HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC - Minutes - City Council - 8/29/2006 PRESCOTT CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
PRESCOTT,ARIZONA
AUGUST 29, 2006
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PRESCOTT CITY COUNCIL WAS HELD ON
TUESDAY, AUGUST 29, 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 Lamerson
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
kir Councilman Roecker
Councilwoman Suttles
SUMMARY OF CURRENT OR RECENT EVENTS
Nothing was presented.
I. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
A. Warren Parkes re Upcoming Air Show.
Mr. Parkes presented a preview of the Arizona Skyfest 06 events,stating that he
expected a turnout of 20,000 to25,000 spectators which would be higher than
the 18,000 that turned out for last year's event which was held in October.
There would be more parking available this year; there was lots of things for
children and adults to see and do and kids 12 and under could get in free while
adults paid$10 if purchased before the event,or$12 at the gate. Two pieces of
Dave Neuman's artwork would be raffled off and the money would go to Math
and Science classes in Prescott.
II. PRESENTATIONS
A. Introduction of new businesses.
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting—August 29,2006 Page 2
ihr Dave Maurer, CEO of Prescott Chamber of Commerce introduced the following
businesses:
1. Lewis Marketing and Public Relations
2. Spires Bindery
3. Megling Graphic Design
4. Loan Emporium
5. DeLovely Cosmetic Apothecary
III. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Simmons announced Items D and J were being removed from the Consent
Agenda.
Councilman Luzius MOVED to ADOPT the Consent Agenda, Items III-A through III-M,
excluding Items D and J,which was SECONDED by Councilman Roecker. The motion
carried unanimously.
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. (per Mohave Educational Services
Cooperative)
D. Removed from Consent Agenda
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. Removed from Consent Agenda
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
Mayor Simmons presented Item D for consideration:
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
Councilman Luzius asked the following questions:
• Where did the money come from to pay for the 8 decorative lamps at
$200 each and the$10,000 for the installation,for a total of$26,000?
• Mr. Nietupski responded the funds would come from the 1% Sales
Tax.
• There was no decorative lighting between Granite and McCormick
Street,why put them between McCormick Street and Summit Street?
• Mr. Nietupski replied this was an extension of the downtown
enhancement project and McCormick Street and Goodwin Street
would be addressed in the future.
• Why not consider the lighting as off-site improvements instead?
• Mr. Nietupski said the lights were put in by the City in past years
and the City would pay for these as a continuation of the downtown
project.
Councilman Lamerson asked if there was a benefit to putting in the
decorative lights versus regular street lights and asked if they cost extra.
Mr. Nietupski responded it was a priority of a previous Council to put in
decorative street lights in the downtown area and lights would have to be
put along there anyway. The City would have to pay APS to put in an
intersection light that could cost$3,000 on its own.
Councilwoman Suttles MOVED to AUTHORIZE the issuance of a
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,which was SECONDED by Councilman Bell. The motion passed
unanimously.
Mayor Simmons presented Item J for consideration:
r'
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting—August 29,2006 Page 5
J. Adopt Resolution No. 3761 —A resolution of the Mayor and Council
ihro 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.
Councilman Luzius questioned the reason for the original annexation fee
of$750 that had been adopted a year and a half ago but evidently wasn't
what the Council really wanted. Now, he said, the amount suggested
was$25,000 and he asked if the amount could be adjusted.
Community Development Director Tom Guice responded the fees listed
were only proposed but suggested the Council adopt the resolution as
recommended at this time; it was difficult to estimate a fee as each
annexation was different and the complexity of a development plan
would vary; an annexation might be easy or very time consuming and
staff would monitor the fees and in the future would suggest increasing or
decreasing them.
Councilwoman Suttles MOVED to ADOPT Resolution No. 3761, which
was SECONDED by Councilman Blair. The motion passed unanimously.
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.
