
on maintenance and operational expenses. These expenses vary depending on the facility added.
For example, a fire station may cost $2,000,000 to acquire the land, construct and equip, while the
operational and maintenance costs could be as high as $500,000 per year.
3. The City needs to demonstrate specific planned uses for impact fees and the fees should
generally be expended within six to ten years. Major capital projects may take closer to ten years
to generate the required funding; in these cases, preliminary planning should begin within the six-
year period.
4. Housing affordability may decline since impact fees generally increase the cost of construction;
residential rental rates may also increase. At the same time, impact fees help maintain a
community's quality of life, and enhance the value of property.
5. Impact fees on non-residential development may have a real or perceived adverse effect on new
business development. Since development costs would rise, a business could argue that it would
operate at a competitive disadvantage. At least 21 cities and towns impose impact fees on non-
residential development. Chino Valley, Sedona, Wickenburg, Casa Grande, Gilbert, Glendale and
Peoria are just a few of the cities that impose impact fees on non-residential development.The fees
imposed by other cities and towns are included in the appendix.
6. Prescott Valley currently imposes residential impact fees totaling $2,711. Nonresidential impact
fees were to become effective August 6, 2006 but have been delayed two years until August 2008.
Chino Valley currently imposes impact fees totaling $3,835 for residential and $1,180 for
nonresidential. Yavapai County imposes a roadway impact fee for two "benefit areas". The western
benefit area is the area covering Prescott, Cordes Lakes, and Chino Valley ($1,200); the eastern area
is near the Verde Valley ($1,100). The impact fees for both jurisdictions are imposed on residential
dwelling units.
The appendix contains surveys of several cities regarding impact fees; although the survey is not
exhaustive it does provide a good basis for comparison. 26 jurisdictions were included in the survey.
The average fee charged on residential units amounted to $3,886 while non residential fees
averaged $3,513 for Arizona cities and towns.
Timeline
A notice and Public Hearing are required prior to making a change to the existing impact fees. The
timeline involved in making a change is:
• Sixty (60) days prior to holding a public hearing, a notice of intent must be issued along with a
public written report. The report includes a needs assessment, documentation that supports
the assessment of an increased or new fee, and the method by which the fees were calculated.
• The City then must hold a public hearing on the proposed increased or new development fees
at any time after the expiration of the sixty (60) day notice of intent and at least fourteen (14)
days prior to the scheduled date of adoption of the increased or new fees.
• The impact fee assessed pursuant to the ordinance does not become effective until ninety (90)
days after its formal adoption by the Council.
• The entire process takes a minimum of 164 days.
Rounding
The report uses rounded amounts; therefore, the sums and products generated in the analysis may
not equal the sum or product if the reader performs calculations with the factors shown in the
report. To compensate for rounding, the actual fees are rounded down to the nearest whole
I► dollar.
The remainder of the report contains the following information:
Fire, Police, Parks, Recreation, Library, and Public Buildings and Fleet Impact Fee Reports
Appendices
Demographic Information
Impact Fees; inception to date collections and expenses
Estimated Potential Revenues
Summary of Potential Uses of Funds
Vehicle Replacement Estimates
Major Equipment Listing: Police, Fire and Library
Escalator Calculation Example
Arizona Impact Fee Statute
Arizona City Survey Results
FIRE
Development fees for fire are calculated using the incremental expansion approach. The
components included in the fee consist of fire station land, buildings and support vehicles and
equipment. All costs have been allocated to residential and nonresidential development and
standards are calculated on a per capita basis for residential fees and square footage basis for
nonresidential development. Average household size is used to determine the residential
development fees while a per-1,000 square feet calculation is performed to determine
nonresidential development fees.
Fire call factors are shown in the table on the next page and were used to determine the residential
and nonresidential service demands. Road related calls were omitted from this analysis because the
destination of these trips is unknown. Residential and nonresidential use is 50%.
The table on the next page lists the City's current inventory of fire stations, training facilities and
fire's proportionate share of the communications center. City staff estimate similar downtown land
to cost $871,200 per acre. Construction costs are estimated at $200 per square foot (based on a
recently constructed Central Yavapai Fire Department station). The replacement value of the City's
current fire facilities inventory totals $14,511,031. Since 50% of the fire building use is related to
residential users, the value is adjusted accordingly. This value is divided by the current population
resulting in a cost per person figure of$176.75 ($14,511,031 x 50% = $7,255,516/41,050 persons =
$176.75).
With the addition of new fire facilities to serve new growth, additional fire support vehicles and
equipment will also be needed. The table on the next page lists the City's current inventory of fire
support vehicles and equipment. These assets have a total value of $5,946,660. This results in a per
person cost of $72.43 for fire support vehicles and equipment ($5,946,660 x 50% / 41,050
population =$72.43).
The per capita household size of 2.11 is multiplied by the cost per person amounts for land,
buildings and equipment to determine the residential fee. 2.11 x (176.75 + 72.43) = 525.77.
The nonresidential fee is computed by apportioning 50% of the fire land, buildings and support
vehicles and equipment to nonresidential use per 1,000 square feet. This value is then used to
determine the fee of $618.42 for land and buildings and $253.43 for support vehicles and
equipment per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. ($14,511,031 x 50%) / (11,732,249/1,000) =
$618.42 and (5,946,660 x 50%) / (11,732,249/1,000) = $253.43 or a total nonresidential fee of
$871.85.
City of Prescott
Fire Impact Fee
Fire Call Factors
Type of Call:
Residential 2,966 50%
Nonresidential 2,942 50%
Total 5,908 100%
Road related 328
Unclassified 193
Total Calls 6,429
Fire Facilities
LAND STRUCTURES
Square
Facility Acres Feet Total
Station 1 1.650 5,644
Station 2 1.000 7,400
Station 3 0.600 3,200
Station 4 0.600 2,800
Station 5 0.700 4,800
Communications Center'-7.89% 0.027 395
Training Facility 5.000 6,600
Total 9.577 30,839
Estimated Land Cost per Acre $ 871,200 Y:
Estimated Replacement Cost per square foot ` $ 200
Total Replacement Cost $ 8,343,331 $ 6,167,700 $14,511,031
2005 Population 41,050 41,050
Estimated nonresidential square footage 11,732,249 11,732,249
Residential/Nonresidential use 50% 50%
Residential Cost per Person $ 101.62 $ 75.12
Nonresidential Cost per 1.000 square feet $ 355.57 $ 262.85
The communications center is shared with other users, The amounts
shown reflect the Fire proportionate share of the facility.
Vehicles and Equipment
Support vehicles $ 5,516,099
Communications and other Equipment 430.561
$ 5,946,660
Residential Cost per Person $ 72.43
Nonresidential Cost per 1,000 square feet $ 253.43
Residential standard(average household size) 2.11
Development Fees
Residential
Facilities $ 372.94
Vehicles and Equipment 152.83
Total Residential Development Fee $ 525.77
Nonresidential
Facilities $ 618.42
/► Vehicles and Equipment 253.43
Total Nonresidential Development Fee $ 871.85
POLICE
Development fees for police are calculated using the incremental expansion approach. The
components included in the fee consist of police station land, buildings and support vehicles and
equipment. All costs have been allocated to residential and nonresidential development and
standards are calculated on a per capita basis for residential fees and square footage basis for
nonresidential development. Average household size is used to determine the residential
development fees while a per-1,000 square feet calculation is performed to determine
nonresidential development fees.
Police call factors are shown in the table on the next page and were used to determine the
residential and nonresidential service demands. Road related and other calls were omitted from
this analysis because the destination of these trips is unknown. Residential and nonresidential use is
61% and 39% respectively.
The table on the next page lists the City's current inventory of police stations, training facilities and
police's proportionate share of the communications center. Animal control and storage facilities
are also included. City staff estimate similar downtown land to cost $871,200 per acre. Construction
costs are estimated at $250 per square foot (based on police estimates). The value of the City's
current police facilities inventory totals $12,161,978. Since 61% of the police building use is related •�
to residential users, the value is adjusted accordingly. This value is divided by the current
population resulting in a cost per person figure of $180.73 ($12,161,978 x 61% = $7,418,807 /
41,050 persons = $180.73).
With the addition of new police facilities to serve new growth, additional police support vehicles
and equipment will also be needed. The table on the next page lists the City's current inventory of
police support vehicles and equipment. These assets have a total value of$6,634,979.This results in
a per person cost of $98.60 for police support vehicles and equipment ($6,634,979 x 61% /41,050
population =$98.60).
The per capita household size of 2.11 is multiplied by the cost per person amounts for land,
buildings and equipment to determine the residential fee. 2.11 x ($180.73 + $98.60) = $589.39.
The nonresidential fee is computed by apportioning 39% of the police land, buildings and support
vehicles and equipment to nonresidential use per 1,000 square feet. This value is then used to
determine the fee of $404.28 for land and buildings and $220.56 for support vehicles and
equipment per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. ($12,161,978 x 39%) / (11,732,249/1,000) =
$404.28 and (6,634,979 x 39%) / (11,732,249/1,000) = $220.56 or a total nonresidential fee of
$624.84.
s
City of Prescott
Police Impact Fee
Police Call Factors
Type of Call:
Residential 14,320 61%
Nonresidential 9,150 39%
Total 23,470 100%
Road related 6,249
Unclassified 7,514
Total Calls 37,233
LAND STRUCTURE
Square
Facility* Acres(Est.) Feet Total
Prescott Police Station 0.87 24,000
Regional Communications Center-(46.79%of Structure) 0.16 2,340
Training Facility/Firing Range-Bunker Storage 2.06 300
Quonset Hut-Parking Lot Storage 0.19 2,640
Animal Control 0.99 4,491
Total 4.27 33,771
The communications center is shared with other users, The amounts
shown reflect the Police proportionate share of the facility.
Estimated Land Cost per Acre $ 871,200a
,.°1► Estimated Replacement Cost per square foot $ 250
Total Replacement Cost $ 3,719,228 $ 8,442,750 $12,161,978
2005 Population 41,050 41,050
Estimated nonresidential square footage 11,732,249 11,732,249
Residential/Nonresidential use 61% 39%
Residential Cost per Person $ 55.27 $ 125.46 $ 180.73
Nonresidential Cost per 1,000 square feet $ 123.63 $ 280.65 $ 404.28
Vehicles and Equipment
Support vehicles $ 2,461,170
Communications and other Equipment 4,173,809
$ 6,634,979
Residential Cost per Person $ 98.60
Nonresidential Cost per 1,000 square feet $ 220.56
Residential standard(average household size) 2.11
Development Fees
Residential
Facilities $ 381.34
Vehicles and Equipment 208.05
Total Residential Development Fee $ 589.39
Nonresidential
Facilities $ 404.28
Vehicles and Equipment 220.56
Total Nonresidential Development Fee $ 624.84
PARKS
Development fees for parks are calculated using the incremental expansion approach. The
components included in the fee consist of parkland and park improvements, paths/trails, support
facilities, vehicles and equipment. All costs have been allocated to residential development only
and standards are calculated on a per capita basis. Average household size is used to determine the
development fees.
There are 272 acres of developed park land. This results in a standard of 6.6 acres of developed
parks per 1,000 residents. Developed parks represent an area where facilities for leisure activities
have been added and/or constructed. An area is undeveloped if it remains in its natural state.
Most of Pioneer Park is undeveloped.
The table on the following page lists the City's current inventory of developed park land and park
improvements. City staff estimate similar property to currently cost $115,000 per acre. The value of
the City's current parkland inventory totals $31,297,250 (272.15 acres x $115,000/acre). This value is
divided by the current population resulting in a cost per person figure of $762.42 ($31,297,250
/41,050 persons = $762.42).
With the addition of new parkland to serve new growth, additional park improvements and vehicles
will also be needed. The table on the following page lists the City's current inventory of park
improvements and vehicles.These improvements have a total value of $16,681,395. This results in a
per person cost of $406.37 for park improvements and vehicles ($16,681,395 / 41,050 population -..,,,
=$406.37).
The per capita household size of 2.11 is multiplied by the cost per person amounts for land,
improvements and vehicles to determine the residential fee. 2.11 x ($762.42 + $406.37) =
$2,466.14.
Parks staff indicate that the Parks master plan will be updated in the next year or two, the last
master plan dates back to 1988. Upon completion of this plan staff will have a clearer picture of
actual land requirements. The impact fees will also need to be revised upon completion of the
master plan.
.10
City,of Preaeatt
Parks
hared he
MO . Mp110VEMOATS
Developed R4rretlas Wake Wawa 11IQ Ptak 724/114 Depth c Smelt Tenth Wag iNMhnace Comte" bet Semi ' Pat Deer
Pert Acres S►ft. S1.Dbor Peoyyresm4 Sq ft. *memoir*, fiat Thiess Yoder Cbae PMds b, Caretr 41(.f) bidlaf yQ Docfs Wades Lights S4Mle Pork
Granite Creek./A.C.rit Wens 11930 2,930 2 161300 2757 1126 9 29 I 13 0 C 0 25.65a 576 C 0 23 to
Pioneer 33290 2,D7 2 1500 4,2S0 1152 3 8 9 34 315.808 1,13: 0 232,92 430 C 0 3' 29
Acker 5000 0 3 954 3:8 640 0 7 21 5 0 C 0 13,D7 0 C 0 8 16
fln't 2500 010 I 4,136 126 665 0 5 2 5 29.465 C 1,606 0 0 C 0 0 2
HertegenTtlow Lake 7000 17.54' 10 6954 61a4 2.333 10 47 0 54 235030 A: 0 100,15 61 1 I 20 103
Ken Lly n3
5870 ;,e09 2 9572 1542 4,948 I 22 12 3 109,85 1,995 26506 13,CO2 960 C 0 14 19
Pepaert et
0100 0 I 2280 5e4 0 I 1 I 1 0 C 0 0 0 C 0
2
Roughrider7621 V elbq
13750 0 4 0 73346 756 0 0 8 11 172117 3X 40,260 15,240 400 C 0 0 6
Stricken 1500 0 0 0 1/78 0 0 0 I 1 0 C 0 0 0 C 0 0 7
Watscn Like 30000 5634 6 8,135 3535 2.05 30 5 9 3 0 C 0 107.444 563 I 2 39 80
Wetscn Woods - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 C 0 0 3
0,166.9e1 Lake 44790 1936 2 24155 1861110 375 25 62 29 :2 0 C 0 32,355 921 2 2 16 31
64146n Cs•e4 7320 1706 s 12,100 1,156 394 4 10 D IS 78010 C 0 31500 0 C 0 4 3
VA field 16'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 )0.000 C 0 0 0 C 0 0 0
MenC6)I IS 010 1020 0 0 0 66C0 0 0 0 a 2 0 C 0 l25 0 C 0 6 0
Horol lsUM 0390 0 0 0 2_e11 0 0 0 I 1 0 C 0 0 0 C 0 2 0
Butte Creek T'el 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t 1 0 C 0 0 0 C 0 0 6
Pnsao0 fertile-reel 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 3 I 0 C 0 20,000 0 C 0 0 5
Discovery,551,Cr.&.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 C 0 0 4
Wrlbw Creek Oog Park 3000 256 3 2500 0 0 0 5 a 5 0 C 0 0 0 C 0 0 3
379916
Slate Park Pt or tee Lindley
Motet 2772150 3C. 7 36 69,187 55E6 14454 83 (25 III' 273 971.173 4.034 67532 59654a 4.956 4 5 175 320 329.946
Estimated Lsrd Cost aer acre S 115000
rstlnated Avg.Cost pe•unit 1 50.00 $2.'0 00 $ 5.0 $ 50 s 110.0 6 e9.0 $ 90000 $700.0o $35000 5 20 $ 150.(0 $ 5.00 $ 450 $ 15000 S80,C00.00 $35,O7.011 $1,00.00 $10000 We
l obit 8.epacentrt lost S 31 297.250 S 1028500 $107600 $ 345,935 $ 275,330 S'589940 S'0550 S 211 LO 9 291300 6 70.050 5'342,346 E 513,950 S 339.660 S 2904.448 S 684500 E 3AIXO S 175,3C0 S 175.000 S 32,000 $329.945
2C05 PrpuIatbn 41.050
Cos.pr'Pelson S 161.42 S 4455 S 250 S 8.43 S 6.7 5 30.73 $ 1'2 S 5.15 1 .94 S 190 5 4732 6 1452 $ 6.27 6 6539 $ 16.66 6 7.0 $ 4.D $ 4.26 $ 050 6 001
Developed Park Amoy aer I,0M'emits a 63
be Footnote end%Okbe
IB provemenb-per person S I1A79005 28938
Support vehicles-per penal S413C250 11639
S14s081313 6 48437
Residential rtardard ierenge 2osxhold sae) 2.11
Dewlaps.eat lees
Rest death'
Lsrd S '503.70
In prorun tots 137H
lintel Develapreent Fre $ 4.416.14
RECREATION
The recreation development fees are calculated using the incremental expansion approach. The
components included in the fee consist of land, buildings and parking. All costs have been
allocated to residential development only and standards are calculated on a per capita basis.
Average household size is used to determine the development fees.
Recreation staff estimate that 75% of the new Adult Center will be used for recreational activities.
The remaining 25%of use is reflected in the Public Buildings and Fleet portion of this update.
The land for the administrative office is reflected in the Activity Center land total while the
maintenance building land is reflected in the Parks portion of this update as part of Pioneer Park.
The table on the following page lists the City's current inventory of recreation land and
improvements. City staff estimate similar land to cost $115,000 per acre. Construction costs are
estimated at $172 per square foot (based on the recent adult center project). The value of the
City's current recreation facilities inventory totals $13,791,044. This value is divided by the current
population resulting in a cost per person figure of $335.96 ($13,791,044 / 41,050 persons =
$335.96).
