CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2015
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
211 WEST ASPEN
4:00 P.M. AND 6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Nabours called the meeting of December 1, 2015, to order at 4:00 p.m.
Mayor Nabours called the meeting of December 1, 2015, to order at 4:00 p.m.
NOTICE OF OPTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the City Council and to the general public that, at this regular meeting, the City Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for legal advice and discussion with the City’s attorneys for legal advice on any item listed on the following agenda, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3).
2.
ROLL CALL
Others present: City Manager Josh Copley and City Attorney Michelle D'Andrea.
| NOTE: | One or more Councilmembers may be in attendance telephonically or by other technological means. |
| PRESENT MAYOR NABOURS VICE MAYOR BAROTZ COUNCILMEMBER BREWSTER (telephonically) COUNCILMEMBER EVANS COUNCILMEMBER ORAVITS COUNCILMEMBER OVERTON COUNCILMEMBER PUTZOVA |
ABSENT NONE |
Others present: City Manager Josh Copley and City Attorney Michelle D'Andrea.
3.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MISSION STATEMENT
The audience and City Council recited the Pledge of Allegiance and Mayor Nabours read the Mission Statement of the City of Flagstaff.
MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the City of Flagstaff is to protect and enhance the quality of life of its citizens.
4.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS
None
None
5.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public Participation enables the public to address the Council about an item that is not on the agenda. Comments relating to items that are on the agenda will be taken at the time that the item is discussed. If you wish to address the Council at tonight's meeting, please complete a comment card and submit it to the recording clerk as soon as possible. Your name will be called when it is your turn to speak. You may address the Council up to three times throughout the meeting, including comments made during Public Participation. Please limit your remarks to three minutes per item to allow everyone an opportunity to speak. At the discretion of the Chair, ten or more persons present at the meeting and wishing to speak may appoint a representative who may have no more than fifteen minutes to speak.
Public Participation enables the public to address the Council about an item that is not on the agenda. Comments relating to items that are on the agenda will be taken at the time that the item is discussed. If you wish to address the Council at tonight's meeting, please complete a comment card and submit it to the recording clerk as soon as possible. Your name will be called when it is your turn to speak. You may address the Council up to three times throughout the meeting, including comments made during Public Participation. Please limit your remarks to three minutes per item to allow everyone an opportunity to speak. At the discretion of the Chair, ten or more persons present at the meeting and wishing to speak may appoint a representative who may have no more than fifteen minutes to speak.
David Wessel with the Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization (FMPO) addressed the Council to report that the Regional Transportation Plan update was being launched and they would be reaching out to many of the City's boards and commissions. They will be using the Peak Democracy tool as well to survey the public. They hope to be done by June of next year.
Economic Vitality Director Heidi Hansen introduced the new Convention and Visitors Bureau Director, Trace Ward, who came from Florida with many years of experience.
Deputy City Manager Barbara Goodrich introduced Charity Lee, the City's new Real Estate Manager, noting that she had worked for the City once before and was a certified appraiser from Coconino County.
Economic Vitality Director Heidi Hansen introduced the new Convention and Visitors Bureau Director, Trace Ward, who came from Florida with many years of experience.
Deputy City Manager Barbara Goodrich introduced Charity Lee, the City's new Real Estate Manager, noting that she had worked for the City once before and was a certified appraiser from Coconino County.
6.
PROCLAMATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS
None
None
7.
APPOINTMENTS
Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the City Council and to the general public that the City Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for the purpose of discussing or considering employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, demotion, dismissal, salaries, disciplining or resignation of a public officer, appointee, or employee of any public body...., pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(1).
Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the City Council and to the general public that the City Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for the purpose of discussing or considering employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, demotion, dismissal, salaries, disciplining or resignation of a public officer, appointee, or employee of any public body...., pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(1).
A.
Consideration of Appointments: Planning and Zoning Commission.
Moved by Councilmember Coral Evans, seconded by Councilmember Eva Putzova to appoint Ed Dunn to the Planning and Zoning Commission with a term to expire December 2018.
Vote: 5 - 2
- NAY:
-
Mayor Jerry Nabours
Councilmember Karla Brewster
Moved by Councilmember Eva Putzova, seconded by Councilmember Coral Evans
to appoint Margo Wheeler to the Planning and Zoning Commission, with a term to expire December 2018.
Vice Mayor Barotz said that she supported Ms. Wheeler the last time and with Tina leaving there would only be one woman on the commission. Ms. Wheeler has an excellent background and is not involved in the development industry.
Vote: 3 - 4
- AYE:
-
Vice Mayor Celia Barotz
Councilmember Coral Evans
Councilmember Eva Putzova
Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours and seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to appoint Steve Jackson to the Planning and Zoning Commission, with a term to expire in December 2018.
Brief discussion was held on the appointment process. Ms. D'Andrea said that this was not something that they have discussed, but when they made the decision to randomly select councilmembers to make recommendations, this did not seem to be in the spirit of that action, and she believed it would be Councilmember Putzova's opportunity to select again.
Motion withdrawn.
Moved by Councilmember Eva Putzova, seconded by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz
to appoint David Zimmerman to the Planning and Zoning Commission, with a term to expire December 2018.
Vote: 5 - 2
- NAY:
-
Mayor Jerry Nabours
Councilmember Jeff Oravits
Moved by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz, seconded by Councilmember Coral Evans
to appoint David Carpenter to the Planning and Zoning Commission, with a term to expire in December 2018.
Vote: 5 - 2
- NAY:
-
Mayor Jerry Nabours
Councilmember Jeff Oravits
B.
Consideration of Appointments: Water Commission
Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Coral Evans to appoint Ward Davis to the Water Commission, with a term to expire December 2018.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
Moved by Councilmember Coral Evans, seconded by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz to reappoint Hanna Cortner to the Water Commission, with a term to expire December 2018.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
Moved by Councilmember Eva Putzova, seconded by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz to appoint Kira Russo to the Water Commission, with a term to expire December 2018.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to reappoint John Malin to the Water Commission, with a term to expire December 2017.
Vote: 6 - 1
- NAY:
-
Councilmember Coral Evans
8.
LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Brandon Kinchen, “Flagstaff Green Room", 15 N. Agassiz St., Series 06 (bar- all spirituous liquor), Person Transfer.