Community Development Director Tom Guice reported the following:
• Today was the Public Hearing for the rezoning from SF-35 to SF-
18 of approximately 18-1/2 acres located east of Senator Highway
and west of Summer Field to be known as The Homestead;
• One acre already was zoned SF-12;
• The subdivision would consist of 36 lots on approximately 19-1/2
acres;
• A Water Service Agreement would be required for 12.5 acre feet
to serve this subdivision;
• The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the rezoning and
preliminary plat by a vote of 4-3.
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting—August 29,2006 Page 6
• There had been opposition to the rezoning and the plat at higher density (36 lots) and the protests would require a supermajority
vote of Council.
Councilman Blair asked what the zoning was on the surrounding
properties before they were developed and Mr.Guice responded SF-35,2
acre zoning.
Mr. Guice continued State Statutes required the City to do one of three
things to notify the public of an upcoming public hearing, (1) advertise a
legal notice in the newspaper, (2) post a notice on the property, or,
(3)mail public hearing notices to all residents within 300 feet of property.
The City did all three notifications, actually hand delivering the notices
because of the change of date in Council meetings and notices were sent
to residents outside the required area.
Carl Tenney, Agent for the property owners, Tenney Feed and Livestock
Co., which were his brother and sister, Harold Tenney and Jeanine
Tenney Brown,addressed the Council. He showed a map of the property
which was bordered on the north by Acker Park, on the east by the
Foothills Subdivision, on the south by unsubdivided property in the
County,and on the west by Summit Pointe Estates.
Mr.Tenney continued that the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
staff were recommending approval of the proposed plans; the plans had
been revised following neighborhood concerns; an alternate access was
included; brush on Nathan Lane had been cut and they had been
responsive to traffic concerns.
Mr.•Tenney continued, stating that the property had been continuously
occupied by the Tenney Family since the 1920's and some of the land
had been sold off over the years and the remaining 19 acres was left to
be developed. Mr.Tenney showed an area map of the other subdivisions
already established and those were SF-35 and rezoned when the
subdivision was ready to be developed;the Tenney family was asking for
a rezoning from SF-35 which would allow approximately 18 lots to SF-18
which would allow a total of 36 lots; the City had rezoned 11 times
properties in the area that were SF-35 for a more dense zoning; the
Foothills Subdivision received SF-12PAD which required open space and
87 lots were developed which dramatically changed the neighborhood;
Summit Pointe Estates was also a PAD which provided open space on
the east side of their parcel which was next to the proposed Homestead
Subdivision.
ki r
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting—August 29,2006 Page 7
Mr.Tenney listed the following facts:
• The Homestead would have 18,000 square foot lots.
• There was no market for acre size lots.
• The Homestead lot sizes were compatible with those around them
and this was an infill project between two existing subdivisions.
• The street layout provided connectivity.
• The layout of the lots took into consideration the topography and
the homes would be spread out on the property.
• They could provide defensible space.
• They would preserve 80 trees on the property.
• It was an attractive alternative to residents in the Foothills
Subdivision for access to Senator Highway.
• There was ample open space in the neighborhood.
• Senator Highway and Mt.Vernon Avenue were considered minor
arterials,as was Gurley Street.
• The traffic problems would exist whether the Tenney property
were developed or not.
• They were the first to own property in the area and the last to
develop and the development would not make a significant
difference to the traffic situation;maybe 1%.
• The Water Allocation Committee had approved water to their
subdivision and was on the agenda for approval. They would be
capping four existing wells on the property.
• The neighbors who would speak today drove on Mt.Vernon, used
the water, built their homes on small lots and he wasn't asking for
anything they hadn't already done.
• They were only 1-1/2 miles from downtown and generally housing
was denser close to town.
Mayor Simmons asked if the subdivision would have Covenants
Conditions and Restrictions and a Homeowners Association and
Mr.Tenney replied probably CC&Rs.
Mayor Simmons asked why the Tenney's opposed the Crystal Creek
rezoning from SF-35 to SF-18 and Mr. Tenney replied his brother and
sister went to the meetings and the developer wanted 9,000 square foot
zoning and his sister wanted to keep the name Nathan Lane and they had
agreed,but then didn't do it.
