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

Moved by Councilmember Khara House, seconded by Councilmember Lori Matthews to approve the minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting of June 20, 2023, Regular Meeting of July 3, 2023, Regular Meeting of August 28, 2023, Regular Meeting of September 5, 2023, Work Session of September 12, 2023, Regular Meeting of September 19, 2023, Regular Meeting of October 3, 2023, Retreat of October 12, 2023, Regular Meeting of October 17, 2023, Joint Work Session of October 23, 2023, Regular Meeting of November 7, 2023, Regular Meeting of November 21, 2023, Special Meeting (Executive Session) of January 9, 2024, Special Meeting (Executive Session) of January 16, 2024, Special Meeting (Executive Session) of January 23, 2024, Special Meeting (Executive Session) of February 6, 2024, Special Meeting (Executive Session) of February 20, 2024, and Special Meeting (Executive Session) of February 27, 2024.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Phil Goldblatt addressed Council in support of the Flagstaff First petition, urging a shift in the Carbon Neutrality Plan to focus on local threats like wildfires and flooding. Flagstaff’s emissions are minimal, the 2030 goals were unrealistic, and broader CO? reduction must occur at national levels. A 2050 timeline is more practical, and voluntary clean energy efforts were preferred over drastic changes.

Nadine Hart addressed Council with concerns about teachers not being able to afford to live in Flagstaff. There would continue to be issues with educating children if something is not done.

Housing Program Manager Adriana Fisher addressed Council and shared that the City had launched a new webpage (www.flagstaff.az.gov/4916/homesharing-resources.com) that highlighted Home Sharing resources as part of the 10-Year Housing Plan, specifically Strategy 3.4. Home Sharing involved homeowners renting extra space to individuals needing housing, benefiting both parties through income, affordable rent, and potential help with chores. 

Tom Pearson addressed Council and spoke in support of the Flagstaff First petition. He stated that it would restore previously approved policies that prioritized both climate mitigation and adaptation. The current Carbon Neutrality Plan focused too narrowly on mitigation, leaving out critical adaptation strategies to address wildfires, flooding, and drought.

Dennis Givens addressed Council and read passages from the United States Constitution.

BJ Dempsey addressed Council in support of the Flagstaff First petition. He highlighted the urgent threat of wildfire, flooding, and drought, citing a recent study estimating $2.8 billion in potential wildfire damage. The petition did oppose climate action but sought to ensure the Carbon Neutrality Plan also addresses local risks. Protecting forests is vital, and their loss would set back climate goals.

James Schweikert addressed Council and warned against focusing solely on carbon neutrality. Hawaii prioritized carbon goals over managing wildfire risks like biomass buildup, which contributed to the disaster in Lahaina. A balanced approach that included both climate adaptation and mitigation was needed. For the safety of residents and businesses, the Flagstaff First petition should be accepted to prioritize wildfire, flooding, and drought in the Carbon Neutrality Plan.

Councilmember Sweet reported that Mountain Line did a great job recognizing and celebrating their employees for Transit Worker Appreciation Day. She also shared that the Water Commission would be meeting to discuss the water rate study.

Councilmember McCarthy reported that he attended the Pedestrian Advisory Committee meeting.

Councilmember Matthews also recognized Mountain Line for their support of their employees. She reported that the annual Audit Committee was the prior week, and they reviewed the annual audit statements. She was proud to report that the city continued to receive the highest qualifications in the audit report. She thanked everyone who contributed to the financial reporting and accounting.

Moved by Councilmember Deborah Harris, seconded by Councilmember Khara House to appoint CJ Lucke to a term expiring December 2026.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Jim McCarthy, seconded by Councilmember Khara House to appoint Megan Weller to a term expiring December 2026.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Khara House, seconded by Councilmember Miranda Sweet to appoint Carlton Johnson to a term expiring December 2025.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Mayor Daggett opened the public hearing.
 
Sergeant Nick Almendarez introduced the application and noted no concerns.
 
There being no public comment, Mayor Daggett closed the public hearing.

 

Moved by Vice Mayor Austin Aslan, seconded by Councilmember Khara House to forward the application to the State with a recommendation for approval with the amendment provided by the applicant that no single serving mini bottles will not be provided at this location.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Jim McCarthy, seconded by Councilmember Miranda Sweet to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Mr. Clifton along and Stormwater Manager Ed Schenk shared that the Council was being asked to ratify a $61,069 purchase for a box culvert that was ordered ahead of time to ensure it could be fabricated and delivered in time for installation before the monsoon season. The early purchase was made to help avoid construction delays and reduce flood risks, and while it was slightly out of the typical approval sequence, such actions were occasionally necessary, especially during Council recesses, to keep critical projects on track.

