Colleen Maring, Chief People Officer at Northern Arizona Healthcare, addressed Council and shared information about a new harm reduction initiative in partnership with the Coconino County Health Department. A vending machine outside the emergency department stocked with free Narcan and fentanyl test kits. Since its launch in September, the machine had distributed over 650 Narcan doses and 400 test kits, with community members using them for safety.

Azaryah addressed Council with a message of warning from God that destruction would be brought to the land.

Mayor Daggett reordered the agenda and took Item 6 before Item 5.

Mayor Daggett presented awards to the following individuals:

• Alyssa Harelson
• Amelia Bauman
• Cecelia Metz
• Elizabeth Broadbent
• Ella Pugh
• Emilynn Morgan-Wight
• Lila Dechter
• Quinn Buzzard
• Raina Boehme
• Samantha Brink
• Sonora Simmons

Mayor Daggett read and presented the proclamation.

Vice Mayor Sweet read and presented the proclamation.

Councilmember Aslan reported on the Sustainability commission meeting that included a robust discussion on code amendments. He also reported on the Tourism commission meeting which included updates on tourism in the Flagstaff region and a presentation from the Downtown Business Alliance on the vision for the downtown and budgetary roadmap to achieve a more vibrant and prosperous downtown.

Councilmember Garcia highlighted the Library Board meeting that included updates on the establishment of a volleyball court near the Forest Lake branch, the operational status of the Bookmobile, and the upcoming National Library Week.

Councilmember Matthews provided an update on the Mountain Line Board meeting, mentioning the pursuit of affordable housing on a six-acre parcel and planned service improvements for August 2025, including route modifications and public feedback opportunities.

Councilmember Spence shared that the Transportation commission's pedestrian and bicycle advisory committees were active, and that a $3 million project to repave 50 miles of FUTS trails with asphalt was planned for the summer.

Councilmember House discussed the Housing Commission's approval of the rental incentive bond program utilization and conversations on the LASS/CAP code concepts and missing middle housing types.

Vice Mayor Sweet noted that the MetroPlan meeting would be held at City Hall later that week.

Mayor Daggett reported that the Flagstaff Housing Authority met and voted to support the city taking on additional vouchers; the matter would come to Council for action soon.

Moved by Councilmember David Spence, seconded by Councilmember Anthony Garcia to appoint William Kluwin to a term expiring in April 2028.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Anthony Garcia, seconded by Councilmember David Spence to appoint Lina Wallen to a term expiring in April 2027.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Anthony Garcia, seconded by Councilmember David Spence to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

A written comment in support of the contract was submitted by Matthew Morgan.

Moved by Vice Mayor Miranda Sweet, seconded by Councilmember Lori Matthews to adopt Resolution No. 2025-09.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Anthony Garcia, seconded by Councilmember David Spence to read Ordinance No. 2025-03 by title only for the final time.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Lori Matthews, seconded by Councilmember David Spence to adopt Ordinance No. 2025-03.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Capital Improvements Project Manager David Pedersen provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

INNER BASIN WATERLINE RESTORATION PROJECT
PROJECT STAKEHOLDERS
EXCITING NEWS
GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE
SCOPE OF WORK
CONTRACT AND PROJECT TIMELINE
CONTRACT AND PROJECT COSTS

Council shared appreciation for the work of everyone involved in such an essential project.

Moved by Vice Mayor Miranda Sweet, seconded by Councilmember Lori Matthews to approve the Fourth Amendment to the Design-Build Contract with Hunter Contracting Co. in the amount of $688,800 adding GMP 5 for Construction and Repair Services for the Inner Basin Waterline Restoration Project with a contract duration of 75-calendar days and authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Airport Director Brian Gall provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

AIRPORT CONCESSIONAIRE SERVICES LICENSE AGREEMENT
AIRPORT MICRO-MARKET
AIRPORT FOOD AND BEVERAGE CONCESSIONAIRE HISTORY
LICENSE AGREEMENT SCOPE
PRE-SECURITY MICRO-MARKET AND COFFEE KIOSK
POST-SECURITY MICRO-MARKET
CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE AND INTERFACE
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION

Moved by Councilmember Lori Matthews, seconded by Councilmember Anthony Garcia to approve the Concessionaire Services License Agreement with Hi-Line Snack and Vending, Inc. to add two micro-markets and a coffee-kiosk at the Flagstaff Pulliam Airport and authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Mayor Daggett resumed the public hearing from February 4, 2025.

