Others present:  City Manager Greg Clifton; City Attorney Sterling Solomon.

Mayor Daggett called a moment of silence to remember Katie Whittekind.

Michael Pappas addressed Council to express concerns about Mountain Line.

City Attorney Sterling Solomon introduced the new City Prosecutor John Rodabaugh. Mr. Rodabaugh expressed his appreciation and excitement for serving the City of Flagstaff.

Mayor Daggett read and presented the proclamation.

Councilmember Harris shared that she met with the Airport Commission and confirmed that plans for the new paid parking lot were moving forward as expected. She encouraged the public to review available information to understand how the system would operate.

Moved by Councilmember Jim McCarthy, seconded by Councilmember Miranda Sweet to clarify that Duffie Westheimer holds the Historic Property Owner seat and to appoint Amy Horn to an At-Large seat expiring December 2025.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Mayor Daggett opened the public hearing.
 
Sergeant Kevin Sapp introduced the applications and noted nothing of concern.
 
There being no public comment, Mayor Daggett closed the public hearing.

Moved by Councilmember Khara House, seconded by Councilmember Miranda Sweet to forward the applications to the State with a recommendation for approval.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Khara House, seconded by Councilmember Jim McCarthy to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Lori Matthews, seconded by Councilmember Miranda Sweet to read Ordinance No. 2023-05 by title for the final time.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Lori Matthews, seconded by Councilmember Miranda Sweet to adopt Ordinance No. 2023-05.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Amy Hagin provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following: 

HISTORY OF PICKLEBALL IN FLAGSTAFF
HISTORY IN CITY PARKS
WHY BUSHMASTER PARK?
COURT DESIGN, PROPOSAL AND FUNDING
CONCEPT IDEAS
4-POD COURT LAYOUT
LSI’S ZONE LED SPORTS LIGHT
PROPOSAL COST
INFORM FEEDBACK
FEEDBACK FROM RESIDENTS
DISTANCES FROM RESIDENCES 
ACOUSTICAL WALLS/BARRIER

A question was raised about how late the Bushmaster Park courts would remain lit and whether the lighting complied with dark-sky standards. Ms. Hagin confirmed that the lights were fully dark-sky compliant and that park hours were from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and until midnight on Fridays and Saturdays. The lights operated on a one-hour timer, automatically shutting off at closing time even if activated shortly before. 

It was asked if staff had received any complaints before the postcards were delivered. Ms. Hagin stated that no complaints were received prior to the postcards. 

Another question was raised about whether the current dual-striped tennis and basketball courts would remain that way or return to being dedicated solely to their original sports if new pickleball courts were approved. Staff explained that if the proposal moved forward and the existing courts were resurfaced, they would continue to be dual-striped for pickleball. However, the current dedicated pickleball hours on those shared courts would be eliminated so the courts could primarily serve their original sports. The eight proposed new courts would provide fully dedicated pickleball play, removing the need for special hours on the shared ones.

There was discussion about the proposed overlay showing where new pickleball courts might be located. Concerns were raised about potential tree removal, as the image appeared to place the courts over an area with roughly six to eight trees Ms. Hagin emphasized that the court layout had not been designed yet, and the aerial image was only a general illustration. They had not performed detailed, on-site measurements, and depending on the final design, the courts could potentially be shifted to reduce tree impacts. Some smaller ponderosa pines may still be affected, but staff stated their intention to be as minimally intrusive as possible, noting that an exact number of trees affected cannot yet be provided.

Continued discussion focused on safety, lighting, noise, existing court usage, and potential alternative layouts. Ms. Hagin explained that while a four-foot fence was more open and inviting, there was some potential for balls to leave the court, though conflicts with nearby basketball and tennis areas were not expected due to their taller fencing. Concerns about lighting were also discussed; while the courts used dark-sky-compliant fixtures and operated only within standard park hours, staff said they could explore adding sensors to shut lights off sooner if courts were not in use.

There were suggestions about whether dedicated hours or midday quiet periods could be introduced to give nearby residents’ relief from noise; staff noted that such restrictions did not currently exist in city code and would require formal changes to implement.

Council also discussed whether the courts could be moved farther from homes to the south or relocated to other areas of the park, though staff cautioned that space constraints, existing amenities, and the orientation of the courts limit how much noise exposure could change. 