The culvert was part of a larger construction contract totaling just over $7 million, awarded to Banicki Construction. The entire project was funded through an $8.99 million state appropriation received last year and covered both the Highway 180 culvert installation and regional detention basin maintenance.

City staff, ADOT, Coconino County, and other partners, were holding weekly technical advisory meetings to ensure the project progressed efficiently. The goal was to complete the work by July 1, 2024, well ahead of peak monsoon activity, to enhance community flood resilience.

Moved by Councilmember Lori Matthews, seconded by Councilmember Jim McCarthy to approve partial ratification of the GMP 1 for the Pre-cast box culvert procurement for the Schultz Creek Improvements at US HWY 180 to Banicki Construction valued at $611,398.90, approve the remaining value equaling $7,224,422.12 of Banicki’s proposal Construction Phase GMP 1 full value equaling $7,835,821.02, approve ratification of the Design Phase utility locating contract amendment with Banicki Construction for the project in the amount of $46,847.47, and authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Lori Matthews, seconded by Councilmember Miranda Sweet to read Ordinance No. 2024-08 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. 2024-08.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Jim McCarthy, seconded by Councilmember Khara House to read Ordinance No. 2024-07 by title only for the final time.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Lori Matthews, seconded by Councilmember Deborah Harris to adopt Ordinance No. 2024-07.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Finance Director Brandi Suda introduced the city’s auditors Michael Lauzon, who provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

PRESENTATION OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF ANNUAL AUDIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2024
AUDIT REQUIREMENTS
IMPORTANCE OF THE AUDIT
AUDIT PROCESS
AUDIT METHODOLOGY
REPORTS ISSUED
FINANCIAL AUDIT HIGHLIGHTS – ACFR
SINGLE AUDIT HIGHLIGHTS

Mayor Daggett asked if the federal programs were chosen randomly. Mr. Lauzon stated that the federal government required programs over $750,000 to be tested at least once every three years. There were additional programs where the federal government had designated them as high risk and then those programs were required to be tested every year that they go over $750,000 such as the corona virus relief funds which were not a major program in 2023 because they did not exceed that limit.

Council expressed their appreciation to everyone involved for their work.

Moved by Councilmember Lori Matthews, seconded by Councilmember Deborah Harris to approve the FY 2022-2023 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report and the FY 2022-2023 Single Audit Report.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Zoning Code Manager Tiffany Antol addressed Council and stated that after receiving community feedback following the first read of the ordinance, an alternative amendment was formulated that would change certain residential uses from being outright permitted to requiring conditional use permits. Both options, the original permitting approach and the new conditional use permit option, were available for consideration. The amendment stemmed from a strategy in the Housing Plan to explore such changes. Ms. Antol noted plans to streamline the conditional use permit process to address public concerns and improve overall development case handling. Additionally, a related resolution, primarily supporting the original draft, was discussed but could apply to either option, though it may be less relevant if the alternative was chosen.

Councilmember Harris asked how the CUP concept was added to the conversation. Ms. Antol explained that the conditional use permit option was added after discussions with community members and Council, in response to concerns about properties in the PF Zone that are not city-owned. CUPs provide an added layer of public review through a Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, offering more oversight for non-city sites. While entities like FUSD, NAU, or the Forest Service are not strictly required to follow city zoning, they often chose to engage in the process, especially when working on non-exempt projects like housing. CUPs could be a useful tool for collaboration and oversight in those cases, particularly when shared resources like water and sewer services were involved. The Council also retained the right to appeal any Planning and Zoning decisions within ten days.

Councilmember McCarthy expressed concern about the possibility of large-scale developments similar in size to The Hub without proper public review. He supported requiring a CUP to ensure public input and oversight. Although splitting the PF zone into two zones was considered, it was deemed impractical due to the extensive public process it would require. CUPs were a practical alternative for maintaining transparency and public involvement. 

Mayor Daggett shared that she had heard concerns about parks being rezoned for housing. Ms. Antol, along with Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Events Director Rebecca Sayers, explained that the intent was not to redevelop or repurpose existing parks for housing or other non-park uses. While many parks fell within the PF zoning district, the proposed changes were designed to provide additional safeguards. The CUP added a formal review process governed by code, while the resolution reinforced the intent to protect parklands and amenities. Although future Councils could make different decisions, those safeguards reflected the current commitment to preserve park space for public use.