Senior Planner Wesley Welch and Deputy City Attorney Kevin Fincel provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

MILL TOWN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2ND AMENDMENT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
ENTITLEMENTS
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
1ST AMENDMENT
2ND AMENDMENT

Councilmember Matthews stated that the currently approved Development Agreement (DA) was tied to a specific site plan that allowed a five-story project with approximately 186 beds. She asked if the current proposal did not move forward, if the developers could still proceed with the original plan, provided they secured building permits or submitted civil plans by the end of the year.

Mr. Fincel responded yes. They had an approved site plan, if Council did not approve the proposed amendment, they could move forward under that plan.

HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING (HOH)
MILLTOWN
CODE COMPARISON – HOH
CODE COMPARISON – PARKING
COUNCIL OPTIONS

Lindsay Schube with Gammage and Burnham, on behalf of Vintage Partners, provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

MILL TOWN MIXED USE
MILL TOWN: ARIZONA’S INAUGURAL P3 PROJECT
TIMELINE
REALIZED BENEFITS
SO WHY ARE WE HERE?

Councilmember Garcia asked about the public/private partnership. Ms. Schube explained that there were lengthy negotiations that included road improvements, fiber optics, sewer improvements and much more. Mr. Fincel added that the partnership was born from the city’s desire to connect Beulah to University, but the ADOT facility was in the way. ADOT did not have a place to go so efforts began to find a partner who could come in and help ADOT relocate.

Councilmember Matthews indicated that it all started from a citizen bond that included the realignment of University. Community Development Director Dan Folke stated that the Beulah extension and realignment with University was the first part of the 20-year Transportation Tax from 2000 and it was the only remaining project that had not been constructed.

Ms. Schube reiterated that they were requesting an opportunity to bring a right sized project to a vacant parcel. The amended site plan would come back to Council for approval like any other development.

Walter Crutchfield with Vintage Partners addressed Council and reflected on the complexity and effort behind a DA that took over four years and involved 18 attorneys from the State of Arizona, the City of Flagstaff, and other parties. He emphasized trust, integrity, and keeping one's word. He defended his track record and personal character and highlighted his history of delivering affordable housing and other significant projects. He expressed frustration over opposition to their current proposal to downsize a large project near NAU. He urged Council to prioritize Flagstaff’s future and student housing needs.

Councilmember Matthews asked how much Vintage Partners had delivered in terms of affordable housing. Ms. Schube stated that they had partnered with Capstone Homes, Rohrs, Habitat for Humanity, Lived Communities, and others and have delivered more units than any others. There were 221 units at 60% AMI or less in partnership with Rohrs, 206 single family rental units with a 20% affordable component, they had 220 planned market rate multi-family rentals with Lived Communities, 40 starter homes with Habitat for Humanity, and 700 detached single-family homes with more to come in the additional phase of Timber Sky. She also noted a new project of tall and skinny townhomes that would also be part of Timber Sky.

Councilmember Matthews asked what the next steps would be if the amendment was not approved. Ms. Schube indicated they would either move forward and build what had already been approved or bring forward a Prop 207 claim and then apply with the revised development.

Councilmember Aslan clarified that he had no issue with building height or density but was concerned that the justification for the new project, framed as a "downsizing," may be misleading. He requested more detail about the proposed "right-sized" plan, how that differed from the already approved plan, and how the original entitlements would prevent a smaller, less dense development from proceeding. Ms. Schube stated that the current entitlements and architecture for the project were outdated, unsustainable, and inefficient, with a large footprint, wasted space, and too much parking. The new design had a smaller, more sustainable floor plan and better materials, which aligned it more with current planning priorities. Because the new design was significantly different, it could not be approved through the minor modification process and instead must go through a formal amendment involving public review. The new proposal would go through the full public process, including Planning and Zoning and City Council review.