The following individuals addressed Council in support of the contract:

• Michael Ley
• C.J. Moore
• David Stephens
• Shelley Alvin
• Sandra Smith
• Bernice Carver
• Vanessa Miller
• Jennifer Kottra
• Irv Callahan
• Samuel Tomich
• Steve Mead
• Autumn Layden
• Retha L’Ecuyer
• Alicia Jorajuria
• C.J. Hoyt
• Jenny Zamora-Garcia
• Melinda McKinney
• Sharon Welsh Falor
• Dan Cunningham
• Linda Stricker
• John Hook
• Eric Fisher
• Adriana Cunningham
• Brooks Hart
• Tanya Rae
• Craig Mikelson
• Lynn Walsh
• Eileen Taggart

Written comments in support of the contract were submitted by the following individuals:

• Lee Johnson
• Mary Debold
• Ward Kinney
• Vickey Finger
• Christa Terhafen
• Mary Lou Gershater-Stom
• Warren Stone
• Ray Carver
• John Macken
• Bonnie Coffey
• Margaret Travers
• Dawson Henderson
• Randy Schilling

The following comments were received:

• Promotes physical and mental health for participants of all ages, including seniors and youth.
• Safer than high-impact sports; helps with mobility, recovery, and general fitness.
• Easy to learn, inexpensive, inclusive, and provides accessible recreation for beginners, families, and retirees.
• Builds social connections, friendships, and intergenerational engagement.
• Encourages community awareness and care, with players supporting others at the park.
• Open-play nature allows spontaneous participation without organized teams or club membership.
• Contributes to social cohesion, especially during periods of isolation (e.g., COVID).
• Existing Bushmaster Park courts are inadequate: cracked tennis courts, temporary nets, no dividers, and overcrowded play areas.
• Dual-striped courts create scheduling conflicts with tennis and basketball, limiting access for multiple sports.
• Nearby small towns offer better facilities, drawing players away.
• Permanent, dedicated courts would restore and expand capacity, accommodate growth, and improve safety and organization.
• Would reduce pressure on existing courts, allowing each sport to function more effectively.
• Courts would free tennis and basketball spaces during peak times.
• Acoustic mitigation (fencing/sound barriers) can reduce noise near homes, as shown in other cities.
• Bushmaster Park has existing parking, restrooms, lights, and other infrastructure to support expanded courts.
• Other potential sites (e.g., Thorpe Park) lack adequate infrastructure or lighting.
• Pickleball is growing nationally and internationally, attracting visitors, snowbirds, and recreational residents.
• Tournament-level facilities in other cities generate tourism and revenue; Flagstaff risks falling behind.
• Professional athletes already train in Flagstaff; dedicated courts would expand this draw.
• Supports youth athletics and high school programs by providing additional court access.
• Supporters report minimal past complaints; noise is generally manageable.
• Train and playground noise exceeds pickleball noise; prevailing winds help dissipate sound.
• Noise mitigation strategies are available and effective.
• Longtime residents and players view pickleball as integral to the park’s evolution.
• Playing at Bushmaster contributes to personal achievements and community-building.
• Expanding courts fosters a welcoming, inclusive, and active recreational environment.

The following individuals addressed Council in opposition of the contract:

• Steve Walter
• Esther Breckenridge
• Nancy Panlener
• Juliet Parham
• Connie Folsom
• Paul Haro
• Audria Smith
• Shari Peralta
• Erin Young
• Laura Shearin
• Dana Jolly
• Mary Walter

Written comments in opposition of the contract were submitted by the following individuals:

• Laura Shearin
• Karen Malis-Clark
• Paul McClelland
• Steve Alves
• Paul Malis

The following comments were received:

• Slow down the project and include public input in a transparent site-selection process.
• Opposition to treating the proposal as a “done deal” without community-wide evaluation.
• Many neighbors were not notified or formally involved; felt blindsided by city staff prioritizing pickleball over other recreation projects.
• Desire for clear standards, regulations, or buffers for court placement before committing to the project.
• Noise is the primary concern; existing courts already generate significant disturbance, which would worsen with more courts.
• Proposed courts are very close to residences (125–300 feet), creating a direct sound pathway to homes.
• Extended hours (5 a.m.–midnight) and potential tournaments would increase repetitive noise, disrupt sleep, and reduce quality of life.
• Lights left on late at night may interfere with neighbors’ sleep, especially during winter months.
• Bushmaster is historically a neighborhood park meant for informal recreation, quiet enjoyment, and contemplative spaces.
• The park is valued for its greenery, mature trees, and natural shade; development and tree removal threaten aesthetics and environmental quality.
• Concerns about removal of old-growth ponderosa pines and other environmental impacts.
• Development may compromise natural open space and the overall character of the neighborhood.
• Increased daily traffic, parking in dirt lots, and visitors accessing courts would affect streets, create hazards, and disrupt non-adjacent homes.
• Observations of unsafe behavior by some players in parking lots (racing, not watching children).
• Concerns about harassment, trash, and inappropriate behavior associated with increased park use.
• Support for placing courts away from homes, including underused commercial areas, shopping centers, indoor spaces, or other park parcels.
• Dedicated pickleball facilities could meet community needs without impacting neighborhoods.
• Existing alternative sites (e.g., Thorpe Park, Fort Park) may reduce residential impact.
• Fear that funding and staff attention for pickleball may delay or deprioritize other recreational needs (swimming pools, soccer fields, softball, skate park repairs).
• Concerns about insufficient maintenance of existing park facilities (graffiti, broken sidewalks).
• Potential negative impact on home values due to increased noise and activity.
• Close proximity of courts could raise privacy and light pollution issues.

Council discussed the proposal and acknowledged that pickleball was a popular and growing sport, providing recreational opportunities and health benefits. However, several Councilmembers expressed concerns about the appropriateness of Bushmaster Park as a site due to its proximity to residences, potential noise impacts, lighting, and the effect on the park’s character.

It was highlighted that the park was historically a neighborhood space intended for informal, passive recreation, and that neighbors reasonably expected this character when purchasing their homes. Specific concerns included the noise from hard paddles and balls, potential disruption to home-based businesses, and the intrusion of extended hours and court lighting. A citizen petition opposing the courts at Bushmaster, with over 100 signatures, was referenced as evidence of community concern.

Council noted that while other park locations had been considered, staff determined there were no other shovel-ready sites in the city’s park system capable of accommodating the courts. Options for mitigation were discussed, including relocating the courts as far from homes as possible, adjusting operating hours to reduce evening and nighttime play, planting tree buffers to reduce noise, and exploring indoor or alternative recreational spaces.

Council emphasized the need to balance recreational growth and the health benefits of pickleball with the preservation of neighborhood quality of life. Proposed compromises, such as limiting nighttime court access and prioritizing the protection of existing trees and natural areas were suggested. Staff also clarified that resurfacing of existing courts and potential lighting upgrades were part of the proposal and could be adjusted based on Council direction.

The discussion included acknowledgment of the city’s broader parks and recreation priorities, including tennis courts, multipurpose fields, and other athletic facilities identified through previous bond initiatives. Council stressed that the proposal should be implemented thoughtfully, with attention to noise mitigation, park character, and community concerns, and that any decision should seek a balance between recreational access and neighborhood livability.

Moved by Councilmember Lori Matthews, seconded by Vice Mayor Austin Aslan to approve the construction of the pickleball courts at Bushmaster park with the conditions that the courts are built as far from homes as possible, that as many trees as possible can be preserved, and that there are no lights.

Councilmember House requested a restriction on the hours of play be considered in the motion; she did not feel that the reduction of lights addressed that fully.

Motion and second withdrawn by Councilmember Matthews and Vice Mayor Aslan respectively.

Moved by Councilmember Lori Matthews, seconded by Vice Mayor Austin Aslan to approve Cooperative Purchase Contract with General Acrylics, Inc., in the total amount of $920,642.42 to design and build eight pickleball courts and overlay existing tennis and basketball courts at Bushmaster Park with the conditions that the courts are built as far north possible, with minimal tree removal, and time restrictions on all courts.

Vote: 6 - 1

NAY:

Councilmember Jim McCarthy

Mayor Daggett called a break from 6:30 p.m. through 6:53 p.m. 

Deputy IT Director Paul Santana addressed Council and shared that the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with NAU would guide future network connectivity and collaboration. While there were no specific projects or agreements identified at that time, the IGA established a governance framework to support potential initiatives such as allowing NAU access to city infrastructure for research and smart city projects, expanding internet connectivity for NAU students in low-income areas, and leveraging NAU’s fiber network to extend the city’s fiber development without incurring full capital costs. The IGA also formalized data-sharing regarding the location and ownership of fiber infrastructure. Overall, it was intended to encourage collaborative technology and broadband opportunities that benefited the community.