Councilmember Sweet shared that she supports the CUP process and the additional layer of community involvement it added.

Councilmember Matthews asked about the language in the resolution around “affordable housing.” Her concern was whether the term referred strictly to the technical definition based on 80% AMI or lower, or more broadly to include workforce and market-rate housing that still met local needs. Ms. Antol explained that the resolution was intentionally broad to prioritize the development of affordable housing at a range of income levels, not just those eligible for zoning code incentives. That would allow Council flexibility to determine the appropriate income brackets based on current housing market conditions and community needs. The resolution also excluded core city functions such as existing parks, planned parks, open space, and land used for operations from being considered for housing development. The goal was to identify city-owned land not needed for other uses and assess its potential for future housing, keeping options open for both lower-income and workforce-level housing, depending on changing circumstances.

There was concern about requiring CUPs for public institutions like NAU, FUSD, CCC, and the County, and whether it might unnecessarily burden or discourage them from building housing for their own employees or students. Adding a CUP process could create conflict or pit groups against each other, particularly if neighbors oppose a specific project. 

Staff explained that the original proposal allowed those uses by right, but CUPs were added in response to community feedback that asked for more transparency and oversight. While that feedback was not significant in volume, it came from respected sources across diverse perspectives. CUPs offered a measured way to move forward without blocking development and allow flexibility and public processes. For public entities going through the CUP process, the goal was to shift the review to before full architectural plans were submitted to reduce upfront costs and streamline the process. CUPs involved a public hearing and notice to surrounding property owners, but did not carry the same weight as a rezoning. They were intended to vet and potentially mitigate impacts, not to change what was already allowed by zoning.

Concerns about building height limits were also raised. While 60 feet was the maximum in PF zoning, most developments did not reach that height. Staff explained that height limits were part of achieving future housing density, and unless a change was made for all uses in the PF zone, those limits remained. CUPs could not arbitrarily reduce allowed height unless it directly relates to mitigating specific impacts.

There was also discussion about whose voices were being heard during public input, those who already had housing versus those who were struggling to find it. It was imperative that the voices of low-income and working-class residents who were most affected by the housing crisis were heard.

The following individuals spoke in support of the amendments:

• Michele James
• Anthony Garcia
• Tyler Denham

The following comments were received:

• In reviewing the city’s map and list of PF zone lands, they find very few city-owned parcels suitable for housing.
• The main beneficiaries of allowing residential use by right in PF zones would be private landowners with large vacant or semi-vacant parcels.
• The amendment, as originally proposed, lacked sufficient oversight and guardrails to ensure meaningful community engagement in future development decisions.
• Community oversight is critical to protecting city parks that could be vulnerable and ensure affordable workforce housing is prioritized.
• Support the addition of a CUP requirement, to allow the public to give input via the Planning and Zoning Commission and restore a basic level of public oversight.
• Also adopt Resolution 2024-01, which outlines the city’s intent to prioritize affordable workforce housing on city-owned lands.
• A CUP is needed to maintain a checkpoint for oversight and review, especially as zoning processes are bypassed.
• No one should feel displaced or excluded by new development.
• City-owned land is only part of the picture at 40%, and the remaining 60% is in private or partner hands, which means less control.
• Ongoing leadership and community engagement are essential, city officials must actively communicate expectations to non-city landowners.
• The CUP is a reasonable compromise that gives residents a voice in future developments.
• Flagstaff is experiencing a severe housing crisis.
• Allowing residential in PF zones is aligned with the goals of Flagstaff’s 10-Year Housing Plan, which was developed with significant public engagement.
• Apartments are essential for people without the financial means to purchase a home.
• Blocking apartment development blocks access for lower-income and working-class residents.

Hayley Zoroya submitted a written comment in support of the amendments.