To calculate the fee,the residential density of 2.11 is multiplied by the cost per capita. (2.11 x
$335.96) = $708.88.
City of Prescott
Recreation Facilities
Impact Fee
LAND STRUCTURE
Square
Facility Acres Feet Total
Grace M.Sparkes Activity Center 0.960 32,000
New Adult Center 75% 4.800 16,814
YMCA partnering project 9,820
Recreation Administrative Office 700
Park Maintenance Building 7,500
Old Adult Center 0.340 9,268
Total 6.100 76,102
Estimated Land Cost per Acre $ 115,000
Estimated Cost per square foot based on
recent Adult Center bids $ 172.00
Total Replacement Cost $ 701,500 $ 13,089,544 $ 13,791,044
Amok
2005 Population 41,050 41,050
Cost per Person $ 17.09 $ 318.87 $ 335.96
Recreation Square Footage per Person 1.85
Residential standard (average household size) 2.11
Development Fees
Residential
Facilities $ 708.88
Total Development Fee $ 708.88
-tea.
LIBRARY
The library development fees are calculated using the incremental expansion approach. The
components included in the fee consist of land, buildings, parking, books, furnishings and vehicles.
All costs have been allocated to residential development only and standards are calculated on a per
capita basis.Average household size is used to determine the development fees.
The table on the following page lists the City's current inventory of library land and improvements.
City staff estimate similar downtown land to cost $200,000 per acre(this amount is higher that the
residential land cost but significantly lower than the nonresidential land price and is used because
future library branches may be constructed in mixed use areas). Construction costs are estimated at
$250 per square foot (based on the recent library expansion project). The value of the City's
current library facilities inventory totals $10,436,000. This value is divided by the current population
resulting in a cost per person figure of$254.22 ($10,436,000/41,050 persons = $254.22).
With the addition of new library facilities to serve new growth, additional library improvements will
also be needed.The table on the following page also includes the City's current inventory of library
improvements and books. These improvements have a total value of $4,108,351. This results in a
per person cost of$100.08 for library improvements ($4,108,351 /41,050 population =$100.08).
To calculate the fee,the residential density of 2.11 is multiplied by the cost per capita. (2.11 x
($254.22 + $100.08) = $747.57.
a
4101.
City of Prescott
Library
Impact Fee
LAND STRUCTURE Total
Square
Facility Acres Feet
Prescott Public Library 1.690 38,892
Prescott Connection 1,500
Total 1.690 40,392
Estimated Land Cost per Acre $ 200,000 4.i ;:.
Estimated Replacement Cost per square foot ':"` $ 250
Total Replacement Cost $ 338,000 $ 10,098,000 $ 10,436,000
2005 Population 41,050 41,050
Cost per Person $ 8.23 $ 245.99 $ 254.22
Library Square Footage per Person 0.98
s WnF-. +t+LaPPP.......1 �'�n,.. u�5 ` '� .z...,Y�� ,.. r�+ vs.�,.vw
�a.� r 4 ;
Vehicles, Equipment and Books
Support vehicles $47,674
Vehicles per person $1.16
Furnishings and public workstations $844,056
Furnishings per person $20.56
Books and library materials $3,216,621
Books and materials per person $78.36
$4,108,351 $100.08
Residential standard(average household size) 2.11
4i;x7
Development Fees ti
Residential
Facilities $ 536.40
Vehicles, Equipment and Books 211.17
Total Development Fee $ 747.57
PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND FLEET
The public buildings and fleet development fees are calculated using the incremental expansion
approach. The components included in the fee consist of non-enterprise fund public buildings and
vehicles and equipment that was not specifically identified in the other fee calculations of this
report. All costs have been allocated to residential and nonresidential development and standards
are calculated on a per capita basis for residential fees and square footage for nonresidential
development.Average household size is used to determine the residential development fees while a
per-1,000 square feet calculation is performed for nonresidential development.
The table on the following page lists the City's current inventory of public buildings. City staff
estimate similar downtown land to cost $871,200 per acre. The value of the City's current public
buildings facilities inventory totals $12,191,594. Since 75% of the public building use is related to
residential users, the value is adjusted accordingly. This value is divided by the current population
resulting in a cost per person figure of $222.75 ($12,191,594 x 75% = $9,143,695 / 41,050
population = $222.75). To calculate the fee, the cost per capita is multiplied by the residential
density of 2.11 for a fee of$470.00.
Additional vehicles will also be needed as the City grows. The table on the next page lists the City's
current inventory of vehicles used in general government operations. These vehicles have a total ,....,
value of $1,084,584. This results in a per person cost of $20.22 for ($1,084,584 x 75% / 41,050
population =$19.82).To calculate the fee,the cost per capita is multiplied by the residential density
of 2.11 for a fee of $41.82. The total residential public building and fleet impact fee would be
$511.82.
The nonresidential fee is computed by apportioning 25% of the public buildings and support
vehicles to nonresidential use per 1,000 square feet. This value is then used to determine the fee of
$259.78 for land, buildings and parking and $23.11 for support vehicles per 1,000 square feet of
nonresidential. ($12,191,594 x 25%) / (11,732,249/1,000) = $259.78 + (1,084,584 x 25%) /
(11,732,249/1,000) = $23.11 or a total nonresidential fee of$282.89.
Airs
City of Prescott
Public Buildings and Vehicles
Impact Fee
LAND STRUCTURE
Square
Facility Acres Feet Total
City Hall 0.600 22,309
Legal Department 0.170 2,406
City Annex-Marina Street 0.170 6,234
Adult Center-25% 5,605
Parking lot-off Cortez Street 0.260 -
Fleet Maintenance Building 0.700 31,269
Environmental Services Building-25% 0.083 1,022
Total 1.983 68.845
Estimated Land Cost per Acre $ 871,200 ?"
Estimated Replacement Cost per square foot $ 152
Total Replacement Cost $ 1,727,154 $ 10,464,440 $ 12,191,594
2005 Population 41,050 41,050
Estimated nonresidential square footage 11,732,249 11,732,249
Residential Cost per Person $ 31.56 $ 191.19 $ 222.75
Nonresidential Cost per 1,000 square feet $ 36.80 $ 222.98 $ 259.78
Residential/commercial use 75% 25%
Support vehicles $1,084,584
Residential Cost per Person 19.82
Nonresidential Cost per 1,000 square feet 23.11
Residential standard (average household size) 2.11
Development Fees
Residential
Facilities $ 470.00
Vehicles 41.82
Total Residential Development Fee 511.82
Nonresidential
Facilities $ 259.78
Vehicles 23.11
Total Nonresidential Development Fee 282.89
City of Prescott
Impact Fee Study-Demographic Information
Total Housing Units Total Used
Per New units which were issued permits in Fiscal Year: For Impact Fee
2000 Census 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Study
1-unit,detached 10,959 430 563 589 512 577 13,630
1-unit,attached 632 20 58 55 35 46 846
2 units 341 - 22 12 8 6 389
3-4 units 1,127 3 4 8 9 23 1,174
5-9 units 789 37 - 54 12 - 892
10-19 units 266 - - - - - 266
20 or more units 1,140 - 183 - 94 94 1,511
Mobile Homes 2,100 21 17 25 24 33 2.220
Boat,RV or Van 77 - - - - - 77
17,431 511 847 743 694 779 21,005
Five year average annual housing units-715
2001 New square footage added for non-residential permits in Fiscal Year:
Study 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Estimated nonresidential square footage 7,784,105 1,081,234 379,335 512,571 510.861 1,464,143 11,732,249
Five year average nonresidential square footage-789,629
Projected dwelling units at build out* 24,092 31,000 31,000
Population 33,938 33,938 33,815 36,375 38,180 41,050 41,050
Average Househould Size 2.11 2.11 2.11
Source: City of Prescott Community Development Department
*Estimate based upon future land uses set out in adopted plans which assumes moderate changes in zoning.
Estimated price per acre
Nonresidential
Average price per acre $ 871,200
Residential
Average price per acre(Based on 5 acres) $ 115,000
Mixed Use Library Land Value $ 200,000
Source:City of Prescott Economic Deveopment
)
City of Prescott
Status of Impact Fees
Inception to date
Library Est.
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Cumulative
Beginning Balance -
5,616 62,428 47,232 114,946 174,707 124,698 187,162 353,691 402,028 478,081 617,445
Impact Fees 5,616 60,112 61,152 75,920 128,544 108,160 103,792 157,720 216,385 154,077 195,822 164,450 1,431,750
Interest 1805.79 5253.55 4,730 5,134 9,258 9,848 8,809 6,357 1,976 17,047 10,000 80,218
Friends of the Library contributions 50,000 50,000
Total 5,616 67.534 128,834 127,882 248,624 342,125 238,338 353,691 576,433 558,081 690.950 791,895 1,561,968
Actual use of Proceeds:
Self Check-Out System 81,602 12,936 94,538
Relocate entry and recarpet 5,106 5,106
Library Parking Lot Expansion 73,917 217,427 51,176 342,520
Library Expansion 174,405 80,000 73,505 327,910
Total Expenses - 5,106 81,602 12,936 73,917 217,427 51,176 - 174,405 80,000 73,505 - 770,074
Ending Balance 5,616 62.428 47,232 114,946 174,707 124,698 187,162 353,691 402,028 478,081 617,445 791,895
City of Prescott
Status of Impact Fees
Inception to date
Parks Est.
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Cumulative
Beginning Balance 13,500 155,831 155,990 257,335 454,196 383,684 581,262 947,453 969,107 1,385,078 1,552,771
Previous Park Impact Fee Rollover 335,804
Impact Fees 13,500 168,530 148,424 185,500 309,000 260,000 249,500 400,500 599,315 435,435 553,410 429,000 3,752,114
Interest 22,535 12,979 13,765 17,042 16,930 35,545 26,274 16,167 3,036 48,159 40,000 252,431
Total 13,500 540,369 317,234 355,255 583,377 731,126 668,729 1,008,036 1,562,935 1,407,578 1,986,647 2,021,771 4,004,545
Actual use of Proceeds:
Watson Lake Water Line Connection 51,618 51,618
Watson-Install Irrigation 66,156 1,665 67,821
Watson Lake Playground Equipment/Supplies 21,836 21,836
Heritage Park Playground Equipment 20,265 20,265
Park Development 188 188
Prescott Lakes Park System 60,956 18,138 593,750 22,500 1,625 52,500 749,469
10 Acre Prescott Lakes Park 31,000 31,000
Pioneer Park Paving 265,151 1,125 266,276
Pioneer Parking Lot Lighting 5,943 5,943
Watson Lake Park Paving 17,729 244 17,973
K Lindley North Paving 95,527 95,527
Acker Park Improvements 1,031 1,031
Granite Creek Park Turf&Irrigation 61,731 61,731
Stricklin Park Improvement 2,954 1,114 327 609 5,004
Grant match 26,511 40,884 78 3,440 70,913
Watson Woods 650 952 3,398 5,000
Willow Sand V-Ball,Turf 29,889 29,889
PUSD Property Purchase 336,805 336,805
Acker Park and ISTEA 128,067 128,067
Prescott Lakes Master Plan 10,310 10,310
Watson Lake improvements 425,413 425,413
Sundog Trailhead Enhancements 180,000 180,000
Total Expenses - 384,538 161,244 97,920 129,181 347,442 87,467 60,583 593,828 22,500 433,876 263,500 2,582,078
Ending Balance 13,500 155,831 155,990 257,335 454,196 383,684 581,262 947,453 969,107 1,385,078 1,552,771 1,758,271 1,422,467
) 1 1
City of Prescott
Status of Impact Fees
Inception to date
Recreation Est.
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Cumulative
Beginning Balance 10,800 131,412 23,284 60,797 (4,544) 58.623 25,998 317.008 675,521 859,798 1,095,457
Impact Fees 10,800 117,024 116,176 138,800 247,200 208,000 199,600 286,200 352,741 244,209 310.374 240,600 2,471,724
Interest 3,588 8.895 4,085 4,547 3,545 2,975 5,642 5,772 2,170 27,962 22,000 91,182
Loans,Donations and Transfers 1,200,225 1,200.225
Total 10,800 131,412 256,484 166,168 312,544 207,002 261,198 317,840 675,521 921,900 1,198,134 2,560,288 3,763,131
Actual use of Proceeds:
YMCA Partnering for Gym 233,200 94,000 292.000 145,600 235,200 1,000,000
PAC Rec Center 11,371 25,088 2,778 39.237
Adult Center 832 36,562 102.677 2,420,225 2,560,296
Grant match 25,540 25,540
Total Expenses -
233,200 105,371 317,088 148,378 235,200 832 62,102 102,677 2,420,225 3,625,073
Ending Balance 10,800 131,412 23,284 60,797 (4,544) 58,623 25,998 317,008 675,521 859,798 1,095,457 140,063
City of Prescott
Status of Impact Fees
Inception to date
Police Est.
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Cumulative
Beginning Balance 1,296 5,607 20,500 43,694 75,582 104,249 136,718 183,656 255,533 307,631 382,670
Impact Fees 1,296 13,872 14.112 21,264 29,664 24,960 23,952 41,520 68,916 51,156 65,016 50,400 406,128
Interest 394 781 1,930 2,224 3.707 8,517 5,418 2,961 942 10,023 5,000 41,897
Total 1,296 15,562 20,500 43,694 75,582 104,249 136.718 183,656 255,533 307.631 382,670 438,070 448,025
Actual use of Proceeds:
Evidence Freezer 9,955 9,955
Total Expenses - 9.955 - - - - - - - - - - 9,955
Ending Balance 1,296 5,607 20,500 43,694 75.582 104,249 136,718 183,656 255.533 307,631 382.670 438,070 438,070
) ) )
City of Prescott
Status of Impact Fees
Inception to date
Fire Est.
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Cumulative
Beginning Balance 3,456 41.571 82,585 154,234 121.170 194,328 263,834 84,750 242,369 359,001 518.515
Impact Fees 3.456 36,992 37,632 64,384 79.104 66.560 63,872 107,720 155,939 116,103 146,624 120,600 998,986
Interest 1,123 3,383 7,265 7,833 6,597 16.078 5,530 1,680 529 12,890 8,000 70.907
Total 3,456 41,571 82,585 154,234 241,170 194,328 274,278 377,084 242,369 359,001 518,515 647,115 1,069.893
Actual use of Proceeds:
Station 5 Addition 10,444 292,334 302.778
Fire Contribution to Public Safety Computer 120,000 120.000
Transfer to Capital Improvement-Fire Land 150,000 150,000
Total Expenses - - - - 120,000 - 10,444 292,334 - - - 150,000 572,778
Ending Balance 3,456 41,571 82,585 154,234 121,170 194,328 263,834 84.750 242,369 359,001 518,515 497,115
City of Prescott
Status of Impact Fees
Inception to date
Streets Est.
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Cumulative
Beginning Balance - 30,890 170,766 343,565 223,655 120,380 364,321 711,018 277,600 120,633 194,680
Impact Fees 65,208 134,064 158,232 281,808 237,120 227,544 328,640 410,913 285,621 363,006 281,400 2,773,556
Interest 671 5,813 14,567 18,197 14,988 16,397 18,057 11.919 1,162 11,041 8,000 120,811
Cash Discount 11 11
- 65,890 170,766 343,565 643,570 475,763 364,321 711,018 1,133,850 564,383 494,680 484,080 2,894,378
Actual use of Proceeds:
Repay General Fund for Survey 35,000 35,000
Contribution for Iron Springs Road 419,915 355,383 775,298
Transfers to Streets Projects 856,250 443,750 300,000 400,000 2,000,000
Total Expenses - 35,000 - - 419,915 355,383 - - 856,250 443,750 300,000 400,000 2,810,298
Ending Balance - 30,890 170,766 343,565 223,655 120,380 364,321 711,018 277.600 120,633 194.680 84,080
) ) )
► 1 1
City of Prescott
Status of Impact Fees
Inception to date
Public Buildings Est.
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Cumulative
Beginning Balance - 55,282 260,289 427,725 556,504
Impact Fees 55,000 203,775 167,475 212,850 165,000 804,100
Interest 282 1,232 273 14,520 10,000 26,307
Total - - - - - - - 55,282 260,289 428,037 655,095 731,504 830,407
Actual use of Proceeds:
Council Chambers Expansion 312 98,591 98,903
Animal Control Expansion 140,000 140,000
Total Expenses - - - - - - - - - 312 98,591 140.000 238,903
Ending Balance - - - - - - - 55,282 260.289 427,725 556,504 591.504
Total of all Impact Fees 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Cumulative
Beginning Balance" - 370,472 427.739 500,357 974,571 1,044,767 985,962 1,559,295 2.652,858 3,082,447 3,937,947 4,918,042 335,804
Impact Fees 34,668 461,738 511,560 644,100 1,075,320 904,800 868,260 1,377,300 2,007.984 1,454,076 1,847,102 1,451,450 12,638,358
Interest - 30.116 37.104 46,341 54,976 55,025 89,360 70,012 46,088 10,088 141,642 103,000 683,753
Other - 11 - - - 50,000 - - - - - - 50.011
Less:Expenses - 434,599 476,046 216,227 1,060,101 1,068,630 384,287 353.749 1,624,483 608,664 1,008,649 3,373,725 10,609.159
Ending Balance 34,668 427,739 500.357 974,571 1,044,767 985,962 1,559,295 2,652,858 3,082,447 3,937,947 4,918,042 3,098,767 3,098,767
Prior Parks impact fee of$335.804 is reflected in the 1996 beginning balance
Estimated Potential Revenues
(Assumes 715 New Residential Units, and 789,629 New Non-Residential Square Feet per Year)
Public Buildings
Fire Police Parks Recreation Library Streets &Fleet Total
Residential
Annual 375,375 421,135 1,763,190 506,220 534,105 335,335 365,365 4,300,725
Five Years 1,876,875 2,105,675 8,815,950 2,531,100 2,670,525 1,676,675 1,826,825 21,503,625
Ten Years 3,753,750 4,211,350 17,631,900 5,062,200 5,341,050 3,353,350 3,653,650 43,007,250
Nonresidential
Annual 687,767 492,728 - - - 370,336 222,675 1,773,507
Five Years 3,438,834 2,463,642 - - - 1,851,680 1,113,377 8,867,534
Ten Years 6,877,669 4,927,285 - - - 3,703,360 2,226,754 17,735,067
TOTAL
Annual 1,063,142 913,863 1,763,190 506,220 534,105 705,671 588,040 6,074,232
Five Years 5,315,709 4,569,317 8,815,950 2,531,100 2,670,525 3,528,355 2,940,202 30,371,159
Ten Years 10,631,419 9,138,635 17,631,900 5,062,200 5,341,050 7,056,710 5,880,404 60,742,317
) ) )
City of Prescott
Summary of Uses for Impact Fees
Maintain current service levels by maintaining capital facilities and equipment at current levels per service
demand unit. Funds cannot be used for operating and maintenance costs.