Mayor Nabours opened the Public Hearing. There being no public input, the Public Hearing was closed.
Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Mayor Jerry Nabours to forward a recommendation to the State for approval of the liquor license application from Flagstaff Green Room.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
9.
CONSENT ITEMS
All matters under Consent Agenda are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion approving the recommendations listed on the agenda. Unless otherwise indicated, expenditures approved by Council are budgeted items.
A.
Consideration and Approval of Contract: Financial Advisor Contract with Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated.
Ms. Goodrich introduced Mark Reeder, principle with Stifel, Nicolaus & Company. He thanked the Council for approval of their contract and said they looked forward to working with the City.
Mayor Nabours clarified that this contract was different from the company that does the City's investments; this is more to do with bonding and economic issues.
Councilmember Brewster left the meeting (telephonically) at this time (4:17 p.m.)
Mayor Nabours clarified that this contract was different from the company that does the City's investments; this is more to do with bonding and economic issues.
Councilmember Brewster left the meeting (telephonically) at this time (4:17 p.m.)
Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to approve the contract with Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, with compensation based on the pricing schedule outlined in Exhibit C of the contract.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
10.
ROUTINE ITEMS
A.
Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2015-19: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, amending the Flagstaff City Code, Section 3-10-001-0007 Cemetery to increase Cemetery fees by 10%. (Cemetery fee increase)
Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Scott Overton to read Ordinance No. 2015-19 by title only for the final time.
Vote: 5 - 1
- NAY:
-
Councilmember Jeff Oravits
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, AMENDING THE FLAGSTAFF CITY CODE, TITLE 3, BUSINESS REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 10, USER FEES, SECTION 3-10-001-0007, CEMETERY FEES; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, SEVERABILITY, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Scott Overton to adopt Ordinance No. 2015-19.
Vote: 5 - 1
- NAY:
-
Councilmember Jeff Oravits
B.
Consideration and Approval of Contract: Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement with the Coconino Community College District regarding the leasing of property to the City for the East Flagstaff Community Library (Approve the amendment to the IGA with the Coconino Community College District in the amount of $5,400.00 annually)
Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Mayor Jerry Nabours to approve the Amendment to the IGA with the Coconino County Community College District to provide 500 square feet of additional leased space to the City on behalf of the East Flagstaff Community Library for an annual fee of $5,400.00
Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously
C.
Consideration of Annexation Ordinance No. 2015-20: An annexation ordinance extending and increasing the corporate limits of the City of Flagstaff by annexing certain land totaling approximately 44.01 acres located at 3200 W. Route 66, and establishing city zoning for said land as Rural Residential, RR. (Annexation of property for the new McAllister Ranch public works yard located on West Route 66).
Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to read Ordinance No. 2015-20 by title only for the final time.
Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, EXTENDING AND INCREASING THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, COCONINO COUNTY, STATE OF ARIZONA, BY ANNEXING CERTAIN LAND TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 44.01 ACRES LOCATED AT 3200 W. Route 66, AND ESTABLISHING CITY ZONING FOR SAID LAND AS RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AUTHORITY FOR CLERICAL CORRECTIONS, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Councilmember Coral Evans to adopt Ordinance No. 2015-20.
Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously
D.
Consideration of Ordinance No. 2015-21: A zoning map amendment/direct ordinance amending the Flagstaff Zoning Code to rezone approximately 48.81 acres of real property from Rural Residential (RR) to Public Facility (PF) located at 3200 West Route 66 on parcel numbers 112-01-001D and 112-01-002. (Rezoning of property for the new McAllister Ranch public works yard located on West Route 66).
Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to read Ordinance No. 2015-21 by title only for the final time.
Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FLAGSTAFF ZONING MAP DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 48.81 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3200 W. ROUTE 66 ON PARCEL NUMBERS 112-01-001D AND 112-01-002 FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) TO PUBLIC FACILITY (PF); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AUTHORITY FOR CLERICAL CORRECTIONS, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Councilmember Scott Overton to adopt Ordinance No. 2015-21.
Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously
RECESS
The 4:00 p.m. portion of the December 1, 2015, Council Meeting adjourned at 4:26 p.m.
The 4:00 p.m. portion of the December 1, 2015, Council Meeting adjourned at 4:26 p.m.
6:00 P.M. MEETING
RECONVENE
Mayor Nabours reconvened the Regular Meeting of December 1, 2015 at 6:01 p.m.
Mayor Nabours reconvened the Regular Meeting of December 1, 2015 at 6:01 p.m.
NOTICE OF OPTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the City Council and to the general public that, at this regular meeting, the City Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for legal advice and discussion with the City’s attorneys for legal advice on any item listed on the following agenda, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3).
11.
ROLL CALL
Others present: City Manager Josh Copley and City Attorney Michelle D'Andrea.
| NOTE: | One or more Councilmembers may be in attendance telephonically or by other technological means. |
| PRESENT: MAYOR NABOURS VICE MAYOR BAROTZ COUNCILMEMBER BREWSTER COUNCILMEMBER EVANS COUNCILMEMBER ORAVITS COUNCILMEMBER OVERTON COUNCILMEMBER PUTZOVA |
ABSENT: NONE |
Others present: City Manager Josh Copley and City Attorney Michelle D'Andrea.
12.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The following individuals addressed the City Council regarding the issues noted:
•Jamey Hasapis, World AIDS Day, now being Global Health Day
•Paul Ferry supporting downtown disabled parking spaces
•Rose Wall supporting Global Health Day
•Jamey Hasapis, World AIDS Day, now being Global Health Day
•Paul Ferry supporting downtown disabled parking spaces
•Rose Wall supporting Global Health Day
13.
CARRY OVER ITEMS FROM THE 4:00 P.M. AGENDA
14.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A.
Public Hearing, Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2015-38: A resolution of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, amending the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 by amending Map 25 of the Plan and Establishing an effective date.