The following individuals spoke in opposition to the amendments:

• Nadine Hart
• Patrick J. Conley
• Michael Collier
• Rose Houk
• Debra Block
• Karen Enyedy
• Duffie Westheimer

The following comments were received:

• Poor people are often not asked what they need or want, they want housing, not necessarily new developments.
• Rezone areas around schools to better utilize existing housing.
• Many existing homes near schools sit vacant, the problem is not the lack of housing, but how it's being used.
• Large apartment complexes for low-income residents or teachers are inferior housing solutions.
• Instead of building new, the city should rethink and repurpose what already exists.
• Do not displace local residents for the sake of profitable high-rise developments.
• Preserving Flagstaff as a home for its residents rather than turning it into a resort destination.
• Center zoning decisions around the needs of existing residents.
• The current code you have gives more protection, but CUPS are a big drop down from a zoning change.
• You will lessen the protection of potential public lands including parks.
• The city cannot solve the problem of affordable housing.
• Do more research and take a closer look at this, once you back off and lose protections you will never get it back again.
• Concerned that the zoning change is being driven by staff convenience, rather than public interest.
• While only a couple of parcels are currently being considered, there are 180 more parcels zoned (PF) that could be affected in the future.
• The proposed zoning change shifts control from the public to negotiations between the city and developers, reducing public input.
• bypassing traditional zoning commission processes removes essential community oversight.
• Adding a CUP is not a sufficient safeguard, it does not cover the full scope of zoning concerns.
• Reconsider the broader implications to allow residential uses without traditional input and process.
• Proposition 207 could prevent future councils from reversing the changes in the future, as it might be seen as reducing landowners' property value.
• Residents will be shut out of having a meaningful voice in the process.
• The amendment is a sweeping change that the public is unaware of.
• Allowing residential development in PF zones goes against the original intent of preserving public spaces.
• Concerned about potential high-rise residential developments in these areas.
• Waiting for a CUP review is too late in the process to provide effective public input.
• I support prioritizing affordable housing but is no clear guarantee of who will benefit given the vague language about income levels as determined by current needs.
• A CUP cannot guarantee to prevent misuse of public lands.
• The growing number of short-term rentals and second-home mortgages are contributing to housing challenges.
• Outside of downtown revitalization, new developments often conflict with community values.
• This is less a commitment to affordable housing and more a threat to public space, especially without community input.
• The new zoning proposal strikes out language from the PF zone code that originally aimed to preserve and encourage public lands.
• The change is likely to result in more unaffordable housing rather than truly affordable options.
• There have been past issues where what was promised in development did not match what was actually built.
• Preserve the current lifestyle and character of Flagstaff, do not to replace it with large five-story apartment buildings.
• The city and nonprofits can fund and manage affordable housing projects themselves without relying on private developers.
• Large developments are not designed with local residents in mind.

Moved by Councilmember Jim McCarthy, seconded by Councilmember Deborah Harris to recess into Executive Session for legal advice.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Council recessed into Executive Session from 5:04 p.m. through 5:23 p.m.

Councilmember House thanked everyone for their engagement and work on the amendment. She shared that she recently stayed in a hotel that had once been luxury apartments built in the 1930s. It highlighted how societal perceptions of housing needs and desirability changed over time and demonstrated the importance of flexible and thoughtful planning. She was concerned that the current conversations about affordable housing were too focused on what the poorest residents “deserve,” rather than considering the full range of community needs. She felt that the proposed amendment, represented a holistic and collaborative effort to address those needs along with open space and community values, without setting them in competition with each other. She expressed her support for maintaining community input in development decisions and recognized the voices of those who advocate for protecting public land, but she noted that many people most affected by housing challenges were often absent from the conversations due to barriers in access and participation. She believed that through thoughtful integration of green spaces, historic character, and inclusive development, the city could evolve while remaining rooted in its values.

Councilmember Matthews stated that there was significant value in affordable apartments and other housing, particularly to those who were moving through transitional housing. She noted that there was no single solution or group who could solve the housing crisis alone. It required creative, community-wide efforts, including unconventional living arrangements like shared housing situations. She expressed concern about how a small number of vocal individuals could influence decisions that may not reflect the broader community, especially those who were less likely to speak out or know how to engage in the process. She expressed her support for the inclusion of a CUP requirement, which would provide an added layer of public oversight. She was confident that city land needed for core functions, including existing and future parks, would not be used for housing development. Her intent was to support the zoning amendment with the CUP and resolution included.

Councilmember McCarthy shared that he had concerns that CUPs would not adequately protect the city from possibilities.

Councilmember Sweet stated that she believed the amendment would move the city in a positive direction and she would support it with the addition of the CUP.

Councilmember Harris offered that housing was a human right and urged the community to prioritize people over fear-driven narratives. She addressed misinformation, such as the claim that all parks in Flagstaff would be handed over to developers for luxury apartments, and cautioned against letting fear tactics influence public decisions. Solutions must come incrementally, one project at a time. While she personally disagreed with requiring a CUP, she would support the ordinance including the CUP as a compromise and commitment to advancing housing goals and solutions.