Moved by Councilmember Lori Matthews, seconded by Councilmember Jim McCarthy to read Resolution No. 2023-18 by title only.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Lori Matthews, seconded by Councilmember Jim McCarthy to adopt Resolution No. 2023-18.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Business Retention and Expansion Manager John Saltonstall and Business Attraction Manager Jack Fitchett provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

FRAMEWORK
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
INCENTIVE HISTORY AND CHANGES

Mayor Daggett clarified that the money was allocated in the budget and that staff was asking for the ability to make minor changes through the Economic Vitality Director. 

Moved by Councilmember Miranda Sweet, seconded by Councilmember Khara House to read Resolution No. 2023-25 by title only.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Miranda Sweet, seconded by Councilmember Khara House to adopt Resolution No. 2023-25.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Senior Assistant City Attorney Anja Wendel stated that the city had been working for several years to acquire over 75 property interests needed for the Beulah/University Drive project, with multiple design changes along the way. Only five properties remained, La Quinta Inn and Suites, the Belmont by Wyndham Hotel, Burger King, Target, and the Green Tree Strip Mall. The proposed resolution would allow the city to proceed with condemnation actions for the five property interests. All property owners would be compensated according to the Arizona Constitution, with appraisals already completed and offers made. The city had spent additional time negotiating in good faith, but complexities, including corporate ownership and out-of-state stakeholders, had delayed final acquisition. 

Moved by Councilmember Khara House, seconded by Councilmember Miranda Sweet to read Resolution No. 2023-23 by title only.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Khara House, seconded by Councilmember Miranda Sweet to adopt Resolution No. 2023-23.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Ms. Wendel offered that on March 7, 2023, the Council approved the first amendment to an IGA with the Arizona Board of Regents/Northern Arizona University for a property exchange of substantially equal value. Under the agreement, the city would acquire University Drive, currently used as public right-of-way for Target, Green Tree, and other properties, and several drainage easements, while conveying a portion of Hoskins Avenue near the NAU campus. Since that approval, NAU requested changes to the drainage easements that were materially different from the original. Staff was seeking Council re-approval of the first amendment to reflect the updated terms.

Moved by Vice Mayor Austin Aslan, seconded by Councilmember Lori Matthews to read Resolution No. 2023-29 by title only.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Jim McCarthy, seconded by Councilmember Deborah Harris to adopt Resolution No. 2023-29.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Real Estate Manager Bryce Doty provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

VICINITY MAP
PREVIOUS PLAN
CURRENT CONCEPT PLAN
REQUIRE PRIVATE PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS

Mayor Daggett thanked the Grand Canyon Trust for offering their land to alleviate the flooding. 

Moved by Councilmember Miranda Sweet, seconded by Councilmember Khara House to read Ordinance No. 2023-13 by title only for the first time.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Lori Matthews, seconded by Councilmember Deborah Harris to read Ordinance No. 2023-13 by title only for the final time.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Lori Matthews, seconded by Councilmember Miranda Sweet to adopt Ordinance No. 2023-13.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Sabrina addressed Council and asked for more information on the project impact of wildlife corridors. 

Mr. Clifton explained that the short-term plan involved a temporary fix that used underground piping beneath Highway 180. The long-term plan, to be completed before the next monsoon season, also involved buried piping, likely extending through Grand Canyon Trust property, with possible daylighting on a second parcel. That would allow surface enhancements such as meandering the stream, adding vegetation, rock placement, and other features to improve aesthetics and wildlife habitat. Construction impacts would be temporary, and the completed project was intended to maintain open space and support wildlife use.

Moved by Councilmember Khara House, seconded by Vice Mayor Austin Aslan to ratify the Irrevocable Right of Entry contract for purchase of real property.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Zoning Code Manager Tiffany Antol, Transportation Engineer Stephanie Santana, Development Engineer Dave Millis, and City Engineer Paul Mood provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

NAH HEALTH VILLAGE PHASE 1 SPECIFIC PLAN & CONCEPT ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
ROADWAY CONNECTIONS
STORM DRAINAGE CONCERNS
INTERSECTION RECONSTRUCTION

Councilmember Matthews inquired about the drainage strategy for the proposed development, asking whether a gravity-flow system would cost more than using a pump. Staff responded that using the existing culvert under I-17 would require a pump, while creating a gravity-flow system would involve extensive drainage work and additional costs.

