Mayor Nabours opened the Public Hearing on all four applications; there being no public input Mayor Nabours closed the Public Hearing.

Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to forward all four liquor license applications to the State with a recommendation for approval.

Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz, seconded by Councilmember Eva Putzova to approve Consent Items 9-A, B, C, E, F, G, and H.

Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously

Councilmember Oravits asked for a review of what is being purchased and what is being replaced. Previous Fleet Manager Richard McGaugh stated that in 2008 the City purchased 18 Ford Diesel trucks believing them to be more durable and long lasting. There have been frequent failures with these vehicles and at this point, with over half their life gone, staff feels that moving back to gasoline powered vehicles would be more cost effective with less maintenance and repair costs. He explained that the intent is to stick with gasoline powered vehicles in town until the diesel technology changes. Mayor Nabours asked if the plan is to get rid of all of the diesel vehicles. Mr. McGaugh explained that the heavy equipment and other diesel vehicles will remain but getting away from the diesel powered pickup trucks would be a much better option.

Moved by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz, seconded by Councilmember Eva Putzova to approve the purchase of 17 gasoline powered light duty trucks from Tate’s Auto Center Holbrook, Arizona in the amount of $625,820 plus all applicable tax.

Vote: 5 - 1

NAY:

Councilmember Jeff Oravits

Recreation Supervisor Glorice Pavey stated that she is before Council with a proposed street closure for the Great Race scheduled for June 25th. She also stated that the event producer is located in Tennessee and is available by phone should the Council have any questions for him.
 
Mayor Nabours asked if staff has talked with the downtown merchants and if they have any thoughts or concerns about the street closure. Ms. Pavey explained that Terry Madeksza of the Flagstaff Downtown Business Improvement and Revitalization District has been in direct contact with the event producer in working out specific details to make the event successful for all.

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to approve the street closure at Aspen Avenue (between San Francisco Street and Beaver Street) on Thursday, June 25, 2015 from 2:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.

Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to read Ordinance No. 2015-06 for the final time by title only.

Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, AMENDING THE FLAGSTAFF CITY CODE, TITLE 3, BUSINESS REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 3-10, USER FEES, SECTION 3-10-001-0006, CITY CLERK, BY INCREASING THE LIQUOR LICENSE FEE FROM $560.00 TO $815.00; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, SEVERABILITY, AUTHORITY FOR CLERICAL CORRECTIONS, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
 

Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Mayor Jerry Nabours to adopt Ordinance No. 2015-06.

Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to adopt Resolution No. 2015-15.

Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously

 

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Scott Overton to read Ordinance No. 2015-05 by title only for the final time.

Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE FLAGSTAFF CITY CODE, TITLE 3, BUSINESS REGULATIONS, BY ADOPTING “THE 2015 CITY TAX CODE AMENDMENTS” AS SET FORTH IN THAT PUBLIC RECORD ON FILE WITH THE CITY CLERK RELATING TO TRANSFER OF LOCAL TRANSACTION PRIVILEGE AND USE TAX ADMINISTRATION AND COLLECTION TO THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, SEVERABILITY, AUTHORITY FOR CLERICAL CORRECTIONS, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE

Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz to adopt Ordinance No. 2015-05.

Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to approve the Grant Agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the amount of $293,500 for the design of Runway 3/21 Mill and Overlay Reconstruction Project.

Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Mayor Jerry Nabours to approve Supplemental Agreement Number 3 with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $ 263,826.68 subject to acceptance of a grant from the Federal Aviation Administration and the Arizona Department of Transportation, Multimodal Planning Division, Aeronautics and authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents.

Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously

Airport Director Barney Helmick addressed Council stating that there is no increase in the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC). There are two mechanisms under federal programs to provide monies to airport capital programs nationwide. The first is the Airport Capital Improvement Program and the second is the PFC. PFCs are airport specific and allow Flagstaff to collect $4.50 per airline ticket; these monies are tied to specific grant programs that allow for reimbursement to the City contributions. Mr. Helmick further explained that PFCs have to be approved every three years which is why this item is before Council. He also stated that while the fee is not going up there has been some work in Congress to raise the PFC rate to $8.00 but it is uncertain if that will gain any traction.
 
Councilmember Overton expressed some concern about implementing other fees with PFCs in place. He asked if there would be any limitations to charging for parking if a parking structure was built at the airport. Mr. Helmick explained that the City would not be subject to limitation in that regard.
 