Councilman Lamerson had a concern with increased traffic on Senator
Highway and said he had trouble supporting the doubling in density on an
already troubled road; he appreciated the opportunity and the Tenney's
willingness in giving up their wells, so water wasn't an issue; it was the
kk►r traffic that concerned him.
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting—August 29,2006 Page 8
Carl Tenney responded the problem had been developing over many
years and the Southeast Prescott Circulation Study would soon be
started; The Homestead was a small part of the problem and the City
would have to deal with the problems whether the Tenney's developed
their property or not.
Mayor Simmons announced he had told a gentleman on the 151h who
asked to speak to send him a letter and Councilman Luzius would read it
into the minutes.
Letter from Kevin Tighe,249 S.Virginia Street—
"Dear Mayor Simmons,
As I am unable to attend the Council meeting of August 29th i am
forwarding my comments regarding the Tenney family request for a
zoning change to the Council to be read into the record during the
meeting. I respectfully request that my comments by read by councilman
Luzius.
My name is Kevin Tighe, I am a resident of South Virginia Street and
owner of three houses in the southernmost block of S. Virginia St. I have
tried through the proper channels to have the traffic problems of our street
addressed by the city for over two years. i have had no success to date.
I am unable to attend the meeting because 1 am speaking at a conference
in the Austrian Alps. Ironically the subject I am speaking on is the failure
of democracy in the United States and the inaccessibility to power of
ordinary citizens. I thank you for giving me such an easy example of my
point to use as an illustration for my audience. Though my focus is on
Federal issues, the same dynamic exists at the local level.
There were many of my neighbors also in attendance at the August 15
meeting and we were all led to believe we could have our comments
heard during that meeting. I requested one minute of the council's time to
hear my input, but was denied. Is this democracy in action?
For years the residents of S. Virginia Street have had to grapple with the
rumors and proposals that an extension of S. Virginia St to meet Senator
Highway was inevitable as a solution to the traffic woes of the residents of
Mount Vernon Avenue. At the root of these proposals is the assumption
that the rights and peace and quiet of those residents are more important
than the rights and peace and quiet of the residents of S. Virginia St. Do
the wealthy get priority in these decisions? It appears that way to us. It
may not be so, but appearances are everything.
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting—August 29,2006 Page 9
The re-zone request will enable one family, the Tenneys, to benefit while
(kW hundreds of Mount Vernon and Virginia Street residents pay the price.
That is unfair and unacceptable.
Virginia Street was built as a residential, local traffic street while Mount
Vernon is and has been a thoroughfare for it's entire existence.
Unfortunately for Mount Vernon Street residents development south of
them off of Senator Highway has turned their beautiful street into a traffic
nightmare.
Virginia Street is too narrow for the traffic it now handles and since the
placement of a four way stop two years ago at Goodwin and Mount
Vernon we have had a doubling or tripling of cut through traffic as drivers
seek to bypass the four way stop and the light at Gurley and Mount
Vernon. We are besieged daily by hundreds of drivers doing 35-50 mph
through our narrow street that is populated by families with small children
and elderly retirees. We live in daily fear that our children will be killed by
these drivers. We receive little to no police patrols and have had no
success at getting a four way stop at Goodwin and S. Virginia to calm the
traffic and discourage cut through drivers. Part of the success of the four
way stop at Mount Vernon and Goodwin is because a lot of the traffic has
migrated to the narrow S. Virginia Street.
We are also the only street in the neighborhood without street lights which
makes it even more dangerous for pedestrians at night as we also have
only intermittent sidewalks and people walk in the street.
Additionally, any connection of S. Virginia St to Senator Highway will have
to skirt the edge of Acker Park, a serene little spot that would be ruined by
that much high speed and high volume traffic. I have always thought that
no developer would pay for this extension and the city would not either.
These days I'm not so sure that a deal wouldn't be struck between the city
and a developer with the cost burden falling to the taxpayers. Even
without the extension, the traffic burden on Mount Vernon is already too
much and exceeds carrying capacity.
