CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2015 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 211 WEST ASPEN 4:00 P.M. AND 6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
|
|||||||
1. | CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Nabours called the Regular Meeting of October 20, 2015, to order at 4:00 p.m. NOTICE OF OPTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the City Council and to the general public that, at this regular meeting, the City Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for legal advice and discussion with the City’s attorneys for legal advice on any item listed on the following agenda, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3).
|
||||||||||
2. | ROLL CALL
|
||||||||||
3. |
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MISSION STATEMENT
The audience and City Council recited the Pledge of Allegiance and Mayor Nabours read the Mission Statement of the City of Flagstaff.
MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the City of Flagstaff is to protect and enhance the quality of life of its citizens. |
||||||||||
4. | APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS | ||||||||||
A. | Consideration and Approval of Minutes: City Council Combined Special Meeting/Work Session of September 8, 2015, and Regular Meeting of October 6, 2015. | ||||||||||
Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Councilmember Scott Overton to approve the minutes of the City Council Combined Special Meeting/Work Session of September 8, 2015, and Regular Meeting of October 6, 2015. | |||||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously | |||||||||||
5. | PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Public Participation enables the public to address the Council about an item that is not on the agenda. Comments relating to items that are on the agenda will be taken at the time that the item is discussed. If you wish to address the Council at tonight's meeting, please complete a comment card and submit it to the recording clerk as soon as possible. Your name will be called when it is your turn to speak. You may address the Council up to three times throughout the meeting, including comments made during Public Participation. Please limit your remarks to three minutes per item to allow everyone an opportunity to speak. At the discretion of the Chair, ten or more persons present at the meeting and wishing to speak may appoint a representative who may have no more than fifteen minutes to speak. |
||||||||||
Steve Young, Flagstaff, voiced concerns with the Police Department and asked that the camping ordinance be revised or thrown out. | |||||||||||
6. | PROCLAMATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS |
||||||||||
7. | APPOINTMENTS Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the City Council and to the general public that the City Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for the purpose of discussing or considering employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, demotion, dismissal, salaries, disciplining or resignation of a public officer, appointee, or employee of any public body...., pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(1). |
||||||||||
A. | Consideration of Appointments: Parks and Recreation Commission. | ||||||||||
Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to appoint Jennifer Grogan to the Parks and Recreation Commission, with a term to expire August 2018. | |||||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously | |||||||||||
B. | Consideration of Appointments: Sustainability Commission. | ||||||||||
Moved by Councilmember Eva Putzova, seconded by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz to appoint Amelia Blake to the Sustainability Commission, term to expire October 2016. | |||||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously | |||||||||||
Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to reappoint Elisha Dorfsmith to the Sustainability Commission, term to expire October 2018. | |||||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously | |||||||||||
Moved by Councilmember Coral Evans, seconded by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz to appoint Dara Marks-Marino to the Sustainability Commission, term to expire October 2018. | |||||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously | |||||||||||
C. | Consideration of Appointments: Heritage Preservation Commission. | ||||||||||
Moved by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz, seconded by Councilmember Scott Overton to appoint Kurt Brydenthal to the Heritage Preservation Commission, term to expire December 2017. | |||||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously | |||||||||||
D. | Consideration of Appointments: Airport Commission. | ||||||||||
Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Mayor Jerry Nabours to reappoint Jeff Wheless to the Airport Commission, term to expire October 2018. | |||||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously | |||||||||||
Moved by Councilmember Eva Putzova, seconded by Mayor Jerry Nabours to appoint Beth Applebee to the Airport Commission, term to expire October 2018. | |||||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously | |||||||||||
E. | Consideration of Appointments: Beautification and Public Art Commission. | ||||||||||
Moved by Councilmember Coral Evans, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to appoint Dan Clark to the Beautification and Public Art Commission, term to expire June 2018. | |||||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously | |||||||||||
F. | Consideration of Appointments: Commission on Diversity Awareness. | ||||||||||
Moved by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to appoint Marian Bitsui to the Commission on Diversity Awareness, term to expire September 2018. | |||||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously | |||||||||||
Moved by Councilmember Karla Brewster, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to appoint Rob Knox to the Commission on Diversity Awareness, term to expire September 2016. | |||||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously | |||||||||||
Moved by Councilmember Coral Evans, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to appoint Deborah Shepard to the Commission on Diversity Awareness, term to expire September 2018. | |||||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously | |||||||||||
Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz to appoint Robert Duke to the Commission on Diversity Awareness, term to expire September 2016. | |||||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously | |||||||||||
Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Mayor Jerry Nabours to appoint Caroline McDonald to the Commission on Diversity Awareness, term to expire September 2017. | |||||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously | |||||||||||
Moved by Councilmember Eva Putzova, seconded by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz to appoint Anne Hart to the Commission on Diversity Awareness, term to expire September 2018. | |||||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously | |||||||||||
Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Scott Overton to appoint Khalif Durham to the Commission on Diversity Awareness, term to expire September 2017. | |||||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously | |||||||||||
8. | LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARINGS None |
||||||||||
9. | CONSENT ITEMS
All matters under Consent Agenda are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion approving the recommendations listed on the agenda. Unless otherwise indicated, expenditures approved by Council are budgeted items. |
||||||||||
Moved by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to approve Consent Items 9-A and 9-B as presented. | |||||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously | |||||||||||
A. | Consideration and Approval of Contracts: Laboratory Services for water, wastewater and pre-treatment sampling
Approve contracts with the following four independent laboratories: Eurofin Easton Analytical, Bio-Aquatic Testing, Test America and Trans West Analytical Services. Each contract will be for an initial term of three years and each contract will include two annual extensions upon mutual agreement.