Mayor Nabours asked if the City can use the PFCs for matching grant funds for the overlay project. Mr. Helmick explained that they can because the overlay project is named in this PFC program as a reimbursable item.

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Scott Overton to approve the 2015 FAA Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Application and authorize the City Manager to make non-substantive adjustments as necessary to address FAA requests.

Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously

Risk Manager Dean Coughenour addressed Council stating that the Workers Compensation premiums have gone down to less than what was paid 10 years ago. It is the same coverage of more employees. The reason the premium has been reduced is because employee injuries are down 50% and employee serious injuries are down over 70%. Those two elements combined have allowed the City to secure the lower renewal. This will likely be the last year that the City sees substantial savings and it is likely that next year the City would see a modest increase.
 
In the General Liability premiums there is a 30% reduction; it is about $350,000 less than 2013-2014 and the carrier and coverage is the same. The property insurance carrier has changed and by changing the City has reduced the premium and enhanced the coverage. Like the Workers’ Compensation coverage the City will likely see a modest increase next year.
 
Mr. Coughenour explained that some of the reasons the City is able to see this savings is by having 800 risk managers in Flagstaff. Through his work with employees in the field he has found them to be the ones making the difference in Flagstaff. Additionally, staff has changed how incidents are reported and there has been improved communication flow back to departments and employees. There are new training programs that are going back to employees. Additionally, the types of negotiations that staff has done and the relationships that staff has built with carriers in the industry have also had an effect on the premiums.
 
Mayor Nabours stated that he has heard that for many of these insurance carriers that the reason for the reduction is Mr. Coughenour and he thanked him for his efforts. The Mayor asked him about the position he holds with the National Risk Management Association. Mr. Coughenour stated that the National Trade Magazine for Public Risk Managers for the United States came out this week and he is on the cover because he will be taking office as the President of the Public Risk Managers of the United States in June. There is an article that went with that and he encouraged the Council to take a look at it when they have a chance.

Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz to approve the renewal of the Workers' Compensation contract with Copperpoint Mutual Insurance at an estimated annual cost of $725,000.

Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz to approve the renewal of our Casualty insurance with Travelers Insurance and our Property coverage with AIG insurance at a total estimated annual cost of $875,000.

Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously

Gabor Kovacs addressed Council in regards to the need of unity in the City and the Nation.
 
Joe Ray addressed Council urging them to thank John Viktora for the thinning work he did on the McCallister property.

Mayor Nabours stated that there are some questions that have come up since the last meeting. He asked for clarification on how the gathering number of five was established. He also asked for more information on how the police will separate innocent persons that may be in attendance but not contributing to the nuisance. Assistant City Attorney for Prosecution Marianne Sullivan stated that staff drew from existing statutes and ordinances throughout the state in determining the number of people that constitutes a gathering. Additionally, most of the language contained in the ordinance was taken from an ordinance in Rhode Island that was recently challenged and did go to the District Court. Five seemed to be a number that can be easily determined by responding officers upon arrival of a situation.
 
In regards to the innocent persons in attendance, the definition section defines responsible person as one who engaged in the conduct causing the gathering to be a nuisance party. They actually have to engage in the conduct that is causing the disturbance. When the officers arrive they are assessing the situation and determining those who are causing the problems versus those who are just in attendance.
 
Vice Mayor Barotz asked for Ms. Sullivan to explain how this ordinance is different than what is currently included in City Code. Ms. Sullivan stated that this ordinance is different because it is civilly based instead of criminally based. The focus is to address the behaviors that are causing the nuisance in a way that is not as harsh as a criminal penalty. It is possible for someone to also be cited for disorderly conduct and criminal violations but the idea is to have a civil penalty so there is a deterrent effect, but not as harsh a punishment as a criminal violation unless that is needed. Vice Mayor Barotz clarified that the ordinance does not criminalize any behavior but rather it gives law enforcement the opportunity to utilize another tool to help curb nuisance behavior.
 
Ms. Sullivan also pointed out that staff changed the language in the title to simply state Nuisance Party which is further defined within the ordinance to be clearer. There were some concerns about freedoms of association and gathering and that being misunderstood to constitute a nuisance. Referring back to the case out of Rhode Island, the court there found that there is no constitutional right to socializing; the constitutional right protects politically motivated gatherings. Again, the purpose and focus with this ordinance is on the behavior, not the gathering, and giving law enforcement additional tools that are less harsh than criminal penalties when dealing with nuisance parties. When behavior rises to a certain level that disrupts the quiet enjoyment of neighbors that is when police action is needed.
 