My neighbors and I are in the process of forming a Virginia Street
Residents Association to counter these and future threats upon our little
neighborhood. We would like a resolution before someone dies on
S. Virginia Street, not after.
We would like the following solutions considered: A four way stop at
Goodwin and S. Virginia, a possible conversion of Oak Street to a one
way street to discourage cut through traffic and more traffic patrols during
morning and afternoon rush hour when it is the worst.
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting—August 29,2006 Page 10
Accommodating developers at the expense of current residents is
‘11110r inappropriate and immoral. All decisions that benefit well healed
developers at the expense of the surrounding neighborhoods smells like
cronyism and corruption. This must stop.
I ask that the re-zone be denied and all future consideration of using S.
Virginia Street as an alternative thoroughfare to Mount Vernon be denied
and denounced. Thank you. Kevin Tighe,249 South Virginia Street"
Mr. Guice responded to the letter admitting the first correspondence that
went out advised people they could speak on the 15th. He suggested that
the Council may want to consider opening public hearings at a Study
Session and not closing it and continuing to hold the public hearing at the
voting session in the future.
Councilman Blair asked what the General Plan called for in this area and
Mr. Guice replied SF-18 or SF-35 would be consistent with the General
Plan.
Bruce Evans,744 City Lights Drive—
• Urged Council to vote no on this project.
• He was very familiar with the traffic in The Foothills.
�rr • There was a stop sign at Autumn Breeze that no one paid any
attention to.
• Phase 3 of The Foothills was built after Mr. Evans moved in and he
was downhill from it.
• Many zoning changes had been previously approved. Other
subdivisions already approved were expected to begin to develop
soon and the traffic was going to increase with each one.
• If The Homestead was approved with 36 more homes the traffic
would have been increased by 300%to 400%.
• Increased traffic would create a lot of danger.
• They could still build 16 lots.
• The canyon echoes a lot of noise.
• Issue was the impact on the lives of the people living there; the
environment;the canyon;the fumes from large trucks.
Robert Reuillard,748 N.Sunset Ridge, Prescott Valley,
• Speaking on behalf of the Homeowners Association of Foothills.
• He noticed in an April 7 memo to Mike Bacon from Jeff Lowe,
talked about the floodplain and it said the lot density looked too
high for hillside development.
• All three projects would share Senator Highway which was
reported to be in desperate need of repair.
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting—August 29,2006 Page 11
• It was mentioned in the 2030 plan as a street that would fail, had a
high traffic volume,and would be congested.
• Drivers cut through to Nathan Lane and Autumn Breeze to avoid
the Senator Highway/Mt. Vernon Avenue/Summit Pointe/Haisley
Drive/Summit Estates intersections which would need a light.
• Palmer Hill had 21 lots, the roads were in, 21 more homes were
ready to go in.
• There was a 200 foot drop off along the roadway.
• A blind curve onto Nathan Lane and another where it entered City
Lights.
• Morning and evening traffic would be horrible.
Carl Tenney remarked drivers would have clear vision on both sides to
back out of their driveways; it was clear to the east and to the west.
Robert Reuillard continued:
• He disagreed with Mr.Tenney.
• What hadn't been taken into consideration was parking on the
street and it would be an issue with 12 houses clustered in there,
especially on holidays.
• New homes being built brought trucks, backhoes, and dirt into the
iIr area.
• He saw some advantages to being the last to develop—got some
free open space; the public streets were already established;
custom built home lots were built; take advantage of mature real
estate market with The Foothills Subdivision.
• The HOA understands the right of a developer to get a return on
his investment, but as taxpayers they felt the project should be
denied.
• The Land Development Code said to protect the health, safety and
welfare of existing residents.
Councilman Roecker asked Public Works Director Craig McConnell about
the parking on the street and Mr. McConnell replied the Code mentioned
parking as a function of street width;that a 28 foot wide street would have
parking on one side of the street but be prohibited on the other.
Mike Spencer, 885 Ohio Street—
• Vote no on public safety issues.