Comprehensive Planning Manager Sara Dechter provided a PowerPoint presentation which addressed:
Map 25: Major Plan Amendment
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT
MAP 25 TIMELINE
Application for Major Plan Amendment
April 1, 2015
60 day public review
May-July 2015
Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearings
September 23, 2015
October 14, 2015
City Council Public Hearing
December 1, 2015
NETWORK ILLUSTRATION
CHANGES TO MAP
LAND USE TEXT CHANGES
TRANSPORTATION TEXT CHANGES
PUBLIC COMMENTS
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
P&Z COMMISSION
TONIGHT’S MEETING
Public Hearing
Adopt resolution by two-thirds majority
Councilmember Oravits said that it appeared to be a technical clean up and required the Major Amendment because of the map change. Ms. Dechter said that was correct. She said that if they add more than one-quarter of a mile it automatically falls in a Major Amendment category.
Mayor Nabours asked for more clarification on the Pulliam Drive and Shamrell area. Ms. Dechter said that adding an access road means that an area could be considered for commercial use if it is tied to an activity center. She said that most of that area is already zoned R&D, Commercial, or high density, but as a property owner they would not notice any difference. She said that there are some areas of the City where they thought there might be a slight difference, and those areas were notified by mail of the open houses and public hearings.
She added that even if they change a yellow line to blue (residential), if someone had a commercial zoned property it would be affected.
Councilmember Putzova said that during the Regional Plan drafting, they talked about maps as illustrations rather than technical. Now they look at them in a technical sense. Ms. Dechter said that the statutes consider them maps. There are things that have to be shown on a map. The roadway illustration is to be conceptual; the existing roads are the things that meet the state requirements, but future roads are illustrations.
Mayor Nabours said that they heard earlier at 4:00 p.m. from David Wessel about their formulating a transportation plan, which in Flagstaff is critical. He said that he was assuming that the plan and this are coordinated. Ms. Dechter said that there are a few roads that are contentious in terms of future routes.
Mayor Nabours opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comment, he then closed the Public hearing.
Map 25: Major Plan Amendment
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT
MAP 25 TIMELINE
Application for Major Plan Amendment
April 1, 2015
60 day public review
May-July 2015
Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearings
September 23, 2015
October 14, 2015
City Council Public Hearing
December 1, 2015
NETWORK ILLUSTRATION
CHANGES TO MAP
LAND USE TEXT CHANGES
TRANSPORTATION TEXT CHANGES
PUBLIC COMMENTS
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
P&Z COMMISSION
TONIGHT’S MEETING
Public Hearing
Adopt resolution by two-thirds majority
Councilmember Oravits said that it appeared to be a technical clean up and required the Major Amendment because of the map change. Ms. Dechter said that was correct. She said that if they add more than one-quarter of a mile it automatically falls in a Major Amendment category.
Mayor Nabours asked for more clarification on the Pulliam Drive and Shamrell area. Ms. Dechter said that adding an access road means that an area could be considered for commercial use if it is tied to an activity center. She said that most of that area is already zoned R&D, Commercial, or high density, but as a property owner they would not notice any difference. She said that there are some areas of the City where they thought there might be a slight difference, and those areas were notified by mail of the open houses and public hearings.
She added that even if they change a yellow line to blue (residential), if someone had a commercial zoned property it would be affected.
Councilmember Putzova said that during the Regional Plan drafting, they talked about maps as illustrations rather than technical. Now they look at them in a technical sense. Ms. Dechter said that the statutes consider them maps. There are things that have to be shown on a map. The roadway illustration is to be conceptual; the existing roads are the things that meet the state requirements, but future roads are illustrations.
Mayor Nabours said that they heard earlier at 4:00 p.m. from David Wessel about their formulating a transportation plan, which in Flagstaff is critical. He said that he was assuming that the plan and this are coordinated. Ms. Dechter said that there are a few roads that are contentious in terms of future routes.
Mayor Nabours opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comment, he then closed the Public hearing.
Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Mayor Jerry Nabours to read Resolution No. 2015-38 by title only.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE FLAGSTAFF REGIONAL PLAN 2030 BY AMENDING MAP 25 OF THE PLAN AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Councilmember Coral Evans to adopt Resolution No. 2015-38.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
15.
REGULAR AGENDA
A.
Discussion and Consideration: Joining Plastic Bag Lawsuit.
Councilmember Evans said that it was her understanding that Bisbee has gone ahead and initiated a fee for plastic bags. Ms. D’Andrea said that she has not talked with them other than a few weeks ago, and she has not heard if the State has taken any action.
Councilmember Evans said that she understood that they could file an amicus for around $450. Ms. D’Andrea said that she was aware that Tim Hogan was willing to advocate to his board that they take on the lawsuit for the City for free; they never charge for representation. He was not sure the board would accept; attorney’s fees usually run around $200 per hour.
The following individuals spoke in support of filing the lawsuit:
•Adam Shimoni
•Jane O'Donnell
•Tory Syracuse, Friends of Flagstaff's Future
•Kathy Flaccus
Comments received included:
•When bills like this come forward it is disrespecting all of them. He would like to see the City support this action and let the legislators know that they are not representing them when they adopt these types of bills.
•A statement written by Tempe Councilwoman Lauren Kuby was read.
•This was bigger than just the plastic bag issue. For other reasons they urge the Council to participate in the lawsuit, including local control. She said that they should join the lawsuit and educate.
•The state is making an arbitrary decision on what the City can do.
•Urged the Council to take a stand for Flagstaff to let the citizens make decisions on what affects them.
•Was on the Plastic Bag Committee, and its membership was made up of those with different beliefs.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to filing the lawsuit:
•Stuart McDaniel, Greater Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce
•John Kistler
Comments received included:
•They are a representative democracy; they elect representatives to the state legislature. He said that the Plastic Bag Committee had recommendations to Council to not ban, but further their recycling and education on the topic, which will be presented in a few weeks.
•It would be detrimental to the business community for Flagstaff to join a lawsuit as it sends a bad message to businesses interested in moving here and placed an undue expense on them.
•He likes living in Arizona and Flagstaff, and he appreciates that the state legislature has decided to protect them from runaway councils that want to legislate everything.
•If people want to join the lawsuit they should, but not the City. Tempe did not join, and he asked why Flagstaff needed to.
•They should be more concerned about the things that affect the City, like the water fees which keeps getting continued.