Councilmember McCarthy shared that one of the big issues when he ran for Council was the Hub, a 60-foot building, and he did not feel that he could support a measure that would in effect allow that tall of a building to be put almost anywhere.

Mayor Daggett expressed gratitude to city staff and Council for their responsiveness to public concerns and their commitment to addressing Flagstaff’s housing and climate emergencies. Progress on housing would happen incrementally, one decision at a time, and she acknowledged the deeply personal and often heartbreaking stories shared by residents struggling to stay in the community. It was important to maintain Flagstaff as an inclusive place that valued long-term residents, local schools, and nonprofits, rather than becoming a second-home community. She acknowledged public concern about protecting parks and appreciated that protections for existing and future parks were included in the proposal. She supported that use of CUPs as a way to maintain public involvement in development decisions. Because the plan supported affordable housing, protected parks, and incorporated public process through the CUP, she would support the proposal with the CUP included.

The Council recessed into Executive Session from 5:04 p.m. through 5:23 p.m.

Moved by Councilmember Khara House, seconded by Vice Mayor Austin Aslan to adopt Resolution No. 2024-05 with the revised Exhibit A.

Vote: 6 - 1

NAY:

Councilmember Jim McCarthy

Moved by Councilmember Khara House, seconded by Councilmember Lori Matthews to read Ordinance No. 2024-03 by title only for the final time with the revised Exhibit A.

Vote: 6 - 1

NAY:

Councilmember Jim McCarthy

Moved by Councilmember Khara House, seconded by Councilmember Lori Matthews to adopt Ordinance No. 2024-03 as amended.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Lori Matthews, seconded by Councilmember Miranda Sweet to read Resolution No. 2024-11 by title only.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Lori Matthews, seconded by Councilmember Miranda Sweet to adopt Resolution No. 2024-11.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Mayor Daggett opened the public hearing.

Planner Wesley Welch provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

WILDCAT INDUSTRIAL PARK DIRECT TO ORDINANCE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
WILDCAT INDUSTRIAL PARK
SITE HISTORY
PROPERTY CONTEXT MAP
TYPES OF ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS
WILDCAT INDUSTRIAL SITE PLAN
IMPACT ANALYSES
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FINDINGS
FINDING #1
FINDING #2
FINDING #3
ADEQUACY OF SITE
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

The following individuals addressed Council in support of the rezone:

• Wayne Chadwick
• Warren Smith, Jr.
• Val Peavy

The following comments were received:

• Route 66 has become highly traveled in the last two years, especially with heavy equipment.
• The proposed parking area as essential.
• Many customers already park there to avoid driving through town.
• Support the industrial park project.
• The location is outside congested areas with easy access from I-40 and Route 66.
• There is a clear community need for equipment/material storage.
• They live in proximity to the project and still supports it.
• The project offers a good opportunity for Flagstaff.
• There is a need for truck and equipment parking.
• The area’s proximity to sewer pumps makes it undesirable for housing.

A written comment in support of the rezone was submitted by Jay Tubbs.

There being no further public comment, Mayor Daggett closed the public hearing.

Moved by Councilmember Jim McCarthy, seconded by Councilmember Miranda Sweet to read Ordinance No. 2024-10 by title only for the first time.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

A break was held from 6:06 p.m. through 6:26 p.m.

Parking Manager Gail Brockman provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

PARKING CODE UPDATES
INTRODUCTION
PARKING DISTRICT OVERVIEW
PARKING DISTRICT ENFORCEMENT
PARKING ENFORCEMENT PROCESS

Council asked how owners were notified of parking citations. Ms. Brockman explained that the citation was placed on the vehicle, and they had 15 days to pay or contest. When it was registered with the court a letter was sent to the registered owner. When three or more citations had been received and gone uncontested or unpaid they were moved to the immobilization list and notification would be made. Senior Assistant City Attorney Marianne Sullivan added that they were still working through the legal requirements regarding notification and those would be incorporated into the ordinance.

PARKING CODE UPDATE
COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND NEXT STEPS

Moved by Councilmember Khara House, seconded by Councilmember Miranda Sweet to read Resolution No. 2024-10 by title only.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Miranda Sweet, seconded by Councilmember Khara House to read Ordinance No. 2024-06 by title only for the first time.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Housing Planning Manager Jennifer Mikelson provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

RENTAL INCENTIVE BOND PROGRAM AWARDS
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
HOW WE GOT HERE
APPLICATIONS RECEIVED
AWARD PROCESS
COUNCIL DIRECTION

A question was asked about the Aspen Lofts Apartments project and how a recent change in the unit count from 69 to 65 units might impact the funding request given that it was likely based on the initial unit count, and whether that amount should be reconsidered now that the number of units may decrease. Ms. Mikelson explained that the situation was still developing, and that no final discussion or decision had been made regarding whether the funding award would change as a result. However, there was likely some flexibility in how the final award was calculated, depending on how the project evolved.