• Street is 20 feet wide and unsafe;drivers go over the yellow line.
• Asked if it is possible to widen Eastwood Drive. Extra cars would
be going down Eastwood and many traveled out on Nathan Lane.
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting—August 29,2006 Page 12
Councilman Roecker asked Mr. Spencer if the speed limit was 25 mph
and Mr. Spencer replied it was. He said there were apartment units at
Devereaux and Eastwood and more were being planned and this caused
more traffic problems in the area.
Jeff Carmon,714 City Lights—
• This was not a retirement community and he asked Council to
picture the area at 7:30 in the morning as people tried to go to
work. Cars would be lined up at the intersection at Nathan Lane.
• Nathan Lane had a steep hill in the middle.
• The safety issues were enormous; the traffic issues were
enormous and more homes shouldn't be put in.
Mayor Simmons asked if there was anyone in the audience who wanted
to say something positive about the project.
Carl Whitted, 730 John Drive- had a head-on collision several years ago
because the roadways were narrow in this area.
Cynthia Marroquin,546 Broadview Drive,Quail Hollow Subdivision—
• Surprised Mr. Reuillard knew how bad traffic was when he didn't
live there yet.
• Half-acre to three-quarter acre lots were not dense.
• Roads were in poor shape
• Tenney's were being punished for being the last to develop.
• Their subdivision(Quail Hollow)had no open space.
• Would only be an extra 40-50 cars a day.
• Project was conducive to the environment; the blind corner had
been addressed; had fixed the cul-de-sac.
• There would be a little more traffic on City Lights.
• Adding a few more lots wouldn't make a big difference.
Cynthia Marroquin added she was asked to speak for Randy and
Jennifer Nieffenegger, 601 MacDonald Street,who couldn't attend today's
meeting and they were in support of this project.
John Reynolds,630 David Drive—
• Opposed the proposed subdivision.
• Penn Avenue and Eastwood Drive were in poor condition.
• Supported those who opposed this project.
khr
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting—August 29,2006 Page 13
Shawn Vasteen, 149 S.Virginia Street—
• Supported The Homestead project.
• The road conditions in Prescott were not the Tenney's problems;
the city needed to address the problems.
• The homes in The Homestead 36 homes on 19 acres, would not
be built overnight.
• He didn't see cars going fast down Virginia Street.
• The Tenney's should be allowed to build their subdivision.
It was clarified the Tenney's could build on the SF-35 zoning they had.
Rojene Madsen, 310 S. Mt.Vernon—
• Suggested the Tenney's sell half of the additional lots to Habitat for
Humanity at 1980 prices.
• As traffic on S. Mt. Vernon increased it was turning into a parking lot
and the alleys couldn't be used.
Mayor Simmons commented there were a number of undeveloped, pre-
approved subdivisions coming on board and he was worried about adding
to the problem and concerned Council's actions would make matters
worse.
Harold Tenney commented they were sensitive to what everyone was
saying but other connector roads were needed in the area to relieve the
traffic problems;they didn't cause the issue and they weren't the solution.
Mr. Tenney proposed the City issue them a conditional permit based on 36
lots and the permit would allow the building of 18 lots and the other 18 lots
would not be built on until another connector road was put into the area.
Councilman Blair asked Public Works Director Craig McConnell what stage
the South Prescott Circulation Plan was in and Mr. McConnell replied
interviews were going to be held Friday to select the engineer to prepare
the study.
Mayor Simmons asked how Mr. Tenney's suggestion could be handled
and Mr. Guice responded the Council could approve the plat with the
condition that only half of the lots could be developed and someone would
have to monitor the project.
Attorney Gary Kidd interjected this was posted as a rezoning request from
SF-35 to SF-18 and any change would mean a modification of that
rezoning request and would be a conditional rezoning.
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting—August 29,2006 Page 14
Carl Tenney suggested pulling this from the agenda and they would meet
‘r• with staff to decide how to bring this back to Council.