Councilmember Evans said that this is something she brought forward. While discussion has centered on the plastic bags, it is bigger issue than that. She believes that SB1241 violates the State Constitution as it takes away their City’s ability to discuss and determine how to address this issue. Since she has been on Council there have been five different times that the state has taken away their rights as a City.
She said that plastic bags are not recycled in Flagstaff. The center does not take them as there is not a return on the investment. In order for them to get profit, they would need to upgrade the current facility at a price of $1.5 million which they do not have. Since she has been on Council recycling programs have been cut or eliminated. This Council has not actively sought, other than a road tax, to fund such projects.
She said that in 2014 it cost the City $130,000 to clean up trash; 80% of that was plastic bags just at the landfill. She said that they are talking about the ability to have a discussion.
Councilmember Evans said that she understood that they could file an amicus for around $450. Ms. D’Andrea said that she was aware that Tim Hogan was willing to advocate to his board that they take on the lawsuit for the City for free; they never charge for representation. He was not sure the board would accept; attorney’s fees usually run around $200 per hour.
The following individuals spoke in support of filing the lawsuit:
•Adam Shimoni
•Jane O'Donnell
•Tory Syracuse, Friends of Flagstaff's Future
•Kathy Flaccus
Comments received included:
•When bills like this come forward it is disrespecting all of them. He would like to see the City support this action and let the legislators know that they are not representing them when they adopt these types of bills.
•A statement written by Tempe Councilwoman Lauren Kuby was read.
•This was bigger than just the plastic bag issue. For other reasons they urge the Council to participate in the lawsuit, including local control. She said that they should join the lawsuit and educate.
•The state is making an arbitrary decision on what the City can do.
•Urged the Council to take a stand for Flagstaff to let the citizens make decisions on what affects them.
•Was on the Plastic Bag Committee, and its membership was made up of those with different beliefs.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to filing the lawsuit:
•Stuart McDaniel, Greater Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce
•John Kistler
Comments received included:
•They are a representative democracy; they elect representatives to the state legislature. He said that the Plastic Bag Committee had recommendations to Council to not ban, but further their recycling and education on the topic, which will be presented in a few weeks.
•It would be detrimental to the business community for Flagstaff to join a lawsuit as it sends a bad message to businesses interested in moving here and placed an undue expense on them.
•He likes living in Arizona and Flagstaff, and he appreciates that the state legislature has decided to protect them from runaway councils that want to legislate everything.
•If people want to join the lawsuit they should, but not the City. Tempe did not join, and he asked why Flagstaff needed to.
•They should be more concerned about the things that affect the City, like the water fees which keeps getting continued.
Councilmember Evans said that this is something she brought forward. While discussion has centered on the plastic bags, it is bigger issue than that. She believes that SB1241 violates the State Constitution as it takes away their City’s ability to discuss and determine how to address this issue. Since she has been on Council there have been five different times that the state has taken away their rights as a City.
She said that plastic bags are not recycled in Flagstaff. The center does not take them as there is not a return on the investment. In order for them to get profit, they would need to upgrade the current facility at a price of $1.5 million which they do not have. Since she has been on Council recycling programs have been cut or eliminated. This Council has not actively sought, other than a road tax, to fund such projects.
She said that in 2014 it cost the City $130,000 to clean up trash; 80% of that was plastic bags just at the landfill. She said that they are talking about the ability to have a discussion.
The following individuals submitted written comment cards in support of filing the lawsuit:
•Marilyn Weissman
•Peggy Sheldon-Seurlock
•Lisa Aumack
•Marilyn Weissman
•Peggy Sheldon-Seurlock
•Lisa Aumack
Moved by Councilmember Coral Evans, seconded by Councilmember Eva Putzova to join the lawsuit against the State regarding plastic bags.
Councilmember Evans reminded everyone that the lawsuit would most likely not cost the City anything.
Councilmember Brewster said that she still did not understand why the City Council in Tempe did not get behind their member, who filed the suit individually.
Councilmember Putzova said that a comment was made that they are a representative democracy and whatever legislators do in Phoenix should be accepted. She said that they have three branches of government. When legislative branch oversteps, like they did here, they owe it to the taxpayers to defend the voters and the taxpayers. That is the reason why she thinks they should take an action and join someone that took it upon herself to fight for all of the cities. She said that the reason that the City of Tempe did not get behind her is the same reason why Flagstaff’s Council did not get behind it—lack of political courage. She asked that they not make that mistake again and stand up to the legislators.
Vice Mayor Barotz called for a roll call vote.
Vote: 3 - 4
- AYE:
-
Vice Mayor Celia Barotz
Councilmember Coral Evans
Councilmember Eva Putzova
16.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A.
Review of Comprehensive Planning Work Program related to Specific Plans
Ms. Dechter said that this item is for discussion and direction on January 12, 2016, but she wanted to introduce it tonight. She said that after they finished the La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Plan, there has been a lot of interest from the community, but there are competing desires and limited resources. She then reviewed a PowerPoint presentation addressing:
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
Project management for Area Plans and Specific Plans 50-60%
Inter and Intragovernment Coordination and Regional Plan 20-30%
Regional Plan Amendments and Development Application Review – 20-30%
WHY CREATE OR UPDATE A SPECIFIC PLAN?
6 reasons
CONTENT
POTENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS
Milton Road Corridor
Southside Neighborhood
High Occupancy Housing
McMillan Mesa (City properties)
West Route 66
Councilmember Oravits asked if they are considering limiting turn movements on Milton. Ms. Dechter said that was correct.
Councilmember Overton said that he was glad to see it (Milton) at the top of the list, but it is ironic that it is the worst road in the City, but it is an ADOT roadway. He asked what options would be available. Ms. Dechter said that they would need to consider whether the City would want to fund such a study. With 1.5 staff members, they could not do the type of outreach needed and would need consultant help. She said that they could use one-time or two years of funding and if they had budgeted money, there are matching grants available.
Councilmember Overton asked what kind of money they would need for such a study. Ms. Dechter said that she would figure around $250,000. They have not penciled it out, but if they were interested they could bring a number back.
SOUTHSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING SPECIFIC PLAN
Councilmember Oravits asked how they addressed this issue in the Regional Plan. Ms. Dechter said that this proposal came from an external working group, asking to take a more detailed look at compatibility. The Regional Plan identified the area as an activity center, but it was quiet on this topic. She said that staff does feel there would be an advantage of having technical assistance from a consultant on this topic.
