HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC - Minutes - City Council - 9/19/2006 PRESCOTT CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
PRESCOTT,ARIZONA
SEPTEMBER 19,2006
A STUDY SESSION OF THE PRESCOTT CITY COUNCIL WAS HELD ON TUESDAY,
SEPTEMBER 19, 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
o SUMMARY OF CURRENT OR RECENT EVENTS
kw I. PRESENTATIONS:
A. Rick Melendez—Update on potential Sister City relationship with a city in
El Salvador.
Mr. Melendez reported that the city that was chosen as a Sister City from El
Salvador was Suchitoto which meant"land of flowers and birds"; the Minister of
Tourism would be in Prescott on December 7 to meet with the Prescott Chamber
of Commerce and Sister City organization and hopefully the City Council; and
El Salvador was looking forward to a long relationship with Prescott. He added
that he couldn't wait to get Mayor Simmons, Councilman Roecker and Manager
Norwood down there to show them around.
Manager Steve Norwood commented coffee from El Salvador was already being
sold at the Farmers Market at Yavapai College and at the Hotel Vendome.
Mayor Simmons was presented with a couple of plaques.
Prescott City Council Study Session—September 19,2006 Page 2
II. DISCUSSION ITEMS
hier A. Approve preparation of contract with Southwest Land and
Lake Tours for concessionaire services at Watson Lake Park.
Recreation Services Director Jim McCasland explained Southwest Land
and Lake Tours offered a unique tourism experience and requested
permission to tour Watson Lake by water.
Brian Hauser, owner, explained they had a six-wheel drive amphibious
vehicle developed for troop transport in World War II and was converted to
use as a tour vehicle; the vehicle could accommodate up to 25
passengers; many other cities provided tours with these vehicles,
including the Wisconsin Dells; Branson, Missouri; Seattle, Washington;
Baltimore, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Washington, D.C.; and
Austin,Texas. The full tour would take about 1-1/2 hours and 15 minutes
of that would be spent on Watson Lake. The vehicle had a good safety
record;the vehicles were well maintained and inspected every day.
Mr.McCasland clarified there was no cost to the City.
Councilwoman Suttles remarked the vehicle was very large and
questioned how it would mix with other traffic on the narrow streets, if
other towns had any problems and what the cost was. Mr. Hauser
responded the vehicle was 31 feet long and maneuvered very well; the
tours would occur at 9 and 11 A.M. and 1 and 3 P.M. and the price was
$15 for children and$20 for adults.
Mayor Simmons asked how fast the vehicle could go and Mr. Hauser
replied the top speed was 55 mph.
Councilman Lamerson remarked the taxpayers owned the lake and asked
if anyone could put a gasoline or diesel engine in the lake and
Mr. McCasland replied motors were not allowed on Willow Lake, but were
allowed on Watson Lake.
Mr. Hauser clarified the craft would travel at 4-6 mph on the lake.
Councilman Lamerson asked if the craft would disturb the birds and
Mr. Hauser said he had been out there when there were motorboats and it
didn't seem to disrupt the birds.
Councilman Luzius asked how wide the vehicle was (8 feet) and how
much it weighed(14,000 lbs.)and if the boat ramp could handle that much
weight. Mr. McCasland replied the boat ramp was made of concrete and
could handle the weight.
Prescott City Council Study Session—September 19,2006 Page 3
Councilman Luzius concluded saying he had problems with this vehicle
running on city streets, such as Mount Vernon Avenue, and didn't think it
was a good idea.
Councilman Bell remarked he was in favor of tourism, had spent some
time in Branson and was familiar with the DUKW; but he had trouble
imagining this duck in a small pond like Watson Lake and he had trouble
supporting the idea.
Mayor Simmons asked if the big tires distributed the weight and
Mr. McCasland responded he didn't know about displacement of weight.
Mayor Simmons concluded today was the Study Session and a vote
would be taken next week and the decision would be made to allow it or
not, but it looked like a good project.
B. Approve contract with Logan Simpson Design, Inc. in an
amount not to exceed $170,000.00 for the preparation of the
City of Prescott Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Recreation Services Director Jim McCasland explained the current Parks
Master Plan was adopted in 1987 and the Council made a new updated
plan a priority for this year; staff advertised for Statements of
Qualifications and selected and interviewed three firms and chose Logan
Simpson Design, Inc. of Tempe, AZ, to prepare the new plan; the
consultant would put in between 1,700 and 1,800 hours which would
include at least 11 public meetings and workshops to take public and
special interest group input; conduct a needs assessment survey; look at
the existing park and recreation facilities; benchmark the current parks
and recreation system;develop facility standards; prepare conceptual plan
alternatives; prepare funding and partnership options; prepare a 5-year
Capital Improvement Project schedule; and prepare a draft and final
master plan document; the consultant would work with the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Council and the Parks, Recreation and
Library Advisory Committee; and staff was recommending award of a
contract to Logan Simpson Design in an amount not to exceed
$170,000.00.
