Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization (FMPO) Manager Dave Wessel addressed Council introducing NAIPTA General Manager Jeff Meilbeck who provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

BLUEPRINT 2040
MISSION
POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES
FMPO RTP PROJECT BUNDLE
NEXT STEPS

Mr. Wessel continued the presentation.

GENERAL POLICY DIRECTION - HIGH LEVEL
GENERAL POLICY DIRECTION – DELIVERY
PEOPLE MATTER
GENERAL POLICY DIRECTION – DESIGN
PLAN OVERVIEW
FULL SYSTEM PLANS & PERFORMANCE
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: ACTIVITIES
SCHEDULE
QUESTIONS?

Mayor Nabours stated that he would like to understand more of the in depth discussion that was done to determine the priority of the projects. Mr. Wessel explained that the committee did start with $1.7 billion in projects and began with a raw vote on each. Many of the committee members identified that Milton was a critical component and used that as a starting point. This began with ideas to resolve Milton traffic; one of the projects is the completion of Lonetree as an alternate route and part of that was the connection of John Wesley Powell from Lake Mary Rd to I-17. This would give an alternative route to I-17 during winter activity and also during construction. As far as Milton is concerned for improvements, there is widening of the bridge and other multi-modal improvements such as the bus rapid transit route. Staff is currently wrapping up an operational analysis that will hopefully have a series of projects to evaluate. The Lonetree traffic interchange has become a very expensive project and the cost was more then what the steering committee wanted to take on.

There is a lot more work still to be done. There is work being done on housing affordability and this is critical for the future of the housing stock which is a factor for the priorities. Additionally, future development will impact traffic on west Route 66. These are all things that were taken into consideration when establishing the priorities.

Councilmember Oravits thanked the steering committee and stated that he would like to explore the connection of John Wesley Powel from south Fourth Street further. He feels that it would give another traffic route to open that area up for housing opportunities. He is also interested in discussing the eventual connection over Cedar and Forest to Highway 180. Understanding that many of these roadways are ADOT controlled, he would like to have discussions with ADOT about route transfers.

Councilmember Evans thanked the committee for their work. She stated that she has been involved with the FMPO for the last eight years and what she has seen is that many of the projects recommended have not had the support of the voters. She would like to better understand the rationale behind why segments of the outer loop with Fourth Street, John Wesley Powell, and Highway 180 were not discussed. She hopes that the community conversations will include a broader discussion about projects on and off the list.

Mayor Nabours asked about the committee’s recommendation for the Fourth Street corridor north of Route 66; there has been concern from property owners in the area. Mr. Wessel stated that the project is a complete street project to bring in parkways, sidewalks, aesthetic crossings and general improvements for multi-modal transportation but no roadway changes.

Councilmember Putzova asked Mr. Wessel to point out the projects that are expected to facilitate future development if they are put in place. Mr. Wessel explained that in looking at the Regional Plan there are redevelopment areas and new growth areas. Fourth Street is anticipated for future growth so improvements there will assist in future development. Looking at what is happening in Southside one can anticipate that type of investment. In terms of access to properties on south Fourth Street, the bridge is a choke point and the Council has determined it would be a project that the public would carry and would support growth in that area. Without a connection to the interstate most of that traffic will end up on existing Lonetree; there are capacity challenges to that with the two lane sections that are there now. With the development in and around Woody Mountain that area would be supportive of future growth. These areas also tend to be congested and are supportive of congestion relief and management on Milton road.

Councilmember Overton stated that he is encouraged by the success of the committee and the path forward to a broader discussion. He feels that there needs to be a way to look at existing land use, projected land use and the Regional Plan land use projections and fold them into a direction for the City’s capital plan. It is important for the community and stakeholders to know that there have been discussions all along the way. Mr. Wessel agreed stating that those kinds of dialogues are critical to the success of the plan. Many conversations were focused around how to leverage existing funds to make them go further.

Michael Naiteh addressed Council in support of the FMPO plan. He urged the Council to look further at a connection to John Wesley Powell.

Dorothy Rissel addressed Council with concerns about some of the improvements suggested for her neighborhood and the resulting increase in traffic.

Councilmember Evans stated that it will be important to weigh the quality of life impacts to the communities as the vetting process goes further. Mr. Meilbeck stated that the committee was pushed to create a map to get the issues on the table for discussion. There are so many questions that are being raised and there is opportunity to further refine and develop them. The process is not complete, hopefully as the discussions continue the details can be worked out in a year or two.

Councilmember Putzova asked for additional information on the funding options. Mr. Wessel stated that a sales tax is the most viable option available to the region. Currently it would take an act of the State legislature and possibly voters to increase the HURF dollars and property tax has its limitations on how much it can be raised at one time.