MCMILLAN MESA PLAN FOR CITY PROPERTY
WEST ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR PLAN UPDATE
Mayor Nabours said, going back to Councilmember Overton’s comment re Milton, if he had to prioritize those items he would put Milton at the top, but not if they are going to come back and say they need to study Milton for $250,000. He is more interested in the remedies.
Ms. Dechter said that tonight they were showing Council their initial blush. Whichever one they prioritize will have some implications; some are more expensive than others. She said that tonight they are asking Council what further information they would need to have a good discussion on this issue. She said that the $250,000 would not be just for a study. They have some good traffic simulations to show from the FMPO, but they are lacking the understanding of how those changes would impact land use decisions and alternative modes of transportation. There is a need to fill in the gap.
Council agreed that all five of the projects were important. Mr. Landsiedel said that they have been trying for two years to obtain a grant to take the whole corridor and figure out doable projects, so they can slice it up into CIP projects that can be funded. The difficulty is Milton is not a City roadway. He said that ADOT was in the mode of doing route transfers, but they do not have money for them anymore.
Councilmember Landsiedel said that he thought that was why it was important to get those figures. Mr. Landsiedel said that seven or eight years ago they did a route transfer study. They could easily visit with ADOT and update those costs to be brought back. Councilmember Oravits said that he thought it was important to get control of Milton at some point in the future.
Vice Mayor Barotz said that the High Occupancy Housing was related to the future agenda item request she had brought forward. She asked if there was anyone from the external working group to address why this was so important.
The following individuals spoke regarding this issue:
•Charlie Silver
•Marilyn Weissman
Comments received included:
•As a citizen member of that group (HOH) he urged them to continue the work and direction.
•There was a lot of effort over a five-month period looking at student housing, which they renamed High Occupancy Housing.
•They felt it was a large issue, especially in light of the projects coming through and the public discussions.
•She respected the work done by the Committee, but she believed that the HOH name is dishonest.
•By changing the name they are leaving out NAU.
•This week the Board of Regents voted to allow NAU to grow to 34,000. By distinguishing between High Occupancy Housing and High Occupancy Student Housing, they are being honest with the public about what they are facing.
•There are differences, one of which is parking. She said that there is no great demand for this type of housing outside of student housing. She feels it is related to student housing and it has to be clear to a developer.
Vice Mayor Barotz said that she would withdraw her FAIR item. If it falls to the bottom when these are all reviewed, then she will again ask for a FAIR item. She said that it is so important; they need to give more clarity.
Councilmember Putzova said that when they were discussing their Legislative Priorities for 2016, they did not bring up Milton as a potential project they could advocate for, and suggested that perhaps they amend those priorities.
A break was then held from 7:37 p.m. to 7:47 p.m.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
Project management for Area Plans and Specific Plans 50-60%
Inter and Intragovernment Coordination and Regional Plan 20-30%
Regional Plan Amendments and Development Application Review – 20-30%
WHY CREATE OR UPDATE A SPECIFIC PLAN?
6 reasons
CONTENT
POTENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS
Milton Road Corridor
Southside Neighborhood
High Occupancy Housing
McMillan Mesa (City properties)
West Route 66
Councilmember Oravits asked if they are considering limiting turn movements on Milton. Ms. Dechter said that was correct.
Councilmember Overton said that he was glad to see it (Milton) at the top of the list, but it is ironic that it is the worst road in the City, but it is an ADOT roadway. He asked what options would be available. Ms. Dechter said that they would need to consider whether the City would want to fund such a study. With 1.5 staff members, they could not do the type of outreach needed and would need consultant help. She said that they could use one-time or two years of funding and if they had budgeted money, there are matching grants available.
Councilmember Overton asked what kind of money they would need for such a study. Ms. Dechter said that she would figure around $250,000. They have not penciled it out, but if they were interested they could bring a number back.
SOUTHSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING SPECIFIC PLAN
Councilmember Oravits asked how they addressed this issue in the Regional Plan. Ms. Dechter said that this proposal came from an external working group, asking to take a more detailed look at compatibility. The Regional Plan identified the area as an activity center, but it was quiet on this topic. She said that staff does feel there would be an advantage of having technical assistance from a consultant on this topic.
MCMILLAN MESA PLAN FOR CITY PROPERTY
WEST ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR PLAN UPDATE
Mayor Nabours said, going back to Councilmember Overton’s comment re Milton, if he had to prioritize those items he would put Milton at the top, but not if they are going to come back and say they need to study Milton for $250,000. He is more interested in the remedies.
Ms. Dechter said that tonight they were showing Council their initial blush. Whichever one they prioritize will have some implications; some are more expensive than others. She said that tonight they are asking Council what further information they would need to have a good discussion on this issue. She said that the $250,000 would not be just for a study. They have some good traffic simulations to show from the FMPO, but they are lacking the understanding of how those changes would impact land use decisions and alternative modes of transportation. There is a need to fill in the gap.
Council agreed that all five of the projects were important. Mr. Landsiedel said that they have been trying for two years to obtain a grant to take the whole corridor and figure out doable projects, so they can slice it up into CIP projects that can be funded. The difficulty is Milton is not a City roadway. He said that ADOT was in the mode of doing route transfers, but they do not have money for them anymore.
Councilmember Landsiedel said that he thought that was why it was important to get those figures. Mr. Landsiedel said that seven or eight years ago they did a route transfer study. They could easily visit with ADOT and update those costs to be brought back. Councilmember Oravits said that he thought it was important to get control of Milton at some point in the future.
Vice Mayor Barotz said that the High Occupancy Housing was related to the future agenda item request she had brought forward. She asked if there was anyone from the external working group to address why this was so important.
The following individuals spoke regarding this issue:
•Charlie Silver
•Marilyn Weissman
Comments received included:
•As a citizen member of that group (HOH) he urged them to continue the work and direction.
•There was a lot of effort over a five-month period looking at student housing, which they renamed High Occupancy Housing.
•They felt it was a large issue, especially in light of the projects coming through and the public discussions.
•She respected the work done by the Committee, but she believed that the HOH name is dishonest.