Vice Mayor Barotz asked for Ms. Sullivan to explain how the language in the ordinance in the definition of nuisance party where the language states “such disturbances may include but are not limited to excessive noise, traffic, etc.” is not overly broad. Ms. Sullivan stated that the language was also included in the ordinance that was challenged in Rhode Island and what was found is that it is an example of the instances that may rise to the level of a disturbance. The reason this ordinance states “including but not limited to” is because there are instances that cause disturbances but are not included on the list. The definition of nuisance party specifically spells out the behavior required for the threshold to rise to nuisance. The lists of what the disturbances might be are definitions of what is already included in the City’s criminal code. and are examples of things that might rise to the level of disturbance.
 
Councilmember Brewster asked if the ordinance will be enforced on a complaint basis. Ms. Sullivan explained that in order to prove that there is a violation there has to be an element of disturbance or nuisance and in order to prove that there has to be a person who is reporting that their quiet and enjoyment has been disturbed.
 
Councilmember Oravits stated that he has concerns on page two, section C-3 with the intent of the law and what the law actually says. He stated that the ordinance says “any gathering of five or more on private property that is causing a disturbance of the quiet enjoyment of private or public property by any person or persons. Such disturbances may include, but are not limited to…” if someone really wants to press this it could be applied to a five year old birthday party with kids running around and being loud and a neighbor who does not particularly like it. The question raised here is if the Police Department picks and chooses which disturbances constitute action or if they adhere to the letter of the law. He stated that he is concerned with the discretion. Ms. Sullivan stated that discretion is what officers use each and every day. Under the current law, without this ordinance, the police can get a disorderly conduct call in which they would respond and make an assessment.

Councilmember Oravits asked what prevents officers from addressing the nuisance issue now. Police Chief Kevin Treadway stated that the Flagstaff Police Department has developed a culture of restraint and discretion that is a part of every law enforcement role. The current party ordinance results in a great amount of discretion in the application; the vast majority of the individuals involved in these parties are identified to make sure there is no underage drinking and then asked to leave, that is the only enforcement action taken. He feels that the proposed ordinance will not vastly change the approach at which officers respond to these types of calls. Ms. Sullivan added that it gives officers another tool to impose a less harsh penalty than what is called for in the standing ordinance.
 
Councilmember Putzova asked what constitutes excessive noise. Ms. Sullivan stated that it is determined on a case by case basis. Examples may be that it can be heard outside the residence, it is an unusual noise, if it is an unreasonable noise that is prolonged or it is something that is heard down the street, etc. Councilmember Putzova asked how the ordinance would apply in a case where the noise being complained about is coming from a business establishment. Ms. Sullivan stated that those can be looked at it in conjunction with the noise ordinance but it is important to keep in mind that people choose to live in an area that is near these types of establishments. Chief Treadway added that he did not believe that this ordinance would be an appropriate application for a situation like this.
 
Vice Mayor Barotz presented a hypothetical situation in which there is a large party at an apartment complex with at least 40 people there; she asked what is available under the laws today to manage the behavior. Ms. Sullivan stated that under the current laws they could be charged for disorderly conduct or other misdemeanor charges. What is available today is either criminal charges or notifications with fees. The proposed ordinance would allow the police department to make an assessment and give out civil citations.
 
Councilmember Oravits asked if the current ordinance is being repealed. Ms. Sullivan stated that this ordinance would amend the current ordinance allowing there to be civil penalties and/or criminal penalties.
 
Councilmember Oravits stated that on page 4 of the ordinance under notification there are three options listed and he would recommend that notification be certified because just posting on the door may not get notice to the intended person. Ms. Sullivan stated that there are sometimes situations where officers arrive at a scene and people will not answer the door. Posting a notice on the door would allow notification of the party notification and the certified notification would be for the owner of the property.
 
Josh Collier addressed Council on behalf of Flagstaff Liberty Alliance in opposition of the ordinance due to it being overreaching and vague.
 
Written comment cards in opposition of the proposed ordinance were received from the following individuals:

• Cynthia Dorfsmith
• John Kistler
• Joanna Estes
• Elisha Dorfsmith

Mayor Nabours stated that the ordinance primarily deals with the liability of the landlord or property owner which is one of the primary issues that the police department has been struggling with. One of the issues is that there is no recourse against a property owner to control their property. This ordinance would give the City a tool for the owner to take notice and do something. He offered thanks to the staff for their research on the ordinance and what other cities have done.
 