Steve Hastings from the Flagstaff Senior Living development team explained the reasoning behind the unit reduction. He noted that there was a cap of approximately $2.5 million in tax credit allocations per project, and when project costs rise, those credits no longer fully covered the gap. Additionally, a drop in credit pricing to $0.85 per credit made the original 69-unit proposal financially unworkable and created a $4 million gap. By scaling the project back to 65 units for Aspen Lofts and keeping the 70 units planned for San Francisco Square, they could bring the project back into financial alignment and move forward if awarded the 9% tax credits.

Another question was raised about the original estimate for the number of affordable housing units that would be produced using bond funding. Ms. Mikelson explained that the bond question had projected a goal of 400 to 500 affordable units. Based on the $5 million available, staff developed a loose target of approximately $112,000 in subsidy per unit, which was used to help score applications; projects that requested closer to that amount per unit received more points, while those asking for more received fewer. However, construction costs had since increased, making it even harder to achieve the original unit goal with the remaining funds. It was noted that only $1.6 million is left and was important to be realistic in future bond questions to avoid overpromising outcomes.

Also mentioned was that the loan forgiveness term for the funding was 50 years, which was beneficial compared to older tax credit projects that were nearing the 15-year mark and at risk of converting to market-rate units. 

Mr. Hastings added that if the second phase of the Aspen Lofts project was awarded tax credits in June, the development team anticipated beginning construction in spring 2025, after permits and final designs were completed and once weather conditions allowed.

Council discussed the project readiness criteria. A project readiness section was included in the funding application to assess where each project stood in the development process. When setting the criteria, staff wanted to be inclusive, allowing projects at any stage, from early rezoning applications to those nearly ready for construction, to apply. However, a clear cutoff was necessary to avoid awarding public funds to projects that were essentially already completed. It was decided that a project must have reached at least the grading or at-risk grading permit phase to qualify. This was seen as a conservative but practical approach to ensure funds supported projects still actively progressing, not ones already near completion or awaiting certificates of occupancy.

Council also discussed the repayment and loan forgiveness terms. Staff explained that all funded projects must commit to a minimum of 30 years of affordability. If a developer only committed to 30 years, the loan must be repaid at the end of that period. However, if the developer extended the affordability term beyond 30 years, the loan became partially forgivable each year after year 30. If the project remained affordable for 50 years, the loan was fully forgiven. The structure incentivizes long-term affordability without requiring it outright, offering flexibility to developers while safeguarding public investment.

There was further conversation about project eligibility timing and safeguards to ensure funds were not indefinitely tied up. The funding criteria aimed to include a wide range of project stages, from early planning and rezoning through to the point just before vertical construction begins. There was not a strict timeline, but the key was that projects should not be too far along or so early that they were unlikely to move forward soon. The goal was to support projects that were progressing but may be stalled due to current market conditions, like high costs or labor shortages.

It was asked what happened if a funded project stalled while another project became ready to move forward. Housing Director Sarah Darr explained that while funds could be committed early, the loan documents would include performance contingencies. If a project failed to meet certain milestones such as securing tax credits or starting construction within a set timeframe the funds could be reallocated to other eligible projects to ensure money did not sit idle while other opportunities advanced.

Hayley Zoroya submitted a written comment in support of the awards.

Moved by Councilmember Jim McCarthy, seconded by Councilmember Khara House to approve two Rental Incentive Bond Program Awards totaling $3,330,000 resulting in 139 affordable rental units, as recommended by the Ranking Committee.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Community Investment Director Dave McIntire provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

AIRPORT PARCEL GROUND LEASE AND DEVELOPMENT
VICINITY MAP
SUBJECT SITE INFORMATION
BACKGROUND/HISTORY
PREVIOUS CONCEPTUAL SITE USES
KEY TERMS OF AGREEMENT

Mayor Daggett noted that the development of the land near the airport had been discussed for the last three to four years. City Manager Clifton stated that the original Request for Statement of Qualifications was issued in 2020 and it was great to start seeing movement. The parcel will now move toward development through a lease rather than a sale, which was an intentional decision to ensure long-term, sustained revenue for the airport. The lease would provide a continuous revenue stream critical to supporting airport operations and future growth, such as new airlines and routes. Although revenue would not be immediate, the development was expected to be a major financial asset over time.