•By changing the name they are leaving out NAU.
•This week the Board of Regents voted to allow NAU to grow to 34,000. By distinguishing between High Occupancy Housing and High Occupancy Student Housing, they are being honest with the public about what they are facing.
•There are differences, one of which is parking. She said that there is no great demand for this type of housing outside of student housing. She feels it is related to student housing and it has to be clear to a developer.
Vice Mayor Barotz said that she would withdraw her FAIR item. If it falls to the bottom when these are all reviewed, then she will again ask for a FAIR item. She said that it is so important; they need to give more clarity.
Councilmember Putzova said that when they were discussing their Legislative Priorities for 2016, they did not bring up Milton as a potential project they could advocate for, and suggested that perhaps they amend those priorities.
A break was then held from 7:37 p.m. to 7:47 p.m.
B.
Presentation and Discussion: Recommended Comprehensive Parking Management Program
Community Design and Redevelopment Manager Karl Eberhard reviewed a PowerPoint presentation which addressed:
SYMPTOMS
Nominal Management
Limited Supply
CUSTOMERS
VISION
Comprehensive Parking Management
Build Parking System Facilities
CORE TENETS
MISSION
Solution:
Regulations
Residential Permits
Employee Permits
Time Limited
Enforcement
More now
Modernized
Grow with System
Pay-to-Park
Dedicated Revenue Stream
Pays for Enforcement and Parking Facilities
MAP
Pay Parking
Time limited parking
Phoenix Avenue lot – employee parking
KEY FEATURES – RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING
Applicable Citywide – Need Verified
Block by block basis – system grows
Requested by PO
Request Options
Guest Permits
On Demand via the Pay to Park system
$5 per day
Disabled Parking Provisions
Key Features – Employee Permit parking
Applicable Citywide
Initially
½ of Phoenix Avenue Lot
Remote metered on-street spaces
Pay to Park, permit exempt
$3 per day
Key Features – Time-Limited Parking
Side Streets of Beaver and San Francisco Streets
Adjusted to Neighborhood Needs
Key Features – Enforcement
Add two FTE now
Add one FTE per 300 spaces added to program
Handheld Ticket Printing
Iphones with printers
Via the Pay to Park system
Automatic License Plate Readers
Key Features – Pay to park Kiosks
Pay by plate
One per block face
Approximately 88
Networked
Payments
Cashless
Credit card, internet, and cell
Merchant
Citations
Guest permits
Internet (Cloud) back of house
Dedicated Fund
Portion of that further dedicated to build parking
Pays for Operations
Pay to Park operations
Residential Permit parking program
Employee Permit parking program
Enforcement
Builds Parking System Facilities
Southside – missing curbs
Additional parking lots / garages
Wayfinding signage
Bicycle, pedestrian, and transit options
Key Features – Funding
Pay to Park Kiosks – Lease to Own
That’s Phase I
There are more phases
The rest of the story…
Phase 2 – Temporary Employee Parking
NEEDS
DESIRES
IDEAS
Not possible to get all included
Is comprehensive
Fair to all
Incorporates as much as possible
The following individuals addressed the Council in support of the program:
•Jeff Meilbeck, Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority (NAIPTA)
•Terry Madeksza, Flagstaff Downtown Business Alliance (FDBA)
•David Stilley, Flagstaff Downtown Business Improvement and Revitalization District (FDBIRD)
•John VanLandingham, FDBA and FDBIRD
•Maury Herman
•Joan Martini
•Rich Payne
•Paul Ferry
•Charlie Silver
•Rod Horn
•Deborah Harris
•Marilyn Weissman
Comments received included:
•Free parking is not free--parking has value and associated costs
•There are very good reasons to have 100% subsidized parking, but there comes a time when it no longer makes sense.
•Many cities have grown past this point; it is not easy anywhere it is done.
•Difficult when service is reduced; people do not like it.
•Would suggest that those fears do not justify a 100% subsidy
•Parking has been talked about for a very long time
•Something that needs more thought and work is finding a commitment for employee parking
•Businesses in downtown are the engine that drives tourism, business, and they need an adequate solution for employees
•First time he came before Council to ask for support in addressing this issue, some of the present Council members had not yet been born
•They have a plan; it is not perfect, but they have perished in the pursuit of perfection
•They have a plan that is comprehensive, sustainable, flexible and solves the problem; he urged them to move forward
•The last plan lacked dealing with the residential concerns
•Thanked Council for allowing the residents to meet with Mr. Eberhard. Believes they have compromised to come up with an agreement with him.
•Residents do not want it outsourced; they want the City to be in the management of the parking program.
•They have lost parking meters twice; thought it was important to do it right the first time.
•Need for employee parking has been underestimated
Mayor Nabours asked Mr. VanLandingham if the position was that the surrounding streets would have permits and a homeowner that fronts on that street would buy a permit. Mr. VanLandingham said that was correct. They have not yet determined the price, but enforcement has to be paid from somewhere. Their vision is not that the cost of the permit pay for it entirely, but at some number greater than zero.
•If on a given block it is posted for four-hour parking, except for permits, and the employee parks and walks down the hill, they will be able to park there for four hours. In most of the blocks, he did not think it would produce congestion. If there is room, then sell employee permits.
•NAU appreciates being invited to the table on this issue, especially as it relates to the southside.
•Parking issues in communities with colleges are not unique.
•The NAU parking garage has two-hour permits, but they can get two two-hour permits for those with longer classes.
•NAU President has reviewed the proposals and supports the southside plan.
•Supports the management program.
•Agrees there should be no charge for residential now or in the future; residents already contribute just by putting up with amount of traffic and congestion.
•Test it, use it and adapt it.
•Need to keep in mind the need for accessible van parking for disabled users
•Residents in the north end would rather have employee parking there than two-hour visitors; much less likely to pollute their yards.
•Some of the revenues coming in need to be kept for a parking garage.
•Have been talking about this for years; just do it.
•Program is not perfect, but gives them a starting point.
Councilmember Evans said that it was refreshing to have someone from NAU participate in the discussions and be present at the meeting.
The following individual spoke in opposition to the plan:
•Steven Pierce
Comments received included:
•Nearly all of the downtown businesses have acquired building permits, but very few of the businesses have been required to meet code as it relates to parking.