Councilman Blair commented the staff report didn't include a breakdown
of bids of the three bidders and Mr. McCasland responded it was a
professional service and from the five Statements of Qualifications
received, three firms were chosen to interview and the top firm was
chosen,then staff could negotiate the services and price.
Councilman Blair remarked it was wrong to expect a community to select
a firm based on experience, then negotiate the contract and price and a
Prescott City Council Study Session—September 19,2006 Page 4
letter should be sent to the League of Cities to try to get the law changed.
Mayor Simmons responded that had been tried but the lobbyists were
successful in keeping the law in place.
Councilman Luzius asked how much it cost to prepare the General Plan,
and Mr. McCasland replied that was done in house and there would be
some parts of the plan that city staff could do but the department had too
many things to do to take the time necessary to prepare a document of
this scope.
Manager Steve Norwood clarified $140,000 of the budgeted amount of
$170,000 was from impact fees and the remainder was from the General
Fund.
Councilman Lamerson pointed out staff could prepare a General Plan for
the community in-house, and had had 20 years to come up with a new
parks plan and he didn't like to have outside firms from other cities
prepare Prescott plans. Councilwoman Suttles added she didn't like
outside groups coming in and telling them what they needed; Prescott had
a department, a department head, and a committee and thought they
could come up with a plan.
Mr. McCasland explained no local firms put in a Statement of
Qualifications; the consultant would first have to gather information from
411, public meetings and show the information to the city as to what the
citizens want; there was a lot of work involved and would take
approximately 10 months to complete; Diane Simpson Colebank was in
attendance and could answer Council questions.
Councilwoman Suttles asked if it was true if the plan wasn't done the city
couldn't apply for grants and Mr. McCasland clarified the city could apply,
but would be downgraded during the process for not having a plan in
place.
Councilwoman Suttles asked if one of the firms wasn't chosen what would
happen and Mr. McCasland said the effort would end and staff needed
Council direction on what to do about an updated master plan;there were
a lot of ideas out in the community as to what the community needed and
wanted,such as turf parks,an aquatic center, new ball parks,open space,
trails, lake activities,etc.
Councilman Lamerson commented $170,000 sounded like a lot of money
to spend on a study when Iron Springs Road was going to cost$17 million
to improve and he didn't see spending a lot of money on recreation when
infrastructure was needed and maybe Council should go in another
direction; Manager Steve Norwood reiterated the $140,000 was from
Prescott City Council Study Session—September 19,2006 Page 5
recreation impact fees and could not be used on streets and some cash
money was involved because the plan could not all be attributed to new
growth.
Councilman Roecker noted the city hired consultants for everything and
asked Mr. McCasland if his department had the time and expertise to do
this project and Mr. McCasland responded they had neither the time nor
expertise to do a project of this size.
Diane Simpson Colebank was asked to explain the project and she said
the City of Prescott was their very first client 16 years ago and they had
worked on the previous study and on the design of improvements to
Willow and Watson Lakes;this would be a community plan—not what her
company thought Prescott should have;there would be a lot of input from
the public, citizens committees, stakeholders, special interest groups, etc.
and the first thing to be done was a survey.
Councilman Blair asked what a stakeholder was and what benchmarking
meant and Ms. Colebank replied it was anyone who felt they had an
interest in the process, such as the Little League groups, soccer groups,
the equestrian community, the trails groups, and bicycle groups just to
name a few and to benchmark meant to look 5 to 10 years in the future
and what the future needs might be; Phase I would be gathering input to
understand the citizens' vision and what perceived needs were; Phase II
would be to come up with three alternatives to present to the community;
then the Preliminary Master Plan would be prepared; then look at the
Capital Improvement Plan and how to fund it because you didn't want to
have a plan that couldn't be implemented; the implementation would be
accomplished over a 5 to 10 year period,just as the last plan was; and
would be funded through grants and other funding mechanisms.
Councilman Blair remarked this was not just a parks master plan,but a full
recreational plan and he asked to see the scope of work Logan Simpson
Design would provide.
Mr. McCasland clarified there was a misconception when special interest
groups are mentioned; the community was made up of many special
interest groups - fishing, trails, boating, Little League, soccer, aquatics,
any group interested in a specific activity was a special interest group;
citizens would be able to participate in coming up with what they wanted to
build and have here in 10 years; it took 9 months just to plan for the lakes;
and the plan had to mesh with all the different city plans.
Prescott City Council Study Session—September 19,2006 Page 6
Speakers:
Jack Wilson, 1514 Eagle Ridge Road —was in favor of proceeding with
the development of the master plan; $170,000 was a bargain with
$140,000 from impact fees and urged Council to go forward with the
project.
Ethan Edwards, CEO of Yavapai County Contractors Association —was
using impact fees appropriate as this was not 100% growth related and
Budget/Finance Director Mark Woodfill responded it was an appropriate
use of impact fees to study where future parks were needed due to a
larger population.
Jim Lawrence, 345 High Chaparral Loop—The Open Space Acquisition
Committee wanted to assist in the study as they were a stakeholder.