Council expressed appreciation for staff and development partners, and acknowledged their patience and persistence through the lengthy public process. They also highlighted the broader benefits of the project, including economic growth, job creation, and potential indirect support for housing solutions.

Moved by Councilmember Khara House, seconded by Councilmember Miranda Sweet to read Resolution No. 2024-12 by title only.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Miranda Sweet, seconded by Councilmember Jim McCarthy to adopt Resolution No. 2024-12.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Petitioner Joe Bader introduced the petition and stated that the petition included 73 signatures, along with 226 additional online signatures, urging the City Council to adopt a resolution calling for a permanent ceasefire and a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Citing the high number of casualties in Gaza, particularly among children, and growing famine, he framed the issue as a moral crisis involving U.S. taxpayer dollars. He noted that over 70 U.S. cities had passed similar resolutions and that public support for a ceasefire spanned political affiliations. He urged the Council to place the resolution on a future agenda, because the conflict's impact, including rising hate, affected Flagstaff residents and merits local action.

The following individuals spoke in support of the proposed ceasefire resolution:

• Nora Timmerman
• Marilyn Weissman
• Eric Descheenie
• Jawad Dalia
• Haeli Hassaui
• Lorenzo Gomez
• Kai Kelly
• Isabella Kimble
• Natanael Damian
• Frederick Hall
• Richard Kozak
• Stan Clark
• Laura Franke
• Elaina Sajadea
• Don Keller
• Fayez Dalia
• Rev. George Dorado
• Dr. Abdel Aziz Bako
• Dr. Emily Davalos
• Sandra Lubarsky

The following comments were received:

• Support the petition and resolution as a moral stance against violence and humanitarian suffering.
• Resolution may not change history alone, but taking a stand matters as a community.
• Grieved by the betrayal of Jewish values and outraged over U.S. tax dollars funding Israel.
• Calling for an end to Palestinian suffering is not antisemitic.
• Do not to be bystanders and act against the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
• Occupying forces have no right to self-defense.
• This is an opportunity to stand on the right side of history in the fight against genocide.
• Families are displaced and suffering without basic needs like shelter, electricity, and medical care.
• Call for a two-state solution.
• This disaster is man-made and preventable if there is political will.
• Condemn the use of ethnic displacement and starvation as weapons.
• The killing needs to end regardless of differing views on the conflict’s context.
• Do not weaponize Jewish trauma to silence Palestinian voices.
• Not placing the resolution on an agenda endorses harmful stereotypes.
• This issue matters deeply to local communities, including Indigenous and Palestinian residents.
• There have been decades of occupation and injustice.
• The resolution must be discussed as a matter of human concern and civic responsibility.
• It should be a basic human principle to act against injustice wherever it occurs; elected officials are being called on to take action.
• The occupying power is legally obligated to protect the occupied population, not harm them; both Hamas and Israel have committed wrongs, but slaughter and barbarism must be condemned.
• Supporting the resolution is a stand against war crimes.
• Neutrality in the face of immorality equates to tolerating genocide.
• Distance does not excuse indifference.
• A threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
• There are parallels between the treatment of Indigenous communities and Palestinians
• Local governments reflect the will of the people and should oppose the killing of innocents.
• Billions in U.S. aid support a government seen as endangering democracy and teaching others to oppress minorities.
• Palestinians are unarmed civilians, and Americans should not be forced to support this.
• The resolution is a moral act to prevent the erasure of another Indigenous population; it seeks unity, not division, and calls for an end to the violence.
• Flagstaff’s Indigenous residents relate deeply to the trauma in Gaza.
• The violence in the Middle East parallels historical injustices in the U.S.
• There is more to discuss, and the issue deserves space on the Council’s agenda.
• This is an opportunity to join with dozens of other cities in urging federal action to end the violence.
• Individual actions may feel small, but local governments have the power to amplify collective voices within their sphere of influence.