Councilman Luzius remarked this was all about traffic and there was too
much development going on along Senator Highway; if the Tenney's
reduced this project in half, there would still be traffic problems. The
South Prescott Circulation Plan had been talked about for four years, and
it could take 6-8 months before it was ready, then the building of a road
could take 4-5 years; he would rather see no construction on Senator
Highway other than what there was now and suggested a moratorium.
The City needed to bite the bullet and find a way to reduce traffic on
Mt.Vernon.
Councilman Blair MOVED to CLOSE the public hearing, which was
SECONDED by Councilman Bell. The motion passed unanimously.
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.
Mayor and Council took a break from 5:05 P.M.to 5:15 P.M.
B. Public hearing on possible increase in development impact fees.
Budget/Finance Director Mark Woodfill explained a review of service
levels had been done and there had been a dramatic increase in land
costs and construction over the past few years; impact fees should be
reviewed every 5-7 years. There were three methods that could be used:
1. Planned Base Approach which was a cost recovery
2. Incremental Expansion Approach—pay as you go
3. Buy-in approach where something like a water or sewer line
was build and the costs were recovered afterward.
The timeline was:
— June 13 —the Notice of Intention to increase development fees was
adopted and set the public hearing for August 29,2006.
— August 29—Public Hearing
— September 26—Council considers action on new fees
kir — January 1,2007—Fees become effective.
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting—August 29,2006 Page 15
�r The Planned Growth Strategy and Parks Master Plan were being done in
the FY2007 budget and would become available in 12-24 months and
staff would look at the impact fees again at that point.
Speakers:
Ethan Edwards, Yavapai County Contractors Association, 126 Marina
Street, thanked staff for an easily understood report. He made the
following points:
• Have low property taxes and income taxes.
• State funds things through sales taxes.
• When you go to a store you pay tax and it is kept there. When
construction is done,taxes go to the point of the building being built.
• No price study had been done and at what point do people choose not
to buy here.
• When people don't build, the City doesn't get the building permit fees
or the impact fees. The City was looking at increasing building permit
fees from 40-50%and then would be looking at sewer rates.
Mayor Simmons explained the City Manager was only recommending the
Police and Fire impact fees be increased at this time, which was
approximately$1,100.
Mr. Edwards continued it didn't say in the report the Council would only
be looking at Police and Fire impact fees; that if someone decided not to
build here the City would lose at least$34,000; sewer impact fees would
also be looked at and without high paying jobs in this area, people would
be hiring unlicensed and non-bonded contractors who undercut the
licensed and bonded contractors; growth could pay for growth with the
transaction privilege tax; impact fees have to be for growth related
buildings, such as building an additional fire station; non-residential fees
had not been levied up to know but if they were it could cost Lowe's an
additional $100,000 and they might decide not to proceed with their
business plans; increases need to be directly related to the project the
City wanted to do;and keep the public informed.
Manager Steve Norwood explained Prescott Valley was also going
through this process as well and would have a public hearing on
Thursday; Prescott Valley was at$2,700 not including water and sewer;
Prescott was at$2,300 and Prescott Valley was recommending increases
to$7,900, and Prescott's maximum would be to$6,000.
Mr. Edwards added the County fees were $1,200 and the Verde Valley
,,, was$1,100.
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting—August 29,2006 Page 16
Councilman Lamerson commented there were a lot of factors involved,
such as the cost benefit ratios, residential development versus
commercial development; residential development didn't cover the cost in
services whereas commercial development made money and asked if
there was a Street Impact Fee. Mr. Woodfill responded there was one
and that would also be part of the Planned Growth Strategy program.
Howard Mechanic, 309 Bloom Place, made the following points:
• Residential takes$1.30 in services for every$1 it takes in.
• Past councils didn't address growth effectively.
• Fees were going up; costs of construction and land were going up
and the City needed to keep up.
• Impact fees were not paid by existing users of services.
• Growth should pay for growth. New growth should pay full and fair
costs.
• Keep services for the public.
• If someone built a 4,000 sf home and had to pay$20,000 in impact
fees that seemed reasonable.