Councilwoman Suttles asked if open space would have anything to do
with the study and Mr. McCasland replied it was one of the components
and water conservation would also be involved and any recreational user
group.
Mayor Simmons clarified the committee input would not be so much in
their role in acquiring open space but what could be blended into the open
space owned by the city.
C. Award of bid for dry chlorine tablets to Hill Brothers Chemical
Company in the estimated amount of $60,192.00, including
taxes and shipping.
Public Works Director Craig McConnell explained staff was recommending
approval of a three year contract with Hill Brothers Chemical Company of
Phoenix with the provision to extend for two additional one year periods,
for the purchase of dry chlorine tablets in the amount of $60,192.00,
including tax and shipping,to be used for the disinfection of potable water.
Councilman Roecker asked why there were multiple shipments in the odd
amount of 1,320 pounds,and Mr.McConnell replied one pallet held 24 55-
pound pails of tablets and the product could not be stored for any
extended period of time;that 1,700 pounds were used each month.
Prescott City Council Study Session—September 19,2006 Page 7
D. Adoption of Ordinance No. 4555— Annexation of 25.75 acres
located on the North side of Ruger Road adjacent to the
Prescott Airport, owned by Ty Myers, proposed for airport
industrial development(ANX06-002).
Community Development Director Tom Guice explained after adoption of
the ordinance it was anticipated the developers would request a rezoning
from Rural Estate 2 acre minimum to Industrial Light zoning and would
submit a preliminary plat for a commercial subdivision and infrastructure
plans;then Final Plat.
Councilman Bell asked if the access was approved by the Fire
Department and Mr.Guice responded they were okay with it.
Councilwoman Suttles asked about the other property abutting this piece
and Ty Myers, 3605 Crossings Drive, responded the piece to the right was
already in the City limits and was part of the entire purchase.
E. Approval of Special Use Permit for a Telecommunications Site
for Alamosa PCS Wireless,for construction of a Mono Pole,47
feet in height with associated equipment compound, at the
rear of property located at 1052 Willow Creek Road (West of
Goodyear Tire Dealership), zoned Business General (SUP06-
002).
11
Community Development Director Tom Guice explained the request was
for a Special Use Permit to allow a telecommunications site behind the
Goodyear Tire dealership on Willow Creek Road;the site would consist of
a single 47 foot monopole and an equipment compound (25'x15') and
would have minimal visual impact on the residences and businesses and
no comments were received following public notification; a representative
from Alamosa was present if Council had any questions.
Mayor Simmons announced he did not have any financial involvement and
this project would not affect him and therefore he did not have a conflict of
interest.
F. Estrella Hills:
1. Approval of Preliminary Plat for Estrella Hills, a single-family
subdivision containing 10 lots on 13 acres, located in the
area of Green Lane and Meadowridge, zoned SF-35 (SP05-
008)
2. Approval of Water Service Agreement with Chris Browning
for 3.5 acre feet for Estrella Hills subdivision.
Prescott City Council Study Session—September 19,2006 Page 8
Community Development Director Tom Guice explained Estrella Hills was
requesting preliminary plat approval and approval of a water service
agreement and presented the following information:
• the subdivision consisted of 10 lots on 13 acres
• it was located north and west of the intersection of Green Lane and
Meadowridge Road
• access would be off Estrella Road via a public street
• the street would be 28 feet wide, with curb, gutter and sidewalk,
within a 50 foot right-of-way
• the zoning was Single Family-35
• some of the area was on septic and the subdivision would extend
sewer lines.
Councilman Blair said he had lived in that area for 15 years and asked if
the corner was going to be improved; this was a short cut to Granite
Mountain Middle School and asked how far the road was going to be
improved and if traffic control methods were going to be put in on the
downhill slope of the road. Mr. Guice replied the portion of the street that
fronts the subdivision and the streets within the subdivision would be
paved and any traffic mitigation would have to go to the Transportation
Coordinating Committee to review.
itior
Councilman Blair concluded saying once,the road was improved there
would be more traffic and a traffic mitigation plan was needed because
people traveled too fast along there.
Mr. Guice mentioned the Final Plat would come to Council on October 3
and 10 and that could be a condition of approval of the final plat.
Councilman Roecker asked if the one way in and one way out was
approved by the Fire Department and Mr.Guice said it was acceptable.
Councilman Blair asked to have a traffic counter put on the road to identify
the amount of traffic and to have those numbers before the Final Plat
came to Council for approval.
Councilman Luzius remarked some of the lots had been moved down
along the corridor and asked if the improvements on Estrella Road use the
complete right-of-way. Mr. Guice said the road would be a full paving
width of 28 feet with curb and gutter on both sides.
Councilman Luzius asked if the current water allotment went away and a
new allotment given and Mr.Guice said that was correct.
Prescott City Council Study Session—September 19,2006 Page 9
Rick Nelson, 985 Custer Lane, Lot 8, appreciated the road being moved
mrr as it would have been within 15 feet of his patio and asked if the road was
going to be paved to the corner, and Mr. Guice replied it would be paved
the length of the frontage of the property which was not quite to the
corner.
