Mayor Nabours called the Special Meeting of March 10, 2015, to order at 6:05 p.m.

The City Council and audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
 
Mayor Nabours stated that he will be moving public participation up on the agenda to accommodate those that may have came to speak on items number 6 and 7 on the special meeting agenda.
 
County Manager Cynthia Steelhammer addressed the Council to introduce four Young Ambassadors on the Flex program that are attending school in Flagstaff this year.
 
Charlie Silver addressed Council in regards to the Community Reinvestment Plan and asked for a public commission or advisory group be formed to provide a forum for long term public input.
 
Terry O’Neil addressed Council in opposition of a plastic bag ordinance.
 
Gabor Kovacs addressed Council to suggest the formation of a commission that promotes unity.

PRESENT	ABSENT
MAYOR NABOURS	NONE
VICE MAYOR BAROTZ
COUNCILMEMBER BREWSTER
COUNCILMEMBER EVANS
COUNCILMEMBER ORAVITS
COUNCILMEMBER OVERTON
COUNCILMEMBER PUTZOVA

Others present: Interim City Manager Jeff Meilbeck and City Attorney Michelle D'Andrea.

Mayor Nabours stated that there is not a staff presentation for this item and moved straight to public comment.
 
The following individuals addressed Council in favor of Resolution 2015-07:

• Maria De Jesus Guillen
• Roz Clark
• Brandon Pence
• Moran Henn
• Robert Neustadt
• Alberto Campos
• Emily O’Neil

The comments received are as follows:

• We need to give these kids an opportunity to grow into productive members of the community.
• This resolution will benefit the entire population.
• Dreamers deserve full access to in-state tuition.
• This resolution is the right thing to do.
• It is unjust that an education is something that is not available to all.
• This resolution will send a message to anyone who values education.
• Maricopa Community College, Pima Community College, and Coconino Community College are already offering in-state tuition to Dreamers.
• Having more college graduates in Flagstaff will drive the economy.
• This is a state issue but Flagstaff is an important part of the state.
• The City of Phoenix and Tucson will likely be passing similar resolutions.
• Getting a degree matters and should be available to all.
• Providing an avenue for universities to collect more tuition betters the university and Flagstaff.
• This resolution helps determine the future of many people.

Gabor Kovacs addressed Council in opposition to Resolution 2015-07 offering that tuition will increase and students who are here lawfully will suffer the consequences.
 
Written comment cards were submitted by the following individuals:

• Adrian Skabelund
• Shawn Skabelund
• Madison Ledgerwood
• Leslie Landa Samano
• Corrine Jarnagin
• Oksana Dresler
• Isela Palaceta
• Demonta Brian
• Laura Longora Arias
• Gabriela Ruvalcaba Aguilar
• Mary McKell
• Lucas Klein
• Elizabeth Newcomb
• Sierra Butler
• Jasmine Coro
• Clifton Taylor
• Melissa Estrada
• Noemi Uribe
• Aleydis Estrada
• Alejandra Becerra
• Norah Andrews
• Erika Hess
• Reyna Cardenas
• Alyosha Sandigo
• Jake Tipton
• Eva Christ
• Liliana Samano
• Maria Melendez
• Joanne Giannino
• Oscar Landa
• Maria Molina
• Melanie Lyan
• Deborah Lulan

Councilmember Brewster offered thanks for the comments received. She stated that if the resolution passes there is no direct influence on the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) from the City of Flagstaff; she encouraged everyone to email ABOR with their thoughts and comments as those are influential to their decisions.
 
Mayor Nabours stated that he was not elected to give recommendations on issues that are not directly related to Flagstaff government. He does not feel that it is appropriate for governmental agencies to tell another what to do. Councilmember Putzova disagreed stating that Flagstaff is a welcoming community and she would be voting in favor of the resolution and hopes that if it is passed a Councilmember would present the resolution in person to ABOR. Councilmember Evans stated that she is also in support of the resolution and added that these people are here and living in the state and deserve to be fully part of the future of Arizona.
 