Councilmember Overton stated that he is comfortable with the ordinance and is confident that the Police Department will do a good job of taking the Council intent and using it in a just manner within the community.
 
Councilmember Brewster stated that she, too, is comfortable with the ordinance and feels that it is a good middle ground for enforcement.
 
Councilmember Evans stated that by bringing in the property owners the ordinance will be more effective.
 
Ms. D’Andrea clarified that the changes to the title will be to replace the word large with nuisance and remove gathering or events.

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Scott Overton to read Ordinance No. 2015-08 by title only for the final time.

Vote: 6 - 1

NAY:

Councilmember Jeff Oravits

AN ORDINANCE OF THE FLAGSTAFF CITY COUNCIL AMENDING TITLE VI, POLICE REGULATIONS, OF THE FLAGSTAFF CITY CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 6-08-001-0005, NUSIANCE PARTIES, THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND AUTHORITY FOR CLERICAL CORRECTIONS, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AS AMENDED

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to adopt Ordinance No. 2015-08.

Vote: 6 - 1

NAY:

Councilmember Jeff Oravits

Mr. Meilbeck stated this project has engaged a lot of interest. There is interest in the City doing what it can for the Veterans and there is interest in protecting the values of McMillan Mesa. The challenge before staff is how to do both.
 
Vice Mayor Barotz stated that she heard from the public that the Zoning Code reflects the values of the community as a whole and the idea that it would not apply it in a certain case is problematic.
 
Assistant to the City Manager for Real Estate David McIntire provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:
 
RESOLUTION 2015-16: MEMORIALIZING DIRECTION TO CONSIDER PROVIDING
       LAND ON MCMILLAN MESA TO STATE FOR VETERAN FACILITY
REVIEW FEEDBACK RECEIVED
 
Councilmember Putzova asked for clarification on who is applying for the grant that will fund the building and construction. Mr. McIntire stated that the land is deeded to the Arizona Department of Veteran Services; they are in charge of the project and would be moving it forward. They have a formal relationship with the Department of Veterans' Affairs of the United States federal government and they receive grant funding for roughly two thirds of the project from the Veterans' Administration and must conform to their guidelines. While the Department of Veterans' Services is a state agency that control the project and own the land they are done with strict guidelines associated with the grant funding. Councilmember Putzova asked if staff has seen the guidelines and can tell the Council what they are. Mr. McIntire explained that staff does not have a detailed analysis of grant guidelines.
 
Mayor Nabours stated that there is a building code in place with regard to structural safety issues. Mr. McIntire stated that the City would have approval rights with life and safety issues; this would include the structural integrity, fire safety within the facility, potentially traffic access points, and connections to the City’s rights of way. The City building codes are in effect, it is the design and zoning guidelines that are not relevant to the State as a solvent entity in which they are currently expressing their unwillingness to accept because it would impact the Veterans' Administration willingness to provide the grant funding.
 
Vice Mayor Barotz asked for the implications of a project being built that does not have to comply with the City’s stormwater requirements and asked if that creates issues with property values for those properties adjacent or downstream to the development. Community Development Director Mark Landsiedel addressed Council stating that when it comes to the review of State or school district projects the State has been very clear that cities cannot impose landscaping and building designs standards. The City stance has been life safety issues, structural integrity of the building, fire suppression system within the building, and ingress/egress into the building are things are clearly under City purview; stormwater is under our prevue, they are required to submit a stormwater plan to show that they are not flooding the neighbors or exacerbating existing flooding conditions. The last big thing is that these are the City’s rights of way and roads so the City permits the access points.
 
Mr. McIntire continued the presentation.
 
PROPOSED FLAGSTAFF VETERAN FACILITY – KEY CONSIDERATIONS
 
Mr. Meilbeck continued the presentation.
 
DIRECTION ON RESOLUTION
 
Councilmember Brewster asked if the building would be LEED certified. Mr. McIntire stated that the building would be a minimum of LEED Silver. Councilmember Brewster added that LEED certification also has its own code which is quite rigid. She asked if there are other communities in northern Arizona that are competing for a facility like this. Mr. McIntire stated that in some of the conversations with the State it was mentioned that there are a couple of other communities that might also be interested such as Kingman. Councilmember Brewster stated that she wants everyone to be aware that Flagstaff is not the only city competing for this facility. Mayor Nabours added that Flagstaff is competing with other cities throughout the country. Mr. McIntire explained that there is a prioritization list and by contributing land and getting a commitment from the State for their contribution that puts Flagstaff on the list for federal funding.
 