G. Approval of Final Plat of Timber Creek Villas Townhomes,
Phase 2 PAD, 22 lots on 6.94 acres located on Hassayampa
Lane South of its intersection with Thumb Butte Road, zoned
SF-9(FP06-014)
Community Development Director Tom Guice explained the Preliminary
Plat was approved last year for 30 units; Phase 1 included 8 units, and
Phase 2 was 22 units;the project complies with Subdivision Regulations;
there was a buffer landscape plan bordering the residential area; a
Condition of Approval was to secure a utility easement for gravity sewer
line between units 12 and 13 and if not able to get the easement,put in a
sewage lift station in the subdivision and the decision would take place
before the recording of the Final Plat.
Councilman Luzius asked if the east side of the property was a floodplain
or a creek and Mr. Guice said the creek was in a southwest/northeasterly
direction and it was probably a drainage area; soil erosion mitigation
would be required.
Councilman Blair asked who owned the property because the staff report
didn't mention it, and Mr. Guice responded Guy Naus of Naus
Construction was one of the developers. Phil Wiens of Naus Construction
was present.
H. Adoption of Ordinance No. 4556 — Authorizing a Lease
Agreement with WFI for cell site placement in the Parking
Garage on Granite Street.
Administrative Services Director Mic Fenech this item was to consider a
lease agreement with WFI (Sprint Nextel) for a wireless cell site; a
summary of the lease was provided in the staff report. Mr. Fenech
provided the following information:
• Bill Otwell of Otwell and Associates looked at the plans to make
sure the cell site matched the finish of the garage;
• three parking spaces would be utilized so there were now only 500
parking spaces in the parking garage;
• the term of the lease was 5 years with 5 five-year extensions;
• a $10,000 fee would be paid upfront to offset city costs with site
preparation,construction services,and design review by Otwell;
Prescott City Council Study Session—September 19,2006 Page 10
• a location payment fee of$63,000 would be paid upfront to offset
kir► lost revenue of the three parking spaces;
• rent would begin at$21,012.00 per annum and increase annually
by 5%over the term of the lease;
• the total lease payments over 30 years would be$1,396,017.12;
• there would be 4 antennas placed on the exterior of the building,4
on the south side and 4 on the north side of the building.
Mike Gallagher was present from Nextel.
Council congratulated staff on negotiating a good contract and said they
would like to see more unobtrusive cell sites in the city.
Councilman Luzius asked where the money would go and Manager
Norwood replied the annual gees went in to the General Fund and the
$53,000 went into the Garage Fund.
Councilman Luzius added he would like to see some of the money go to
security because there were problems with the theft of fire extinguishers,
people urinating in corners, etc., and Mr. Norwood responded staff was
addressing the vandalism problems.
I. Adoption of Ordinance No. 4557—An ordinance of the Mayor
and Council of the City of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona
adopting new impact fees.
Budget/Finance Director Mark Woodfill explained a study of city service
levels was done in 2005; the Council adopted a Notice of Intent to
increase impact fees on June 13, 2006 and set a public hearing for
August 29; the adoption of an ordinance could take place September 26;
the impact fees being considered were police and fire to maximum
recommended levels and Library, Parks, Recreation, and Public Buildings
to be raised 25%; police would increase from $84 to$589 and fire would
increase from $167 to$525; the recommended increases would raise the
total of the impact fees from the current amount of$2,365 to $3,638, a
54%increase. The Streets impact fee was not recommended for increase
at this time and would wait until the Growth Strategy Plan was completed.
An inflation escalator was proposed based on the change in construction
costs, with the first escalation imposed on January 1, 2007 and each
succeeding January 1.
Mayor Simmons commented Manager Norwood was recommending
increasing just police and fire impact fees and Mr. Norwood added "and
modest increases for the others of 25°/d'and Council had the authority and
discretion to do what they wanted.
Prescott City Council Study Session—September 19,2006 Page 11
Mayor Simmons supported an increase in Police and Fire and leave the
others alone.
Councilman Lamerson said he didn't like impact fees at all and the City
should get rid of them; they were contradictive to the City's ability to do
what necessary; they want new growth to pay for itself but they put
pressure on existing infrastructure and gave as an example, Wal-Mart on
Iron Springs Road, which was new growth but they didn't pay any impact
fees, yet the City was looking at spending$17 to$18 million to fix a piece
of infrastructure (street) that would bring customers; people living out of
the Prescott limits didn't pay impact fees but they still had an impact on
the city.
Councilwoman Suttles remarked the City wanted new growth and impact
fees helped pay for that growth, so the City needed to be careful and not
price themselves out of the market; a 601%increase for police and 214%
increase for fire was high but the City had been behind and police and fire
were very low to begin with.
Councilman Luzius asked if the proposed amounts were justified and
Mr.Woodfill replied they were justified by the report and it was only for
residential growth,not commercial growth.
kir Councilman Luzius advocated going to full maximum on everything for a
total fee of$6,015.
Councilman Blair wanted to increase the Library impact fee 25%increase
police,fire and public building to the maximum amount, and leave parks,
recreation and streets where they currently were.