Fire:
Construct and equip growth-related fire stations:
Downtown area
Watson Lake
North Prescott
Expand communications infrastructure
Relocate the airport fire station
Police:
Construct and equip police department facilities
Construct and equip training center/firing range replacement
Expand property&evidence/vehicle storage facility
Expand communications infrastructure
Parks:
Complete future phases of Pioneer Park
Complete Prescott Lakes area park
Plan and construct future projects identified in the master plan update
Recreation:
Plan and implement community center
Plan and implement a community pool
Library:
Construct and equip long-term branch library facility
Add additional volumes to maintain service levels
Public Buildings &Fleet:
Add facilities to maintain current service levels
Maintain fleet at current service levels to accommodate growth
City of Prescott
Vehicle Replacement Estimates
Fleet Maintenance
Equipment Fund Acq. Acq. Vehicle Equipment Acq. Hours or Replacement
No. Department Year Month Year Description Cost Mileage Cost(1)
12/31/05
Library
LIBRARY
364 1-820 78 9 1978 FORD VAN BOOKMOBILE $8,879 100,624 $19,503
919 1-820 99 6 1999 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $22,077 68,385 $28,171
Total Library $30,956 $47,674
Parks
PARKS,RECREATION AND LIBRARY-PROGRAMMING
563 1-831 86 2 1986 FORD CLUB WAGON VAN $14,062 13,287 $23,837
725 1-831 92 10 1992 FORD F155 P/UP $13,790 81,276 $28,171
749 1-831 94 3 1994 FORD TAURUS $12,362 60,359 $21,670
759 1-831 94 6 1994 CHEVY VAN $22,826 85,414 $23,837
967 1-831 00 12 2001 CHEVY VAN $23,562 3,014 $23,837
1040 1-831 03 1 2003 FORD F25 34 P/U $20,064 10,925 $43,340 'ark
927 1-831 97 6 1997 PORTABLE BAND SHELL $79,995 - $100,000
1041 1-831 03 2 2003 FORD VAN $23,280 10,502 $23,837
TOTAL 1-831 -PROGRAMMING $209,941 $288,529
PARKS,RECREATION AND LIBRARY-PARK MAINTENANCE
43 1-832 56 6 1942 FORDSON TRACTOR $700 - $65,010
464 1-832 83 7 1983 CHEV 1/2 TON 4X4 P/UP $3,082 76,875 $28,171
475 1-832 89 6 1984 CASE LOADER W20C $28,828 6,617 $157,108
526 1-832 85 6 1985 CHEVY LONG BED P/UP $7,950 23,717 $23,837
609 1-832 87 11 JCB 1700 B BACKHOE $51,056 3,588 $92,098
641 1-832 89 3 1981 TOYOTA TRUCK $944 89,392 $28,171
662 1-832 89 9 1967 CHEVY TANK TRUCK $525 59,770 $65,010
678 1-832 90 8 1990 DUMP TRUCK $67,351 69,408 $203,698
724 1-832 92 10 1992 FORD F155 P/UP $13,790 99,587 $28,171
809 1-832 95 5 JOHN DEERE TRACTOR#970 $21,890 - $43,340
822 1-832 96 2 1996 DODGE 1/2 TON 4X2 PU $16,310 69,531 $27,088
857 1-832 97 3 1997 FORD F250 4X2 P/UP $17,713 56,245 $29,255
858 1-832 97 3 1997 FORD F250 4X2 P/UP $17,713 51,591 $29,255
859 1-832 97 3 1997 FORD F350 P/UP SUPER 4X2 $22,243 24,002 $65,010
890 1-832 98 3 3/4 TON 4X2 P/UP $17,803 46,354 $29,255
892 1-832 98 6 1998 CHEW 5-10 P/UP 4X2 $13,845 23,414 $14,086
928 1-832 99 8 1999 INTL 4900 4X2 DUMP TRUCK $60,015 16,096 $92,098
934 1-832 99 11 J DEERE/410 E LOADER/BACKHOE $75,174 365 $92,098 .....IN
City of Prescott
Vehicle Replacement Estimates
Fleet Maintenance
Equipment Fund Acq. Acq. Vehicle Equipment Acq. Hours or Replacement
No. Department Year Month Year Description Cost Mileage Cost(1)
12/31/05
937 1-832 99 6 MELROE 753F-SERIES BOBCAT $20,335 300 848,758
953 1-832 00 7 2000 CHEV 4X2 3/4 TON P/UP $19,995 29,554 $29,255
989 1-832 03 4 2001 DODGE 2500 P/U $19,074 26,078 $29,255
1005 1-832 03 12 JOHN DEERE LOADER BACKHOE $74,311 755 $97,515
1032 1-832 03 12 2003 FORD P/UP $27,835 9,632 $39,006
1039 1-832 03 1 2003 FORD F15 P/UP $16,098 10,494 $29,255
1105 1-832 05 2 2005 FORD F250 LWB 4X2 P/UP $16,796 - $29,255
1118 1-832 05 3 2005 CHEVY P/UP $28,575 - $34,672
TOTAL 1-832-PARK MAINTENANCE $659,951 $1,449,723
PARKS,RECREATION AND LIBRARY-OPEN SPACE/TRAILS
954 1-834 00 5 2000 FORD F15 P/UP $23,853 18,647 $28,171
TOTAL 1-834-OPEN SPACE/TRAILS
PARKS,RECREATION AND LIBRARY-GOLDWATER LAKE
1034 1-835 03 1 2003 FORD F15 P/UP $19,088 14,954 $28,171
TOTAL 1-835-GOLDWATER LAKE
PARKS,RECREATION AND LIBRARY-WATSON AND WILLOW LAKES
1106 1-836 05 2 2005 FORD F250 LWB 4X2 P/UP $16,796 - $27,088
789 1-836 95 2 1995 FORD F150 WHITE $13,786 98,438 $23,837
965 1-836 00 10 1996 FORD RANGER 2 WHEEL DR P/UP $9,921 79,566 $14,086
TOTAL 1-836-WATSON AND WILLOW LAKES $1,402,646 $2,955,788
PARKS,RECREATION AND LIBRARY-LANDSCAPING/URBAN FORESTRY
990 1-837 03 4 2001 DODGE 2500 P/UP $19,075 24,090 $30,338
1102 1-837 05 2 2005 FORD F150 4X2 LWB P/UP $14,719 - $21,670
TOTAL 1-837-LANDSCAPING/URBAN FORESTRY $33,794 $52,008
Total Parks S4,802,390
City of Prescott
Vehicle Replacement Estimates
Fleet Maintenance
Equipment Fund Acq. Acq. Vehicle Equipment Acq. Hours or Replacement
No. Department Year Month Year Description Cost Mileage Cost(1)
12/31/05
Police
POLICE-ADMINISTRATION
987 1-850 03 5 2001 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $21,796 60,295 $28,171
TOTAL 1-850-POLICE ADMINISTRATION $21,796 $28,171
POLICE-TRAFFIC
654 1-852 90 8 1989 KAWASAKI MOTORCYCLE $0 - $15,169
689 1-852 91 4 1991 KAWASAKI KZ 100 $7,706 - $20,587
745 1-852 93 11 1993 KAWASAKI MOTORCYCLE $6,989 - $20,587
849 1-852 97 1 1996 KZ1000 P15 KAWASAKI $7,982 50,619 $20,587
881 1-852 98 3 1996 POLAR ATV $0 1,386 $9,210
8951-852 98 6 1998 KAWASAKI $10,725 40,324 $20,587
901 1-852 98 6 1998 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $21,259 - $49,841
909 1-852 99 3 1999 GO-4 POLICE INTERCEPTOR $17,850 16,848 $21,670
925 1-852 99 6 1999 KAWASAKI KZ1000 MOTORCYCLE $11,063 12,895 $20,587
971 1-852 03 2 2001 KAWASAKI KZ 1000 $12,016 31,616 $20,587
972 1-852 03 2 2001 KAWASAKI KZ 1000 $12,016 24,944 $20,587
1044 1-852 03 12 2003 KAWASAKI KZ 1000 $10,687 10,604 $20,587
1045 1-852 03 12 2003 KAWASAKI KZ 1000 $10,687 14,025 $20,587
1047 1-852 03 3 CHEVY IMPALA $20,120 11,922 $43,340
1094 1-852 04 11 2005 KAWASAKI KZ 1000 $11,030 - $20,587
TOTAL 1-852-POLICE-TRAFFIC $160,130 $345,095
POLICE-INVESTIGATIONS
763 1-854 94 7 1994 FORD TAURUS 4-DR $14,349 68,968 $27,088
790 1-854 95 3 1995 FORD TAURUS $13,407 75,687 $27,088
791 1-854 95 3 1995 FORD TAURUS $13,407 61,890 $27,088
929 1-854 99 8 1988 FORD VAN E-150 $6,346 60,526 $32,505
956 1-854 00 6 2000 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $21,795 61,622 $32,505
1058 1-854 03 8 2000 CHEVY PICKUP $16,410 $23,837
1072 1-854 04 1 2004 FORD XSP $24,048 6,072 $43,340
1082 1-854 04 1 2004 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $22,784 13,819 $28,171
1120 1-854 05 3 2005 FORD EXPLORER $23,325 - $30,338
1130 1-854 05 4 2005 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $23,266 - $32,505
TOTAL 1-854-POLICE-INVESTIGATIONS $179,137 $304,464
IOW
City of Prescott
Vehicle Replacement Estimates
Fleet Maintenance
Equipment Fund Acq. Acq. Vehicle Equipment Acq. Hours or Replacement
No. Department Year Month Year Description Cost Mileage Cost(1)
12/31/05
POLICE-PATROL
826 1-855 96 5 1996 DODGE 1500 REG/CAB $17,668 54,325 $36,839
850 1-855 97 1 1996 KZ1000 P15 KAWASAKI $7,982 42,851 $20,587
875 1-855 97 7 1997 CHEVY TAHOE $31,410 49,974 $43,340
951 1-855 00 4 2000 FORD EXPEDITION $32,000 93,899 $56,342
969 1-855 00 12 2001 CHEW VAN $23,561 3,753 $32,505
975 1-855 03 2 2001 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $22,536 31,957 $49,841
983 1-855 03 5 2001 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $21,795 44,015 $49,841
984 1-855 03 5 2001 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $21,795 38,387 $49,841
985 1-855 03 5 2001 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $21,795 38,867 $49,841
999 1-855 03 1 1997 FORD MHC-RVC $44,525 36,731 $65,010
1012 1-855 03 6 2002 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $28,328 46,695 $49,841
1013 1-855 03 6 2002 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $28,328 55,212 $49,841
1014 1-855 03 6 2002 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $28,327 49,321 $49,841
1015 1-855 03 6 2002 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $28,327 48,598 $49,841
Orni► 1016 1-855 03 6 2002 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $28,327 51,371 $49,841
1017 1-855 03 6 2002 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $28,327 27,819 $49,841
1018 1-855 03 6 2002 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $28,327 29,050 $49,841
1024 1-855 03 9 2003 DODGE INTREPID $18,272 20,910 $49,841
1048 1-855 03 3 2003 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $29,310 34,540 $49,841
1050 1-855 03 3 2003 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $29,310 48,852 $49,841
1051 1-855 03 3 2003 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $29,310 41,397 $49,841
1052 1-855 03 3 2003 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $29,310 38,607 $49,841
1053 1-855 03 3 2003 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $29,310 38,344 $49,841
1054 1-855 03 3 2003 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $29,310 44,521 $49,841
1099 1-855 05 3 2005 FORD EXPLORER $24,001 - $54,175
1117 1-855 05 3 2005 CHEW P/UP $30,773 - $54,175
1123 1-855 05 4 2005 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $23,334 - $49,841
1124 1-855 05 4 2005 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $23,334 - $49,841
1125 1-855 05 4 2005 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $23,334 - $49,841
1126 1-855 05 4 2005 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $23,334 - $49,841
1127 1-855 05 4 2005 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $23,334 - $49,841
1128 1-855 05 4 2005 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $23,334 - $49,841
1129 1-855 05 4 2005 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $23,334 - $49,841
TOTAL POLICE-PATROL $855,603 $1,608,998
City of Prescott
Vehicle Replacement Estimates
Fleet Maintenance
Equipment Fund Acq. Acq. Vehicle Equipment Acq. Hours or Replacement
No. Department Year Month Year Description Cost Mileage Cost(1)
12/31/05
POLICE-COMMUNITY SERVICES
904 1-859 98 12 1991 FORD THUNDERBIRD $0 86,975 $32,505
907 1-859 98 12 1989 FORD 3/4 P/UP $5,500 13,159 $28,171
1078 1-859 04 6 2004 FORD EXPLORER $23,190 33 $29,255
TOTAL POLICE-COMMUNITY SERVICES $28,690 $89,931
POLICE-ANIMAL CONTROL
889 1-872 98 3 1998 CHEVY S-10 PICKUP $13,890 47,812 $17,336
991 1-872 03 5 2001 CHEV S10 P/U $13,248 23,012 $17,336
1030 1-872 03 12 2003 FORD RANGER $14,185 13,172 $17,336
TOTAL 1-872-ANIMAL CONTROL $41,323 $52,008
POLICE-COMMUNITY SERVICE WORK PROGRAM
968 1-873 00 12 2001 CHEVY VAN $23,561 32,035 $32,505
TOTAL 1-873-COMMUNITY SERVICE WORK PROGRAM $23,561 $32,505
Total Police $2,461,170
Fire
FIRE-ADMINISTRATION
896 1-860 98 6 1998 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $20,917 62,233 $28,171
920 1-860 99 6 1999 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $22,077 67,075 $28,171
1074 1-860 04 1 2004 FORD F2S $22,870 - S32,505
TOTAL 1-860-ADMINISTRATION $65,864 $88,847
FIRE-PREVENTION
800 1-862 95 5 1995 FORD RANGER R-10 LWB 4X2 $11,682 - $19,503
955 1-862 00 6 2000 FORD TAURUS 4/DOOR SEDAN $15,763 - $21,670
1025 1-862 03 10 2003 CHEVY K5100 EXT CAB $23,190 - $32,505
TOTAL FIRE-PREVENTION $50,635 $73,678
City of Prescott
Vehicle Replacement Estimates
Fleet Maintenance
Equipment Fund Acq. Acq. Vehicle Equipment Acq. Hours or Replacement
No. Department Year Month Year Description Cost Mileage Cost(1)
12/31/05
FIRE-SUPPRESSION
469 1-863 83 9 GMC CAB&CHASSIS 4WD $12,849 - $27,088
652 1-863 90 1 1989 FIRE TRUCK $301,750 - $595,925
731 1-863 92 12 1986 1 TON CHEV FLAT BED $5,776 - $27,088
733 1-863 92 12 1993 CENTRAL STATES FIRE TRUCK $180,299 - S325,050
7741-863 95 6 FIRE TRUCK $141,609 - $325,050
867 1-863 97 5 1997 MEDIUM DUTY CAB $42,293 - $216,700
897 1-862 98 6 1998 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $20,917 59,973 $28,171
910 1-863 99 4 1998 HME/CENTRAL STATES PUMPER $240,444 - $325,050
911 1-863 98 6 1999 INTL 4900 FIRETRUCK $76,258 - $216,700
936 1-863 99 12 2000 FORD 4X4 EXCURSION $34,720 - $43,340
966 1-863 00 11 2001 FORD 1 TON P/UP $33,844 - $130,020
973 1-863 03 1 1990 2TON UTILITY STEP VAN $17,500 - $54,175
974 1-863 00 10 4 WHEEL DR/PUMPER TRUCK $165,690 - $325,050
981 1-863 01 5 AIRPORT CRASH TRUCK $408,740 - $541,750
1019 1-863 03 6 1986 S 1900 DUMP TRUCK $6,355 - $86,680
1026 1-863 03 10 2003 CHEW K5100 EXT CAB $23,441 - $28,171
1056 1-863 03 8 2003 HME PUMPER TRUCK $246,507 - $325,050
1057 1-863 03 8 2003 HME PUMPER TRUCK $246,507 - $325,050
1068 1-863 04 1 HME LADDER TRUCK $451,134 - $595,925
TOTAL 1-863-FIRE-SUPPRESSION $2,656,633 $4,542,032
FIRE-TRAINING
997 1-864 03 10 2002 FORD P/UP $25,593 - $30,338
TOTAL 1-864-FIRE-TRAINING $25,593 $30,338
FIRE-TECHNICAL SERVICES
781 1-866 95 6 1988 HAZMAT CHEV P60 STEP VAN $36,662 - $216,700
TOTAL 1-866-FIRE-TECHNICAL SERVICES $36,662 $216,700
FIRE DEPARTMENT-WILDLAND FIRE
780 1-867 94 12 1995 JEEP CHEROKEE WHITE $21,392 - $27,088
1011 1-867 03 6 1995 FORD P/UP $6,200 - $30,338
1060 1-867 03 6 1998 FORD VAN $8,550 - $108,350
1076 1-867 04 1 2004 FORD F250 $22,870 - $30,338
City of Prescott
Vehicle Replacement Estimates