Mr. Copley stated that there have been a lot of questions raised tonight. Staff will be coming back in the fall seeking Council input and direction. He would like to get Council’s involvement in the scoping so expectations can be communicated and achieved. This is a work in progress and he applauds the work of the committee thus far. The plan will change over time; this is a very purposeful process and there will be a lot of opportunity to provide and receive input.

A break was held from 7:26 p.m. through 7:36 p.m.

Mayor Nabours took agenda item 9 next.

Item 8 was taken after Item 9.

Assistant to the City Manager Stephanie Smith provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

2016 CITY BALLOT INITIATIVES
CITY TRANSIT TAX

Councilmember Putzova asked what the amount expected to be raised through the tax levy is and why that is not included in the text. Ms. Smith stated that the publicity pamphlet discusses what the tax generally could generate over the term of the tax but it is dependent on the annual sales of the community. Councilmember Putzova asked if there is a reason not to include the projected amount in the ballot question. Mr. Solomon stated that he will check into any legal requirement and report back to Council.

Mayor Nabours asked if there is a maximum amount that can be collected. Ms. Smith stated that there is no maximum and the amount collected is dependent on the economy of the community. He asked if providing a cap per year would make the tax more sellable to the voters. Councilmember Overton stated that NAIPTA has a very similar budgeting process as the City and every dollar generated by the sales tax would be utilized for transit services through leveraging those dollars for the maximum possible benefit. He indicated that capping the revenue would reduce the opportunity NAIPTA may have to leverage.

Councilmember Putzova stated that it would provide more clarity to the public to articulate the magnitude of the funds the City is intending to raise to support the system. She feels that it adds to transparency for the community and it should be clear in the ballot language what the voters are voting for or against. Vice Mayor Barotz added that when the City goes out for bonds the voters know how much the City is trying to raise but not for sales tax increases. She would like to know if there is something in the law that indicates what can be said in ballot questions regarding sales tax.

Ms. Smith continued the presentation.

COURTHOUSE BOND PROJECT

Vice Mayor Barotz asked if the tax is temporary if the City keeps replacing old debt with new debt. Ms. Smith explained that it is still temporary, the financial impact statement mentioned that there is no change to the existing rates and that is due to the anticipated debt that will be retired in the future. If this bond failed at the polls then the rates could potentially decrease, but since this is within the capacity to be retired in the future the rate would not change.

Ms. Smith continued the presentation.

TIMELINE

Councilmember Evans asked if the Council has the opportunity to view the publicity pamphlet before it is printed. Ms. Smith stated that once the Council calls the questions, staff begins to prepare the pamphlet and the education strategy. That happens over the summer and in the fall leading up to the election it is presented to the public. The publicity pamphlet will be finalized over the summer.

PROJECT FUNDING

Mayor Nabours stated that the sale of the existing courthouse is on the list, he asked how that is being communicated to the public. Ms. Smith explained that it would be done through the publicity pamphlet as well as the educational outreach process. Mayor Nabours expressed concern with getting into the same situation as the public works yard; if it comes time to sell the court house and the public says no they want something else done with it the City has represented to the voters that it will sell but then does not. He asked if the sale should be included as part of the ballot issue so the public gives consent to sell the property. Mr. Copley explained that the staff recommendation is to sell the existing courthouse; it has significant issues to keep it habitable. Anything can happen in the next few years and this Council or a future Council can make a different decision. Mayor Nabours asked if there is a reason that is not part of the ballot question or if it is something that is up to the Council to decide. Mr. Solomon explained that it is up to the Council to decide if it should be included in the question or not.

Councilmember Evans asked if the old courthouse property includes the parking lot. Additionally, she would like to know why the sales price of the property is being capped at $2 million; she would like to know if there can be any deviation from that and if so it should be clarified in the publicity pamphlet. Court Administrator Don Jacobson explained that the question is crafted in a way to lend to flexibility for the Council to utilize the funds as they see fit for the project. Staff has set an amount specific to the cost of the project, additional funds beyond that $2 million could be used for the project or something else; it would be up to the Council to decide. Councilmember Evans asked if the information should even be included since there appears to be so many unknowns. Mr. Jacobson stated that it is important to communicate to the public that the City is looking to utilize $2 million from the sale of the old courthouse for the project in order to present a full and complete budget to the public.

Vice Mayor Barotz left the meeting at 10:15 p.m.

Councilmember Putzova asked if the Council can defer to the voters the sale of real property. Mr. Solomon stated that the City Charter gives the Council the ability to sell property without having to go to the voters. If the Council deferred to the voters the concern would be that it would set a precedent and it would require it from there on. s plan is to sell the courthouse and staff would not be unclear about that. Things may change but that is not how the discussion will be framed with the public.