Mayor Simmons didn't agree with his math and discussion went back and
forth between them.
Councilman Bell asked Economic Development Director Jane Bristol if
interested businesses ask what Prescott's impact fees were and
Ms. Bristol replied yes, along with what sales and property taxes were,
because that was part of their consideration in locating here; Prescott
Valley put a two-year moratorium on business and commercial impact
fees; Prescott had never charged business and commercial impact fees;
fire calls were generated by commercial businesses but residential
customers paid all the impact fees.
Mr.Woodfill clarified half of the fire calls were from businesses but those
costs were not passed on to residential property owners.
\r.
Prescott City Council Study Session—September 19,2006 Page 12
Councilman Lamerson commented the City didn't have a property tax,that
was collected by Yavapai County and asked where the taxes went and
Mr.Woodfill replied the City got a portion, but the county, school district,
college and flood control district received a bigger share of the taxes
collected.
Councilman Lamerson said the impact fee was a one-time fee, but
couldn't be used to upgrade existing infrastructure even though the new
growth impacted and damaged the existing infrastructure, for instance
impact fees could not be used to rebuild Iron Springs Road and asked if
he was correct. Mr. Woodfill acknowledged that was correct but there
could be some justification that new development required a widening of a
roadway, such as Willow Creek Road that was increased from to four or
five lanes and impact fees could be used in proportion to the costs of
adding a lane or two. Mr. Lamerson said he could not support the
increase in impact fees.
Councilman Roecker asked Ms. Bristol what the reaction was when talking
with commercial people when they were told there were no impact fees for
commercial or businesses and Ms.Bristol responded they needed to know
all the costs they were facing, such as buy-in fees, off-site improvement
costs, building permits, etc. and impact fees was just one of the things
they looked at when choosing a community and they asked what the other
kir communities in the area charged as well.
Mr. Woodfill noted for commercial property such as a shopping center,
Chino Valley charged $1,180 per 1,000 square foot; Prescott was
proposing $2,246 per 1,000 square feet; Peoria charged $15,767 per
square foot. The last page of the January 2006 study was a comparison
of other cities and the type of structure.
Speakers:
Howard Mechanic,309 Bloom Place,made the following points:
• Need to cooperate with other cities,not compete.
• Shouldn't give away tax revenues.
• General Plan says growth will pay full cost of growth. If do less,not
following General Plan.
• Two alternatives,cut back on services or put it on sales tax. Fixed
income residents would cover the cost of a fire station caused by
new development.
• A house in Prescott cost $200,000 five years ago and the impact
fees were about 5%. Now the average house was $400,000 and
the impact fees should be increased accordingly.
• Some Councilmembers were supportive of raising impact fees;
kire property and sales tax increases had been brought up in other
Prescott City Council Study Session—September 19,2006 Page 13
meetings and Council needed to decide where the money was
going to come from to keep up with new growth.
Councilman Blair made the point that people who build new houses pay
impact fees, but people moving into already built houses did not pay
impact fees; also, any homes built prior to 1995 did not pay impact fees,
yet any new facilities, such as a new fire station, was for the use of new
residents and existing residents and it couldn't all be focused on new
growth.
Candace McNulty, 221 S. Marina Street, asked if people moved in to an
existing house and others moved out of that house how it didn't balance
out and there wouldn't be an impact; she understood with a new home it
was a new demand on services.
Ethan Edwards, 126 N. Marina Street,presented the following information:
• The city relied heavily on the revenues from transaction privilege
taxes.
• He suggested the city identify growth related items the impact fees
would be used for; prepare a capital growth plan and raise the
impact fees for a specific project, such as a fire station or a police
station.
• The City needed to understand that for everyone that decided not
to build in Prescott, the City was looking at losing $18,000 on a
3,000 sf home (cost of permits, inspection fees, all city fees) and
the transaction privilege taxes on building materials as well.
• Growth did pay for growth through the transaction privilege tax; it
had worked in the past and once the taxes weren't coming in the
city would be in trouble.
It was clarified the State did not allow development impact fees until 1992
when they saw the effects of rapid growth and the impact fees paid for the
facilities, but did not pay for services.
Attorney Kidd added there needed to be a reasonable relationship to a
facility and new development; it had to be a direct benefit to new growth;
the City couldn't go back and charge existing homes impact fees and the
use of the fees was limited.
Mr.Woodfill clarified State law allowed the impact fees to be used in one
of three ways - the capital plan approach; incremental approach or the
buy-in approach.
Additional Council remarks:
%rr
Prescott City Council Study Session—September 19,2006 Page 14
Councilwoman Suttles — over$18,000 by the time all development fees
and permits were issued, including water and sewer and how much was
too much;it was getting harder and harder to build here.
Councilman Lamerson asked why the City didn't get a bigger portion of
property taxes and Mr.Woodfill responded the State limited the amount.
Mayor Simmons asked how shared revenue came about and Mr.Woodfill
replied the State agreed not to implement a State property tax and sales
tax.