|
||||||||||
B. | Consideration and Approval of a Final Plat request by Mogollon Engineering & Surveying, Inc., on behalf of Pinnacle 146 LLC, for the subdivision of approximately 11.22 acres into 49 single-family residential townhouse lots located at 800 E Sterling Lane within the Medium Density Residential (MR) zone.
Staff recommends the City Council approve the final plat, with the conditions outlined in the staff summary and its attachments, and authorize the Mayor to sign both the final plat and City/Subdivider Agreement when notified by staff that all conditions have been met and documents are ready for recordation.
|
||||||||||
10. | ROUTINE ITEMS | ||||||||||
A. | Consideration and Approval of Contract: Animal Shelter Services | ||||||||||
Vice Mayor Barotz asked what the term was for the contract. Purchasing Director Rick Compau replied that it was for the 2015-2016 year. The initial term is one year with four one-year options. Mayor Nabours noted that this was the only bidder. | |||||||||||
Moved by Councilmember Karla Brewster, seconded by Mayor Jerry Nabours to approve the contract with the Coconino Humane Association to provide animal shelter services for the City of Flagstaff for an annual fee of $199,985. | |||||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously | |||||||||||
B. | Discussion and Direction: Specialty Appointments to City Commissions | ||||||||||
Mayor Nabours thanked Ms. Burke for the matrix showing the criteria for the specialty appointments. Councilmember Brewster said that she thought it was a good idea to have some specialty designations because they have more knowledge in the area of the specialty. Ms. Burke noted that she had included a definition of "hospitality industry", which is from Title 3 of the City Code, that the Council may want to consider. Councilmember Putzova said that it is fine the way it is, but it would be helpful to structure it with definitions specific enough for staff to pre-screen the applicants. Ms. Burke said that staff is fine with pre-screening once they have some specific criteria by which they can do so. Vice Mayor Barotz said that when the categories are too broad it makes it difficult to determine who is qualified. They need to further define to make it consistent, or eliminate them all together. She added that since each commission only has seven members, a seat could remain empty because it has to be filled by specific criteria. Mayor Nabours said that with the Beautification and Public Art Commission, the "hospitality industry" term could be anyone who works at a restaurant, etc.; it does not specify currently working, manager, general manager, etc. Mayor Nabours said that they first should decide if there is a consensus that they want specialty appointments. Vice Mayor Barotz said that it may be easier if they did not have specific criteria and it may draw more interest from applicants. Councilmember Brewster said that she would prefer to stay with the specialty appointments and if they are going to remove the requirements, they should first hear from the different commissions. Councilmember Overton said that he did not have a preference. Oftentimes a commission will sit with a vacancy instead of filling it with a quality member that does not fit the criteria. If people are expressing an interest they probably already have some interest or expertise in the commission. He would be okay with dropping the qualifications, but would support keeping them as well. Councilmember Evans said that those who pay into the BBB funds have an expectation of sitting on certain commissions that handle those funds. She would like to ask the commissions what their input is, or ask those with specialities what they think about eliminating them. Vice Mayor Barotz said that they, as Council, can make sure that the BBB community is represented. Councilmember Evans said that was true, but they cannot guarantee that with future councils. They should have something in writing to preserve the intent. Mayor Nabours asked if this had been discussed with the staff liaisons. Ms. Burke said that previously the Open Spaces Commission did express an interest in providing input and they were notified of the meeting today. Betsy Emery, staff liaison for the Commission, came forward and said that the commission does get a lot of knowledge from the people and the expertise they bring, especially with regard to natural and cultural management. Councilmember Oravits said that he was comfortable with eliminating the specialty appointments. Mayor Nabours suggested they have two hospitality appointments to the Beautification and Public Art Commission and Tourism Commission, to make sure that they are represented as the industry paying into the BBB tax, and specify that it is an owner or manager of the business. Councilmember Overton said that he was concerned with picking hospitality over the Arts and Design professions. If they are going to maintain the specialty appointments they should have a discussion with the commissions, but it gives the Council better flexibility to have no specific designations. Vice Mayor Barotz said that Councilmember Evans is trying to protect the voices that represent those that pay into the BBB and avoid filling a commission with people that are against the mission. Councilmember Evans said that the hotels do not feel that there is enough representation. There is a reason why they have seats and these people make sure there is balance to their discussions. Councilmember Putzova said that the hospitality industry runs the taxes through, but it is the guests who provide the funding. The same thing runs true for Open Spaces; it is funded through taxes, so she was not sure that the rationale was on point. She worried that as councils change everything can change. She said that it is great to say what kind of candidates they are looking for and encourage certain requirements, but in the end the Council can make an appointment based on the information provided. For transparency sake, she would like to keep the process consistent across the commissions. People may have some knowledge, but not necessary work in the industry. Mayor Nabours said that when the BBB was proposed originally, the hospitality industry felt that they had to shoulder the bulk of the burden, and as a compromise they were given a seat on the commission. He agreed with Councilmember Putzova, as well as Councilmember Oravits. Ms. Burke clarified that staff would bring back an ordinance to make these changes and noted that all applications will be brought forward for Council consideration in the future. |