The following individuals submitted written comments in support of the proposed ceasefire resolution:

• Lorenzo Gomez
• Donora Rain Orchard
• Heather Green
• Elisabeth McGuirk
• Geoffrey Whittaker
• Karen Enyedy
• Don Keller
• Isabella Kimble
• Nina Porter

The following individuals spoke in opposition of the proposed ceasefire resolution:

• Rabbi Dov Shapiro
• Dr. John Vadasz
• Janet Wessels

The following comments were received:

• Advocating for a ceasefire without calling for the disbanding of Hamas overlooks their role in violence; peace requires acknowledging all responsible parties.
• Any resolution should uphold a consistent stance against all forms of violence and terrorism.
• October 7 strengthened Jewish pride.
• Oppose the petition.
• Peace is impossible with a group that denies Israel’s right to exist.
• Local government should focus on Flagstaff, not foreign conflicts.
• I opposes a resolution but support a ceasefire.
• Considering the resolution may divide the community and increase fear among Jewish residents.
• Peace must include Hamas surrendering and returning hostages; unconditional support for a ceasefire without accountability enables the spread of evil.
• War is tragic, but confronting and dismantling terrorism is necessary to achieve lasting peace.

The following individuals submitted written comments in support of a cease-fire resolution:

• Nina Porter
• Isabella Kimble
• Jay Tubbs
• Don Keller
• Karen Enyedy
• Geoffrey Whittaker
• Elizabeth Mcguirk
• Heather Green
• Sonora Rain Orchard
• Lorenzo Gomez
• China Medel
• Dr. Meghan G. McDowell
• Jason Kordosky

The following individuals submitted written comments in opposition to a cease-fire resolution:

• Jonathan Cody
• Tzvi Schnee

Councilmember McCarthy shared a prepared statement sharing information from his visits to Israel and his family's Irish heritage. He made parallels between the Ireland-England conflict and the Israeli-Palestinian situation. He emphasized the importance of a two-state solution and mutual rejection of violence, warning that without them, ongoing conflict could persist for centuries. Two wrongs do not make a right and blame lied on both sides. He again expressed support for a discussion on a resolution, not to take sides, but to encourage peace and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians.

Councilmember House thanked everyone who participated and acknowledged the complexity of the topic. She stated that, regardless of her personal views on the resolution or whether it was the Council’s role to address it, she believed in continuing the conversation to ensure all perspectives were heard.

Councilmember Harris spoke on the generational impact of trauma and shared a personal experience visiting slave quarters in Ghana. She emphasized that while elected officials held influence, true community power was with the people. Council power had limits, and she suggested organizing a grassroots effort to gather signatures to express public sentiment on the issue. She encouraged community-led conversations, independent of the Council, and offered the Murdoch Center as a respectful and inclusive space for such discussions. She was not supportive of the discussion advancing forward.

Vice Mayor Aslan explained that his views were complex and evolving. He believed that there was relevancy to the local community and supported moving the matter forward to a future agenda for discussion. He thanked the public for their comments.

Councilmember Sweet shared that she also saw the grey areas that existed within the topic. She had reached out to the community, and they had open, constructive conversations that emphasized the need for unity. Acknowledging recent divisive events and hate speech, she stressed the importance of respectful dialogue and suggested reestablishing an interfaith group previously led by former Mayor Dr. Evans to help facilitate community healing. She invited others to join in the effort and expressed a desire to work together on a path forward through open and honest conversations.

Mayor Daggett thanked the public for their comments and for sharing their experiences. She appreciated the honorable and compassionate way that everyone conducted themselves and expected the same with any future discussions.

There was requisite support to advance the item to a future agenda for discussion.

There was requisite support to advance the item to a future agenda for discussion.

None

Councilmember Sweet thanked everyone for the birthday wishes.

Vice Mayor Aslan expressed enthusiasm about the upcoming public portion of the police chief hiring process and looked forward to hearing from the candidates. He also stated that many city staff and leaders had school-age children and suggested considering a Council recess during Flagstaff Unified School District’s spring break in March.

Councilmember Harris also shared her excitement about the police chief recruitment process. She also announced that she was honored to have been selected to receive the Digital Equity Institute award for a community champion.

Councilmember Matthews shared that she organized a productive meeting with the Coconino Community College president, staff, and local business leaders to discuss workforce development and partnerships. She also toured Catalyst, praising the company's growth and innovation, and noted that housing inventory, not cost, was their main challenge for staffing. She would also be participating in the police chief recruitment events and reminded the public about the upcoming meet and greet with all the candidates. Lastly, she noted the upcoming High Country Humane 5-year anniversary celebration and the Viola Awards.

Mr. Clifton thanked the many people involved in the development of the Genterra contract. He called out Deputy City Attorney Kevin Fincel who came into the process late and helped bring negotiations to a place that was agreeable to all.