Vice Mayor Sweet asked about commercial space; there were many large buildings already in existence that had empty commercial space on the ground floor. She asked how that could be avoided. Mr. Crutchfield indicated that the retail would be in front of the development, and he was not concerned that there would not be interest for the space. There had been significant interest from retail partners, and they were confident the retail could be filled.

Mayor Daggett asked Mr. Fincel to briefly explain what a Prop 207 was. Mr. Fincel explained that Proposition 207 allows private property owners to claim compensation if a local government passes a land use law that allegedly reduces the value of their property. For example, if a property was previously zoned for a five-story building but a new ordinance only allows three stories, the owner could claim a loss in value. In response, the city has two main options: it could either pay the property owner for the loss or grant a waiver. The waiver exempts the property from the new restriction, meaning the owner can still build under the old rules, and that exemption remained in effect permanently.

Mayor Daggett asked where amendments to DAs had happened before with other projects. Mr. Fincel stated that Canyon Del Rio was a recent one where an amendment was made that allowed the John Wesley Powell extension to go through their property. He noted that Timber Sky had been amended multiple times, most recently to change the affordability provisions. He noted that amendments were common because things change, and situations arise over time.

Mayor Daggett asked about amendments like what was being requested. Mr. Fincel stated that he was not aware of one recently but noted that public/private partnerships were unique. Mr. Crutchfield added that with multiple development partners, including the state and city, there were many components and requirements that changed.

Councilmember Matthews asked what the return to Vintage Partners had been since the inception of the development. Ms. Schube explained that there had been no return up to that point. However, Vintage had worked diligently with the city on the Timber Sky project including affordable housing with Rohrs and Habitat for Humanity that demonstrated their commitment to delivering quality projects that benefited the community.

Councilmember Matthews stated that she was pleased with the prospect of less parking. She asked if the development would be student housing. Ms. Schube offered that there was not a land use category called student housing. The current development was a mixture of unit types ranging from studio to five-bedroom units with shared space. The new proposal would be similar but with a stronger emphasis on studios, one- and two bedrooms. It would be an opportunity for travelling nurses, students, new engineers, etc. that needed to have a temporary space while they search for permanent housing. It was a multi-family development, but given its proximity to NAU, students would be a fair part of that resident makeup.

Vice Mayor Sweet stated that the project would address multiple needs for housing. She asked for a reiteration of what affordable housing Vintage Partners had brought to Flagstaff. Ms. Schube and Mr. Crutchfield offered that the original agreement included a small number of units with a ten-year affordability limit, tied to studio apartment values, but the plan was not well thought out and was negotiated on the fly. Since then, the understanding of what constitutes affordable housing had evolved, and recent projects like Lake Mary and Sky Cottages had included more intentional affordable components. The development team now believed the best path forward was to partner again with Habitat for Humanity to build 40 new affordable homes at Timber Sky, building on an earlier phase that received overwhelming interest from applicants. Although there had been concerns from developers about the challenges of working in Flagstaff, the team remained committed to delivering a more effective and community-focused solution. They planned to bring a revised proposal forward through the rezoning process and hoped to gain support from the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission.

Councilmember Garcia stated that there was a missing middle when it came to housing and asked how that missing middle could be addressed. Mr. Crutchfield offered that they were also concerned about the missing middle. He noted that there was no single type of housing that could meet the full range of needs. He indicated that shared multi-bedroom units had proven useful for students and young professionals. However, even discounted shared rentals often cost more than owning a Habitat home. He emphasized that equity, through ownership, was a better long-term solution. He suggested that the city should re-evaluate available land for a significant expansion of Habitat for Humanity housing. Losing young people and families due to housing threatened the community’s vitality, there must be opportunities for everyone, not just older or established residents.

Mr. Clifton offered that although the project had been ongoing for several years, it had not been stagnant and significant offsite improvements had been made, including infrastructure, public amenities, and upcoming developments. He acknowledged the complexity of the public-private partnership and underscored that the delays and challenges were typical of such long-term projects.