Fleet Maintenance
Equipment Fund Acq. Acq. Vehicle Equipment Acq. Hours or Replacement
No. Department Year Month Year Description Cost Mileage Cost(1)
12/31/05
1090 1-867 04 6 1997 FORD E350 VAN $8,100 - $108,350
1098 1-867 04 12 2005 FORD F5D $35,062 - $70,428
1103 1-867 05 2 2005 FORD F350 4X4 LWB P/UP $20,910 - $27,088
1132 1-867 05 5 2005 FORD F550 S/C 4X4 $64,624 - $162,525
TOTAL 1-867-WILDLAND FIRE CREW $187,708 $564,504
Total Fire $5,516,099
Public Buildings&Fleet
GENERAL GOVERNMENT-CITY MANAGER
1131 1-804 05 4 2005 CHEVROLET ASTRO VAN $19,250 - $23,837
TOTAL 1-804-CITY MANAGER $19,250 $23,837
GENERAL GOVERNMENT-LEGAL DIVISION ...ft„
914 1-806 99 6 1999 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $24,416 22,997 $28,171
TOTAL 1-806-LEGAL DIVISION $24,416 $28,171
BUDGET&FINANCE-INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
761 1-815 94 7 1994 CHEVYTRUCK $11,327 84,930 $27,088
794 1-815 95 3 1995 FORD TAURUS $19,965 80,723 $21,670
943 1-815 00 3 2000 DODGE DAKOTA SWB 4X4 $15,459 9,570 $32,505
TOTAL 1-815-INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY $46,751 $81,263
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-BUILDING DIVISION
803 1-882 95 6 1995 CHEVROLET CAVALIER $11,383 99,180 $15,169
855 1-882 97 3 1997 FORD ESCORT,4-DOOR $12,103 56,118 $15,169
916 1-882 99 6 1999 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $22,077 85,781 $28,171
1083 1-882 04 6 2004 CHEV TRACKER $18,870 6,814 $22,754
1115 1-882 05 3 2005 FORD ESCAPE $13,238 - $18,420
1119 1-882 05 3 2005 FORD ESCAPE $13,238 - $18,420
City of Prescott
Vehicle Replacement Estimates
Fleet Maintenance
Equipment Fund Acq. Acq. Vehicle Equipment Acq. Hours or Replacement
No. Department Year Month Year Description Cost Mileage Cost(1)
12/31/05
TOTAL 1-882-BUILDING DIVISION $90,909 $118,102
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-PLANNING AND ZONING
1080 1-883 04 1 2004 CHEV TRACKER $18,870 50 $18,420
1081 1-883 04 1 2004 CHEV TRACKER $18,870 50 $18,420
TOTAL 1-883-PLANNING AND ZONING $37,740 $36,839
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES-CENTRAL GARAGE
22 10-884 64 11 1965 FORD PICKUP $59,593
522 10-884 85 6 1985 CHEVY 1 TON $11,783 33,533 $54,175
741 10-884 93 6 1993 CHEVROLET 1 TON 4X2 CAB $19,437 23,472 $54,175
939 10-884 00 1 2000 CHEVROLET 3/4 TON 4X4 P/UP $27,141 9,594 $28,171
986 10-884 03 5 2001 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $21,795 49,704 $28,171
TOTAL 10-884-CENTRAL GARAGE $80,156 $224,285
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES-CAR POOL
804 10-88401 95 6 1995 CHEVROLET CAVALIER 4-DOOR $11,383 79,465 $16,253
805 10-88401 95 6 1995 1995 CHEVROLET CAVALIER 4-DOOR $11,383 79,350 $16,253
TOTAL 10-88401-CAR POOL $22,766 832,505
PUBLIC WORKS-ENGINEERING
775 29-881 94 12 1995 FORD ECONOLINE VAN $17,880 26,872 $30,338
778 29-881 94 12 1995 FORD F150 $15,710 34,233 $28,171
819 29-881 95 12 1996 1/2 TON SWB 4X4 P/UP $20,069 47,598 $30,338
915 29-881 99 6 1999 FORD CROWN VICTORIA $22,571 83,200 $28,171
933 29-881 99 10 1999 DODGE 1/2 TON P/UP $15,933 15,181 $28,171
976 29-881 03 2 2001 FORD 1TON 4X2 $22,013 34,062 $39,006
980 29-887 03 4 2001 DODGE 4X4 1/2 TON $17,876 20,043 $28,171
1077 29-881 04 1 2004 FORD F150 P/UP $18,538 2,372 $22,754
1113 29-881 05 3 2005 FORD F150 P/UP $14,412 - $22,754
TOTAL 29-881 -ENGINEERING $165,002 $257,873
City of Prescott
Vehicle Replacement Estimates
Fleet Maintenance
Equipment Fund Acq. Acq. Vehicle Equipment Acq. Hours or Replacement
No. Department Year Month Year Description Cost Mileage Cost(1)
12/31/05
PUBLIC WORKS-CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
746 29-887 93 12 1994 CHEVROLET 4X4 P/UP $14,849 114,937 $28,171
782 29-887 95 1995 F-150 SWB 74,250 $28,171
837 29-887 96 1996 DODGE 1500 4X2 85,976 $28,171
838 29-887 96 1996 DODGE 1500 4X2 60,160 $28,171
882 29-887 98 1998 FORD F-150 4X4 64,661 $28,171
883 29-887 98 1998 FORD F-150 4X4 81,790 $28,171
932 29-887 99 10 1999 DODGE 1/2 TON P/UP $15,933 19,466 $28,171
978 29-887 01 2001 DODGE 1500 SWB 25,484 $28,171
1007 29-887 03 12 2002 FORD F-150 REG CAB $21,850 17,807 $28,171
1035 29-887 03 1 2003 FORD F15 P/UP $18,830 7,261 $28,171
TOTAL 29-887-CONSTRUCTION SERVICES $71,462 $281,710
Total Public Buildings&Fleet $1,084,584
Grand Total $17,748,590 r+.
(1) Replacement cost shown includes tax of 8.35%and other upgrades to prepare the vehicle for service.
Source: City of Prescott Fleet Management
City of Prescott
Communications and other Major Equipment
Impact Fee Study
Equipment Fund Acq. Acq. Equipment Acq.
No. Department Year Month Description Cost
Library
LIBRARY
13064 1-820 83 9 SECURITY SYSTEM CPMK111 $16,172
13899 1-820 85 3 APPLE II PLUS COMPUTER $7,656
14210 1-820 85 3 AUTOMATED CIRCULATION SYSTEM $41,385
172691 1-820 93 6 DATABASE MIGRATION CLSI TO DYNIX $9,000
172903 1-820 93 12 COMPUTER HARDWARE AND USER $13,149
173719 1-820 96 9 READING EDGE EXPRESS EDIT SYSTEM $5,957
174082 1-820 99 6 LIBRARY SCANNING STATION $9,864
174148 1-820 99 6 TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT $8,604
174287 1-820 00 5 DYNIX ENHANCEMENTS $37,781
Ow 174476 1-820 01 6 COUNTY AUTOMATION PROJECT $61,394
176479 1-820 02 10 CANON MS00 DIGITAL MICROPRINTER $8,602
176480 1-820 03 6 7210 3M SELF CHECKOUT SYSTEM $22,684
176481 1-820 03 6 LIBRARY LABEL PRINTING SYSTEM $6,088
176737 1-820 04 6 MINOLTA D12510 DIGITAL COPIER $6,017
176738 1-820 04 6 GXT270 WORKSTATION $7,575
176802 1-820 05 6 KINGSLEY LEGEND BOOK RETURN $8,704
173721 1-820 97 6 GOPHER $8,982
176878 1-820 05 6 REFURBISHED 16KVA SYMETRA APC $7,442
1-820 FURNISHINGS,SHELVING AND WORKSTATIONS $557,000
1-820 LIBRARY COLLECTION $3,194,621
1-820 PERIODICALS $22,000
Total Library $4,060,677
Police
POLICE-ADMINISTRATION
,401.`, 15783 1-850 88 6 GLASSFORD HILL COMM PACKAGE $8,256
City of Prescott
Communications and other Major Equipment
Impact Fee Study
Equipment Fund Acq. Acq. Equipment Acq.
No. Department Year Month Description Cost
16120-16122 1-850 88 11 DIR ACC STORAGE $34,059
16123 1-850 88 11 MAG TAPE DRIVE $6,406
16124 1-850 88 11 "LIC"SYSTEM UNIT $39,266
16241 1-850 88 9 REPEATER/BASE STATION $13,080
16242 1-850 88 9 RADIO MODULE PACKAGE $5,700
16244 1-850 89 4 EMERSON GE LIGHTNING ARREST $16,847
16247 1-850 88 8 COMPUTER SOFTWARE $82,426
17275 1-850 91 6 COMPUTER SOFTWARE $11,898
17276 1-850 91 6 COMPUTER SYSTEM NETWORK $6,875
17423 1-850 91 6 IBM MODEL 55SX COMPUTER $5,387
17425 1-850 91 6 SAVIN COPIER 73344 $6,747
17426 1-850 91 6 SAVIN 7500 COPIER $10,028
172449 1-850 92 1 MECHANICAL ASSIST STORAGE SYSTEM $7,539
172682 1-850 93 6 COMPUTER EXPANSION FOR AS/400 T $43,533
172784 1-850 93 6 POLICE BUILDING TELEPHONE EQUIP IN $45,071
173088 1-850 94 3 POLICE VESTS $5,345
TOTAL 1-850-POLICE ADMINISTRATION $348,463
POLICE-RECORDS
21091-851 98 3 COPIER $10,981
173913 1-851 98 6 WORK STATION $5,040
173927 1-851 98 2 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPUTERS $80,178
174149 1-851 98 10 FY99 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT $2,990
174237 1-851 99 1 COMPUTER SUPPLIES $248,362
174288 1-851 00 6 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPUTERS $44,350
174522 1-851 02 4 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPUTERS $17,730
176462 1-851 03 6 DIGITAL COPIER $21,711
176483 1-851 03 5 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPUTERS $9,626
176517 1-851 02 12 BJA ALARM PERMIT SYSTEM $30,563
176832 1-851 05 6 REGIONAL COMMUNICATION CENTER $413,860
1-851 06 2 COMMUNICATIONS RADIO TOWER INFRA $2,000,000 -.44,
a.
City of Prescott
Communications and other Major Equipment
Impact Fee Study
Equipment Fund Acq. Acq. Equipment Acq.
No. Department Year Month Description Cost
1-851 06 2 CRIMEVIEW 9.X/CADMINE GEOBALANCE SOFTWARE $70,891
1-851 06 2 MOBILE DATA COMPUTERS AVL SYSTEM $500,000
1-851 06 2 MOBILE BACKUP COMMUNICATIONS CENTER $150,000
1-851 06 2 CEOOMUNICATIONS CENTER ROOF OVERLAY $45,000
1-851 06 2 CALL LOGGER REPLACEMENT $60,000
1-851 06 2 DIGITAL PHOTO MANAGEMENT SYSTEM $29,000
TOTAL 1-851 -POLICE RECORDS $3,740,282
POLICE-BUILDING MAINTENANCE
173443 1-853 96 6 DIGITAL LOGGING/RECORDER $39,706
TOTAL 1-853 -POLICE-BUILDING MAINTENANCE $39,706
POLICE-INVESTIGATIONS
173641 1-854 97 1 COMPUTER VOICE STRESS ANALYZER $9,991
176464 1-854 02 10 VOICE STRESS ANALYZER $9,950
TOTAL 1-854-POLICE-INVESTIGATIONS $19,941
POLICE-PATROL
174275 1-855 00 3 XEROX DOCUMENT CENTER DC 332 $9,563
TOTAL POLICE-PATROL $9,563
POLICE-TRAINING
176465 1-858 02 11 STAR TRAC TREADMILL $5,640
41011. TOTAL POLICE-TRAINING $5,640
City of Prescott
Communications and other Major Equipment
Impact Fee Study
Equipment Fund Acq. Acq. Equipment Acq.
No. Department Year Month Description Cost
POLICE-COMMUNITY SERVICES
174276 1-859 00 4 JVC PRO CAMCORDER $6,853
TOTAL POLICE-COMMUNITY SERVICES $6,853
POLICE-COMMUNITY SERVICE WORK PROGRAM
998 1-873 01 10 TEXAS BRAGG FLTBD TRLR $2,203
174149 1-873 98 10 FY 99 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT $1,158
TOTAL 1-873 -COMMUNITY SERVICE WORK PROGRAM $3,361
Total Police $4,173,809 Aar,,k'
Fire
FIRE-ADMINISTRATION
12793 1-860 82 9 MECHANICS STORAGE BUILDING $8,999
14830 1-860 85 6 ECG/MONITOR DEFIBRALLATOR SYSTEM $6,940
150381-860 86 3 MONITOR/DEFIBRALLATOR $6,653
15458 1-860 86 10 REPEATER SYSTEM $5,229
15879 1-860 87 12 LIFEPAK MONITOR SYSTEM $7,800
16006 1-860 88 6 SATELLITE DISH $5,000
16275 1-860 89 2 INTERCOM SYSTEM $6,928
16528 1-860 90 1 NOZZLES&MISC EQUIPMENT $6,057
172257 1-860 91 10 BREATHING AIR COMPRESSOR/PURIFICATION $14,245
TOTAL 1-860-ADMINISTRATION $67,851
FIRE-COMMUNICATIONS
173383 1-861 96 4 VR2162M 16-CHANNEL EVENTIDE $18,740
173642 1-861 97 1 4010 CONSOLES $63,936 '�.
City of Prescott
Communications and other Major Equipment
Impact Fee Study
Equipment Fund Acq. Acq. Equipment Acq.
No. Department Year Month Description Cost
TOTAL FIRE-COMMUNICATIONS $82,676
FIRE-SUPPRESSION
1728871-863 93 12 HARDWARE $5,664
173137 1-863 94 9 AMKUS SIGMA I $6,562
173412 1-863 95 10 MSA SELF CONTAINED BREATHING $8,046
174104 1-863 98 11 CARDIAC MONITOR/DIFIBRILLATOR $5,747
174277 1-863 99 9 POSICHECK/TESTING DATABASE $6,516
174403 1-863 01 2 HYDRALIC RESCUE TOOL $14,518
174447 1-863 01 6 THERMAL IMAGING CAMERA $18,270
411111 176466 1-863 03 6 CASCADE SYSTEM BREATHING AIR/FILTER $14,884
176694 1-863 04 6 JAWS OF LIFE POWER UNIT $15,288
176695 1-863 04 6 JAWS OF LIFE MINI POWER UNIT $8,761
TOTAL 1-863 -FIRE-SUPPRESSION $104,256
FIRE-EMS
172924 1-865 94 6 HEART MONITOR UNIT $9,812
173405 1-865 95 11 LIFEPAK 10C DEFIBRALLATOR $10,285
173827 1-865 96 12 LIFEPAK 11 CARDIAC MONITOR $19,420
173912 1-865 97 11 ASSY FINAL LP11 MONITOR $17,652
174278 1-865 99 11 3CARD DEFIB/PACING MACHINE LP $17,985
176795 1-865 05 6 6 MULTI-PRO BIPHASIC CARDIAC MONITOR $92,848
1-865
TOTAL 1-865-FIRE-EMS $168,002
FIRE-TECHNICAL SERVICES
174217 1-866 99 6 CONF SPACE REMOTE AIR SUPPLY $7,776
City of Prescott
Communications and other Major Equipment
Impact Fee Study
Equipment Fund Acq. Acq. Equipment Acq.
No. Department Year Month Description Cost
TOTAL 1-866-FIRE-TECHNICAL SERVICES $7;i6
Total Fire $430,561
me.
City of Prescott
Impact Fees
Escalator Calculation Example
The website for Engineering News Record is:
http://enr.con structi on.com/features/conEco/subs/recenti ndexes.asp
The 20-City Construction Cost Index change for the year for December 2005 reflects a 4.6% change for the
year as shown below:
Construction Cost Index(CCI)
20-CITY: 1913=100 December2005 "o chance change
Index Value Month Year -
CONSTRUCTION 7646.87 +0.2 +4.6
COST
Each impact fee would increase by 4.6% and would be rounded down to the nearest whole dollar. For
example,if the impact fee were $6,015 the new fee would be calculated as follows:
$6,015 x1.046= $6,291.69.
The fee would be rounded down to $6,291.
The same calculation would be performed for all impact fees and would be effective January 1 beginning in
2007 and each succeeding year. The fees covered under this report were based on the best available
information on January 11, 2005. Since the fees will not become effective until late July it would be
appropriate to increase the fees on January 1, 2007.
Arizona Impact Fee Statute
The Arizona Legislature amended the law on impact fees during the last session. The law now requires that the
City file an annual report September 30th.
9-463.05. Development fees; imposition by cities and towns;annual report
A. A municipality may assess development fees to offset costs to the municipality associated with providing
necessary public services to a development.
B. Development fees assessed by a municipality under this section are subject to the following requirements:
1. Development fees shall result in a beneficial use to the development.
2. Monies received from development fees assessed pursuant to this section shall be placed in a separate fund
and accounted for separately and may only be used for the purposes authorized by this section. Interest
earned on monies in the separate fund shall be credited to the fund.