Ms. Smith stated that once the questions are called by Council, staff will prepare the publicity pamphlets and develop the outreach messaging. That messaging and outreach plan will be presented to Council in August for input.

Historic Preservation Officer Karl Eberhard provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDIES
CASE STUDY – SOLBERG COTTAGES
CASE STUDY – MIDGLEY BUILDING

Mayor Nabours asked how much it would cost a property owner to go through the whole process of a Phase 2 Cultural Resource Study. Mr. Eberhard stated that the total cost is typically less than $5,000 based on information from various consultants. He added that that pricing is consistent with the pricing of the studies that he has ordered for City projects.

Councilmember Overton asked if the process would be the same for a different community with similar regulations. Mr. Eberhard indicated that it depends on what is specifically being looked at; for example, the City of Scottsdale does cultural resource studies for archeological projects but they do not do them for historic projects. Tucson does preservation planning as a required part of their development. It is not that any city in Arizona does exactly what Flagstaff does and Flagstaff is probably more comprehensive than most cities. Councilmember Overton asked if there are state regulations if a city does not have an ordinance. Mr. Eberhard stated that there is no state regulation that would address private development; if an applicant is trying to maintain their national register of historic places status they would work with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and would develop a preservation plan. Where there is more formality is in a Section 106 review that Flagstaff does.

Vice Mayor Barotz asked if there is any sort of compilation of the various rules statewide that would allow a comparison of similar communities. Mr. Eberhard explained that SHPO was not able to attend the meeting to address those types of questions. He stated that when Flagstaff wrote the ordinance SHPO sent staff the ordinance that many of the other cities throughout the state adopted. Vice Mayor Barotz added that her concern is that there is a label of Flagstaff being the worst or Flagstaff is the hardest to deal with and without the data to compare, it is unfair to make that assumption.

Mayor Nabours stated that the definitions for the terms on the flow chart are somewhat vague. Mr. Eberhard explained that the definitions are pulled from the definitions in the zoning ordinance and the definitions are also well established within the historic preservation community.

Mr. Eberhard continued the presentation.

INTEGRITY
IMPACTS – STANDARD FOR REHABILITATION

Councilmember Evans stated that one of the things the Council has heard is that the Historic Preservation reports are not available; she would like to understand why that is. Mr. Eberhard stated that the reports are available and are provided to people regularly. The reports are on file at City Hall and some of the reports are available at the Kline Library.

Mayor Nabours asked about item two on the Standards for Rehabilitation and if that comes down to the owner’s option. Mr. Eberhard stated that it is up to the property owner and that the historic character will be preserved if the standards are followed. The standards are not required; the applicant has a choice, they can chose to follow these standards avoid cultural resource studies and preserve the building, or they can chose to demolish the building. If the applicant wants to have a determination of no impact they would need to follow these guidelines to do so.

Mayor Nabours asked what the benefit to the property owner would be with a determination of no impact. Mr. Eberhard explained that to historic property owners the advantage is that of a property tax credit. With the historic preservation tax credit a property owner must maintain the national register standard. These are one of the four sets of guidelines that can be used to maintain the register status.

Mayor Nabours asked if a property owner who has an old building and they decide not to preserve it could take a bunch of pictures of the building as the historical record. Mr. Eberhard stated that the process requires the property owner to do the significance and integrity assessments; pictures are a piece of that but they will also need floor plan and site plan drawings. He added that this standard of documentation is exactly what the State would require prior to the demolition of a historic building.

At this time the Council engaged in a dialogue with the following individuals:

• John Conley
• Patty Luttrell
• Jonathan Day
• David Zimmerman
• Dawn Tucker
• Josh Edwards
• Duffie Westheimer
• Phil Scandura
• Bill Ring
• Tory Syracuse
• Debra Block
• Jim McCarthy

The following comments were made:
 