Jim Lawrence,345 High Chaparral Loop—
• Impact fees could build a facility but did not cover any operating or
maintenance costs,so personnel,vehicles,etc.were in addition.
• Decide if existing residents pay, or new growth. New buildings
were needed to handle the additional growth. If the City was going
to provide services,they must decide who was going to pay for it.
Councilman Roecker asked Chamber of Commerce CEO David Maurer
what the Chambers position was regarding increasing impact fees.
Mr. Maurer responded they supported police and fire at the proposed
increases without the escalator and they opposed commercial impact fees
as well as any other increases at this time.
Mayor Simmons proposed police and fire impact fees be changed to the
recommended levels and let the rest of the fees wait.
Councilman Bell asked how long before the issue came back to Council
and Mr. Woodfill responded the Parks Master Plan and Growth Strategy
Plan were part of this year's budget and impact fees for Parks, Recreation,
Library and Streets would come back in a couple years to include projects
from those specific plans.
Councilman Lamerson asked if police cars and fire trucks were included
and Mr.Woodfill replied impact fees could be used to buy a fire truck for a
new fire station, but could not pay to replace a truck.
Ethan Edwards remarked he was against impact fees, feeling the
transaction privilege tax took care of that; but he realized there was a gap
and he realized emergency services were necessary and would not
oppose police and fire impact fee increases.
Attorney Kidd said he would draft two ordinances for next week, one
proposed with only police and fire impact fees, and the other with
Prescott City Council Study Session—September 19,2006 Page 15
recommended increases for Police and Fire and 25% for Library, Parks,
41w Recreation,and Public Buildings.
Councilman Blair inquired about the option of having a user fee,for those
people from outside the City limits who used City facilities, such as the
library; maybe there should be a fee to use that facility and everyone
would have a card that identified them as a city resident or a county
resident.
J. Notice of Public Hearing (September 26) of a liquor license
application from John Stephen Protesto, agent for Spencer
Stephens, LLC, for the person transfer of a Series 6, Bar,
license for Scrappy's Sidestreet Bar and Grill located at 1011
Commerce Drive,Suite A and B.
Clerk Elizabeth Burke reported the Public Hearing would be held next
week, September 26,for the person transfer of a Series 6 Bar license for
Scrappy's Sidestreet Bar and Grill. Property was posted and received no
comment.
K. Adoption of Resolution No. 3778 - A resolution of the Mayor
and Council of the City of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona,
in support of the application of equal standards for water
kin' quality including arsenic standards to exempt wells and
revised criteria pertaining to exempt wells in the Prescott AMA
accordingly.
Attorney Gary Kidd explained this was a proposed ordinance regarding
exempt wells and if adopted the resolution would be sent to the Arizona
Department of Water Resources, state legislative representatives, and to
Congressional representatives to urge them to consider adopting water
policies pertaining to exempt wells, as well as rules revisions and
legislation designed to assist municipal water providers.
Councilman Lamerson hoped this would open a dialog with the Legislature
and he supported the resolution as water providers and exempt well
owners were treated as different classes of people.
Councilwoman Suttles remarked this was only the tip of the iceberg and it
needed to be discussed in length; it was a difficult issue to deal with and
the City of Prescott was heavily impacted by the current rules.
Speakers-
John Zambrano, 2910 Crestview Drive, said that the resolution would
apply to all water users and would be a large regulatory burden on the
`r. State and would never happen;exempt well owners were not getting away
Prescott City Council Study Session—September 19,2006 Page 16
with anything if their water wasn't up to standards; but the Environmental
Protection Agency wasn't going to change the water quality standards.
Councilman Lamerson maintained the resolution would not be a futile
effort; the State allowed property owners to drill an exempt well because
the charge of the hookup to the City of Prescott water supply was more
than the cost of drilling a well and yet the City was under a mandate to
reach safe yield and that was a conflict in policies that he wanted to have
addressed.
Dar Rosito, 2155 Chickadee Creek, Mullen Way area—Appreciated the
opportunity to comment; was not in favor of going in this direction;he was
willing to pay to have water and sewer and that was the reason they
annexed into the city; but it was disgraceful how they were treated; cost
estimates kept changing, going higher and higher and there was a real
lack of performance on the city's part. He said they were deceived on the
project and now the Council had the potential of cutting him off from the
only water he had; he didn't need the government to tell him what was
right; he would end up having to haul in water and the city didn't have the
right to deprive him of the use of his well. He asked if that wouldn't be a
taking of his property.
Councilman Lamerson asked Attorney Kidd if this resolution applied to
kW' existing wells and Mr. Kidd replied no,it was the proliferation of new wells.
Mr. Rosito asked if the resolution stated that existing wells would be
exempt and that it applied only to new wells and Attorney Kidd read a
portion of the proposed Resolution No.3778:
"Whereas, the exemption of such wells from water quality standards poses
an unfair and unequal treatment among classes of users and if the EPA
regulations are intended for public safety due to perceived health risks,
allows these risks to be assumed by persons creating exempt wells in the
Prescott AMA."