|||||||||||
Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to do away with specialty representation on commissions. | |||||||||||
Vote: 5 - 2 | |||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
C. | Presentation by NAU President Rita Cheng on Recent and Upcoming Events. (It is anticipated that this item will be carried forward to the 6 pm meeting.) | ||||||||||
RECESS
The 4:00 p.m. portion of the October 20, 2015, Regular Meeting recessed at 4:48 p.m. 6:00 P.M. MEETING
RECONVENE
Mayor Nabours reconvened the Regular Meeting of October 20, 2015, at 6:06 p.m. |
|||||||||||
NOTICE OF OPTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the City Council and to the general public that, at this regular meeting, the City Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for legal advice and discussion with the City’s attorneys for legal advice on any item listed on the following agenda, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3).
|
|||||||||||
11. | ROLL CALL
|
||||||||||
12. | PUBLIC PARTICIPATION | ||||||||||
The following individuals addressed Council on the issues noted: Rueben Abayta, representing Flagstaff Lodging and Restaurant Association (FLORA), asked Council to reconsider removing the specialty appointments as discussed earlier in the meeting. Lina Wallen, Flagstaff, introduced officers of the NAACP in the Flagstaff area, noting that they were established in Flagstaff in 1967. She noted that in November 2016 they will honor the Native American and Hispanic Month at the Murdock Center. David McCain, Friends of Flagstaff's Future, introduced the new Executive Director of FFF, Tory Syracuse, who is a native member of the Flagstaff Community. Tory Syracuse, FFF, said that she looked forward to getting to know everyone and working with them. Paul Ferry, Flagstaff, said that he recently inherited the facilitation of a support group in town and there has been a lot of grumbling about the lack of handicap accessible parking in the downtown area. He asked that they place this item on a future agenda for discussion. Belinda Yazzi, NAU student, voiced support for the change of Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples Day. John Viktora and Rudy Preston both voiced support for keeping the number of councilmembers needed to place an item on an agenda at three, versus the proposed four. Rudy Preston voiced concern with an article in newspaper about the deal given to Nestles Purina. He said that NAU pays some of the highest water prices while the City subsidizes the golf courses and Snowbowl. |
|||||||||||
13. | CARRY OVER ITEMS FROM THE 4:00 P.M. AGENDA |
||||||||||
A. | Presentation by NAU President Rita Cheng on Recent and Upcoming Events. | ||||||||||
President Cheng, Northern Arizona University, addressed the Council to thank them and the community for the support shown during the recent tragedy at the campus. She said that she was proud of their first responders, both from NAU and the City's Police and Fire Departments, EMT's, and trauma teams, as well as the university's residential counselors. She said that their counselors and student life staff continue to work overtime. She said that a week ago up to 5,000 students, faculty, staff were on campus, along with many from the City, to remember the fallen and injured, and she appreciated Mayor Nabours' presence and thoughtful remarks. She said that it reminded everyone of the generous heart and optimistic character that represents Flagstaff and NAU. She reminded everyone that this coming weekend was Homecoming and invited everyone to join them. She thanked Heidi Hansen and Stephanie Smith for co-chairing their alumni activities. The NAU Marching Band then played. Mayor Nabours thanked them for being at the meeting, noting that just at the Council's table they had four graduates and two employees from NAU. He also noted that Louie attended the League of Arizona Cities and Towns Annual Conference and stole the show. Mayor Nabours noted that they would now discuss 14-B first, due to so many people being present for that item. |
|||||||||||
14. | PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS | ||||||||||
A. | Public Hearing: Utilities Rate Study - Discussion regarding Consultant and Possible Alterations to Path Forward. | ||||||||||
Utilities Director Brad Hill said that there were several questions raised at the last meeting | |||||||||||