Vote: 4 - 3

NAY:

Mayor Jerry Nabours
Councilmember Jeff Oravits
Councilmember Scott Overton

A break was held from 6:51 p.m. through 7:02 p.m.
 

Vote: 5 - 2

NAY:

Mayor Jerry Nabours
Councilmember Scott Overton

Assistant to the City Manager Stephanie Smith stated that last week members of Council asked that this item be put on the agenda for consideration. She introduced U.S. Forest Supervisor Mike Williams who would provide an overview of the easement request.
 
Mr. Williams stated that the town of Tusayan approached the Forest Service with an easement request application; that application was accepted and is now moving through the process. Tusayan has asked for a transportation and utility corridor; Tusayan is surrounded by national forest and the only access to the parcels is with Forest Service roads. The Forest Service has processed a cost recovery assessment as part of the application process and there will be an environmental analysis conducted. The environmental contractor will work with the Forest Service to put together a proposed action that is proposed to the community for comments and consideration. In the end, once the environmental analysis is complete Mr. Williams will make the decision on whether or not to grant the easement to the town. The existing roads that access the two parcels total approximately six to seven miles and the Town wants to pave the roads and put a utility corridor in to support future development.
 
Councilmember Overton thanked Mr. Williams for the presentation and explanation of the Forest Service process; he asked if there is a timeline in place for a decision. Mr. Williams stated that they are hoping for an announcement in April for the 30 day public comment period. Easements are not a complicated thing to consider but there is controversy in the development of Tusayan and it is unknown if an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment will be done. Vice Mayor Barotz asked for the determining factor between an environmental assessment and an environmental impact statement. Mr. Williams indicated that it is the level of significance in the environmental impact and the level of controversy.
 
Vice Mayor Barotz stated that the application lists the Town of Tusayan and the developer Steelan; she asked who was actually asking for the easement. Mr. Williams stated that Tusayan is working closely with Steelan as the developer but the Town of Tusayan is the applicant.
 
Councilmember Brewster asked if the water issues in and surrounding Tusayan have been resolved. Mr. Williams stated that he has very little knowledge with regard to the water issues. He further stated that Tusayan has not revealed to the Forest Service what the source of that water would be; that information is coming and will be taken into consideration in the environmental analysis.
 
Councilmember Putzova asked for the factors that can be considered when making the determination. Mr. Williams indicated that in the environmental analysis the Forest Service will look at ground disturbing effects, the natural resource effects, the socioeconomic impacts both direct and indirect and what is happening on the national forest connected to tribal land development. Mayor Nabours asked if the Forest Service takes into consideration what is going to be done with the property or if they are mainly concerned with the road structure. Mr. Williams stated that they do look at the impacts on the surrounding forests and the projection for the development; they also look at how many people will be living in the area and travelling through.
 
Councilmember Oravits asked if the easement coincides with the plans Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) has for the Grand Canyon Airport. Mr. Williams stated that he is not personally aware of those plans and there have been no conversations about it in conjunction with the easement request.
 
Vice Mayor Barotz asked if the proposed easements are the only way that the development project can move forward. Mr. Williams stated that Tusayan has proposed the main access roads; what other road access is out there would be far lower quality. As the Forest Service evaluates the comments and develops any other options for access there could be something different than what is shown now.
 
Mayor Nabours asked if the Forest Service considers the financial impact to the surrounding communities. Mr. Williams stated that there will likely be questions to that effect and the Forest Service does a socio-economic assessment as best they can but it is not detailed as they are not experts in that area.
 