• Don't delay the other impact fees(other than Police and Fire).The
City should start collecting the impact fees before they start
building the project.
kir ■ Should implement the non-residential impact fees.
Dave Maurer, CEO of the Prescott Chamber of Commerce,thanked staff
for talking with them while they formed their policy on this. He listed the
following 5 points for Council to consider:
• Council shouldn't impose all maximum impact fees.
• The Chamber supported the increase in Police and Fire.
• While streets were not addressed in this round of impact fees,they
note the importance of a transportation system in growth areas and
encourage the Council to deal with it sooner, rather than later.
• The Chamber did not support the implementation of non-
residential impact fees.
• The Chamber opposed an annual cost of living adjustment in the
fees.
Jim Lawrence —A recent State services study was done and it was found that
residential services cost $1.85 for every $1 brought in; the impact fees needed
to be increased enough to get facilities built, otherwise service levels dropped
and it was extremely important that impact fees be raised to the proper level and
done at this time.
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting—August 29,2006 Page 17
` Councilman Roecker remarked the fees couldn't be raised to a point where no
`r building was occurring, because if people didn't build homes then commercial
buildings wouldn't come.
Jim Lawrence—The City needed a fire station and had two options—build the
fire station and figure out how to pay for it or don't build the fire station; he didn't
want to compete with Prescott Valley or Chino Valley.
Bill Matthews, President of Yavapai County Contractors Association, 1806 Pony
Soldier Road -was'not opposed to impact fees; growth should pay for growth;
Prescott was in competition for quality growth such as jobs, medical facilities,
quality of homes, the need for education and Prescott was very much in
competition with the towns around us; to go to no growth or a moratorium was
idiocy; there needed to be growth and he urged the Council not to raise impact
fees so high residents and businesses would go somewhere else and build and
to create a community to be proud of and have reasonable growth.
Howard Mechanic—there were real costs to creating a good quality of life.
Councilman Lamerson MOVED to CLOSE the Public Hearing, which was
SECONDED by Councilman Roecker. The motion passed unanimously.
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.
Manager Steve Norwood explained the next three items were not on the
Study Session agenda last week and Items D and E were critical to the
deadline for the City to accept the funds from the FAA. The Downer Trail
item had also been added this week.
Councilman Roecker MOVED to ADOPT Resolution No. 3771,which was
SECONDED by Councilman Bell. The motion passed unanimously.
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.
kir
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting—August 29,2006 Page 18
Fire Chief Darrell Willis explained this was an IGA with the Prescott
�► National Forest to allow Prescott fire crews to do fuels reduction work on
the National Forest side of the fence when Prescott was working on the
Prescott side of the fence and the National Forest Service offered a fuels
crew to work with the City on both sides of the fence; they would pay the
City to do their work on their side of the fence;the money would go away
at the end of the month and it could mean earning up to$100,000.
Councilman Bell asked if the City would be held harmless if the wrong
tree was cut down and Chief Willis replied the trees would be marked and
this was an urban interface project.
Councilman Lamerson MOVED to ADOPT Resolution No. 3772, which
was SECONDED by Councilman Luzius. The motion passed
unanimously.
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.
Community Development Director Tom Guice explained the final Downer
Trail right-of-way alignment was in the process of being refined and
needed final tweaking which could be approved by City staff
administratively and the plat was brought to Council for approval today to
insure timely completion of the East-West Connector.
Councilman Lamerson MOVED to APPROVE the 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, which was SECONDED by Councilman Bell. The motion
passed unanimously.
V. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Prescott City Council, Mayor
Simmons ADJOURNED the meeting at 6:08 P.M.
ROLE P.SIMMONS, Mayor
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting—August 29,2006 Page 19
ATTEST:
EfiZABE A. BURKE, Ci Clerk
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 29th day of August,2006. I further certify the meeting was duly called and held and
that a quorum was present.
Dated this/q'day of ,2006.
AFFIX
err CITY SEAL
LIZABE A. BURKE,C y Clerk
L