and those have been answered by staff as well as the consultants. Chris Fisher, Vice President of Willdan, was at the meeting and Jonathan Varnes was available via phone. The questions were then reviewed along with the answers as outlined in Exhibit A (Willdan Answers) and Exhibit B (Staff Answers) attached hereto and made a part hereof. 1. Reclaimed Water Data Validation Revenue Director Andy Wagemaker reviewed staff's answer to this question. Councilmember Putzova said that this question came about because they were talking about the consultant not addressing the reclaimed water tiers. Now that the data has been reconciled, she asked if that meant the consultant could provide them with that information. Mr. Hill said that when they hired Willdan this time around they did not pay them to do a cost of service analysis and evaluate different rate structures because that was done back in 2010 and things had not changed much. If that was Council's direction, staff could talk with Willidan further about doing that. Mr. Varnes said that they would absolutely use that analysis as a basis for which they could develop reclaimed water rate structures for their consideration. Mayor Nabours asked if the proposal was for reclaimed water to have a 3% increase across the board. Mr. Fisher said that it was suggested at either 3% or 7%. He said that the cost of service analysis helps them determine the individual rates within that structure based on classification. Mr. Varnes added that as they sit now, it is either 3% under Option 1 or 7% under option 2. Within that they can adjust the actual rates. Vice Mayor Barotz said that it was her understanding that until now all of the money went into one pot, but now they have separated it out. If the cost to provide reclaimed water is different than potable water, she asked why they were doing a one-size fits all solution. Mr. Hill said that what they were proposing is 3% and 7% on potable water, 3% and 7% on reclaimed water and 5.5% and 7% on wastewater. Mr. Varnes said that they have been providing costs segmented by water, wastewater and reclaimed water and conducted thee different analyses. Councilmember Putzova said that in the reclaimed water there are two tiers. The more reclaimed water they use the lower the rate. She still does not understand how that structure has not been addressed. Mr. Hill said that on September 8 there was a CCR provided to help provide history. It was a bifurcation of two processes--the one they were talking about and then by policy when the Council eliminated tiers from four to the two they have today. Mayor Nabours said that was a policy decision needed from Council, not the consultant. Mr. Hill added that, historically, the cost of reclaimed water was reduced to encourage its use. Vice Mayor Barotz asked staff to review the rate study process. Mr. Roberts explained that a rate study consists of: 1) revenue requirements; 2) cost of service study; and 3) rate analysis. In 2010 they did all three components. The question was asked early on by the consultants when they did the RFP, and the decision was made to not do a cost of service because there has not been a substantial change in the City with regard to population or customer classes. The study done in 2010 is still valid in today's number. He said that this was a way to save the City money. Vice Mayor Barotz asked exactly what the consultants did do. Mr. Varnes explained that they looked at the budget, determined the additional revenue required, transitioned to cost of service analysis (looking at it by function) to determine the portion of each customer class, they then designed rates and charges to recover costs that are consistent. Mr. Varnes said that on the water side, they kept the existing structure, but changed the tiers. On the wastewater side, they did not change other than the option to break out the energy charge, and on the reclaimed water side they suggested no changes because of the data validation. Mr. Hill noted that they did bring forward to Council a nonresidential rate structure change. Vice Mayor Barotz said that she thought the rationale for where they were with the reclaimed water was because of the data validation. Mr. Roberts said that when they took the structures to the Water Commission, they put it out for public input and they came up with three options for water: 1) keep existing, 2) give them a change in residential tiers; and 3) give them a nonresidential tier. On the reclaimed water side, they did not ask for any other structure. He said that the consultants work for the City. If they are told to come up with a different structure, they will, but they were not asked to do that. Vice Mayor Barotz asked what they were asked to do. Mr. Roberts said that they were asked to do a revenue sufficiency requirement based on the cost of service analysis and come back with resulting rates. Vice Mayor Barotz asked who recommended the change in the tier. Mr. Roberts said that was from the Water Commission, in hearing from Customer Service, who had received complaints from customers. The consultant was asked what would happen if they rounded those numbers and they did that analysis, determining that there was not a substantial change. Subsequently, they have heard a proposal to move the number down to 3,500 rather than the 4,000 and they can do that. Mr. Roberts explained that it was a six to eight month process with the Water Commission. They start with the revenue requirement stage and when an issue would come up, they would ask to see what that would look like. The consultant would come back, and in this case, the request for Option 1B and 2B came from internal staff and the customer service calls. The other option, for a noncommercial tiered structure, was from the Water Group. Mr. Roberts said that the consultant first brought forward the 3% increase. The Water Commission asked what it would look like if they did not exceed the 20% debt, and the consultant came back with the 7%, and then they kept all of the three sub-options. He said that they can adjust and accommodate whatever is requested of them. Mr. Roberts added that before they ever hire the rate consultant they hired two engineering firms that did master plans with condition assessments and in those they gave a list of recommendations. From those consultants it told staff what the ten-year CIP needs would be. That information was vetted so the Commission had a clear understanding of what the City's needs were and once those lists were in place, the City hired a consultant and shared that information with them. Mayor Nabours said, at the risk of being too simplistic, that it was: 1) how much revenue they make; 2) what the CIP needs were; and 3) how much they raise the rates to cover those needs. Then, he said, it becomes a question of whether to finance it over a short period of time or longer. The end result is they are trying to generate enough additional money to cover their additional capital needs. Mr. Hill said that was a great understanding and simplification. He said that the last piece is how they collect it internally. |