The following individuals addressed Council in support of Resolution 2015-08:

• Stuart McDaniel
• Ruben Abeyta
• Lavelle McCoy
• Ben Murphy
• Ash Patel
• Minesh Patel
• Rick Resnick
• Ian Harrison
• Moran Henn
• William Cobb
• John Viktora

The comments received are as follows:

• Flagstaff will be fighting for business.
• The environmental impacts to the Canyon and lack of water availability are a concern.
• We need to protect the Flagstaff airport.
• Flagstaff is the gateway to the Grand Canyon and we need to protect the businesses of Flagstaff.
• The development would be detrimental to the Flagstaff hotel industry.
• The development would take business out of Flagstaff.
• Concerned about the environmental impacts.
• This development may not be beneficial for the general economy of Coconino County.
• The Tusayan development will have a negative effect on the businesses and tourism of Flagstaff.
• The Grand Canyon eco system is under attack and the tourists deserve a lot more than what Tusayan offers.
• The developer has not met a single deadline to provide documentation on the impacts to the area or the solutions.
• The City Council has a fiduciary responsibility to protect Flagstaff.
• This development is not fair to the surrounding communities.
• Someone needs to study the impact of a six million dollar loss of BBB tax in Flagstaff.
• Whenever a development of this scope is done it destroys the experience that the people come there for in the first place.
• It is believed that the National Park Service is not in favor of the development.
• The aging infrastructure of the park cannot handle the additional visitors.
• This development will bring trash, night-time lighting, and noise issues.
• The visitor experience will be negatively impacted.
• The development will create extra traffic and noise pollution. People visit the region to experience its beauty not to shop.
• Flagstaff must strive to support sustainable land uses.
• Those in the tourism and hospitality industries will be negatively affected. Millions come through Flagstaff to get to the Grand Canyon and we should value their experience.
• The developer has not addressed the water sources.
• The development would be bad for the Grand Canyon.
• The resolution should include restrictions on uranium mining.
• We cannot risk our springs for economic development.

Gabor Kovacs addressed Council in opposition to Resolution 2015-08 stating that Flagstaff should not meddle in Tusayan business and the proposal is a manifestation of the free market.
 
Written comment cards were received from:

• Rajnikant Patel
• Karan Patel
• Rick Resnick
• Asha Patel
• Dino Dullbson
• Bhash Patel
• Sam Amin
• Don Amin
• Peter Patel
• Paul Keohav
• Chad Patel
• Rojer Patel
• Leslie Connell
• Carleton Sheppard
• M. Eve Watson
• Jose Alvarado

Mayor Nabours stated that the resolution makes no mention of the environmental concerns and only addresses the detriment to the Flagstaff economy. He feels that it is highly likely that the Forest Service would suggest that it is not in their role to dictate competition in any given area. There are many things that can be brought up in regard to this issue that would get the attention of the Forest Service much more on point than this. He proposed that the item be tabled and readdressed at a better time and in a better manner.
 
Councilmember Overton stated that he has concerns that the Forest Service has a plan on how they process these requests and the City owes it to the Forest Service to carry out their process. He feels that the Council should address the issue and evaluate how it will affect Flagstaff but at a better time; there is a public comment period that he feels would be a more appropriate time to express the City’s concerns. He explained that he feels that the City is preempting the established process.
 
Vice Mayor Barotz stated that she does not feel that it would be preempting any action.

Moved by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz; Seconded by Councilmember Coral Evans to call the question.

Councilmember Oravits offered that he is in support of the resolution moving forward now.
 
Councilmember Putzova suggested an amendment to the resolution; she suggested adding a whereas clause that states “the Grand Canyon is rich in natural and cultural resources” then in the last paragraph add “it will have a detrimental impact on the Grand Canyon’s sensitive natural resources,”.

Moved by Councilmember Eva Putzova; Seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to amend Resolution 2015-07 as noted.

Vote: 6 - 1

NAY:

Mayor Jerry Nabours

Councilmember Evans stated that tourism is the largest employer in Flagstaff. During the recession the City would not have made it out as well without tourism. It is because of tourism that there are parks and arts and cultural activities and projects. Councilmember Brewster added that by passing the resolution now it gives the City the chance to say something now and then the public and the City can comment again during the public comment period.

Mayor Nabours called for a vote on the motion to call the question made by Vice Mayor Barotz.