Vice Mayor Barotz asked for clarification on what being LEED certified ensures and what standards are governed. Mr. Landsiedel stated that LEED certification is more about materials inside of the building and it does not affect the character of the exterior of the building.
 
Councilmember Evans stated that there is a misunderstanding that the State is driving the process and they want a facility here; the City is at this point because the community wants a veterans' home. The City asked for information on how it can get a veteran’s home in Flagstaff or northern Arizona. The process and project are being driven by the community. The State came to look at proposed properties and offered feedback on the land that provided the greatest opportunity for success. One of the things is that the City needs to be clear about is the deed; if the building is not built in a certain amount of time the land comes back to the City, additionally, the land would be deeded to Veteran’s Affairs not the State of Arizona.
 
The following individuals addressed the Council in support of Option A:

• Stuart McDaniel on behalf of the Flagstaff Chamber
• Gabor Kovacs
• Joe Ray
• Andrew Griffin
• Stephen Hirst on behalf of the Open Space Commission

The comments received are as follows:

• Having to travel to other areas far away hinders the help that these men and women deserve.
• The land is available and the Veteran’s home is important to the community.
• The zoning code and design standards should not cause problems with the process moving forward.
• The veterans deserve this facility and if this is what it takes to get there then so be it.
• This would be a federal building; the City does not have any stricter rules on building than the federal government.
• This building will put Flagstaff on the map.
• There are too many other sites that are competing for this facility, the City needs to act now.
• McMillan Mesa is a gem and it is a place that the community cherishes; the veterans deserve to be on the mesa.
• The State has demonstrated that they can build a home that the communities can be proud of as is true in Phoenix and Tucson.
• Because of the diversity that Flagstaff offers, once the City allocates the land the State will move quickly to allocate the funds necessary to get this done.
• There is no reason for the City to believe that the State has some kind of rules that would dictate an undesirable building.
• Outside this project, the remaining land on McMillan Mesa should be protected as open space.

The following individuals addressed the Council in support of Option B:

• Kathy Marron
• Marilyn Weissman
• Nat White
• Moran Henn

The comments received are as follows:

• There is concern with the State not agreeing to adhere to the City codes.
• Another site could be suggested.
• The Council should ask for adherence to City codes.
• The State and Federal government should follow City rules and not pick and chose what is acceptable to follow.
• The City wants quality projects that follow their design and zoning standards.
• Concerned with the environment of McMillan Mesa, it is a very exposed area in Flagstaff.
• The City needs to consider what is best for the people working and living there.
• Would like additional information on how the public will be engaged in the design of the building.

Written comment cards in support of Option B were submitted from the following:

• Nat White
• Sean Hickey
• Darlene Ryan
• Mary Mei Ling Chun
• Lori Boettcher
• Mary Ellen Arndorfer

A break was held from 7:15 p.m. through 7:26 p.m.
 
Councilmember Oravits asked how McMillan Mesa was chosen and whether or not there are any other viable options. Mr. McIntire stated that he toured a few parcels with the State and the McMillan Mesa property was the only one that they felt met the needs and requirements of the project. Councilmember Evans added that the Koch Field property is too far away from medical services, the current public works yard had issues with how the language of the bond was written and there were issues with all of the other properties.
 
Councilmember Oravits asked what other organizations do not have to follow the City’s zoning code. Mr. McIntire stated that Flagstaff Unified School District and charter schools are exempt along with State buildings on State land, Northern Arizona University, and Coconino County on County land.
 
Councilmember Putzova stated that the land is estimated to be valued at around $4 million; she asked for the estimated value of the project as a whole. Mr. McIntire explained that there is not a clear figure on the value as a whole because there has been no design work done yet. Councilmember Putzova asked for the value of the land in the existing facilities in Tucson and Phoenix and the value of the asset on top of it. Mr. McIntire stated that staff did ask the Department of Veteran’s Services if they could provide a cost or value estimate for the land they received in Tucson and Phoenix; there was no appraisal done, the communities passed along those parcels without a value determined. The Department of Veterans' Services did not know and were not concerned with the value of the land. Councilmember Putzova asked if there was a way to get an estimate on those parcels to understand how much the community is contributing. Mr. McIntire explained that a Real Estate Broker can provide an appraisal but only if under contract. The City could hire an appraiser should that be the will of the Council but it could be costly and time consuming. Councilmember Evans added that Flagstaff’s cost of living and cost of land will drive the value of the property higher than those in the valley. Other cities donated land without appraisal because they were looking at the project as a whole. There are some things that a dollar amount cannot be put on. The Mesa is valuable and important and when the Council tries to put a dollar figure on it the wrong message is being sent. She urged the Council to look at it in terms of people instead of dollars.
 