Mr. Rosito apologized because he did not have the complete resolution,
only the title that was on the agenda.
Yvonne Dorman, 1335 Mullen Way—she didn't have the attitude that she
had hers and didn't care what happened to other people and she felt the
same way Mr. Rosito did; it didn't seem right for Big Brother to come into
her house. She asked what would happen if her well didn't meet the
standards or stopped producing enough water—where she would get
water. She asked what would happen if the well began to produce
enough water again or if she had to drill another well because hers gave
out—if she would have to follow the new rules.
Prescott City Council Study Session—September 19,2006 Page 17
klihro It was clarified if she had to drill another well she could do it because there
wouldn't be any more water used than before.
Ms. Dorman asked how the public could get the reports and papers from
the packet they needed to look at when there was an item of interest, how
it was put on the agenda and why it didn't have a name with it on who
created it. Mayor Simmons explained most agenda items were staff
driven and the staff got together to discuss the items to be placed on the
agenda; then the manager, clerk, attorney and Mayor got together to
review the items and the agenda was put together, copied and distributed.
He said that a copy of the packet was available in the lobby several days
before the meeting for the public.
Councilman Lamerson made the following points:
• policies of the State were conflicting;
• current standards for arsenic and other water quality standards
which apply to municipalities do not apply to exempt wells;
• the City had to pay for arsenic removal but exempt well owners
didn't;
• the AMA had to reach safe yield but exempt well owners could
pump as much water as they wanted to;
• there was no accountability of safe yield or any arsenic
responsibility;
• exempt wells in the AMA increased by 30%;
• ADWR qualified one of their decisions that due to high impact fees
and the cost of hooking into the city water lines, a resident could
drill an exempt well instead.
Councilman Lamerson wanted the proliferation of exempt wells stopped
and wanted to see the State change the law in allowing residents to drill
an exempt well instead of tying into the city system; ADWR needed to
clarify their policies regarding exempt well owners and assured water
providers and municipalities; the City was trying to reach safe yield and
treat arsenic and the State policies did not support that.
Ms. Tucker said that a new law went into effect on January 1 that
prohibited exempt wells from being drilled within 100 feet of a water
provider's system, unless it cost more to hook up to the water provider's
system, so it doesn't help in their AMA because the City's impact fees
make it more costly to hook up to the system rather than drill their own
well.
Howard Mechanic, 309 Bloom Place — He said that Ms. Dorman asked
where she could get the full resolution and he noted that there was a book
Prescott City Council Study Session—September 19,2006 Page 18
in the hallway that contained all the staff reports and copies of the
krrr ordinances and resolutions, or she could get them from the City Clerk. He
appreciated the City working toward safe yield and agreed exempt wells
were a large part of the problem; he suggested getting all the cities and
towns in the AMA together and come up with a solution and work on it, not
to do it separately; everyone needed to share the responsibility of
reaching safe yield in the AMA and a fee could be paid to cover pumping
of exempt wells;this proposal misdirected the lack of progress in reaching
safe yield and didn't have a chance of being passed by the EPA,State or
County; it wasn't a serious proposal. He said that Mayor Simmons was on
the Safe Yield Subcommittee of the Upper Verde group and they had
looked at ways to deal with the safe yield problem and this wasn't one of
them; they couldn't apply the same standards required of water providers
to exempt well owners;a report from the Subcommittee would come out at
the end of the year and should be supported.
Mr. Mechanic remarked he didn't understand asking for credits and
Mr. Kidd responded that applied to Item L, and explained the number of
exempt wells in the Prescott AMA increased 30%between 1990 and 2005
and these wells were drawing water from the aquifer, the City was
supposed to bring the AMA back into safe yield, but there was no control
over how much water was pumped from the wells or the number of wells
allowed to be drilled in the AMA; the resolution proposed the concept of
establishing a fee for future exempt wells to be used to offset the
1160 anticipated draft on the aquifer from such wells, and a credit to municipal
water providers to account for the effect of these wells on the aquifer.
Mr. Mechanic asked what the credits were supposed to cover and it
seemed to be confusing the issue and there shouldn't be a credit given to
the city because someone drilled an exempt well; he proposed that they
come up with one solution and have everyone agree on it and sent it to
the Legislature. Attorney Kidd clarified the credit would go into the safe
yield calculation and could be part of the recharge.
Bernard J. Sheridan, 1355 Wickwood Lane—he had a 447 foot well and
pumped 6 gallons per minute, was checked each year and it met and
exceeded city standards and he asked if this resolution would affect his
well tomorrow and Mr. Kidd replied"no".
Candace McNulty,221 S. Marina Street—she was puzzled about the safe
yield credits and asked if they were money or water credits, and if the
AMA was required to devote water to safe yield if the city was looking to
subtract something because exempt wells were taking water that was
unaccountable. Attorney Kidd explained it was a policy issue and it could
be money or water credits.
Prescott City Council Study Session—September 19,2006 Page 19
Councilman Luzius said the City was their own worst enemy;they allowed
kir water to be used for dust abatement on construction projects and used 71
million gallons this year, just to put on the ground for compaction; safe
yield would never happen if they continued to allow water to be used and
first they had to look at their own practices.