Vote: 5 - 2

NAY:

Mayor Jerry Nabours
Councilmember Scott Overton

Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits; Seconded by Councilmember Coral Evans to read Resolution 2015-08 by title only.

Vote: 6 - 1

NAY:

Councilmember Scott Overton

A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA, OPPOSING THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE APPROVAL OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT TO FACILITATE MASSIVE NEW TUSAYAN DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL BE HARMFUL TO THE GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK AND THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF TOURISM INDUSTRY

Councilmember Evans stated that the state budget was recently passed and NAU is looking at a $17 million cut to their funding. She would like to propose a resolution against that action as well as have the NAU President report on the impacts it will have on the Flagstaff community and economy.
 
Four Councilmembers are in favor of moving the item forward.

Mayor Nabours stated that he would like to discuss liquor licenses in the downtown area; specifically the number and types that exist and if the City has a legal right at some point to oppose any additional licenses.
 
Councilmember Brewster stated that it would be helpful to have a legal opinion on the item. Mayor Nabours agreed stating that a legal opinion would be part of the presentation. Councilmember Putzova requested that the opinion come in writing prior to deciding whether or not to move the item forward.
 
Ms. D’Andrea explained that the Council does have the ability to decide that the City or a particular area has reached a staturation point; however, the Council is only making a recommendation to the State Liquor Board and they may not implement that recommendation but the Council has the power to make it.
 
Three Councilmembers are in favor of moving the item forward for discussion.

The Special Meeting of the Flagstaff City Council of March 10, 2015, adjourned at 8:11 p.m.

Mayor Nabours called the Flagstaff City Council Work Session of March 10, 2014, to order at 8:22 p.m.

Public participation was taken at the beginning of the Special Meeting; please see above.

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours; Seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to move all agenda items for the March 17, 2015 Council Meeting to the 6:00 p.m. agenda.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Mayor Nabours stated that there will be a change in tonight’s agenda; items 6, 7, and 8 will be moved to a later meeting and the Council will hear item 5 first and then item 4.

Police Chief Kevin Treadway introduced Deputy Chief Walt Miller and Assistant City Attorney Marianne Sullivan. Deputy Chief Miller provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:
 

• STUDENT HOUSING: POLICE RESPONSE
• FPD EXPERIENCE WITH STUDENT HOUSING PROPERTIES
• HOW CALLS ARE HANDLED
• CURRENT ORDINANCE
• WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING

Councilmember Oravits asked how the second response would work with notice to the landlord. Deputy Chief Miller explained that it would be done by mail, in person, and/or taped on premise to make the notification. Councilmember Oravits stated that he has concerns about the potential for a landlord to incur numerous fines while going through the eviction process as set forth in the Landlord-Tenant Act. Chief Treadway stated that in the Tucson and Tempe statues they first make sure that the property owner has been notified by sending a letter with a return receipt. Only after a two-week period would the property owner be held responsible and if the property owner can show that they took action to try and resolve the issue, including eviction, they can appeal to the police department to have the 90 days adjusted. There is latitude if the property owner will work with the police department.
 
Councilmember Evans stated that notifying the property owner will bring them to the table and held accountable for what is going on at their property. Mayor Nabours agreed stating that the key is making the landlord responsible, but the landlord does not always have time on their side when working through eviction issues; it will be important to make sure that the City is fair and reasonable with the landlord who is working towards addressing the issue. Deputy Chief Miller agreed stating that the goal is a partnership with the police department and the property owner.

• TUCSON ORDINANCE - UNRULY GATHERINGS

Councilmember Oravits expressed concern and urged caution around right to assemble issues. Chief Treadway stated that in the existing ordinance, the only way that the police can charge on a first offense is if there are two or more officers that respond and more than 15 people present at the location. These are active calls and complaints of disturbance from neighbors, officers have discretion and can make judgment calls based on each individual situation.