3. The schedule for payment of fees shall be provided by the municipality. The municipality shall provide a
credit toward the payment of a development fee for the required dedication of public sites and improvements
provided by the developer for which that development fee is assessed. The developer of residential dwelling
01" units shall be required to pay development fees when construction permits for the dwelling units are issued.
4. The amount of any development fees assessed pursuant to this section must bear a reasonable relationship
to the burden imposed upon the municipality to provide additional necessary public services to the
development. The municipality, in determining the extent of the burden imposed by the development, shall
consider, among other things, the contribution made or to be made in the future in cash or by taxes, fees or
assessments by the property owner towards the capital costs of the necessary public service covered by the
development fee.
5. If development fees are assessed by a municipality, such fees shall be assessed in a non-discriminatory
manner.
6. In determining and assessing a development fee applying to land in a community facilities district
established under title 48, chapter 4, article 6, the municipality shall take into account all public infrastructure
provided by the district and capital costs paid by the district for necessary public services and shall not assess a
portion of the development fee based on the infrastructure or costs.
C. A municipality shall give at least sixty days' advance notice of intention to assess a new or increased
development fee and shall release to the public a written report including all documentation that supports the
assessment of a new or increased development fee. The municipality shall conduct a public hearing on the
proposed new or increased development fee at any time after the expiration of the sixty day notice of
intention to assess a new or increased development fee and at least fourteen days prior to the scheduled date
of adoption of the new or increased fee by the governing body. A development fee assessed pursuant to this
section shall not be effective until ninety days after its formal adoption by the governing body of the
municipality. Nothing in this subsection shall affect any development fee adopted prior to July 24, 1982.
D. Each municipality that assesses development fees shall submit an annual report accounting for the
collection and use of the fees.The annual report shall include the following:
1.The amount assessed by the municipality for each type of development fee.
2. The balance of each fund maintained for each type of development fee assessed as of the beginning and
end of the fiscal year.
3.The amount of interest or other earnings on the monies in each fund as of the end of the fiscal year.
4.The amount of development fee monies used to repay:
(a) Bonds issued by the municipality to pay the cost of a capital improvement project that is the subject of a
development fee assessment.
(b) Monies advanced by the municipality from funds other than the funds established for development fees in
order to pay the cost of a capital improvement project that is the subject of a development fee assessment.
5. The amount of development fee monies spent on each capital improvement project that is the subject of a
development fee assessment and the physical location of each capital improvement project.
6. The amount of development fee monies spent for each purpose other than a capital improvement project
that is the subject of a development fee assessment.
E.Within ninety days following the end of each fiscal year, each municipality shall submit a copy of the annual
report to the city clerk. Copies shall be made available to the public on request. The annual report may
contain financial information that has not been audited.
F. A municipality that fails to file the report required by this section shall not collect development fees until
the report is filed.
t)
Impact Fee Survey of Other Arizona Cities and Towns
Single family per unit
Parks& General
Jurisdiction Transportation Recreation Library Fire Police Government Other Total
Prescott(proposed) 469 3,174 747 525 589 511 - 6,015
Marana 5,941 2,884 - - - - - 8,825
Peoria 4,028 1,896 369 415 200 539 - 7,447
Tucson 4,000 1,600 - - - - - 5,600
Queen Creek 166 3,814 656 - 279 600 - 5,515
Maricopa 3,623 303 436 - 140 674 - 5,176
Phoenix 1,236 2,496 265 125 141 36 178 4,477
Yuma 1,717 1,217 - 108 377 322 512 4,253
Chandler 1,919 1,429 86 125 163 221 - 3,943
Glendale 613 1,091 514 339 359 660 264 3,840
Chino Valley 2,519 455 122 358 252 129 - 3,835
Gilbert 234 2,272 - 523 434 369 - 3,832
Buckeye 319 1,446 252 964 417 250 - 3,648
Fountain Hilts 609 2,388 - - 32 466 - 3,495
Surprise 885 1,127 266 454 424 314 3,470
Avondale 873 791 264 489 187 585 267 3,456
Sedona 811 2,377 - - 66 153 - 3,407
Goodyear 739 1,065 205 385 290 351 293 3,328
Oro Valley 3,040 - - - - - - 3,040
Prescott Valley 1,252 795 - 405 - 259 - 2,711
Apache Junction 1,485 564 262 - 133 83 - 2,527
El Mirage - 575 - 583 276 608 - 2,042
Casa Gande 101 721 217 344 244 254 - 1,881
Mesa - 831 378 145 226 - 258 1,838
Eloy - 464 130 - 309 767 - 1,670
Average without Prescott 1,505 1,358 184 240 206 318 77 3,886
`.
CO co
<• o —' o w = c ; a o c < c s 7- c c a 3
rtal
It c, P. c� el 'CI
0, = o c, '< ,• a .< o o
• = a .- ..
01.
o `< fo o . . 3
re 0
v v o
A a 0
mtot O1
g C. 0
C -s.
3 :7
-
N 0
N
CO
_ 4 O 3
N -+ W N W -+ N W W A N W V A 0, N W
01 W i i W CO O 1..../ *0ID W U7 U7 'lctD O V W Co A '1.., A f1
0 1D NJ CO 0 N it
A CD V O V NJ LaV1 Lit -...I W 01 O rt.
OD O O V 0 A 0 lD O V NJ 01 01 NJ V V A lD O CD CD 0 T
C
A A
C "0 UI
rt 0
F.1 'CO
i i i i i i i O
Re
V1 NJ 3 ,
0
rM
r S
Q. fD
1
I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I , 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 I O
U` N
0
3
D)
r1
- I I A U1 1 1 O Cu1 V 1 1 CO C =*
10 W NJ V CO NJ 1,,., V V U9 A W Co W lD V co
W V7 W W O W C. CO CO W L./ O CO -c V -.
OI
3
a
N O -i
O
A - W 01 W -+ U1 NJ 1 W O- 01 W i CD -. W N Co Cr) f1
01 NJ CO 01 A W CO 01 1 O tD co VI CO 01 V7 A NJ NJ CO 01 NJ R 3
✓ O ut In O tD 0 1D 000 O Cr, 0 CDID 01 -
O U1 O A co
C1
O M
A A
j A
N co 01 t -' W A i A NJ NJ A i NJ -+ NJ 01 W N
NJ O O O 0V V A , W 01 W W L.) V Ut CO O O V Co 0
01 0 O U1 A 0 A NJ NJ l0 lD W - 01 O lD W W O O NJ „I,
0
- I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A
U1 lD A 'n
A WO CO lD
_ y
W A N W W W W W W A A A A A CO Ln NJ 0
VI ut V7 ,..00 A V1 V O O O A 01 ID O N N .L./ W W •V N ET
V 1D CO O CO Co W '., O O O NJ U+ A V O tD In Co Lit 01 A
W 0 0 0 W U.) C
0 01 V1 -+ 0 NJ W V 0 01 lD V A A V 0 V 01
�- c
COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO - August 29, 2006
DEPARTMENT: Airport
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution ratifying the acceptance of a grant from the Federal
Aviation Administration in the amount of $185,000 for an Airport Master Plan Update
Study at Ernest A. Love Field.
Approved By: Date:
Department Head: Rick Severson, Airport Manager
08/16/06
Finance Director: /�
City Manager: '� /� �f`'
This is a request to ratify the acceptance of a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
grant offer for the airport master plan update which is budgeted for this fiscal year. The
FAA prepared the grant documents on August 10, 2006 and we received them on
August 15, 2006 with an FAA requirement that our acceptance must be dated not later
than August 23, 2006. Due to the FAA time-line the documents have been executed
and returned to the FAA to insure we receive the funding this year.
The current Airport Master Plan was approved in 1998. The FAA recommends updating
the plan periodically to insure the document best reflects the needs for aviation facilities
and services in the community. A current airport master plan is a requirement to qualify
for both Federal and State airport improvement grants. A consultant will be selected to
conduct the update and produce the plan. There will be considerable community
involvement through out the 6 month process.
The total estimated project cost is $194,737. The FAA grant in the amount of $185,000
will fund up to 95% of the allowable project cost. It will be matched by a State grant
(2.5%) in the amount of $4,868 and require a 2.5% city match of $4,868. The State
grant offer will follow acceptance of this FAA grant.
„P. Recommended Action: MOVE to adopt Resolution No. 3771.
1
RESOLUTION NO. 3771
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PRESCOTT,
YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA, ACCEPTING A GRANT FROM THE FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE AIRPORT
MASTER PLAN AND RATIFICATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT FUNDING
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the City Council authorized City staff to submit an application to the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in order to obtain funding for the Prescott Airport
Master Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, FAA requires grant acceptance no later than August 23, 2006 and
therefore acceptance was made by the City of Prescott Mayor and staff and will require
formal ratification of acceptance by the Prescott City Council; and
WHEREAS, the foregoing application has been approved.
ENACTMENTS:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF
410111. THE CITY OF PRESCOTT AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the City of Prescott hereby ratifies the acceptance of grant
funding for project 3-04-0030-25 for contract No. DTFA08-06-C-22011 from the Federal
Aviation Administration in order to obtain funding for the Prescott Airport Master Plan
Update in the amount of$185, 000.00.
Section 2. That the Mayor and Staff are hereby authorized to execute any and
all documents to effectuate the foregoing and all previous documents executed by them
as necessary to accept the grant funding are hereby ratified.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the City of Prescott this
29th day of August, 2006.
ROWLE P. SIMMONS, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ELIZABETH A. BURKE, City Clerk GARY D. KIDD, City Attorney
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation 2 0 0 7 - 0 41
Administration
GRANT AGREEMENT
Part I-Offer
Date of Offer
AUG 1 n 2006
Prescott Municipal Airport/Planning Area
Project No. 3-04-0030-25
Contract No. DTFA08-06-C-22011
TO: City of Prescott
(herein called the"Sponsor")
FROM: The United States of America (acting through the Federal Aviation Administration, herein called the"FAA")
WHEREAS, the Sponsor has submitted to the FAA a Project Application dated April 5, 2006, for a grant of Federal
funds for a project at or associated with the Prescott Municipal Airport/Planning Area which Project Application, as
approved by the FAA, is hereby incorporated herein and made part hereof; and
WHEREAS, the FAA has approved a project for the Airport or Planning Area (herein called the "Project") consisting
of the following:
Prepare an Airport Master Plan Update Study including and Environmental Evaluation/Environmental Overview.
all as more particularly described in the Project Application.
Page 1 of 4 Pages
NOW THEREFORE,pursuant to and for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Airport and Airway
Improvement Act of 1982,as amended by the Airport and Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987, herein
called the"Act,"and/or the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979, and in consideration of(a)the
Sponsor's adoption and ratification of the representations and assurances contained in said Project Application and
its acceptance of this Offer as hereinafter provided, and (b)the benefits to accrue to the United States and the public
from the accomplishment of the Project and compliance with the assurances and conditions as herein provided,THE
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES, HEREBY OFFERS
AND AGREES to pay, as the United States share of the allowable costs incurred in accomplishing the Project,
95°/0 percent of those eligible project costs.
The Offer is made on and subject to the following terms and conditions:
Conditions
1. The maximum obligation of the United States payable under this offer shall be $185,000.00. For the
purposes of any future grant amendments which may increase the foregoing maximum obligation of the
United States under the provisions of Section 512(b)of the Act,the following amounts are being specified
for this purpose:
EJ
❑ $ 180,000.00 for planning
$ 5,000.00 Administrative Oversite (sponsor)
0 $ 0.00 airport development
0 noise program implementation.
2. The allowable costs of the project shall not include any costs determined by the FAA to be ineligible for
consideration as to allowability under the Act.
3. Payment of the United States share of the allowable project costs will be made pursuant to and in
accordance with the provisions of such regulations and procedures as the Secretary shall prescribe. Final
determination of the United States share will be based upon the final audit of the total amount of
allowable project costs and settlement will be made for any upward or downward adjustments to the
Federal share of costs.
4. The Sponsor shall carry out and complete the Project without undue delays and in accordance with the
terms hereof,and such regulations and procedures as the Secretary shall prescribe, and agrees to
comply with the assurances which were made part of the project application.
5. The FAA reserves the right to amend or withdraw this offer at any time prior to its acceptance by the
sponsor.
6. This offer shall expire and the United States shall not be obligated to pay any part of the costs of the
project unless this offer has been accepted by the sponsor on or before August 23,2006 or such
subsequent date as may be prescribed in writing by the FAA.
7. The Sponsor shall take all steps, including litigation if necessary,to recover Federal funds spent
fraudulently,wastefully,or in violation of Federal antitrust statutes, or misused in any other manner in any
project upon which Federal funds have been expended. For the purposes of this grant agreement,the
term"Federal funds"means funds however used or disbursed by the Sponsor that were originally paid
pursuant to this or any other Federal grant agreement. It shall obtain the approval of the Secretary as to
any determination of the amount of the Federal share of such funds. It shall return the recovered Federal
share, including funds recovered by settlement,order or judgment,to the Secretary. It shall furnish to the
Secretary, upon request, all documents and records pertaining to the determination of the amount of the
Federal share or to any settlement, litigation, negotiation,or other efforts taken to recover such funds. All
settlements or other final positions of the Sponsor, in court or otherwise, involving the recovery of such
Federal share shall be approved in advance by the Secretary.
8. The United States shall not be responsible or liable for damage to property or injury to persons which
may arise from,or be incident to, compliance with this grant agreement.
9. The attached Part V Assurances dated 3-2005, incorporated hereto with the Grant Offer, are hereby
made a part hereof, in lieu of those in the Sponsor's Project Application.
Page 2 of 4 Pages
10. Special Conditions:
a. COORDINATION: The Sponsor agrees to coordinate this master planning study with the
AIW metropolitan planning organizations, other local planning agencies, and with the State Airport System
Plan prepared by the State's Department of Transportation and consider any pertinent information,
data, projections, and forecasts which are currently available or as will become available. The
Sponsor agrees to consider all Clearinghouse comments and to furnish a copy of the final report to
the State's Department of Transportation.
b. GRANT OFFER BASED ON PRELIMINARY WORK PROGRAM: It is understood and agreed by and
between the parties hereto that this Grant Offer is made and accepted upon the basis of the
preliminary Work Program;and the parties hereto covenant and agree that the Sponsor shall furnish a
revised Work Program to the FAA and that a notice to proceed will not be issued until the revised
Work Program has been approved by the FM.
c. EXCESS COST: It is understood and agreed that notwithstanding that the Application includes
therein planning work that the Sponsor has estimated at a total cost of$235,000.00,the total
allowable cost for purposes of determining federal participation shall not exceed $185,000.00. Any
project costs in excess of the federal allowable costs shall be the sole responsibility of the Sponsor.
d. DISALLOWED WORK: It is understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that
notwithstanding the fact that the Project Application includes therein the planning of "Not Applicable",
said work shall not be a part of this project and, if or to the extent accomplished by the Sponsor, said
accomplishment shall be without any participation in the costs thereof by the United States under this
project; it is further understood and agreed that, in the event the work which is excluded from the
project is accomplished by the Sponsor,the Sponsor shall maintain as a portion of the cost records
covering this project, separable cost records pertaining to the above-identified work excluded from
Federal participation under this project,which records shall be made available for inspection and audit
by the FAA to the end that the cost of the excluded work may be definitely determined.
It is further understood and agreed that,within 14 days of acceptance of this Office,the Sponsor will
submit a revised Program Statement/Cost Estimate depicting the excluded costs or a revised Program
Statement/Cost Estimate depicting only those costs eligible for Federal participation in this project.
e. INFORMAL LETTER AMENDMENT OF AIP PROJECTS: It is mutually understood and agreed that
if, during the life of the project,the FAA determines that the maximum grant obligation of the United
States exceeds the expected needs of the Sponsor by$25,000.00 or five percent(5%),whichever is
greater,the maximum obligation of the United States can be unilaterally reduced by letter from the
FM advising of the budget change. It is further understood and agreed that if, during the life of the
project,the FAA determines that a change in the grant description is advantageous and in the best
interests of the United States,the change in grant description will be unilaterally amended by letter
from the FAA. Upon issuance of the aforementioned letter, either the grant obligation of the United
States is adjusted to the amount specified or the grant description is amended to the description
specified.
Page 3 of 4 Pages
The Sponsor's acceptance of this Offer and ratification and adoption of the Project Application incorporated herein
shall be evidenced by execution of this instrument by the Sponsor, as hereinafter provided, and this Offer and
Acceptance shall comprise a Grant Agreement, as provided by the Act, constituting the contractual obligations and
rights of the United States and the Sponsor with respect to the accomplishment of the Project and compliance with
the assurances and conditions as provided herein. Such Grant Agreement shall become effective upon the
Sponsor's acceptance of this Offer.
UNITED STAT S 0 AMERICA
,FE RAL '( TI ADMINISTRATION
Brian Q. rmstrong, Manager
Los Angeles Airports District Off e
Part II-Acceptance
The Sponsor does hereby ratify and adopt all assurances,statements, representations,warranties, covenants, and
agreements contained in the Project Application and incorporated materials referred to in the foregoing Offer and
does hereby accept this Offer and by such acceptance agrees to comply with all of the terms and conditions in this
Offer and in the Project Application.