•There is unequal enforcement. Stakeholders are lobbyists; they represent special interests and do not speak for the citizens.
•License plate reads violate their rights to liberty.
•Permits are permission to do a thing that would be otherwise illegal.
•Use of the City streets, paid for with road taxes, is not an illegal activity.
Written comments in support of the plan were submitted by the following individuals:
•Jill Farrell
•Shena Lyon
•Mark Lamberson
•Heather Malloy
•Amy Horn
Written comments against the plan were submitted by the following individuals:
•Esther Calvert
Vice Mayor Barotz asked for clarification as to parking permits. Mr. Eberhard said that if they were to support this plan as written they would be supporting free permits. The caveat is that in the future they should consider whether residential permits should be free.
Further discussion was held on the residential parking permits. Mr. Eberhard said that their expectation is that there is going to be an initial rush for residential parking permits. They were proposing that 50% of the residents, by count of water meters, would petition the City asking for parking patrol.
There are options to be considered: 1) everything is time limited, residential spaces excepted; 2) half residential, half open (as today); 3) half residential, half two-hour parking.
SYMPTOMS
Nominal Management
Limited Supply
CUSTOMERS
VISION
Comprehensive Parking Management
Build Parking System Facilities
CORE TENETS
MISSION
Solution:
Regulations
Residential Permits
Employee Permits
Time Limited
Enforcement
More now
Modernized
Grow with System
Pay-to-Park
Dedicated Revenue Stream
Pays for Enforcement and Parking Facilities
MAP
Pay Parking
Time limited parking
Phoenix Avenue lot – employee parking
KEY FEATURES – RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING
Applicable Citywide – Need Verified
Block by block basis – system grows
Requested by PO
Request Options
- Time limited parking, permit exemption
- ½ each side residents only, ½ each side unrestricted
- ½ each side residents only ½ each side time limited parking
Guest Permits
On Demand via the Pay to Park system
$5 per day
Disabled Parking Provisions
Key Features – Employee Permit parking
Applicable Citywide
Initially
½ of Phoenix Avenue Lot
Remote metered on-street spaces
Pay to Park, permit exempt
$3 per day
Key Features – Time-Limited Parking
Side Streets of Beaver and San Francisco Streets
Adjusted to Neighborhood Needs
Key Features – Enforcement
Add two FTE now
Add one FTE per 300 spaces added to program
Handheld Ticket Printing
Iphones with printers
Via the Pay to Park system
Automatic License Plate Readers
Key Features – Pay to park Kiosks
Pay by plate
One per block face
Approximately 88
Networked
Payments
Cashless
Credit card, internet, and cell
Merchant
Citations
Guest permits
Internet (Cloud) back of house
Dedicated Fund
Portion of that further dedicated to build parking
Pays for Operations
Pay to Park operations
Residential Permit parking program
Employee Permit parking program
Enforcement
Builds Parking System Facilities
Southside – missing curbs
Additional parking lots / garages
Wayfinding signage
Bicycle, pedestrian, and transit options
Key Features – Funding
Pay to Park Kiosks – Lease to Own
That’s Phase I
There are more phases
The rest of the story…
Phase 2 – Temporary Employee Parking
NEEDS
DESIRES
IDEAS
Not possible to get all included
Is comprehensive
Fair to all
Incorporates as much as possible
The following individuals addressed the Council in support of the program:
•Jeff Meilbeck, Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority (NAIPTA)
•Terry Madeksza, Flagstaff Downtown Business Alliance (FDBA)
•David Stilley, Flagstaff Downtown Business Improvement and Revitalization District (FDBIRD)
•John VanLandingham, FDBA and FDBIRD
•Maury Herman
•Joan Martini
•Rich Payne
•Paul Ferry
•Charlie Silver
•Rod Horn
•Deborah Harris
•Marilyn Weissman
Comments received included:
•Free parking is not free--parking has value and associated costs
•There are very good reasons to have 100% subsidized parking, but there comes a time when it no longer makes sense.
•Many cities have grown past this point; it is not easy anywhere it is done.
•Difficult when service is reduced; people do not like it.
•Would suggest that those fears do not justify a 100% subsidy
•Parking has been talked about for a very long time
•Something that needs more thought and work is finding a commitment for employee parking
•Businesses in downtown are the engine that drives tourism, business, and they need an adequate solution for employees
•First time he came before Council to ask for support in addressing this issue, some of the present Council members had not yet been born
•They have a plan; it is not perfect, but they have perished in the pursuit of perfection
•They have a plan that is comprehensive, sustainable, flexible and solves the problem; he urged them to move forward
•The last plan lacked dealing with the residential concerns
•Thanked Council for allowing the residents to meet with Mr. Eberhard. Believes they have compromised to come up with an agreement with him.
•Residents do not want it outsourced; they want the City to be in the management of the parking program.
•They have lost parking meters twice; thought it was important to do it right the first time.
•Need for employee parking has been underestimated
Mayor Nabours asked Mr. VanLandingham if the position was that the surrounding streets would have permits and a homeowner that fronts on that street would buy a permit. Mr. VanLandingham said that was correct. They have not yet determined the price, but enforcement has to be paid from somewhere. Their vision is not that the cost of the permit pay for it entirely, but at some number greater than zero.
•If on a given block it is posted for four-hour parking, except for permits, and the employee parks and walks down the hill, they will be able to park there for four hours. In most of the blocks, he did not think it would produce congestion. If there is room, then sell employee permits.
•NAU appreciates being invited to the table on this issue, especially as it relates to the southside.
•Parking issues in communities with colleges are not unique.
•The NAU parking garage has two-hour permits, but they can get two two-hour permits for those with longer classes.
•NAU President has reviewed the proposals and supports the southside plan.
•Supports the management program.
•Agrees there should be no charge for residential now or in the future; residents already contribute just by putting up with amount of traffic and congestion.
•Test it, use it and adapt it.
•Need to keep in mind the need for accessible van parking for disabled users
•Residents in the north end would rather have employee parking there than two-hour visitors; much less likely to pollute their yards.
•Some of the revenues coming in need to be kept for a parking garage.
•Have been talking about this for years; just do it.