|||||||||||
Councilmember Evans said that in looking at the Council Goal #2, Making Sure There is a Long-Term Water supply (including a residential conservation strategy), she asked where in the document they have addressed that goal. Mr. Hill said that at last week’s presentation they gave the Council all of the conservation matrices showing how they have had the lowest ever water use, as in 1995, with water revenues flat and the winter average declining, so they know that in-home water use has declined. Councilmember Evans said that they did all of that on the residential side, but asked about the commercial side. Mr. Hill said that when this was taken to the Water Commission one of the options discussed was to have nonresidential-tiered rates as a conservation strategy. He said that currently they have one option with that. If they get to that point in the conversation and decide it is not appropriate or Council does not like it, they could clearly bring back an alternative. Councilmember said that staff mentioned that the residential tiered structure was one of the tools used for conservation. When they calculate the five-year rate increase there is a 21% increase for Option 1A and a 17% increase for Tier 4. The more they use as a customer, the lower rate increase. That is not a policy that encourages conservation. She said that if the Council goals are not policy directions for staff and the consultant, then she was not sure why they spend time discussing their goals. She believed that those goals should be considered when discussing the scope of the project. In response to Question #4, Mr. Hill said that he did some research on this. He knows of two times while he has been with the City—in 2013 and last summer on a much smaller scale when they had a local industry impact the Wildcat’s ability to treat water. He could find no prior information before that time. Mayor Nabours said that it was his understanding that the City has subsidized some of the reclaimed water with potable when, through their fault, they were not able to supply the normal amount of reclaimed water. Mr. Hill said that was correct. He said that in 2013 and 2014 they went back to their largest customers and asked them to reduce their volumes in addition to subsidizing it with potable water. He said that they cannot let the infrastructure go dry without damaging it. He said that in 2009 they issued a reclaimed water monthly and volume limit so they do not over-commit their system moving forward. Councilmember Putzova moved back to the issue of the cost of service study. She said that they decided to split the funds, and asked if it would not make sense to have done a cost of service study so they knew how much it costs to produce reclaimed water. Mr. Hill said that the main purpose for splitting the funds was to demonstrate the subsidies between the enterprise funds. They asked the consultants to do that so everyone could see the expenses and revenues associated with each, and now that is in place. In terms of the cost of services, it may be that those were done at different times. They can revisit that if it is the desire of the Council. Mr. Tadder said that the five-year plan presented to Council in April as part of the budget had the reclaimed water fund self supported without the rate study in place. When they split it out and did the calculations, it showed it was self supporting in the current year. Mayor Nabours asked if the 3% increase for reclaimed water was to do the capital improvement needs. Mr. Hill said that it was not only the capital, but also the operations and maintenance. The majority, however, was the costs for capital. Vice Mayor Barotz asked if there was a rationale for the rate study not making a reference to the cost of reclaimed water as a percentage of potable water. Mr. Hill said that it would still be the 35%/75%. Vice Mayor Barotz said that she was not comfortable with where they were in the information they have and recommendations regarding reclaimed water. She would like to have more opportunity to understand and re-evaluate what their options might be. At this time, Mayor Nabours called up individuals who had presented cards at the previous meeting, but had not the opportunity to speak. Katie Nelson, Flagstaff, said that she was confused about what the cost was for reclaimed water. She had heard $1.67/thousand gallons, but did not know if that included infrastructure costs. She did not understand why they would charge reclaimed water customers less than that. Mr. Hill said that last week they talked about $1.62/thousand gallons, being the average cost to treat, operations, maintenance and delivery of reclaimed water. Mr. Hill said that it goes back to the rate structure and rate design; the cost to deliver water off peak versus on-peak, and, by policy, that historically discounted that rate. Councilmember Oravits asked if it did not also include a discounted rate if they did their own infrastructure. Mr. Hill replied that it did. If the City put the line in it was 75%; if they paid for the line it was 35%. David Chambers, member of the Board of Directors of Continental Country Club, said he was representing 7,000 residents. He said that he would be addressing the