Councilwoman Suttles asked Jim Holt, Water Ranch Project Manager,
who previously worked for ADWR, what he thought about the resolution
and whether it would be beneficial to the City. Mr. Holt,after giving a brief
history of the situation in the Prescott AMA, indicated that although he
didn't know what impact it would have, he believed that sharing their
concerns and frustration would be extremely valuable.
Councilman Roecker commended Councilman Lamerson for bringing the
issue up and if arsenic was a problem it should apply at the exempt well
level also and he supported both issues.
Dar Risoto commented the Resolution should clarify the subject was new
or future exempt wells.
L. Adoption of Resolution No. 3779 - A resolution of the Mayor
and Council of the City of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona,
in support of the application of revised criteria pertaining to
exempt wells in the Prescott AMA and regulating the
proliferation of exempt wells in the AMA area.
M. Adoption of Resolution No. 3780 - 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 State of Arizona,
Division of Emergency Management(ADEM)and Pima County
in order for the City of Prescott to be eligible to receive pass-
through grant funds from the United State Department of
Homeland Security.
Police Chief Randy Oaks explained Council approved on September 12
the completion of the application process to the Arizona Office of
Homeland Security to propose funding for three project—1)$94,500 for a
multi-agency tactical radio system;2) $7,323 for emergency management
satellite telephones; and, 3)$42,143 for radio frequency consolidation; an
Intergovernmental Agreement with the State of Arizona, Division of
Emergency Management and Pima County was required as part of the
process; Pima County was designated as the recipient of grant funds
within the State of Arizona and would be a pass-through agency;the grant
was in the amount of$143,966; and the City would agree to comply with
all the 2006 Homeland Security Grant Program guidelines.
Prescott City Council Study Session—September 19,2006 Page 20
r N. Adoption of Ordinance No. 4558 -An ordinance of the Mayor
and Council of the City of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona,
authorizing the purchase of easements and right-of-way from
the Prescott Unified School District for the Ruth Street
Improvement Project and authorizing the Mayor and staff to
execute any and all documents to effectuate said purchase.
Engineering Services Director Nietupski explained as part of the
reconstruction of Ruth Street improvements at the intersection of
Whetstine Avenue, Ruth Street and Demerse Avenue acquisition was
required of two triangular parcels of property for public right-of-way from
the Prescott Unified School District; the Agreement for Sale provided
compensation in the amount of $7,910.00 and limited drainage, paving,
driveway, and fencing improvements to accommodate school bus access
from Whetstine Avenue to the high school; the School District approved
the sale of the parcels at their meeting of August 22;the funding was from
the 1-cent sale tax.
O. Adoption of Ordinance No. 4559 - An ordinance of the Mayor
and Council of the City of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona,
disclaiming any title interest in real property known as Yavapai
County Parcel No. 109-08-088 and authorizing the Mayor and
staff to execute all necessary documents to disclaim such
interest.
Attorney Gary Kidd explained Frank Castro filed action on a lot next to his
lot;the County and City were listed on the title report as having a possible
interest;by disclaiming that interest the City could stay out of the lawsuit.
P. Adoption of Ordinance No. 4560—An ordinance of the Mayor
and Council of the City of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona,
authorizing the sale of property located northeast of Lot 2 in
the Golf Links Subdivision.
Golf Manager Paul Parker explained the property was adjacent to Lot 2
and next to the cart path and was between a fence and the path; one
proposal was submitted by the property owner of Lot 2,Andrew Ozols, in
the amount of$2,500.00; the fence would be moved to the edge of the
concrete cart path and would have a wall on each side.
Councilman Blair asked why this was being sold, and Mr. Parker said it
would eliminate the maintenance of the property;there was no irrigation in
the area and was a challenge to maintain and staff would no longer have
to clean up the area.
err
Prescott City Council Study Session—September 19,2006 Page 21
Q. Approval of reimbursement to Prescott Chamber of Commerce
for Christmas lighting in the amount of$30,000.00.
Economic Development Director Jane Bristol explained the Chamber of
Commerce was working with the Prescott Downtown Partnership to
enhance the Christmas Courthouse lighting display;the City had budgeted
$30,000.00 from Bed Tax funds toward this project and the money was
needed in advance.
David Maurer, CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, added work began
today on putting up the lights in the trees around the Courthouse,and they
were hoping to double the number of trees to be lit and hoped to light at
least 25 trees.
R. Approval of Minutes of the Prescott City Council Regular
Voting Meeting of September 12,2006.
S. Selection of items to be placed on the Consent Agenda for the
Regular Voting Meeting of September 26,2006.
Items.C,D,E,F,G,H,M,N,0,P,Q,and(R).
Ill. ADJOURNMENT
tlier There being no further business to come before the Prescott City Council, Mayor
Simmons ADJOURNED the meeting at 6:15 P.M.
ROWLE P.SIMMONS,Mayor
ATTEST:
ABET . BURKE,Ci Clerk