Mr. Clifton also indicated that the main issue was timing, as the seven-year DA was nearing its end in December. There was still significant work to complete on both residential and commercial components, and the decision at hand involved granting an extension to allow that work to continue. The process being proposed was supported by city staff and was consistent with the original development code, and not in violation of current policies, including the HOH policy. He noted that if the project was not allowed to proceed, Prop 207 claims were likely to follow, which would bypass current policies anyway and delay progress further.

Finally, Mr. Clifton offered that there was an expectation that the revised site plan would address community concerns by reducing scale and density, though specific visuals were not yet available. He pointed out the complexity of Flagstaff’s zoning code which added cost and uncertainty for developers. Simplifying those regulations would help reduce housing costs and support more efficient development, ultimately benefiting the entire community amid a housing crisis.

Mr. Fincel pointed out that there was another timing issue as it related to a true up payment referenced in the current agreement. He recommended that Council include a five-year extension on that payment to match the extension on the agreement.

The following individuals addressed Council in support of the amendment to the Development Agreement:

• Cecily Maniaci
• Roman Goebel
• Cameron Bunger
• Stephen Irwin
• Eric Wolverton
• Mateo Seamar
• Coral Evans

The following comments were received:

• There are so many housing needs in Flagstaff.
• We want the city to grow with housing, businesses, and people.
• We are losing our workforce and youth because of their inability to secure affordable housing.
• There is a need for growth.
• Support the amendment to support students who want to stay in Flagstaff after graduation.
• The project is all about partnerships and ADOT and the city has benefited tremendously, it is now time for Vintage to benefit.
• There is a good partner who will provide a smaller project, and we owe it to Vintage to be a good partner.
• This is only an extension to figure out how to deliver the best possible development.
• Building more housing for students will get them out of neighborhoods and into smart locations near NAU, amenities, and public transportation.
• It makes sense to ask why when there is a request for an extension.
• Vintage has devoted their engineering team pro bono to Habitat, that shows their commitment.
• They have a willingness to look outside the box and focus on the broad needs of housing in Flagstaff.
• Voters approved a transportation tax decades ago and without Vintage the projects tied to that tax would not be advancing.
• Amending a DA is not unheard of.
• Flagstaff is missing middle housing and that needs to be heavily considered.
• This is an opportunity that would give people who are against large projects something smaller.

Written comments in support of the amendment to the Development Agreement were submitted by the following:

• Elliott Harrington
• Noah Garcia
• Lukas Stover
• Matthew Vanca
• Graidin Arnold
• Tyler McDonagh
• Ty Robinson
• Steven Butler
• Alexander Mooradian
• Ezekiel Valdivia
• Mateo Seaman
• Bennett Warner
• Kael Hopkins
• Patrick Duffy
• Andrew Sanchez-Carrithers
• Gavin Caldwell
• Sandra Lubarsky

The following individuals addressed Council in opposition to the amendment to the Development Agreement:

• Michelle James
• Jean Christy
• Barbara Bates
• Charlie Silver
• Mary Norton
• Kathy Flaccus
• Debra Block
• Marilyn Weissman

The following comments were received:

• The HOH code should be applied to this project.
• Citizens worked closely with the city to craft the HOH plan for reasonable limitations on high density developments.
• If the Council approves the amendment the applicant will build a project that does not meet the HOH standards.
• An amendment would send a message that the city codes are not important.
• There is not a compelling argument to approve the amendment.
• It does not make sense that the new codes would not be better than what they have now.
• Hold standards high and represent the public interest.
• Student housing units are empty throughout the year already.
• Focus on the people living here.
• Building more apartments does not support Flagstaff, more permanent housing opportunities are needed.
• Developers build without consideration of Flagstaff’s historic feel.
• We must protect the jewel we are lucky to live in.
• More buildings will block the view of the San Francisco Peaks.
• We need well planned growth and that is not what is happening in Flagstaff.
• This will bring increased transportation and water concerns.
• Overscale apartment buildings should never have been built, and they should not be built now.
• Developers do not get to pick and choose which code they want to build under.
• New site plans must be reviewed under the current code.
• Deviating from the code is not appropriate, adhere to the process and current code.
• The development does not provide a pathway to permanent housing.
• I object to large city developers suggesting that their projects are appropriate for Flagstaff.
• The Council must mandate the HOH requirements.
• Dense housing should include everyone, not just students.
• This calls into question the benefit of a public/private partnership.