golf issues, and Larry Dannenfeldt would address the country club itself. He then reviewed a handout presented, Exhibit C attached hereto and made a part hereof. He said that in 2013 the club was experiencing substantial losses. The Board made a decision to raise rat to $69, and $59 for local residents. In 2014 they eliminated the discounts to local residents and raised the rates to $75. They dropped from 18,000 rounds in 2013 to 12,000 rounds in 2014. He said that this year they left the rate at $75, but implemented a High Country Card for local residents to buy at $99, which gives them a free round of golf, and a discounted rate of $58. With that pricing structure they maintained last year’s average daily rate and increased from 12,000 rounds to 15,000 rounds and went from a $400,000 loss to $270,000 loss in the last two years. He then reviewed the information of other public golf courses. He said that there are four private golf courses in Flagstaff and one public-play golf course that is subsidized by the homeowners by $369,000. They pay $80,000 to the City for water. He said that they believe it is more of an issue of whether effluent is covering its costs; there is a quality of life issue. Mr. Dannenfeldt then reviewed information on the membership dues of the HOA, which were $300 for 14 years, or $25/month to run the entire HOA. In 2008 they voted in a small dues increase. Their CC&R’s are written to require a vote of 51% of all members and once they have 51% voting, then 2/3 (or a supermajority) of all votes cast must approve the rate increase. He reviewed the graphs, noting that the water comes into their customer account, pumped into Lake Humphreys on Aspen Valley Golf Course, and is then distributed to the other lakes and also is sent to keep Lake Elaine full. The water that goes into Lake Elaine is not used to water the golf course. He said that Lake Elaine is a lake the HOA received deeded title to when Fairfield disbanded. It uses a lot of water. In 2013 and 2014 they tried to reduce the amount of water by lowering it five feet to get it below the concrete apron because it lakes around that. He said that they are under a federal court order to keep the lake full. They are bound to not drain the lake. The water is used as a water resource for wildland fire suppression and was a key component for the Hardy Fire. The USFS dipped out thousands of gallons of the lake. He said that they have no money to fix the leak. They lowered it another five feet and it seems to have stabilized. He said that they are in the process of contacting the homeowners to lower it again. He said that they used to pay $13,000 a year for effluent; now they are paying $300,000 a year for effluent and they cannot continue to do that. Mr. Chambers said that he was President of the Association when the lawsuit took place. The lake had been emptied and the homeowners filed a lawsuit because when they bought their home it was on a lake. The court issued a court order requiring the HOA to maintain it at a certain level. He said that the insurance company paid for the repairs and now it is leaking again. Councilmember Putzova said that she understood the difficulty faced by the HOA, but in hearing that it costs the City $1.62 to produce one thousand gallons of reclaimed water, so if the golf course is not going to pay, she asked who should. Mr. Chambers said that it is a public golf course; no different than other amenities. If they stopped using the 250 to 300 million gallons of effluent, they would be going down the Rio de Flag and not getting money. He said that they view it as a quality of life issue. He asked if the Aquaplex makes money. Mr. Chambers said that the City issued bonds to fund the initial project. He said that Keating paid for the infrastructure from Wildcat to the golf course. They were charging them $13,000 a year for the effluent and part of that was to help subsidize the payment of the bonds. Councilmember Evans said that it was interesting to understand that the golf course was public because anyone can play a round of golf there. She asked if they had ever considered going to Parks and Recreation and establishing a true public/private partnership. Mr. Chambers said that probably 15 years ago there was a movement and thy met with ther Mayor at that time and offered to see, but there was not support for it. He added that there are contractual issues with Aspen Valley. A short break was taken from 8:48 p.m. to 8:59 p.m. Mayor Nabours said that they would have another meeting and they did not want to push through and hurry any decision this evening. He said that they had invited back the Water Group and Mr. Vane then came forward and reviewed a handout, Exhibit D attached hereto and made a part hereof. Mr. Vane said that tiers do not imply a rate hike at all. Oftentimes 80% pay less. They can b e designed for any design level. He said that there are a lot of ways to build tiers, but should be structured to achieve clear goals, which is a policy issue. He said that they compiled data from WIFA and among 232 cities surveyed, the idea of tiered rates for nonresidential is not a radical idea. Mr. Vane said that the reclaimed water supply is over-committed in May and June. The rates are too low overall and in recent history, while they have had the 35% and 75% on the books, the 75% rate has never been used. Mayor Nabours said that last week there was a gentleman who was opposed to any rate increase. He was asked how the City should cover the additional capital expenses and he suggested selling more water, which is contrary to water conservation. Mr. Vane said that it is a difficult problem. It is a nice dilemma, and they should not rush into selling more water. He said that he does not have any magic solutions. He said that their concern is that if they impellent the study as