Vice Mayor Aslan then raised questions about dark sky lighting and emphasized the importance of minimizing light pollution in relation to Naval Observatory’s mission. He noted that the hospital’s building height could pose additional concerns. Staff explained that while a detailed lighting plan was not required at that time due to the concept rezoning, the applicant must comply with current lighting standards. Conversations with the Naval Observatory had focused on mitigating potential light impacts from the building above the tree line, and architectural features such as window shades and shielding were being considered. Vice Mayor Aslan acknowledged the applicant’s good-faith efforts to address those concerns.

Vice Mayor Aslan asked about future wildfire risks, particularly under changing climate conditions, and about evacuation plans given the area southwest of the hospital that had not burned in over a century. Staff noted that current modeling considered on-site ignitions but did not account for future climate impacts. They indicated that private and Forest Service lands in the area were being prioritized for thinning and mitigation, and that emergency planning by the hospital included coordinated wildfire response. Chief Gaillard confirmed that hospital facilities maintained comprehensive emergency plans and that fire responders would be integrated into any evacuation planning, acknowledging that the proposed hospital location had heightened wildfire risk.

Northern Arizona Healthcare Chief Operating Officer Josh Tinkle and Northern Arizona Healthcare Vice President of Construction and Real Estate Development Steve Eiss , provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

COMMUNITY HEALTH NEEDS ASSESSMENT
FACILITY PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
MAKE-GOOD ANALYSIS
REDEVELOPMENT PROCESS FOR 1200 N. BEAVER ST.
COUNTY PARTNERSHIP
EVENT TRAFFIC
AMBULANCE ACCESS DURING SPECIAL EVENTS
COMMUNITY INVESTMENT: TRAINING, JOBS & PHILANTHROPY 
CARBON FOOTPRINT
SOLAR, EV CHARGING & APS PARTNERSHIP
HELICOPTERS AND THE AIRPORT

Additional discussion focused on understanding the operational model and broader commitments of the proposed healthcare development. There were questions about the “hub and spoke” model, and it was explained that acute care services would be centralized on the new campus, which would act as the hub, while primary care, pediatric, and outpatient services would remain distributed throughout the city and surrounding areas as spokes. 

There were also questions about electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure and how usage thresholds would trigger additional stations. Mr. Tinkle explained that they planned to partner with an EV charging provider and would assess utilization annually to scale infrastructure as needed. 

Further discussion involved funding strategies and prior attempts to secure $450 million in tax-exempt bonds through Yavapai County, the reasons for withdrawing that application, and the pivot to Coconino County. Mr. Tinkle clarified that the Yavapai County application was withdrawn due to timing, approval, and political considerations, not because of a failed bond, and that the organization was exploring alternative financing routes, including local and state Industrial Development Authorities.

Council asked for clarification on the applicant’s commitments to green energy. Mr. Eiss confirmed that the hospital would participate in APS’s Green Connect Partner Program, ensuring all electricity came from that program while investing in broader renewable energy initiatives.

Council reviewed the infrastructure responsibilities, specifically transportation improvements, water and sewer upgrades, stormwater management, and fire service impacts. Staff confirmed that the applicant would fund all necessary on-site and adjacent improvements, including contributing 50% toward a new fire station to accommodate the relocated ladder truck.

A break was held from 8:40 p.m. through 8:52 p.m. 

The following individuals addressed Council in support of the rezone and specific plan:

• Kurt Rosene
• Matt Mirabile
• Taylor Wiseman
• Scott Carfi
• Chris Nickle
• David Monihan Jr.
• Lynn Martin
• Kam Marcum
• Travis Boren
• Sara Dorn
• Randy McGrane
• Colleen Little
• Julie Pastrick
• Bonnie Bouschet
• Brian Landauer
• Jerome Naleski
• Judy Louks
• Alice Gaguaire
• Dave Engelthaler
• Chris Lininger
• James Brooks
• Scott Watson
• Ali Applin
• Joel Justin
• Stephen Williams
• Caitlin Boren
• Gail Jackson
• Latisha Jeffers

The following individuals submitted written comments in support of the rezone and specific plan:

• Craig Moody

The following comments were received:

• Current hospital is outdated, overcrowded, and operating at or beyond capacity.
• Long wait times and frequent referrals to Phoenix and Prescott indicate significant unmet demand.
• Retrofitting or renovation cannot adequately address space, workflow, privacy, or technology limitations.
• New facility would reduce reliance on long-distance travel, airlifts, and transfers for specialty and trauma care.
• Faster access to care could save lives and reduce stress on patients and families.
• A state-of-the-art trauma and inpatient facility better serves both emergency and ongoing care needs.
• New campus would add or expand oncology, rehabilitation, wound care, hyperbaric chambers, advanced imaging, pediatric services, and future-focused care models such as hospital-at-home.
• Facilities designed to adapt to evolving healthcare technologies and care delivery models.
• Private rooms, expanded inpatient capacity, and improved layouts enhance dignity, privacy, healing, and family involvement.
• Modern design improves wayfinding, comfort, and overall patient well-being.
• Improved workspaces allow staff to focus on patient care rather than facility constraints.
• Modern facilities and advanced technology are essential for recruiting and retaining high-caliber physicians, nurses, and specialists.
• Supports education and training pipelines through partnerships with NAU and nursing programs.
• Helps retain local graduates in Flagstaff for long-term employment.
• Facility serves not only Flagstaff but a rural regional population of 700,000+, including surrounding communities, travelers, and tourists.
• Addresses longstanding healthcare access gaps across Northern Arizona.
• Construction and permanent healthcare jobs provide significant economic benefits.
• Attracts higher-paying jobs and supports local businesses.
• Seen as a long-term economic engine for Flagstaff and the region.
• Project includes on-site housing and catalyzes additional nearby residential development.
• Supports the City’s declared housing emergency.
• Relocation frees centrally located land for reuse and redevelopment, creating opportunities for housing, schools, and community-serving uses.
• Examples cited include potential reuse for educational facilities such as Flagstaff Junior Academy.
• Roads, utilities, and bridge improvements associated with the project would be funded by the developer, not taxpayers.
• Claims of taxpayer liability were disputed by speakers who reviewed project documents.
• New campus is expected to be more energy-efficient and environmentally sustainable than the existing hospital.
• Includes features such as rooftop solar, modern waste systems, and reduced long-term carbon footprint compared to maintaining the current facility.
• Ongoing coordination with entities such as the Naval Observatory on lighting and dark-sky protections, with continued mitigation planning anticipated.
• New facility strengthens preparedness for pandemics, natural disasters, and future public health emergencies.
• Lessons from COVID underscored the need for additional space, flexibility, and modern infrastructure.
• Viewed as comparable to prior community investments in schools and courts that outgrew existing facilities.
• Framed as a strategic decision focused on the next 50+ years, rather than a short-term solution.
• Seen as essential to supporting families, aging residents, workforce stability, and Flagstaff’s long-term health, safety, and economic resilience.
• Families, patients, and healthcare workers shared firsthand experiences of excellent care delivered in physically constrained conditions.
• Strong trust expressed in hospital staff and healthcare leadership.

The following individuals addressed Council in opposition of the rezone and specific plan:

• Stefan Sommer
• Sara Reeves
• Richard Smith
• Joe Nackard
• David Spence
• Michele James
• Marcus Ford
• Susan Immel
• Matthew Hall
• Erik Nielsen
• Jill Stephenson
• Kathy Perkins
• Anthony Garcia

The following individuals submitted written comments in opposition of the rezone and specific plan:

• Karen Enyedy
• Ann Heitland
• Ann Marie  Geissel
• Sherry Gordon
• Jim Kapsales
• Ed Shuttleworth
• Traci White Limback
• Gregory Limback
• Virginia Wilkins
• Mary Langin
• Cecy Gilbert
• Christopher Murphy MD
• Dr. Donna Michaels

The following comments were received:

• The City lacks a complete, quantified carbon footprint analysis covering construction, operations, transportation impacts, and redevelopment of the existing hospital site.
• Without full lifecycle emissions data, Council cannot determine whether the project supports or undermines Flagstaff’s carbon neutrality goal by 2030.
• Energy efficiency measures alone are viewed as insufficient without understanding total emissions.
• Concerns raised about diesel generators, increased vehicle traffic, urban sprawl, and long-term climate impacts.
• Sustainability commitments are seen by some as minimal and not clearly enforceable.
• Approval without a comprehensive sustainability review could weaken future environmental oversight.
• Requests were made for additional analysis by the City’s sustainability experts before proceeding.
• Described as a “legacy decision” with long-term implications for the community’s environmental future.
• The nearly $1 billion project cost raises concerns about long-term financial impacts on patients, insurers, employers, and the broader community.
• Unclear how the project would reduce healthcare costs or ensure long-term financial sustainability.
• Significant uncertainty exists around infrastructure costs, grant funding assumptions, cost escalation, and potential project delays.
• Concerns that taxpayers could ultimately bear financial risk if funding projections fail.
• Question raised whether relocating the hospital is necessary versus renovating or expanding the existing facility.
• Emphasis that “new” does not automatically mean “affordable.”
• Decisions of this scale were made without a public vote or sufficient community oversight.
• Transition from community-based governance to an expertise-based board raised accountability concerns.
• Calls for greater transparency, enforceable commitments, and written guarantees rather than verbal assurances.
• Skepticism that a new facility alone will resolve staffing challenges or ensure recruitment and retention of permanent, community-based physicians.
• Concerns about chronic understaffing and loss of local specialty services, including pulmonology.
• Patients with chronic conditions are already required to travel long distances for care, increasing risk and stress.
• Doubts that certain subspecialties would locate in Flagstaff due to population constraints, regardless of a new building.
• Proposed location is in a higher wildfire risk area, raising serious evacuation and patient safety concerns during fire events.
• Increased risks from extreme weather and future climate conditions were cited.
• Some speakers supported hospital modernization but questioned whether the chosen site is appropriate.
• Questions remain about road access, right-of-way approvals, Forest Service land use, and adequacy of emergency access routes.
• Traffic impacts on Milton, Beulah, and surrounding corridors were viewed as insufficiently analyzed.
• Concerns raised about electric grid capacity and reliability.
• Water availability and long-term water impact analyses were described as incomplete or delayed, with potential consequences for future generations.
• Relocating the hospital from the city center could harm downtown vitality.
• Risk of long-term vacancy or blight at the existing hospital site without a binding redevelopment plan.
• Some advocated investing in community health, prevention, clinics, education, and access instead of a large, centralized facility.
• Calls for updated healthcare needs assessments, community impact studies, and architectural evaluations before approval.
• Many speakers stated there are too many unanswered questions to proceed confidently.
• Requests to pause or postpone approval until issues related to staffing, financing, sustainability, governance, infrastructure, and community impacts are resolved.

Councilmember Matthews highlighted the strong community engagement around what may be one of the Council’s most significant decisions. She acknowledged concerns about staffing, costs, financials, carbon footprint, and healthcare affordability, but emphasized that those issues were outside the scope of the zoning decision and should be addressed through other forums. She noted changes to the Regional Plan over time and recognized the community’s commitment to environmental stewardship, while clarifying that carbon neutrality and other performance measures were not statutory requirements tied to rezoning the hospital site. She expressed appreciation for the hospital’s efforts to go beyond minimum requirements and act as a good community partner. She stressed that community concerns were valid and heard, suggested continued dialogue with hospital leadership, and reiterated that the Council’s task was limited to zoning.

Councilmember Harris expressed appreciation to everyone who had worked on the project. She emphasized her trust in the expertise of staff and project participants and noted that governing required relying on professionals rather than trying to manage everything alone. She argued that uncertainty should not prevent progress, as moving forward required making courageous decisions. Flagstaff would continue to grow, and future residents would need a state-of-the-art hospital. She indicated that the decision before the Council was a zoning amendment and stated her intention to vote in favor of moving the project forward.

Vice Mayor Aslan acknowledged the tension surrounding the hospital proposal. He expressed his desire to postpone final decisions on the hospital relocation for six months in order to gain greater clarity, including an independent community impact assessment, stronger guarantees from NAH on infrastructure costs, transportation, public safety, reuse of the existing hospital site, and stronger commitments toward Flagstaff’s carbon neutrality goals. He noted three key points: Council’s legal duty to evaluate the proposal based on required findings rather than personal values; he was not opposed to growth or development of the land in question; and he believed that Flagstaff needed a major upgrade to its healthcare infrastructure. However, he was not convinced that relocating to a new 175-acre campus was necessary. He argued that many hospitals successfully modernized in place and that the current campus might be a viable alternative. He expressed pride in the community’s climate advocacy but cautioned against viewing the project solely through a carbon lens, noting that Council decisions must legally focus on whether findings were met. He thanked NAH for exceeding minimum sustainability requirements and expressed hope for a more collaborative, partnership-based approach. He felt that the project failed to meet key findings, particularly regarding conformity with the Regional Plan, transportation, public safety, cost of development, equity impacts, and sprawl. He raised concerns about significant financial burdens on the city and taxpayers, uncertainty around federal grants and debt financing, the onboarding of a new NAH CEO, and impacts on vulnerable populations and transit access. Ultimately, he was open to supporting the project if additional time yielded better outcomes, a postponement would allow negotiations, clearer financial answers, and improved alignment with city goals.