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

Councilmember Spence stated that he had visited several large student housing developments which together amounted to around 1,200 dwelling units and 3,500 bedrooms. All these projects had emerged since the Milltown development was first proposed, illustrating how much had changed in recent years. Those developments were the catalyst for the creation of the HOH code. The core of the HOH policy included a requirement that at least 20% of units be studio or one-bedroom apartments and that no more than 30% of units be four- or five-bedroom layouts. The current proposal from Vintage Partners resisted that policy and he was not supportive of the amendment. It was not because of the developer's reputation or timeline, but because he believed in consistent governance. Granting an exemption would set a precedent, potentially opening the door for other developers to request similar exceptions.

Councilmember Aslan noted that none of the current Councilmembers were involved in the original DA or public/private partnership project, and that the complexity of the situation had made it difficult to maintain public trust. Regardless of the decision, the development would return to the Council and the community for further consideration. He was opposed to amending a site plan that would be nine years old when it sunsets. He pointed out that Vintage was unable to secure a builder for years and only found one willing to proceed if major changes were made to the plan. He acknowledged that Vintage had the legal rights to develop the land and had already made substantial investments that benefited the city, however he did not believe that the project should be evaluated under the current conditions and housing needs, which were shifting away from student-focused developments. He indicated that he would not vote to approve the amendment.

Councilmember Matthews explained that several Prop 207 claims had already been approved, which exempted those properties from the HOH code; that would apply in this case if the amendment was denied. If denied, the project would likely proceed without HOH restrictions through a 207 claim. Delaying the project would raise costs, which would ultimately be passed to residents. She felt that student housing near campus helped free up housing elsewhere and praised the potential for Habitat for Humanity to build more homes. She expressed support for the HOH code but acknowledged that changes to zoning laws inevitably affected projects already in motion. She noted her support for the amendment.

Councilmember House acknowledged the concerns raised about the development and emphasized that she took those concerns seriously. While she noted that the developer could proceed with the existing, potentially less desirable, site plan, she believed that granting the amendment allowed for a more thoughtful approach that better aligned with Flagstaff’s housing needs. She viewed the process as an important step toward fostering a more balanced and constructive community dialogue.

Councilmember Garcia clarified that voting "no" would not end the project, it would leave the larger, already-approved plan in place. He believed that the site was well-suited for higher density and expressed that approval would give the community an opportunity to collaborate with Vintage and help shape the development’s future.

Vice Mayor Sweet thanked Vintage for taking the time to listen and answer questions. She felt that there was value in giving the project a chance to see what they brought forward with the amended site plan. She believed that Vintage intended on providing what the community needed.

Mayor Daggett stated that the DA did not exempt the developer from the current engineering standards. Last year, and currently under construction, there were a total of 921 units constructed and of those, 355 were affordable. She was proud of that and the work the Council, staff, and community partners had put into creating affordable housing. She stated that Prop 207 had been thrown around as a threat, but she saw it as a consequence. It was a very real law, and they had given waivers to several property owners that had shown just cause that HOH diminished the value of their property. The alternative was to go to court, which was very expensive, and the city would likely not be successful. She stated that when the amended site plan came back, she would like to see a healthy mix of rental types and suggested the percentages within the HOH code. She felt confident that the amended site plan would be better than the current plan.

Moved by Councilmember Lori Matthews, seconded by Vice Mayor Miranda Sweet to read Resolution No. 2025-05 by title only authorizing the execution of the Second Amendment to the Mill Town Development Agreement, with the addition of the amendment to the Duration section of the Development Agreement discussed by staff.

Vote: 5 - 2

NAY:

Councilmember Austin Aslan
Councilmember David Spence

Moved by Councilmember Lori Matthews, seconded by Vice Mayor Miranda Sweet to adopt Resolution No. 2025-05.