is, at the end of five years they will not be any smarter about water. He said that the good news is that they are not in a water crisis. The Council has the opportunity to make long-term decisions. They are urging Council to hit the pause button and review the gaps in the study. Mr. Vane said that they would like to see the City put together a smart system that will make other cities jealous. It will take time, and there may be a need for a three to five percent increase while the work is being done. It is worth it to take the time to get it right. Tory Syracuse, Friends of Flagstaff's Future (FFF), thanked the Flagstaff Water Group and the Continental Country Club for the enlightening presentations. She said that it was exciting to see the public process at work. Friends of Flagstaff’s Future supports the Water Group’s contention that the current study need further review and they need to encourage more conservation. Rudy Preston, Flagstaff, asked if that was the kind of expenditure they want to do as a City. He asked if that was conservation. He said that if they did not take that water it would go into the aquifer and that is not a bad thing. There are a lot of things they could do with that water. He said that the Water Commission decided how the rate study should go and there are many people on that who have an int3erest in using great deals of water. The following individuals submitted written comments to the City Council: •Adam Shimoni •Dawn Dyer The comments stated the following: •The rates of reclaimed water should reflect the cost of producing it. •Reclaimed water rates should have been included in the study. •Those who use more reclaimed water should pay more for it. •The City should never make up missing reclaimed water with potable water. •Perspective is needed when considering water rates. Mayor Nabours said that this would not conclude the public hearing. They will schedule another meeting, either a Special Meeting or another Tuesday meeting. The discussion ended at 9:30 p.m. |
|||||||||||
B. | Public Hearing and Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2015-35: A resolution of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona adopting the La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Specific Plan as a Minor Plan Amendment to the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 and establishing an effective date. | ||||||||||
Mayor Nabours opened the Public Hearing. | |||||||||||
Comprehensive Planning Manager Sara Dechter then briefly reviewed the process they have been going through, which included: COMMISSIONS AND PUBLIC HEARING Required two hearings with Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session and Public Hearing with City Council Met with numerous other commissions Held six meetings with neighborhoods (Approximately 140 residents, business owners, community members have participated) CHALLENGES TO PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Existing Entitlements Clay Avenue Extension Arrowhead Village Mobile Home Park Housing Occupancy Nonconforming Uses HIERARCHY OF SPECIFIC PLAN CONTENT Goals and Policies Concept Plan and Implementation Strategies Site and Area Analysis Appendices PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Recommended approval with condition NEIGHBORHOOD POLICY AREAS Identified activity centers transitioning into neighborhoods OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES 1) Adopt the September 17, 2015, Draft of the La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Specific Plan 2) Adopt the October 1, 2015, Draft of the La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Specific Plan (which included Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation) 3) Not adopt TONIGHT'S DECISION Is the Specific Plan consistent with the Regional Plan as a whole? Does the Specific Plan improve the ability of staff, commissions and Council to make decisions in this area compared to using only the Regional Plan? Does the Specific Plan reflect the feedback received through public involvement? Laura Myers, Outreach Director of the La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood, addressed the Council stating that they supported the plan dated October 1, 2015, which included a change to the boundary map and a few changes to the goals and policies. The following individuals spoke in support of the October 1, 2015, plan: •Gloria Valencia •Adam Shimoni •Lina Wallen •Charlie Silver •Emily Davalos •Kathy Turner •Tory Syracuse Comments received included: •Has lived there for 55 years; her family has been there forever. Was concerned with prior discussion about possibly breaking it into sections. They did not support that idea. •They have invited the City to their area a lot of times to visit with community members •Happy to be here today with this plan and grateful for the hard work done by the community and City staff •Will be a good model to use for other neighborhoods •Thanked everyone involved in the Plan's development •Acknowledged the way the Plan empowers the neighborhoods to identify their desires and the democratic process •Voice their desire that it be approved and honor the public process •The neighborhood works hard to maintain their history, family and character •Recognizes the self-determination and leadership of La Plaza Vieja •Wanted to emphasize the importance of the boundaries •Is with College America, a commercial partner in the neighborhood and proud to be a part of the community •They strongly support the plan and comments delivered by Laura Myers this evening and the October 1, 2015, proposal Additionally, the following individuals submitted written support for the October 1, 2015, Plan: •Kelly Brown •Robert Bennett •Amelia Garcia •Theresa Sandoval •Irene Dominguez •Joseph Myers •Jose Jesse Dominguez •Jennifer Brown •Carren Ditch (sp) •Alberta B. Sanchez •Carlos Sanchez •Kathy Jay (sp) •John Harper •Johnny Anaya •Chris J. Sorensen •Lupe Anaya •Edward Hernandez •Delia G. Ulibarri •Frances Garica •Rosales Ramirez •Juanita Hernandez •Jerry Soto •Peter Almendarez •Gabriella Nunnally •Brooke S. Nilson •Brian Patrick •Stefan Rosic •Tara Casey •Daniel Ulibarri •Rosemary H. Gonzales •Robert A. Gonzales •Brendan Myrman •Ricardo Guthrie •Ruth Ann Soto •Vanessa Billesas •Sean Parson •Julia Vosefenuk •LaReina Reyes •Eva Sigersted •Tallie Segel •Francisca Gonzales •Jo Ann Vigil •Isabel D. Diaz •Sereana D. Bird •Juan Rodriguez •Juanita Carrillo •Laurence Baca •Robert R. Hernandez •Rose Hernandez •George Schwalenstacker •Edgar L. Schaeffer •Suzzanna Garcia •Rosie A. Garcia •Rhea Nanni •Jane O'Donnell |