• TEMPE – SECURITY PLANS
• RECAP - QUESTIONS-DISCUSSION
• CREATION OF NEW ORDINANCE FOR MANDATES FOR STUDENT HOUSING

Councilmember Oravits clarified that this ordinance would apply only to new development. Chief Treadway stated that there may be an opportunity to apply this new ordinance to existing units if it is based upon number of beds or number of units; additionally, any property or area in Flagstaff that constitutes 5% of the most number of calls for service would also fall under this ordinance.
 
Mayor Nabours offered that the City should take advantage of what Tucson and Tempe have done already and customize it for Flagstaff. He suggested having the Police Department work it up with the Legal Department and bring it back to the Council for discussion and approval.
 
Councilmember Overton stated that he likes the teeth associated with the proposal and the ability for officers to use discretion. He explained that communication will be essential and he does not want the City to send the message that it is upset with apartment complexes; if there are ways to recognize those that are doing a good job and being good community partners that would likely go a long way. This needs to be well received and communicated as a positive tool to help solve problems, not create new ones.
 
Councilmember Oravits requested more information about the notice to landlords; there are instances in which immediate termination of a lease is available for violation of the drug free, crime free community and he would like to understand what this looks like for a landlord in relation to the ordinance.
 
Councilmember Evans thanked staff for bringing the information forward. She indicated that she was glad that the property owner is being brought into the process.
 
Chief Treadway stated that staff will develop some draft ordinances to bring back to Council for consideration. They will provide options to pick and choose from as they are looking at a new ordinance or a tweak to the existing party disturbance ordinance.

Sales & Marketing Specialist Gail Jackson provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

• ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS SERVICES FLAGSTAFF VETERANS HOME
• REGIONAL FACILITY
• FLAGSTAFF

Assistant to the City Manager for Real Estate David McIntire continued the presentation.

• PROPOSED LAND
• OPTIONS
• VISUAL DEPICTION OF SITE LOCATION
• AERIAL DEPICTION OF POTENTIAL ACREAGE
• MCMILLAN MESA
• NEXT STEPS

Assistant to the City Manager for Communication Kimberly Ott stated that she has been meeting with each of the Councilmembers to get input on how to better improve engagement and outreach; this project is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate this outreach. She suggested taking the project to special interest groups and the general population, as well as present to Parks and Recreation Commission along with the Open Space Commission, Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion. Another option is the telephone town hall; the date and time would be advertised along with information about how cell phone users could utilize the function. The telephone town hall could be used as an information forum to gather thoughts, comments, and ideas. These are some of the suggestions that were brought up for improved communication and she would welcome any other ideas and suggestions.
 
State Lobbyist Richard Travis addressed Council with information about preliminary discussions with the Governor’s office; the response to those discussions is that this is not the year to ask for additional funding but the $10 million request is a doable number for them. Mr. Travis explained that as the budget improves next year the City maybe able to get a commitment from the State and that may be enough to start moving forward.
 
Mayor Nabours stated that at some point the City will have to quit talking and show that it is committed through a deed of property to Veterans Services with some provisions that if it is not built then the property comes back to City ownership. Mr. Travis stated that land acquisition is one of the thresholds that show the State what the City is willing to do and it is workable to deed a property with a call back provision.
 
Vice Mayor Barotz stated that she feels that it is worth looking at option two; it is an idea that Council has not yet discussed. While staff and Council have identified a possible parcel to use there may be other options that have not yet been explored. Councilmember Evans asked if staff were to look at other options including private property how that purchase would be funded. Mr. McIntire explained that the City would consider selling the McMillan property or a part of it to fund the purchase. Councilmember Evans stated that it would truly be a community concern because there is no control over who will purchase the land and what they would do with it.
 