Executed this 18th day of August ,2006
City of Prescott
pe of r
itga
By:
(Sponsor's Designated Official Representative)
(SEAL) Title: Mayor
Attest: ,
Title: City C erk
CERTIFICATE OF SPONSOR'S ATTORNEY
Gary D. Kidd , acting as Attorney for the Sponsor do hereby certify:
That in my opinion the Sponsor is empowered to enter into the foregoing Grant Agreement under the laws of the
State of Arizona. Further, I have examined the foregoing Grant Agreement and the actions taken by said Sponsor
and Sponsor's official representative has been duly authorized and that the execution thereof is in all respects due
and proper in accordance with the laws of the said State and the Act. In addition,for grants involving projects to be
carried out on property not owned by the Sponsor,there are no legal impediments that will prevent full performance
by the Sponsor. Further, it is my opinion that the said Grant Agreement constitutes a legal and binding obligation of
the Sponsor in accordance with the terms thereof.
Dated at Prescott, Arizona this 18th day of August , 2006
urepf Sponsor's At_192._-ngsy
Page 4 of 4 Pages
D
COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO -8/29/06
M
jp
DEPARTMENT: FIRE
L
AGENDA ITEM: Intergovernmental Agreement with the USDA, Prescott National
Forest
M
Approved By: Date:
8/16/06
Department Head: Darrell Willis
Finance Director: Mark Woodfill
City Manager: Steve Norwood ...,F .g/0Z
Background
The City of Prescott Fire Department (PFD) and Prescott National Forest (PNF) have
enjoyed a very cooperative, mutually beneficial relationship for many years. Since 1990
when the Prescott Area Wildland Urban Interface commission was established, this
relationship has blossomed into a model of collaborative efforts nationwide. Currently
the two agencies depend on each other's resources for planning, fuels reduction,
Wildland Urban Interface protection, training, wildland fire and disaster response. In
2001 the City established a fuels reduction crew that has worked collaboratively and
cooperatively with the PNF to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire in our community.
These coordinated efforts have had a very positive effect on reducing the risk in certain
areas of the City.
Status
Currently, the PNF has offered the PFD an opportunity to enter into an IGA that will pay
the PFD approximately $100,000 over the next year by conducting fuels reduction work
and mitigation in boundary areas adjoining the City of Prescott. The scope of work
includes fuel breaks, thinning and prescribed fire operations that will be conducted on
Federal lands adjacent to private lands to protect homes. This proposed work would be
done in conjunction with planned projects within the City of Prescott.
One of the PFD's objectives is to work in conjunction with the PNF on any fuels
treatments that we share common boundaries with. This IGA assists both the PNF and
PFD in planning for future work.
This opportunity has just been brought to the PFD, if this agreement is not completed by
the end of August the funding will not be carried forward into the new federal fiscal year.
Financial
By entering into this agreement the PFD will be able to reduce the expenses to the
wildland budget in the General Fund. Depending upon the amount of work done, this
could be a $100,000 saving.
Recommended Action: MOVE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 3772
1
RESOLUTION NO. 3772
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PRESCOTT,
YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF PRESCOTT TO ENTER
INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE TO ENGAGE IN FUEL REDUCTION AND
MITIGATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING THE RISK OF WILDFIRE ON
FEDERAL LANDS ADJACENT TO THE PRESCOTT URBAN INTERFACE, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND STAFF TO TAKE ANY AND ALL STEPS NECESSARY
TO ACCOMPLISH THE ABOVE
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the City of Prescott Fire Department and the Prescott National Forest
(PNF) have worked closely together for many years to reduce the risk of wildfire in our
community; and
WHEREAS, the PNF has available funding and resources to enter into cooperative
mitigation and fuels reduction in Federal lands adjacent to private lands to protect homes
and the City of Prescott wishes to continue these cooperative endeavors to protect the
health, safety and welfare of its citizenry.
ENACTMENTS:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PRESCOTT AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. THAT the City of Prescott hereby approves the attached
Intergovernmental agreement with the USDA, Prescott National Forest for cooperative
efforts concerning fuels reduction, attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
Section 2. THAT the Mayor and Staff are hereby authorized to execute the attached
Intergovernmental agreement and to take any and all steps deemed necessary to
accomplish the above.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the City of Prescott this 29th
day of August, 2006.
ROWLE P. SIMMONS, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ELIZABETH A. BURKE, City Clerk GARY D. KIDD, City Attorney
FS Agreement No 06-PA-1 103 0902-0 12
Cooperator Tax ID No.
Cooperator DUNS No.
Cooperator Agreement No.
r
8/15/2006
PARTICIPATING AGREEMENT
between
USDA, FOREST SERVICE
PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST
and
CITY OF PRESCOTT
PRESCOTT FIRE DEPARTMENT
This PARTICIPATING AGREEMENT is hereby entered into by and between the USDA
Forest Service, Prescott National Forest, hereinafter referred to as the Forest Service and
the City of Prescott, Prescott Fire Department,hereinafter referred to as the Department,
under the authority of the Cooperative Funds and Deposits Act of December 12, 1975,
Pub. L. 94-148, 16 U.S.C. 565a1 —a3.
A. PURPOSE:
The purpose of this agreement is to implement a fuels management program by:
■ Working cooperatively under the Joint Powers Agreement's Other Cooperative
Activities section which states that"The cooperating agencies may jointly
conduct other projects. These projects may be activities such as preparedness,
post-fire rehabilitation or restoration fuels management,prescribed fire,
wildland/urban interface fire coordination, smoke management and other
beneficial efforts. Such projects will be conducted through other agreements
and/or specific project plans which document the purpose of the project,
objectives, agencies participating in the project, approved cost-share, and the role
of each agency."
• Constructing fuelbreak using hand tools and chainsaws, and
• Assisting in implementing a prescribed fire program by providing personnel and
equipment as ignition and holding resources.
All work will be performed on National Forest System lands adjacent to private lands
or strategically located to protect homes and private lands. The objective is to reduce
the threat of a wildfire to public and private lands,provide a place where wildland
firefighters can initiate a defense strategy against a wildfire and as a place where
future fuels management projects can anchor from and expand.
B. STATEMENT OF MUTUAL BENEFIT AND INTERESTS:
Benefits of this agreement would be to make available personnel and resources,
above and beyond those presently available,to construct fuelbreaks and control lines
that can be used to suppress wildfires and to support a safe and successful prescribed
burn program. This would help protect the national forest and it would help to protect
lives and homes on adjacent and nearby private lands if a wildfire did occur.
Page 1 of 9
FS Agreement No 06-PA-11030902-012
Cooperator Tax ID No.
Cooperator DUNS No.
Cooperator Agreement No.
8/15/2006
C. THE FOREST SERVICE SHALL:
1. Identify fuelbreak location, fuelbreak boundaries and property boundaries.
2. Provide a written description with treatment parameters and map showing
treatment locations. Parameters will include species to cut/leave, spacing of trees
where applicable, location and specifications for slash piles, stump heights, and
size limits (upper and lower) for cut trees and brush.
3. Provide a contact to answer questions regarding treatments specifications and be
available for on-site visits as needed or requested.
4. Provide Burn Plans and pre-identified, qualified personnel to implement
prescribed fires safely and in a manner that will meet project objectives.
5. Provide a Job Hazard Analysis (JHA) for this work and follow-up with tailgate
safety sessions. Document all sessions and keep in project file.
6. Provide a project coordinator or designate to meet on site with the work crew
supervisor and review the project as needed.
7. Meet annually with the Department in September to plan for the next fiscal year's
work. Draft an annual operating/financial plan which will be made a part of this
agreement through a modification which will be signed by both parties prior to
any project work being done. ''IN
8. Reimburse the Department for its proportionate share of project costs as per the
Annual Operating/Financial Plan.
D. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL:
1. Provide expertise,personnel, equipment and supplies as needed in conjunction
with the Forest Service to successfully and safely complete all treatments. All
personnel and equipment needs will be provided to safely function and operate all
equipment.
2. Retain all liabilities in management of personnel and their safety.
3. Follow the recommended Job Hazard Analysis (JHA)requirements.
4. Provide a liaison to coordinate all activities associated with completion of the
treatments.
5. Bill the Forest Service for its proportionate share of project costs as per the
Annual Operating/Financial Plan, at least quarterly, but not more than monthly.
6. Adhere to all National Wildland Coordination Group (NWCG) qualifications,
experience and training requirements for personnel and equipment participating in
prescribed fire activities.
Page 2 of 9
FS Agreement No 06-PA-11 030902-0 12
Cooperator Tax ID No.
Cooperator DUNS No.
Cooperator Agreement No.
8/15/2006
E. IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE
PARTIES THAT:
1. The Department has willingly entered into this agreement and will discharge its
obligations as an independent entity. Neither party to this agreement agrees to
indemnify the other party. Each party is responsible for its own negligence.
2. FEDERAL COST PRINCIPLES. This agreement will be governed by 2 CFR,
Subtitle A, Chapter II, Part 225 Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal
Governments and audit requirements under OMB Circular A-133, Audit of States,
Local Governments and Non-Profit Organizations.
3. FOREST SERVICE ACKNOWLEDGED IN PUBLICATION AND
AUDIOVISUALS. Forest Service support shall be acknowledged in any
publications and audiovisuals developed as a result of this instrument.
4. COLLECTION OF AMOUNTS DUE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Pursuant
to 31 U.S.C. 3716 and 7 CFR, Part 3, Subpart B, any funds paid to the Department in
excess of the amount to which the Department is finally determined to be entitled
under the terms and conditions of the award constitute a debt to the Federal
Government. If not paid within a reasonable period after the demand for payment,
the Federal awarding may reduce the debt by:
a. Making an administrative offset against other requests for
reimbursements.
b. Withholding advance payments otherwise due to the cooperator.
c. Taking other action permitted by statue.
Except as otherwise provided by law,the Federal awarding agency shall charge
interest on an overdue debt.
5. ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION. In the event of any issue of controversy
under this Agreement, the parties may pursue Alternate Dispute Resolution
procedures to voluntarily resolve those issues. These procedures may include, but are
not limited to, conciliation, facilitation, mediation, and fact finding.
6. TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER. The Department shall furnish their tax
identification number upon execution of this instrument.
7. FUNDING EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES. Federal funding under this instrument is
not available for reimbursement of Department's purchase of equipment and supplies.
r
Page 3 of 9
FS Agreement No 06-PA-11030902-012
Cooperator Tax ID No.
Cooperator DUNS No.
Cooperator Agreement No.
8/15/2006
8. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT(FOIA). Any information furnished to the
Forest Service under this instrument is subject to the Freedom of Information Act(5
U.S.C. 552).
9. RETENTION AND ACCESS REQUIREMENTS FOR RECORDS. The Forest
Service, Inspector General, or Comptroller General, through any authorized
representative, shall have access to and the right to examine all records related to this
instrument. As used in this provision, "records"includes books, documents,
accounting procedures and practices, and other data regardless of type and regardless
of whether such items are in written form, in the form of computer data, or in any
other form. All records pertinent to this agreement shall be retained for a period of 3
years.
10. MODIFICATION. Modifications within the scope of the instrument shall be made
by mutual consent of the parties, by the issuance of a written modification, signed and
dated by all parties,prior to any changes being performed. The Forest Service is not
obligated to fund any changes not properly approved in advance.
11. NONDISCRIMINATION. The Department shall comply with all Federal statutes
relating to nondiscrimination and all applicable requirements of all other Federal
laws, Executive orders, regulations, and policies. These include but are not limited
to: (a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d, 2000e-16), which
prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, disability, or national origin; (b)
Title IX of the Education amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1681-1683,
and 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; and Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended (29 USC 794) which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of disabilities. The nondiscrimination statement which
follows shall be posted in primary and secondary Department offices, at the public
service delivery contact point and included, in full, on all materials regarding such
Departments'programs that are produced by the Department for public information,
public education, or public distribution:
"In accordance with Federal law and U.S. Department of
Agriculture policy,this institution is prohibited from
discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin,sex, age,
or disability. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)
To file a complaint of discrimination,write USDA, Director, Office of Civil
Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW,
Washington,DC 20250-9410 or call(202)720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA
is an equal opportunity provider and employer."
If the material is too small to permit the full statement to be included,the material
will at minimum include the statement, in print size no smaller than the text,that
"This institution is an equal opportunity provider."
Page 4 of 9
FS Agreement No 06-PA-1 1030902-0 12
Cooperator Tax ID No.
Cooperator DUNS No.
Cooperator Agreement No.
8/15/2006
12. LEGAL AUTHORITY. The Department has the legal authority to enter into this
instrument, and the institutional, managerial and financial capability (including funds
sufficient to pay nonfederal share of project costs)to ensure proper planning,
management, and completion of the project.
13. PARTICIPATION IN SIMILAR ACTIVITIES. This instrument in no way restricts
the Forest Service or the Department from participating in similar activities with other
public or private agencies, organizations, and individuals.
14. TERMINATION. Any of the parties, in writing, may terminate the instrument in
whole, or in part, at any time before the date of expiration.
Neither party shall incur any new obligations for the terminated portion of the
instrument after the effective date and shall cancel as many obligations as possible.
Full credit shall be allowed for each Party's expenses and all non-cancelable
obligations properly incurred up to the effective date of termination.
Excess funds shall be refunded within 60 days after the effective period.
15. PRINCIPAL CONTACTS. The principal contacts for this instrument are:
Forest Service Project Contact Department Project Contact
Edwin E. Paul Todd Rhines
Forest Fuels Planner Fuels Management Supervisor
Prescott National Forest Prescott Fire Department
2400 Melville Drive 2086 Willow Creek Road
Prescott, AZ 86301 Prescott, AZ 86305
Phone: (928) 775-5665 Phone: (928) 445-5555
FAX: (928) 775-5609 FAX: (928) 776-1890
E-Mail: epaul@fs.fed.us E-Mail: todd.rhines@cityofprescott.net
Forest Service Administrative Contact Department Administrative Contact
Nancy G. Lewis Duane Steinbrink
Grants and Agreements Specialist Wildland Division Chief
Prescott National Forest Prescott Fire Department
344 S. Cortez Street 2086 Willow Creek Road
Prescott, AZ 86303 Prescott,AZ 86305
Phone: 928-443-8240 Phone: (928)445-5555
FAX: 928-443-8208 FAX: (928) 776-1890
E-Mail: nlewis@fs.fed.us E-Mail:
duane.stenbrink@cityofprescott.net
r
Page 5 of 9
FS Agreement No 06-PA-11030902-012
Cooperator Tax ID No.
Cooperator DUNS No.
Cooperator Agreement No.
8/15/2006 ',
16. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS. Funds in the amount of$100,000 are currently
available for performance of this instrument for Fiscal Year 2006 and carryover to
Fiscal Year 2007, following the date of execution. The Forest Service's obligation
for performance of this instrument beyond this date is contingent upon the availability
of appropriated funds from which payment can be made. No legal liability on the part
of the Forest Service for any payment may arise for performance under this
instrument beyond Fiscal Year 2007 following the execution date until funds are
made available to the Forest Service for performance and until the Department
receives notice of availability by written modification by the Forest Service.
17. DUNS NUMBER(5/04): The Department shall furnish their DUNS number upon
execution of this instrument. You may obtain a DUNS number by contacting Dun and
Bradstreet at 800-234-3867 or 866-794-1580. A DUNS number will be provided
immediately by telephone at no charge.
18. ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER(EFT) (5/04): The Department shall designate
a financial institution or an authorized payment agent through which a federal
payment may be made in accordance with US Treasury Regulations, Money and
Finance at 31 CFR 208, which requires that federal payments are to be made by EFT
to the maximum extent possible. A waiver may be requested and payments received
by check by certifying in writing that one of the following situations apply: •�
1. The payment recipient does not have an account at a financial institution.
2. EFT creates a financial hardship because direct deposit will cost the payment
recipient more than receiving a check.
3. The payment recipient has a physical or mental disability, or a geographic,
language, or literacy barrier.
In order to receive EFT payments the Department shall register in the Central
Contractor Registry (CCR). You may register by going to www.ccr.gov and
following the instructions provided on line. For assistance, contact the CCR
Assistance Center at 888-227-2423 or 269-961-4725
19. COPYRIGHTING. The Department is granted sole and exclusive right to copyright
including the right to publish and vend throughout the world in any language and in
all media and forms, in whole or in part, for the full term of copyright and all
renewals thereof in accordance with this instrument. However,the Department shall
not sell, or grant copyrights to a third-party designee who intends to sell, the
document as a profit-making venture. No original text or graphics produced and
submitted by the Forest Service shall be copyrighted. The Forest Service reserves a
royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable right to reproduce,publish, or otherwise
use, and to authorize others to use, the work for Federal government purposes. This
right shall be transferred to any sub-agreements or subcontracts. This provision
includes:
Page 6 of 9
FS Agreement No 06-PA-1 1 030902-012
Cooperator Tax ID No.
Cooperator DUNS No.
Cooperator Agreement No.
8/15/2006
a. The copyright in any work developed under this instrument.
b. Any rights of copyright to which purchases ownership with any Federal
contributions.
20. PUBLICATION SALE. The Department may sell any publication resulting from the
project. The publication may initially be sold at fair market value which is defined in
this instrument to cover costs of development, production, marketing, and
distribution. After the costs of development and production have been recovered, fair
market value is defined in this instrument to cover the costs of marketing,printing,
and distribution only. Fair market value must exclude any in-kind or Federal
government contributions to the total costs of the project.
21. PAYMENT/REIMBURSEMENT. Reimburse the Department for the Forest
Service's proportionate share, 84.39%percent of actual expenses incurred, not to
exceed $100,000, as shown in the incorporated Financial Plan. The Department is
approved to submit at least quarterly(but not more than monthly) billing(s). The
Forest Service will make payment for its proportionate share of project costs upon
receipt of an invoice. Each invoice shall display the Agreement number, billing
period,the Department's actual expenditures to date of the invoice (not just the
Forest Service share of actual expenditures), displayed by separate cost elements as
documented in the financial plan, less any previous payments. The invoice should be
forwarded as follows:
Send original to: Send copy to:
USDA Forest Service Ed Paul
Albuquerque Service Center USDA Forest Service
Payments-Grants &Agreements Prescott NF Fire Center
101B Sun Ave. NE 2400 Melville Drive
Albuquerque,NM 87109 Prescott, AZ 86301
Phone: (877) 372-7248 Phone: 928-777-5665
FAX: (505) 563-7995 E-Mail: epaul@fs.fed.us
22. ENDORSEMENT. Any Department contributions made under this instrument do not
by direct reference or implication convey Forest Service endorsement of the
Department's product or activities.