• There are no means under the current code to make financial decisions as to the cost of the process.
• There are at least three clients who have spent in excess of $15,000.
• The way the code is written it will be $500 minimum for a letter report. If it goes beyond a letter report it is $5,000 for a Phase 1 and $5,000 for a Phase 2.
• The cost to demolish is no more than $4,000 but I am looking at potentially $12,000 to $13,000 for the cultural resource studies.
• There are interpretive values involved and with a board that is constantly changing the values change with it. It leaves a moving target that is hard to plan for financially.
• Because there was historical significance found in my building the reports take time to complete; I am now eight months behind on a very simple project.
• Most professionals suggest going all in and do both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports because of the uncertainty. You can certainly just go with the letter report at $500 but if it is not accepted there is more money and time involved.
• Suggestion would be to make the property owner responsible for a letter report; if the letter is found to be not appropriate or insufficient then there is some compensation made by the City for the Phase 1 or Phase 2 reports.
• The reports are no different than a traffic report, there are differences of opinion and subjectivity; the Board is charged with expertise and citizen input.
• It is important to make sure that the Heritage Preservation Officer and the Historic Preservation Commission are following the City code.
• If an applicant does not agree with the ruling of the Heritage Preservation Commission they can appeal to the City Council.
• People do not come to Flagstaff to spend time in the shopping mall, they stay because they enjoy the historical destination. The ordinance ensures we preserve that historical feel and attraction.
• A lot of opportunity has occurred through the Heritage Preservation process; it has allowed other people to purchase these historical buildings and restore them.
• The policy ideas advanced in Flagstaff are referred to in other communities and is a model within the state.
• The success seen in Flagstaff is because there is a strong ordinance that has people take stewardship in their property.
• Development projects take time and money; fees and frustrations are a small price to pay to preserve the history of the community.
• The regulations are in place to protect Flagstaff’s historic buildings and allow for exceptions to ease hardship on property owners.
• Historic preservation is no more or less clear than any other aspect of the Development Code.
• Because of preservation efforts we were able to receive funding from the Flagstaff Heritage Preservation Commission for exterior work on their house and receive significant tax breaks for various improvements made through SHPO. Anyone who preserves a home or building has these benefits available to them.
• There are no restrictions on a property owner to do as they will with their property; the code only requires that buildings be assessed before changes are made to the property.
• Flagstaff will be void of these non-renewable resources if changes are made to the ordinance.
• The building and the scope of work necessitate the need for a letter report, Phase 1 report, or Phase 2 report.
• All Flagstaff business and residents benefit from heritage preservation of Flagstaff. Do what is best for posterity.
• Cultural resource studies help applicants through the process and give property owners buy in and information on how to proceed with their properties.
• The code is modeled after Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
• It is important to record things before they are gone forever. The information from these studies can be preserved for future historians and the people.
• Flagstaff has a program that is lauded in Arizona; it is a good program.
• Only 1.5% of all applicants have to do a Phase 2 report.
• Urge Council to keep the ordinance as it stands.
• The Heritage Preservation ordinance encourages Flagstaff to improve historical areas and it brings tourists who want to see historic Flagstaff.
• Buying a historic property is a choice.
• Yes, Heritage Preservation Commission members change and the character changes too but that can be applied to the City Council as well. Things change.
• To preserve is rewarding.
• It is an education process to inform people of what they have.
• A Phase 2 report is only needed if the building is being torn down; Flagstaff wants to preserve the building’s history for the future.
• There is no decision that staff can make that does not get scrutinized by the Commission; if there are issues they are discussed.
• The traveling public spends $38 million on Route 66.
• The Regional Plan states that place matters.
• Flagstaff wants to preserve the character of the community and that character is retained in its structures.
• After discussing the history of my home I decided to repair the building. I was able to get grant funding from the Heritage Preservation Commission to preserve the windows in the building. The property has appreciated in value due to it being preserved.
• Friends of Flagstaff’s Future supports historic preservation in Flagstaff and would be opposed to any changes in the ordinance or commission.
• The decision on the Mogollon public works yard was influenced by the historical aspects of the property.
• The historical nature of Flagstaff attracts the tourists that Flagstaff’s economy depends on.
• The City needs to be mindful of its history.
• The community respects heritage preservation and the question is if changes are needed to the ordinance to make it work better; send it to the Heritage Preservation Commission for them to review and provide recommendations.

Written comment cards related to the discussion were submitted by the following individuals:

• Lynne Corbin
• Charlie Silver
• Jamie Whelan

Mayor Nabours asked how a person who wants to demolish a building knows they have to go through the Historic Preservation process and how someone determines if they fit into one of the exceptions. Mr. Eberhard explained that if a historic building is being demolished none of the exceptions will apply and most of the time the determinations are made during the IDS process and is part of the normal development review.

Mayor Nabours stated that there is no action being taken tonight. He indicated that the intent is to not make a new rule to demolish whatever someone wants nor is it to make a rule to preserve everything historical. He questions if the process can be made any better or smoother and still maintain the goal.

Councilmember Oravits stated that he brought the issue forward because he had heard community concern. He stated that it is not his intent to get rid of the ordinance but the discussion has been a good process to learn more.

Councilmember Evans indicated that she appreciated the overview and review of the Heritage Preservation Commission and the ordinance that is in place. She stated that there have been 400 of these cases and less than 1% have had issues. She does not feel that there is an issue or that the item needs to be brought back for further consideration.

Councilmember Evans stated that she would like to see Flagstaff do a proclamation for the Nation of Patriots event.

Councilmember Putzova stated that she is usually the one to complain about staff reports and wanted to express that Mr. Eberhard's report was excellent and very succinct.