Councilmember Putzova stated that Council all agrees that the goal is to provide a great facility to veterans and that this would be a great opportunity to test out the outreach proposals. She indicated preference for option two because it allows the City to be fiscally responsible and find the best use for the property. The Council could possibly provide a resolution that communicates to the State that Flagstaff is serious and allow staff time to explore and have the public help identify even more attractive properties. Mr. McIntire stated that staff has not looked to identify private parcels; large tracks of land are not all that frequent but there may be something out there. A formal process would have to be undertaken before the City could purchase. Councilmember Brewster stated that in the end the City may move forward with the McMillan Mesa property but she would be in favor of looking to see what else might be out there.
 
Mayor Nabours asked if it makes a difference the appraisal value of the land. Mr. Travis stated that he is unsure but would look into it. He indicated that what is stronger for Flagstaff is where the land is and what is accessible to it. One of Flagstaff’s selling points is that Flagstaff is regional. That will outweigh the value, but he will make sure that he understands the value consideration.
 
Councilmember Putzova asked why eight acres is the desired amount of land. Mr. McIntire explained that Arizona Department of Veterans’ Affairs has built a couple of these facilities and they have shared the designs of Phoenix and Tucson. They are in a neighborhood design and staff has not questioned about how the design works. They originally requested 15 acres and staff asked how the City could work with them to reduce that and the response was that eight acres was the minimum they could work with. He added that in regards to the value of the land the Department of Veterans’ Affairs stated that they do not ask the value, if the land is available they would make it work.
 
Councilmember Putzova stated that she would like to look further for options in this first phase; she clarified that she is not saying no to McMillan Mesa but wants to be open to other options should they present themselves.
 
The following individuals addressed Council in favor of the Veterans’ Home on McMillan Mesa:

• Kathleen Jones
• Bob Reyes
• John Viktora

The following comments were received:

• This facility is so important for the community and for it’s veterans.
• The view on McMillan Mesa will be calming and peaceful for the veterans.
• Please consider adequate parking in the plans so families can park there.
• Please consider room for expansion and growth as there are veterans coming home all the time that need access to services.
• A veterans home in Flagstaff would be very helpful to families in the region especially in the winter when it is even more difficult to travel.
• Please continue moving forward.
• The scenery and quiet on McMillan Mesa give veterans a chance to heal and recover

A written comment card was received from Moran Henn.
 
Mr. Meilbeck recapped stating that he heard interest from Council in using the McMillan Mesa property in some way. The direction is to appraise the McMillan Mesa property and to put together a legal description for donation; this would prepare for a sale should that become an option. Staff can also inventory other land that might be available and the cost of that land. Additionally, staff will prepare a memorializing resolution to bring back to Council to solidify Flagstaff’s commitment to the project. Mayor Nabours added that Ms. Ott can move forward with obtaining public comment and outreach. Councilmember Putzova suggested also putting a call out to the public for any private entities that may be interested in sponsorship of land of money to cover the cost of obtaining property.
 
Councilmember Evans stated that she prefers option one but understands if Council prefers option three. Time is of the essence and while the City may not get the financial match this year they are likely to get it next year. Flagstaff is not the only city in Northern Arizona that is vying for a facility and there is a finite window to secure one. It is important to know the value of the land that is being donated and a community conversation is crucial but the land needs to be considered for what it currently is and what it could be.
 
Mr. Meilbeck stated that he understands the sense of urgency and staff will move forward with appraising the property, developing the legal description, and conducting other research and bring everything back to Council in the near future.

Item postponed to a later meeting.

Item postponed to a later meeting.

Item postponed to a later meeting.

None.

Barry Brenneman addressed Council urging them to pass a resolution in opposition to guns in public facilities.

Councilmember Brewster stated that the Arizona Board of Regents will be at NAU on March 11, 2015; a portion of their meeting is open to the public if anyone is interested in attending.

Mr. Meilbeck stated that the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System task force has been rescheduled for April 10, 2015 at 1:30 p.m.. Additionally, there is a joint City/County meeting on April 6, 2015 and information was sent today about the upcoming budget retreat.

The Work Session of the Flagstaff City Council held March 10, 2015, adjourned at 9:58 p.m.