Councilmember Putzova stated that the enactment section of the resolution is missing some crucial things; there is no reference to a 60 bed facility and the wording should reflect a minimum 60 bed facility. Additionally, there needs to be wording that ensures that once the City deeds the property to the State the State cannot turn around and sell the property. The resolution need to ensure that the land is used for veterans in perpetuity and that there would be no additional operational cost for this facility if leased by another entity.

      Moved by Councilmember Coral Evans; seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits
      to read Resolution No. 2015-16 Option A by title only.

Moved by Councilmember Eva Putzova, seconded by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz to amend the resolution Section 1 to add operating a minimum of 60 beds and add section 3 that would require the State to use the land and the facility for veterans home in perpetuity and not sell it to a third party.

Vote: 4 - 3

NAY:

Mayor Jerry Nabours
Councilmember Karla Brewster
Councilmember Scott Overton

Mayor Nabours called for a vote on the motion to read the Resolution as amended made by Councilmember Evans.

Moved by Councilmember Coral Evans, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to read Resolution No. 2015-16 as amended.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA, MEMORIALIZING DIRECTION FOR STAFF TO BRING AN ORDINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION PROVIDING APPROXIMATELY EIGHT ACRES OF LAND ON MCMILLAN MESA TO THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' SERVICES (AZDVS) FOR USE AS A SKILLED NURSING FACILITY TO SERVE VETERANS AS AMENDED
 

Moved by Councilmember Coral Evans, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to adopt Resolution No. 2015-16 as amended.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Councilmember Evans left the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
 
A break was held from 8:20 p.m. through 8:24 p.m.

Mr. McIntire stated that the ordinance is for approval of easements and right of ways that have been acquired through the development process.

Moved by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to read Ordinance No. 2015-10 by title only for the first time.

Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously

AN ORDINANCE OF THE FLAGSTAFF CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF TO ACCEPT SPECIFIC DEEDS OF REAL PROPERTY AND EASEMENTS AND PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, SEVERABILITY, AND AUTHORITY FOR CLERICAL CORRECTIONS, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE

Mayor Nabours stated that at the Work Session last week the Council went through this item in great detail to understand why limits are needed and how it affects the City treatment plants. Vice Mayor Barotz thanked the staff for doing such a great job explaining the item.

Moved by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to read Resolution No. 2015-19 by title only.

Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA, DECLARING AS A PUBLIC RECORD THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK ENTITLED THE “REVISED DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL USERS” AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE

Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Mayor Jerry Nabours to read Ordinance No. 2015-09 by title only for the first time.

Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE FLAGSTAFF CITY CODE, CHAPTER 7-02, WASTEWATER REGULATIONS, BY ADOPTING THE “REVISED DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL USERS” AS SET FORTH IN THAT PUBLIC RECORD ON FILE WITH THE CITY CLERK RELATING TO THE STANDARDS AND LOCAL LIMITS FOR INDUSTRIAL SEWER DISCHARGE; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, SEVERABILITY, AUTHORITY FOR CLERICAL CORRECTIONS, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE

Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to read Resolution No. 2015-17 by title only.

Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA, DECLARING AS A PUBLIC RECORD THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK ENTITLED THE “REVISED STORMWATER UTILITY CREDIT MANUAL” AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE

Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to read Ordinance No. 2015-07 by title only for the first time.

Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE FLAGSTAFF CITY CODE, CHAPTER 12-02, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY, BY ADOPTING THE “REVISED STORMWATER UTILITY CREDIT MANUAL” AS SET FORTH IN THAT PUBLIC RECORD ON FILE WITH THE CITY CLERK RELATING TO THE PROVISION OF STORMWATER UTILITY CREDITS; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, SEVERABILITY, AUTHORITY FOR CLERICAL CORRECTIONS, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE

Mr. Meilbeck reported that as of that moment all of the special election questions passed at the ballot except number six, so the City Council will continue to appoint the City Treasurer.

The Regular Meeting of the Flagstaff City Council held May 19, 2015, adjourned at 8:33 p.m.