•Program is not perfect, but gives them a starting point.
Councilmember Evans said that it was refreshing to have someone from NAU participate in the discussions and be present at the meeting.
The following individual spoke in opposition to the plan:
•Steven Pierce
Comments received included:
•Nearly all of the downtown businesses have acquired building permits, but very few of the businesses have been required to meet code as it relates to parking.
•There is unequal enforcement. Stakeholders are lobbyists; they represent special interests and do not speak for the citizens.
•License plate reads violate their rights to liberty.
•Permits are permission to do a thing that would be otherwise illegal.
•Use of the City streets, paid for with road taxes, is not an illegal activity.
Written comments in support of the plan were submitted by the following individuals:
•Jill Farrell
•Shena Lyon
•Mark Lamberson
•Heather Malloy
•Amy Horn
Written comments against the plan were submitted by the following individuals:
•Esther Calvert
Vice Mayor Barotz asked for clarification as to parking permits. Mr. Eberhard said that if they were to support this plan as written they would be supporting free permits. The caveat is that in the future they should consider whether residential permits should be free.
Further discussion was held on the residential parking permits. Mr. Eberhard said that their expectation is that there is going to be an initial rush for residential parking permits. They were proposing that 50% of the residents, by count of water meters, would petition the City asking for parking patrol.
There are options to be considered: 1) everything is time limited, residential spaces excepted; 2) half residential, half open (as today); 3) half residential, half two-hour parking.
Councilmember Putzova said that she appreciated meeting with FDBA yesterday; the more they understand the implications of the plan the better they can explain. The one voice she has not heard represented was the employees. She asked that staff speak a little about the philosophy on how this would work. Mr. Eberhard said that today employees have two choices--two-hour limited parking and risk a ticket; or park in the outlying areas for free. This plan would not change their life much. They could pay in the permitted areas, or continue to park in outlying areas. It will not be as convenient now if half will be reserved for residents.
Mr. Eberhard said that they conducted two types of outreach downtown--one with the property owners and one with the businesses. It was not well attended. They are aware of it; they are not here tonight.
Mayor Nabours asked Council to consider if they want to have meters and, if so, if they want the revenue to first cover the up-front expenses and put some away for a parking garage. Mr. Eberhard said that they currently estimate around $350,000 for the start-up with meters, leasing, signage, street markings, staffing, etc. Once they are up and running they anticipate around $1 million in revenue, with a net at $460,000. He said that with the way the plan is written right now, the initial expenses would not be reimbursed.
Council agreed they wanted the revenues set aside for parking improvements. Discussion was held on the management of the program overall. Mr. Eberhard said that he would serve as the Parking Manager in the short-term and would be housed in the Economic Vitality offices.
Consensus of the Council was to proceed with meters and permits, moving forward with the plan, and bring back the necessary documents for formalize the program.
Councilmember Brewster hung up from her call at this time (9:34 p.m.)
Mr. Copley said that the next two items could be brought back to the next meeting or one or both could be considered this evening.
Mr. Eberhard said that they conducted two types of outreach downtown--one with the property owners and one with the businesses. It was not well attended. They are aware of it; they are not here tonight.
Mayor Nabours asked Council to consider if they want to have meters and, if so, if they want the revenue to first cover the up-front expenses and put some away for a parking garage. Mr. Eberhard said that they currently estimate around $350,000 for the start-up with meters, leasing, signage, street markings, staffing, etc. Once they are up and running they anticipate around $1 million in revenue, with a net at $460,000. He said that with the way the plan is written right now, the initial expenses would not be reimbursed.
Council agreed they wanted the revenues set aside for parking improvements. Discussion was held on the management of the program overall. Mr. Eberhard said that he would serve as the Parking Manager in the short-term and would be housed in the Economic Vitality offices.
Consensus of the Council was to proceed with meters and permits, moving forward with the plan, and bring back the necessary documents for formalize the program.
Councilmember Brewster hung up from her call at this time (9:34 p.m.)
Mr. Copley said that the next two items could be brought back to the next meeting or one or both could be considered this evening.
C.
Policy discussion on proposed amendments to Zoning Code Chapter 10-30 (General to All).
Written comments were received from the following individuals:
•Virginia Ethington
•Duffie Westheimer
•Roabie Johnson
•Virginia Ethington
•Duffie Westheimer
•Roabie Johnson
Mr. Copley said that since there were some members of the public in the audience interested in item 10-D (10-40) he would plan to bring that back to the meeting on December 8, 2015, along with the Sign Code.
Moved by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz, seconded by Councilmember Coral Evans to postpone 16-C and 16-D to another date.
Vote: 5 - 2
- NAY:
-
Mayor Jerry Nabours
Councilmember Jeff Oravits
D.
Policy discussion on proposed amendments to Chapter 10-40 (Specific to Zones) of the Flagstaff Zoning Code.
17.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS
After discussion and upon agreement of three members of the Council, an item will be moved to a regularly-scheduled Council meeting.
After discussion and upon agreement of three members of the Council, an item will be moved to a regularly-scheduled Council meeting.
A.
Future Agenda Item Request (F.A.I.R.): A request by Vice Mayor Barotz to place on a future Work Session agenda a follow-up discussion of the the Student Housing Report.
Withdrawn earlier in the meeting by Vice Mayor Barotz.
18.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AND REPORTS FROM COUNCIL AND STAFF, FUTURE AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS
Councilmember Putzova asked for a Future Agenda Item Request (F.A.I.R.) to talk about a comprehensive affordable housing plan.
19.
ADJOURNMENT
The Regular Meeting of the Flagstaff City Council held December 1, 2015, adjourned at 9:46 p.m.
_______________________________ MAYOR |
|
| ATTEST: | |
_________________________________ CITY CLERK |
CERTIFICATION
| STATE OF ARIZONA | ) | |
| ) | ss. | |
| Coconino County | ) |
I, ELIZABETH A. BURKE, do hereby certify that I am the City Clerk of the City of Flagstaff, County of Coconino, State of Arizona, and that the above Minutes are a true and correct summary of the Meeting of the Council of the City of Flagstaff held on December 1, 2015. I further certify that the Meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.
| DATED this 2nd day of February, 2016. | |
| ________________________________ CITY CLERK |