Councilmember House reflected on more than two years of discussion around the hospital project, and acknowledged the contributions of community members, partners, and NAH. Council’s decision was both significant and narrowly focused, with the core questions of whether the project met community need and advanced the Council’s mission to protect and enhance quality of life. She rejected the idea of an “us versus them” divide between the community and the hospital and noted that the decision was not a simple either/or between staying in place or building new. Sustainability and carbon neutrality were central concerns, but the ultimate question was what best served the community. The health system faced significant limitations and remaining at the current facility was not the wisest option. While the decision was not easy, she believed that the findings could be met and the project was necessary.

Councilmember Sweet thanked the community for their passion and acknowledged that public input had improved the hospital project. She also expressed gratitude to city staff and NAH for answering questions, addressing concerns, and exploring ideas like solar partnerships and site improvements. She noted that the decision was regional and affected not just Flagstaff, but surrounding communities. After weighing the complexities and trade-offs, she concluded that the project was positive for the community and region, she believed the findings had been met, and announced that she would vote yes.

Councilmember McCarthy indicated that he had reviewed the development agreement and noted that most prior questions had been addressed. He compared the old and proposed hospitals, highlighted an increase from 240 to 274 licensed beds, plus a 24-bed observation unit and the potential to add 44 more beds without expanding the footprint. He requested that housing provided as part of the project be restricted from becoming short-term rentals and document that within the development agreement. He also proposed accelerating the installation of solar panels and recommended completion within one year of the parking garage rather than waiting until 2030. He expressed that he did not support delaying the vote and any necessary refinements could still be made during the two-week period before the final read and adoption of the ordinance.

Mayor Daggett thanked city staff and the community for their engagement and noted that public input had been critical to her deliberation. She requested the following for inclusion in the development agreement, including:

1. A set start date for public participation and planning.
2. Inclusion of at least one member from the city’s sustainability, housing, and transportation commissions on the vision plan steering committee.
3. Coordination between redevelopment of the current campus and the updated Regional Plan.
4. City council approval of Phase 1 and 2 site plans.
5. Third-party verification of meeting or exceeding Energy Star goals.

Staff and NAH agreed to address the requests prior to the second reading. Mayor Daggett also urged staff to prioritize updating codes and ordinances to reflect carbon neutrality and housing goals. She discussed the project in the context of Flagstaff’s Regional Plan, noting that while infill development was preferable for connectivity, walkability, and climate goals, greenfield development was not prohibited. She believed that the proposed hospital project largely aligned with regional plan policies, minimized viewshed and neighborhood impacts, and accommodated future multimodal transportation needs.

There being no further comment, Mayor Daggett closed the public hearing on Items 12Ai and 12Aii.

Moved by Vice Mayor Austin Aslan to postpone the vote until a date certain of November 7, 2023.

Motion failed for lack of a second.

Moved by Councilmember Lori Matthews, seconded by Councilmember Deborah Harris to read Resolution No. 2023-20 by title only.

Vote: 6 - 1

NAY:

Vice Mayor Austin Aslan

Moved by Councilmember Lori Matthews, seconded by Councilmember Jim McCarthy to read Ordinance No. 2023-12 by title only for the first time.

Vote: 6 - 1

NAY:

Vice Mayor Austin Aslan

Moved by Councilmember Jim McCarthy, seconded by Councilmember Miranda Sweet to read Ordinance No. 2023-11 by title only for the first time.

Vote: 6 - 1

NAY:

Vice Mayor Austin Aslan

Moved by Councilmember Jim McCarthy, seconded by Councilmember Lori Matthews to postpone the item until June 6, 2023.

Vote: 6 - 1

NAY:

Vice Mayor Austin Aslan

None

None