23. ANNUAL OPERATING/FINANCIAL PLAN. The attached AOP/financial plan is
hereby incorporated and becomes a part of this agreement.
24. COMMENCEMENT/EXPIRATION DATE. This instrument is executed as of the
date of last signature and is effective through August 31, 2011, at which time it will
expire.
r
Page 7 of 9
FS Agreement No 06-PA-11030902-012
Cooperator Tax ID No.
Cooperator DUNS No.
Cooperator Agreement No.
8/15/2006
25. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES. By signature below, the Department
certifies that the individuals listed in this document as representatives of the
Department are authorized to act in their respective areas for matters related to this
agreement.
26. All parties hereby are put on notice that this agreement is subject to cancellation by
the Governor or political subdivision of the State of Arizona,pursuant to Arizona
Revised Statute A.R.S. 38-511.
27. To the extent required pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute A.R.S. 12-1518, and any
successor statutes, the parties agree to use arbitration, after exhausting all applicable
administrative remedies, to resolve any dispute arising out of this agreement, where not
in conflict with Federal Law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the last
written date below.
CITY OF PRESCOTT USDA FOREST SERVICE
PRESCOTT FIRE DEPARTMENT PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST
DATE ALAN QUAN DATE
Forest Supervisor
The authority and format of this
instrument has been reviewed and
approved for signature.
NANCY G. LEWIS DATE
FS Grants and Agreements Specialist
Job Code—WFHF09 - $100,000
Page 8 of 9
FS Agreement No 06-PA-1 1030902-012
Cooperator Tax ID No.
Cooperator DUNS No.
Cooperator Agreement No.
8/15/2006
FOR FOREST SERVICE USE ONLY
Agreement#.: 06-PA-11030902-012
Spending Limit for FY06-07: $100,000
Burden(overhead rate): N/A
Job Code: WFHF09 (0309)
Billing Frequency(advance lump sum,monthly,
quarterly,semi-annual,annual): At least quarterly,but not more than monthly
Vendor ID(multiple partners?):
If Federal,Agency Location Code: N/A
Program Manager and phone#: Ed Paul,928-777-5665
Termination Date: August 31,2011
r
Page 9 of 9
M COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO — August 29, 2006
04, DEPARTMENT: Community Development
AGENDA ITEM: FP06-007 — Final Plat for Downer 16, a 16 lot subdivision on Downer
M Trail, North of Sierry Peaks and South of Westridge Dr. Comprised of 18.63 acres.
Approved By: Date:
Department Head: Tom Guice �' r— ' �'
Finance Director: /
City Manager: Steve Norwood 2 2'�( e)6
PROJECT PROPOSAL
This is a request for Final Plat approval for the Downer 16 subdivision, comprising 16
lots on approximately 18.63 acres. The property is generally located North of Sierry
Peaks Dr and South of Westridge Drive, and is bisected by the Downer Trail roadway.
This item was not on the City Council Study Session because the final Downer Trail
right-of-way alignment is in the process of being refined by the applicant's engineer and
city staff. Although final adjustments to the final plat are still be made(with respect to
roadway alignment only), the final plat is being placed on the regular voting session to
insure timely completion of the East —West Connector. Council is very familiar with this
plat with the approval of the development agreement that shifted responsibilities of
developers from South Downer Trail roadway improvements to this area to the North.
EAST I WEST CONNECTOR AGREEMENT
A development agreement (Resolution No. 3746) was approved by council in April,
2006. The agreement provides for the construction and timing for completion of the
Connector from the "gap" at the intersection of Sierry Peaks and Downer Trail, North to
the Preserve subdivision.
ROADWAY REALIGNMENT
The applicant's engineer and city staff are making minor adjustments in the roadway
and right-of-way dedication. Because these changes are considered to be very minor
the final plat is being brought forward for Council consideration at this time. Any
changes to ROW alignment and dedication can be administratively approved by staff.
CURRENT ZONING
The property is zoned SF-35, which permits single family residential uses with lot sizes
greater than 35,000 sq. ft. Building envelopes are required to meet the minimum zoning
and setback requirements.
Recommended Action: Move to Approve the Final Plat for the Downer 16 subdivision.
1
,fe ' ,, „'.A-/' .4
! 1 I I I I Ohl P. . ' ..-
P1 No., 40 „ t
•
illyr 4
alke ' /i/r ,
Downer Trail SubdivsionIt
Si IP4 _AL�� '
(To be named the Preserve at Prescott) A twik k,"
' m ( ,��►4' etl ---
s . +Alp')
- �►
• $
SF-35 � ��� � - 111111.kilis
��_ ?
id, • 0
7-17 vir .0
t Westridge Dr '
111011111 ..,._. _..�___�_.. Gail Gardner Way
1 __
0�.. -� . i_'.. ,r
L, ,
.sf The Preserve i► .,
P slit, "'. at - -
1 ` l'ia.,' „It.:
Prescott PAIl
f-f f'f+-f'f'LL
•
..... '' 1 \ 11 1 1 I I
I
;{ � .. `.. .. -.• - ., s.w Imf;AVrcm trrS.arraec^nsv+ucsannmKric+a.c,Va+u,rne.anxry... .`. .",,N17rmz:ailr0•115; s^ow.s.ans.wu,;.s I..:.+eilvm ...-�-.�*c-1
`{�. _.=
Stone Hollow
m n
1 _
.. " Downer 16"
\ i \ tr.,
-i. J
Sierry Peaks , Ze,
-----_........._ .
S F-3 5 Zoning �AII! , ,
DR FAIR 5T
__ _______- pan��,• -.�
:,,w).. ..-.rr M it�ctintei iF53t.,*.[',O}V*P.tlr•F!!:slkfl9f,3k;$tYf�i'S1,`*, r .. �
lam
qrR `_ •
Downer Trail .I IF' - _.',a.,.....,....._,.,
,� , .
..
aillaallirlir4 71Firipp410.. E.-
ilea/
. liIRt1?!1!GaerWay!!Ll.
lett#1*-.
, 1Alikt'41-
�
MINI
allle1 Oregon Ave 1111111PV• #•, , : ............ ... _ _ dbe�
illisal -4rifinix alaw nr.1 .0i
, ‘, .„,.
, ,,....,„„,,,„
ciii ...,,,........
lip
mie .Leripsol
�� d..emsu wefia all
,t,".r....--•--A.:: ' ,::.
it,
EXHIBITi.: - �111: , -147475.......,/,1111 111
.
•
FINAL PLAT J1 :9 X _ BOOK PAGE
T 1 Ps MAPS AND PLATS
DOWNER 16 SITEIlki-:7/17,,,
A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN A PORTION OF PARCEL 111-10-001 • -;L 11I-10-001
LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 32 TOWNSHIP 14 NORTH,RANGE 2 WEST. M y
--14;R%I.y-L_r___J OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, YAVAPAI COUNTY,ARIZONA. FA$ IL,
°°TRIM
1 1T BSBL
1
—48'PaSH —B e.L NCl/Y/T1'MAP N
F-- 1).51
JO' L
G I—I IN NV ACCOP1E0 Y N SIEVE AT DIEK Coon I1os SUBONSON ESrja`/91ED U9NC Rods_W YAPs MO PLATS
= PO9Rbl OF M6'N Of NW CORNER NECMN J2 KENO MONUMENTS ALOE NE PROPERTY IMPS-4 Y
JJJ[[[tt0 RECCYID OF SURVEY EN J4 PC I.YCR. AND ROS N BOCK J9.PACE,.Y.CR
FD AND ACCEPTED 7'N S/OvE / POW/OF BEONS'S(NE cw.Awl/�NN/�)
25' __— PER RECORD Of SURVEY BK.J4 I �.' KTSPIED Y N STONE ATS CIE N.I/2 REHAR W AP MARKED
f0 1/1 REBAR W/CAP MARKED AGE
M api or WwMN WMv.Ham.
1 P09MW S Y CCRNfR M'S PER P S 169Z1 JZ TIES�O ROW M RLS 16911 S EAST LE ROW IMP co/ 1/2''ROAR Wjt1P
w _ R/lTY X)'E SBl PG I.YCR f RECORD OF S.RHY BO.M PC 4 rCR ME PONT Cr BEGINNING PARCEL/ / ! m RLS 69y CN UVE
A _ 1 -— TO ND ACCEPTED I/2.REBAR AI St i �l7 ilifi RIMY RECORDER
LOCATION OF NW LT.Y 00 9TMV 32 PER NE CORNER SECMV JS-NOT FDIYN
TYPICAL LOT DETAIL, RECORD OF SURVEY BH 34 PG A.YCR J ;'
11 N.TS I E i e DOWN RECORDER
LEGE/YD �� , D
3�[ 3 i
•
4 S nm^Enn BaNOARY I -'_ — o
3
VS-- RANT-OF-WAY I I ' / -
•€ LOSING RIGHT-OF-INSET ID 1/2'REBAR w/CAP uAMJm ———— y� \
ii -- RES 13941 ON ALTERNATE UNE �4 2 \ 8 o I�
DEDICATED ROADWAY CENTIME 231.15'S X Off W OF SEC.COP. ID MO ADOPTED 1/2•ROAR N/CAP \
FA9VNrNI LAW AS NOTED AFFORD M.S TITLES SW CDR ENACT'A \
g `NRKRECORD Cr s wLEr BY o PC.A.Yu / Eq \ D ZONING
4 SE/J'BRASS GP PER AMC SW C \ D10
b • OIL 120-1(A t B)AT ME Cr /I i rl \ PER OTT OF PRESCOTT CASE NO
•w COPSMUCNCW A ID 1/2•INBAR I/CAP WRKED // 9'05-010 GINS DIE 6 ICED
II�Y$$ �S I ROAR WA.W MARKED / MS 111J!SE CON INSECT'A• I .Y-35
4 a • SIPty AT M MILE C SET CTIIN S Cr NW CORNER TRACT 9'PER HS59290 8 S EC N TRACT I \ `\. -
lt GP NNE C CONSTRUCTION wow�c ,ESE BR J4 P6 A.15K �'" -�"A I� ` \ ' 5 NIS OWNER/DEVELOPER
WF • MAID MONUMENT AS NOTED NOT PART •\... "---_,_`•-,
\ `
'� Bsa BUILDING SPHERES MINE APN ln-O-006 �� M Fo.Alt)ACCEPTED I/?•MBAR Al/NE NLEPS CIRN N.ANLA LLC
4SAU EASEMENT , \\�i Cr DES ROW 11E Of OFFEND DBE NA CAE EAST COPRESN ARIZONA 66301
-Z PUT PIl6L/C UTWM EASEMENT ID AND ACCEPTED I/2• I \ ��_ R£COD(E 4Rf1EY 9L]4 PC{YCR (dNUCIs-1123
ILIDMY PEIFR9lI
R/W RIGHT-Cr-WAY REBMf W//AG I22J6 / 6 TRUE PORT Cr BEGWWC PARCEL I
ENGISET San YSNEn MANGLE FA MO ACCEPTED 1/2•REBW W/Cw T, / n WEER/SURVEYOR
MARKED WS 2T7JW SW RIP TRACT 13 PER 1 i� ID GEEDIMENSIONS.NC.
F.SAN ALBUM OR..SIE IDD
(3 RECORD 00 SURVEY BY.$PG,.Y.CR 11 t /2 I T. /6 N SCORSD LE ARIZONA OR..
g NOTES 1{ _--� �ria } I PACE(,40)609-B211
--- If lIIIIID TIFF..W/CAP YAR11'(D
I)MIS SUB:A MON 6 LOCATED WORN TIE WATER SERNCES AREA OF ME CITY OF PRESCOTT.ARIZONA MS 222W/05 E Or ROW NORSECIIOV I0.NO ACCEPTED PX NAIL Mt)FAG MARKED
AND IS AN AREA DESIGNATED AS NAME AN ASSIA/ED WATER SUPPLY PLNSUANT TO SECTOR E Cr ARS �.MD ACCEPTED 1/I MBAR/ �MS RECOP7 Cr SURVEY d YNPG A YCFR BASIS OF BEARING
,5-511
a W/tAP MARKED MS I19,1 SE F0..WJ ACCEPTED PR NE W/1111IOE•TAG N B9]J'OS'W ALONG ME NORM LAVE
R 2)MS RAT lS VI CONFORMANCE WIN CROTOMA ESIAW49ED BY NE STATE STMOARD ATTACNVENT CORNER TRACT 9' AS ANGLE MIr N S LIE MALT•C PER OF SECTION J2 AS SHORN HEREON
Y 2-96(SA 2-96)LNDDR AUTHORITY Or TIE ERECTER Cr BE ARIZONA RPARTWGVT Or MTER N-59250627 E.59446080 RECCE,Cr SLRHY BS.34 PG 4 rCR (Aca/1ED)
RESOURCES(AMR) BLYA/ION6561414
J)HIR EOINERS STALL BE RE9YRJ9HE FOR MANTALVNG ME INTEGRITY OF ANY DRAINAGE EASEMENTS DEDICATION CITY ZONING CERTlRCATE ET INDEX
WNW MEN RESPECTIVE LOTS DRAINAGE EASEMENTS CONFORM TO NATURAL ORMAM-MADE WATER I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT AT 15 N COMPLIANCE RIM TIE ZONNC CODE
AT M5 REPEAT
pi (CURSES MESE WATER COURSES ALL REWIRE PEMOOC MAW TENANCt/D CONVEY ON-9/E OR OFF-9TE STATE Cr ARIZONA ) REGULATIONS Of IRE CITYOfPRESCO11 N EFFECT Al INC TIME OF DE CORONA I COHN MEET AND NOTES
e OSO/ARGES PERIODIC MAINTENANCE TEL CONSIST Or DE REMOVAL Cr EARTH MO OR VE(ETA f VE )SS 9UB0I149N RECORDATION. 2 MIA(RAT
W IER/AL MET HAS MALT LIP SEC(me ONLIN APPROVAL OE DE!LNAL PLAT FOR THIS
9B'M9 YAM
PA COUNTY Cr YAPA)
KNOW ALL ION BY 11ESE PRESENTS GNMUNI7 DSELUIENI LNICTOR
4)N THE EwIT ME DRAINAGE EASEfERrs ARE NOT ALEWA FELT MANIARED.Al THE OPR624 OF ME
CITY ENOHEER Cr RE WY Of PRESCOTT Br ME PRa0RIY MINERS DER ME CITY Cr PRESCOTT MAT.DONNER HEALS LLC AN ARIZONA LIMITED UABI/JY COMPANY AS PUBLIC WORKS CERTIFICATE
SHALL HAVE OE AUTHORITY TO ENTER 0E PROPERTY AND/OR CAUSE DE NECESSARY MAINTENANCE OWNER.HAS RE-SUBLIMED UNDER NE NAYS ON DORMER IC A PORTER OF I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT IRS REPEAT 6 N COMPLIANCE NM NE 9NON9ON REGULATIONS
MO SHALL HAVE FIRMER-AUDIONTY/0 PASS ON ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WI//SAt)MAINTENANCE TO ME MORROWS!DIRTIER OF SECTION 3Z TOWM9W 14 NORM RANME 2 REST. OF TIME CITY Cr PRESCOIT
THE PROPERTY OWNERS CIA AND SALT RIVER RASE MO MEBDIAN TAVAPAL COUNTS ARIZONA AS MY ENEDREZ?