|||||||||||
Moved by Councilmember Coral Evans, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to read Resolution No. 2015-35 by title only, to approve the October 1, 2015, Plan. | |||||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously | |||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Councilmember Evans said that this is the oldest neighborhood in the City and she was happy to see this move forward as they have been working on it for over eight years. She apologized that it has taken so long, and thanked the residents and City staff, including Kimberly Sharp and Sara Dechter. Vice Mayor Barotz said that the discussion this evening takes her back to the meetings they had about the Standard, which were the impetus in moving this along. That was an incredibly difficult process and was challenging and painful to watch. Out of something so divisive is coming something good. Mayor Nabours added that they like seeing this--not having one objection. |
|||||||||||
Moved by Councilmember Coral Evans, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to adopt Resolution No. 2015-35. | |||||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously | |||||||||||
A break was held from 7:03 p.m. to 7:14 p.m. | |||||||||||
15. | REGULAR AGENDA None |
||||||||||
16. | DISCUSSION ITEMS None |
||||||||||
17. | FUTURE AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS After discussion and upon agreement of three members of the Council, an item will be moved to a regularly-scheduled Council meeting. |
||||||||||
A. | Future Agenda Item Request (F.A.I.R.): A request by Councilmember Putzova to place on a future agenda discussion and possible action regarding Indigenous People. | ||||||||||
Councilmember Putzova said that this request was motivated by a desire to finally recognize their Native American friends and neighbors as true partners whose voice is reflected in their decisionis. It was not just to show respect, but to make sure that when someone looks at their decisions, they can tell they truly respect Native Americans. She then reviewed the three items: 1) Getting an update on the general provisions of the MOU between the Navajo Nationl… 2) have public hearing opportunities ffor Native Americans to identify proposals the City can implement to make a meaningful positive impact; and after 1 and 2 are completed, andf after adopting an impolementation plan to come out of the conversations, move forward with the establishment of an IPD for the second Monday of October and call upon those that call this Columbus Day to replace it with Indigenous Peoples Day. The following individuals spoke in favor of bringing this item to a future agenda: •Rudy Preston •Adam Shimoni The following individuals submitted written comments to the Council in favor of bringing this item to a future agenda: •Klee Benally •Emily Davalos •Dawn Dyer •Rhea Nanni The following individual submitted written comments to the Council against bringing this item to a future agenda: •Gabor Kovacs Three members of Council supported moving it forward--Vice Mayor Barotz, Councilmembers Evans and Putzova. |
|||||||||||
B. | Future Agenda Item Request (F.A.I.R.): A request by Councilmember Evans to place on a future agenda discussion of Downtown Disability Parking. | ||||||||||||
Councilmember Evans said that several people in the community have come forward requesting that this item be discussed. The following individuals spoke in support of moving this forward: •Paul Ferrty •Caitlan All Councilmembers agreed to move this item forward. |
|||||||||||||
18. | INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AND REPORTS FROM COUNCIL AND STAFF, FUTURE AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS | ||||||||||||
Councilmember Brewster reminded everyone of Homecoming at NAU this weekend. Councilmember Oravits reported that he had forwarded an e-mail to Mr. Copley regarding the council serving at the Family Food Center; members agreed they would like to do and asked staff to have that arranged. Councilmember Overton asked for clarification on whether Council would have more time to discuss the Flagstaff Fire Department/Summit Fire agreement prior to action. Mr. Copley said that it would be coming back for action, but there will be time for further discussion as a call out the week before. Ms. D'Andrea said that she had referenced the Rules of Procedure further and agreed that a Roll Call vote could be requested on a F.A.I.R. item. |
|||||||||||||
Vote: 3 - 4 | |||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
19. | ADJOURNMENT | ||||||||||||
The Regular Meeting of the Flagstaff City Council held October 20, 2015, adjourned at 9:41 p.m. | |||||||||||||
CERTIFICATION I, ELIZABETH A. BURKE, do hereby certify that I am the City Clerk of the City of Flagstaff, County of Coconino, State of Arizona, and that the above Minutes are a true and correct summary of the Meeting of the Council of the City of Flagstaff held on October 20, 2015. I further certify that the Meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.
|