RRFLECRD ON MS PLAT AND HEREBY PUBUSNES MS PLAT AS AND FOR ME APPROVALS
5)0E SUBDIVIDER HEREBY DECLARES AND AGREES THAT ME MAMMA LOIS ARE SHORN AT THE RAT Cr DOWNER 16•AND HEREBY DECLARES MA!n6 PLAT SETS FORM THE CERTFICATE OF(Alm SURVEYOR
LAWN 5112-PF9 Asal!AND 91ML NOT SE FORMER OVL(D.DE PRO/BOON AGAINST FURTHER LOCATION.Mt)ODES CIE LW*N90VS OP ME LOIS OVEN SPACE AND STREETS TIE WTTER at CO99 Of THE WY Cr PRESCOTT.ARIZONA
DIO9ON Of NUMEI RfD LOIS 910IN HEREON SHALL BECOME BMWG(EON EACH AND EVERY 9OTES91E CONSo7UMO TIE SAME AND THAT EACH LOT NO STREET SHALL LE KNOWN BE MS IS/O CERTIFY THAT ME SWAY Of THE PREMISES
a DRIER.MS PROLOIMWI WTI NOT/PLY ID ME CREATION it EASEMENTS OR RIGHT OF WADS NOR ME DE9GVAION AS GIVEN HEREON.AND HERm1 DEDICATES TO ME PEWUC FOR ON MS DAY or 2004 HEREBY APPROVE DESCRIBED MD PLAITED/ERECW WAS MADE LACER MY
DE CONVEYANCE Or OTIOSE PORTIONS OE A LOT ID ME EWER Lr A CONTIGUOUS LOT FOR THE DIRECTOR NO SIAPERM9ON AND ARE ACCURATELY
CIE USE AS SIGH T E STREETS ON SAD PLAT AND INCLUDED W ME ABOVE REPRESENTED ON ORS PLAT 1 ALSO CERTIFY MAT ME PUT 6
ATTACHMENT TO/NAT LO%IN MO CASE STALL µSE LOT BE SD DIVIDED AS TO CREATE A LOT ON LESSER THIS RAT
97E THAN TILII ALLOWED WHEW ME 70WG DISTRICT N FORCE OVER INS PLAT DESCRIBED PREMISES EASEMENTS ARE WERE RESERVED FOR THE PURPOSES W SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE TO ME APPROVED PRELIMINARY
MOWN HEREON PLAT MD MAT MS PLAT 15 CORRECT MO ACCURATE AS
C.. 6)A 91E PLAN MIST BE SUBMITTED TO THE O1Y Cr PRESCOTT FIRE LEPARMENT FOR"'SOURIS EA ATTEST 91014N. ,4/
E BE CONSTRUCTED N DRS 9EOM9LN MEW
OW AND APPROVAL r ETHER Of ME FLOWING N WNESS WOREOr.DOWER MANS LLC AN ARIZONA LIVEDLAABA W/IY ro ERIC R OTT CL
p OYEYTIONS APPLY COMPANY.HAS HEREUNTO CAUSED ITS MA E ID BE AIDED
e I)ME UVAWE AREA OF RI RESILIENCE(FROM 6 JI0O SPAINT FEET C MOVE
g 2)ME IFNGM OE THE OOHWAY(FROM COVE OF PA HMEN!/BA(X 0E CURB/0 GWAQ/AESEIENLZ)IS OV M6 DAY OF ZLLW. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
g MaeE Mw 15D L9EAL FEET ) �
Si POWER MKS LLC AN ARIZONA UWTED UABL/IY COMPANY STATE Of ARIZONA 1
E I)MOVEOWARE ND N ERS A /ALLOWED TO CUT /O AN EOSINC ROMA N OR Y FLL SLOPE ELL OVER.NO SS
f 075ING ROADWAY CUE 20PE BEFORE COv9A WO WM DE PROW DAME,ADO ME CITY Cr COUNTY Of YARAM' )
PRESCOTT
3 B)CONSTRUCTION Or PUBLIC WERASMUCIURE MO ROADWAYS 9/ALL CORONA TO RP.O.ES CRITERIA BE DAY OF 2006 BY
F NAME RHO AGYNORL£D(ED THEMSELVES DBE nE a 6"m
9)FENCE UHES OR LANDSCAPE FEATURES ARE NOT ID BE SNSIRUCIED MINN PUBLIC UILTY BONG
HEALS LLC.AN ARIZONA LIMITED UAMLITY SUCH CORPORATION NO GeoD MCI,,,,,„soo-nkol• 43048.
E EASEMENTS N SUCH A TANNER AS!0 OBSTRUCT ME USE Cr PLRE.0 UTILITY EASEMENTS BERG AUII/0412C0 TO DO 54 9GHED TIER WALE N SLVI CAPACITY Iw�SHl ND'
i 10)DE VALUES LISTED TEAR ME SE CORNER OF TRACT•A'AND 5E CORNER OF RACI 9'ARE BASED as FINAL PLAT
A au ME GTr or FREscorr 9NVEr DATUM REOUIREMENrs ASP wn
RILE NOTARY PUW/C
DISTANCE
COORDINATE UNIT-NTEM,ATTOL FEE! r EMPIRES DOWNER 16
DISTANCE UNIS-NTERNAM FEET M.cnIE9ssIOr
WAL 9¢T 1 Or I
HER NE 0A7—INTERIOR MWAL FEET
VERTICAL WUM—NAM&I (Rum AMN I.. Pw I.. a .....I.I )
•
•
•
•
( onrl. N..I as maI M. owl .s. Brmi) sN OS
Ise Las 91 keNMOo 1T.g TIfff Z9I If ,ao"tu Jrrar 6a7 �zr".9 Iv: •c191.L .c .,,IN 1 prTCI full. ! 07Ib130
t>, .Crr 00 lr /,610 PPJJ ff"((D jj''tY , ��(({9;o, m rsr 099 F,�Lbr 913 --1-
t iiir`r'.tjfi� .461r ,09 • �Z.{Lc L3' .611„ .mj'1. .Il bL:rl rra 6}1 I ,01719 _61,1r.1(4j, 10 '� f'.9 5`
1V7d 7DN/d [iJu���t il t1 1 'Jiff
t ropp0.a0 ppJJ 91 TS bFFrr ,ol 13 �4(CI .4DB1 60((LL9 *13
MG*2•vC1=1 6.00 [rift ,Zirac Sa 1OTr •mcl* ,I f 0n ,90T1 m91 .9Z,9CfS • ai
1`ii.-(a1- �j�t7l Y:itj� Aar ,m7Tlt,Or Ogle •07 .0t7F1 OM. ,i.,lU 62J .01211 0019 lc6l SSdd1 CO 1 �R \'' >
l�'lI LS'6L ,m RZ •U9LL Cal ,p1Y9 ,CO TZZ •Po 9, 903 91x% ,mxLr _LI DCf{ +13 L Y
°.' KM �+ , Oy{9J '.•'[ AIL �{ .m97Z .601C1 ZP .9r',I ,0TR,SI�9I sc'11Z ,m9L/ _Sl61,f 010 \ 26z``-•`�ewe• 'a•10Y+a 7 S[. 6CC11 ,XL91 L0.9066 y-{ja ,9Z IL1 00V .YZ{Or 9m .1692Z 0TZL .IOLI.t 60 �\ g
IN Q JCUYL/u 9�6,f mpZ .(11 or:is L.J .Of".r 'm Wf ;6.�Df.f 913 I.zl, woof ,STI Angie PJ V.L Cl �� `\ 0�Iy�Q
f•'filf, � .91', Ma ,,C9Lf lr .'Ill ,0po0r .LI.La I „a I1 ,moot _solo... a , . r/j9\�'( (,; �' ,,r'r matt srml 0. .969( 00110f . ,..! ('za .60'91 ,mpot TTSG. 9a ;'A/
Q1J &. 'yt� ADZ ,mast SLOLD9 (v 611 Ow Lr ;t 9G sr MO mYu ,mtnZ;119100 o
r•.a[tault� .C9,9 mT��{{ .Pr,.Ff tlrr mot .cSTi. ,n .9DZfr mTlr .m1L4Y ra •% , 3
s!�N�fiI7177t7� L9T9 .mj"1; RLC91 to ,ys➢Ll ,mrtl ,to1r�. 027 u"Iat .muu .L01rdi fJ ,tit% —"L ` / /,/ _
FELIEGALAMME ,j9'9, mOOZt ,..mrs p6'J 09 h1r ,mOct .00,1E 617 ,mZlr .mOSY mH. m 'z4 �- 7'r r`r /
(Ln�10�' ,fIB ,mB1 ,1C.ILP1 97rJ ,~SZBZI ,mTR ,If6C. 910 ,mZtl ,m'mz,f1T9L6Y IJ ',;`�J�
l�i7rl�r.^nn N/JN91 SapY9 Y1DQ 31LYU r1106177 F7N7Y9 316YU Hata, T/109'9 VIVO N6YU / l "ri.o•k C"^or,37, \ f/� lei]
_v l07 s37sv1 3nLdno c. .a ---— \,l�` / I °�� �;,,� 3
_� \4� �`�te K 1 .90r , s
- 1➢6K 4.500069N / `g�,99291 ,9(99 ,Sp9 q 1Z lI rl Ia69. Y
C .6,99r _ —
j I I
j J T f - \ i w a'WI...go c
19',9 N f 10 9N 66U ,16Ls r.n 6L99�f'N r.791 I(aLLI N9reus ov .or I /\ \ n. I j •
8 y
,6r96 M•o 91c,N 1S',btr, M•o17L9TN L,17 / / \ Zp�--9 /��
41T6 M_0Z9LSIN t6 1591 3„gosLON stn I (d(1.1 / \
WD9 N.L0.91.ZfN % ,Z,91 M_ooZ,fLLYN 01 lOYr/E 306•21 / \ '� \ I /
c6Z( 6Lt099SrN 95 91rr M•9c0arro 6C77 I I /, / \ 91 L / /
c6Tr 3 Sr.66L6ZN '1673 j9"Lf M rS.011LN 9rU 01 I § / V/ \ 1 1"'sit i /),.,\‘'
��,60'9) 16,9GICN son pi' £116L6oN {r1 \ / '(lt
ZT4( 1999f9Lx Z67] .Z'19 010,6Lr9N 9199 e /S \ / I; /� /
001{('' M.61.r1C9N 16r7 ,CSI 14 ur.9*N son I"r /' \ \ / , /A
,91 L M 61(1.1911 06U ,Lf'6L M!m.6r.99N ITV I I• M 11 / \ \ // /^ '' p
69'99 M 9L9Lr9N 6911 ,m71 3.11,6L62N COI / / / / ( _ 6 /
6104 rI,.C2 0 09U,1S',9 M[0,6Lr9N era I \ \ .1 / 6 kI
,S19t 7,ocL9cN ton „CV!, laiSr.9.N 1r73 __ -`\\ / / t \ // 9rs / \ ,� \ '}'
.f991 ifaf.ILx 9910 690 M•W,61.S9N !6'D ,y, �y,T�� \ I / / \ / y`�- \ �J % b+yyl.
,m Ot 13,0sfr0LN 99U ,9z7. ,,II��01 ZLSSN 6Z73 \ / /
K9S 101IFILN 0073 ,6S 41 1LI,9CCON 0Z77 \ .1 /,[ / \ �,/ // \ ` N.,„�/ /�T � 99L� p
SZ, W ZW.9LL9N r9"D ,11"LS ,I1,pZS1CIN g
p \-- / 6' \
ZITITI 9.1�..O,IFf9N p13 ,%'6S M_9091(pN `` -` / / \ / `1 /��1./�ro-6 ffx A
uyy. 3,6trabLN 1pD sszr M_Klm'LrN _ \ \ / (dU1 ` 1 7 I
,OTY'1 .1.tux 0A Zf'r. rd arf; t' ��•111 \ 7 / \ ` 1 /�^ \/ +�j
29„ 6Af.KN 6L 2777 1fb1 II,lt6IN I: \ / Z1 loraLa 3t•S',Zl� / \ •
1 111 i/r A/ /4 s i
_es r1 ➢09L6LN Oen ,S99r 1L,161N 4 / II
Jl7i / / / r I
,R'l. 09.116.N ten seoz 19r{a.LN Ira I \ / / \ ( S1 ) 1 , F
W➢f M_DZ 9CC9N 9LU ow M•{.{0.NN pt'D $ •�� / / / \ \ 11 17• v '
ors, M•61,6f.r9N rillR9Z Iodate. 6173 \ \ /' / \ 1 1 L L 9� /
„![➢(' Alt191.oSN 1(D ,9['9fII(LI[N pl "T�' ` \ / l \ N� I( �77 d
,661W Al LS I.opi to 9arr1W M.9f¢.tCN CI 4�'_-_t,� r4i \ • \ // so, / / \\ •' I i i\J ��
099 M•9t��{K99N t[ mz, MgfZ 0�4(N 91 _,Y4'� ', `_ O \// // / 4 / \\ 1
g•9��M 1/L,KICN ILiJ mtl M(t OL 6rN Ff \ ,�,y11/S \ \ \ ' 1 1 i
son M``PI:PC9.N oL ova ilf0a0TN .173 ���C/ —i( leLL ''. / Y / \ \ / , i1
,,,K 1r0,9L19N 69U ,00Z1 r•rf,0S6rN rl al !./�- `v M7r9L.a S /. /� / <. •\ 1 I
R'9, 4.OL1GILN n�. mz, M rzO0FCsrx zyf C a4. d 49 91.Of / .� a. • \ \ /k s 11:
\ / r11179710 1J19C9m c9U 699E 1r06Cr6N If if IZ.". -0x 4' G.1 .`� y / �\ /� /pl1,R") iZGLG9rN 992j ,fj".l M01 fL:f9N Or I /� A / �,\ i�r•�'`\/ \ �1 / (dLtl \ / r / I IX6Z'12 M.9L,ZtfIN 59 ,O/Oc �6LIL6LN 6 9 / ` ` > `(3. JDYpIE 1/Y39,p(' \ / // ana169N9T9 3,{L9LCON Y9 0110 11oFLDso 9 _I ./ \L' �� /--- �' \•'' \ / \ \ / ,I96B 020,fzs1N r9U ,19'II ■61,Ir.1/N I 41J. f — ��` \ l \ / , ,(s9rzror1 14-20aS1N Z9D ,,b 91 }r90,9L6LN 9 I q-0 �+� 4" 7 �'U w/ �'�'/ �j \ i •rit M.nrL6pNpF. M OSLLLON 19D L.➢T 1.s.L6.N c `` y'+ � QA ra'a I 1 \ d' t,SY 1�01C.69N 09U ,199r M.Pt 9Cr9N .D I / C / [SU v7y -0 ✓r ,u"il 10LLE69N 6fTJ ,%"II M.61,6G19N fD 3„'�la /•-' / y� y�\ ^L\ `7"L_]r�l/,Ao /7d y' e / /.D-'' I IIq
s N•aCZLmN'9st7 ,arc N•r1,P.OSN r73 I (dW 9weLa 6rs,x/ : f+/ .;o /�� f \ rv; i/"�'41� A / f / I p
Err M_f0,SL69N CS73 ,ZIa M•ZS.1.Z9N 173 6 7�cp ` \\ ��6rl 1 __ / , r.0j ( I noIpll li
,z.% �1 f9 SZ6DNU ,f967m.6GlINfll ,"1/ O �' 4_X�J?'.�,e,: IS9:.GmN Sf .KIIM m.IY.{zNZrl O :�1w C //,9Z01 r9,r-L.N KU ,,9"6 1006(('.'IrN 117 91Tf1 I \ \) •�]� rL 6! M L' }[ _ /( , / y �Q \ Z I ~yl� '8-,00SS9 }�.IGgLZIN (S7J ,Y9! 61.00.6pN01} M.0.Gaa06N ,mYl 6, \/ �1. `( $ Qt'J \ / .t,�y' / \ Pol .�'-`9J 4(prl 3.1(600.x LfV Lfor 31f LCKW 67 /.� gab'' \. I C Iga96„Cf.2 Mcrz#1cN 19•U 0099 3.916ro,N 07 I- 1 '' I \ .] D4J \�!••• c I 1 �iOf➢f M•I('LLrPNOfD ,9r'IZ1M,IT2L('ONLl ��- �L \ 0` \ \ � > a
19'St 190 SaLSN 6YU ,Sp'6,1 M•Oa6LLZN V 4 o6SSL R� 67/ �j • p' \t ....
,C / TT 9, 7�j.{ F
9.TT M.S 6L9SN 9.T7 6."% ZrS,Iasoo 57 ___ISTIS 3•LI.R99,/ -•�j .., . —_ '-- +CyA,/
'^ '• \A1• 1'/li 1 '1"-- D
SI ZI M.Sf frroN (ID ,19'6 3.aR6G 11N )7 ` / !'$ t
L I _ ...,..,..\ /\ J i I y� if
o9'IZ 41JTLI.6TN 9.0 NZ1 Nl!m ALIN r7 �' j6.tr, '
%Ir ...Is CL69N WI ,90Z9 y1r,CCtoo t) �/,yY,i�'� � — ++.\ \ \ 3
acre 190,Sam, ..D 19a M.OUarON 17 I 071r1373a >/ /^- f� / \ \¢ " I ,jJ�[ � a 3_(/aA7+ aN'B'9'79 327 �1fax7Y dNLyr•7B 3+21 _ I / . E 0 D230 3ay al 9 11Y179 3a \ .+ rD �'• I 1 8 r
S378V1 3N/7 I 9 // / I II \�: r 1V130 DS I f 1 u'u R g d
:14 I 4',dr ''w -(Mu77n9'&S L609d,or
\ I I ,i>,,
/ kre,
I ^71 \ !d(17 NOYMIE 70a.n7 I y1 Ic 4admd LON-zr JE as+ev7 7NJ- 1 / / I (du)arstE 6v3v.of4. a $�'
I
Ix
id
// .fD'ZDf �'Dr ��' Kplf f I
3691 NO 106➢1 SIN 07N6'YN / .•'M06'/ • ,%16L fr 6Sl ,69Bf1
80✓M NY®r,1%1 O'tl10J.../ M.Po,26pN 97:1 Y 7d Bf J6431dY6'l7 Od0:://
ti /
YNOZkIC':(1nY)OO lVdvAVA )VVk7kJ3W ONV 3SV8 HgAILI17V9 ONV V710 3H1 d0 md.w0-mwn7 n s..9 a N0N6
1s3M L 30NVN%•l1UON pi dI-/SN toA lE AtouoaS dO �vt!r sots 01 x aun7x0Y cts(r%LNN I%a1N lna 7• ,1'J)1000 NwNOv S 0119 Li3LHV/'!O 1S3A41•LLdON 3H1 Nl 031V�07 (6V aoL pV.ronl M.9¢rL
9zvn 31r7.7a6d 3HI�NOr S�N1ViM 15 0*1 7111511 WO-01-1U 130YVd dO NOLL&Od V NI Oat VOO11N3Wdo734.3O AIPNVd 370N/S O3SOd0Hd V
(im161'mu(PO.I/7U 2643 61,
O]l!:IWY/53 NO6Nrc1Nn9 SAW D d13NN(IJ ISY71a9JN 91 EINM 00 9JI,od I7r'69 A3196,o MOM 1Dd
Zf ootia35 6641907 NN a0'N,90Z,0 NO1160.1
1{-/ / 3Y1 IV 7Nll5 NI,.0 a 441039 WV ad
V 1 1 V�y L�f 1 93:1'r 3d 8)1913.ar6 63 010736
rid 3411E 61„Jr.1171d0JY OW 9d