Vote: 5 - 2

NAY:

Councilmember Austin Aslan
Councilmember David Spence

Water Production Manager Brian Huntzinger and Colby Walton with Arizona Game and Fish provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

INNER BASIN WATERLINE WILDLIFE DRINKERS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH ARIZONA GAME AND FISH
INNER BASIN WILDLIFE DRINKERS

Moved by Councilmember Austin Aslan, seconded by Councilmember David Spence to read Resolution No. 2025-06 by title only.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Austin Aslan, seconded by Councilmember Anthony Garcia to adopt Resolution No. 2025-06.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

A break was held from 6:49 p.m. through 7:02 p.m.

Transportation Planner Christopher Phair provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

IGA FOR THE AZ SMART MATCH REIMBURSEMENT ON THE BUTLER AVENUE COMPLETE STREET CONVERSION PROJECT
AZ SMART MATCH IGA
ANTICIPATED PROJECT COSTS (AT TIME OF SS4A AWARD)
PROJECT COSTS WITH AZ SMART AWARD

Councilmember Spence asked how much private property was needed along the road. Mr. Phair explained that they were only at 15% concept plan for the project and there were no commitments on Right-of-Way needs at that time but that the two that were suggested were minimal.

Moved by Councilmember Lori Matthews, seconded by Vice Mayor Miranda Sweet to read Resolution No. 2025-07 by title only.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Lori Matthews, seconded by Councilmember David Spence to adopt Resolution No. 2025-07.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Water Services Stormwater Manager Ed Schenk introduced Rick Schuller with Woodson Engineering who provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DESIGN MANUAL UPDATE
OBJECTIVES FOR TONIGHT
PROJECT SCOPING EXERCISE
NEW MANUAL BASIS
INTENT OF MANUAL
PEER REVIEW AND PUBLIC COMMENTS
REMAINS APPLICABLE
MANUAL REVISIONS
DISCUSSION

Councilmember Spence noted that Chapter 6 mentioned rainwater harvesting and asked if there was anything in the 2025 manual that would restrict or constrict a property owner from collecting rainwater. Mr. Schuller stated that rainwater harvesting was a requirement on new projects and exceptions would only be where the project would use a complete landscape pallet of drought tolerant species that would require less irrigation while using more passive techniques for capturing the water.

Mr. Clifton stated that Chapters 9 and 10 discuss burn watersheds and post wildfire flooding. He asked if that reconciled with policies that the county was following with respect to post wildfire flooding. Mr. Schuller responded yes and noted that a good share of the comments received about the chapters came from JE Fuller. The final analysis of no adverse impact with projects utilized criteria that was very similar to what the county was using. The two-dimensional flood modeling also used the same modeling of the county.

Councilmember Garcia expressed appreciation that the new manual was easy to understand. Mr. Schuller stated that the old manual was far more technical and contained a lot of graphs; the new manual was meant to get to the broader points.

Moved by Councilmember Lori Matthews, seconded by Vice Mayor Miranda Sweet to read Resolution No. 2025-10 by title only.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Lori Matthews, seconded by Vice Mayor Miranda Sweet to read Ordinance No. 2025-04 by title only for the first time.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Public Affairs Director Sarah Langley addressed Council and presented a resolution recognizing that the city’s housing emergency was being worsened by the rise of short-term rentals (STRs). The resolution urged the State of Arizona to return regulatory control over STRs to local governments. She explained that since a 2016 state law limited cities’ ability to regulate STRs, communities had faced growing challenges. Although some minor regulatory tools had been granted, cities still could not control the number of STRs. The resolution, modeled after one passed by Sedona, served as a formal call for legislative change and a lobbying tool to show state lawmakers that local governments needed more authority to manage the impact of STRs in ways that suited their unique communities.

Councilmember House noted that the Housing Commission had a thorough discussion on the resolution, with some members expressing concern about its implications. However, they clarified that the resolution was simply a way to support potential legislative action and advocate for local control over STRs. It was not intended to bypass existing policies, but rather to help ensure that the city’s housing supply was focused on meeting residents’ needs, not fueling the STR market. Councilmember Garcia added that the commission was split on each side of the issue and all were worth considering.

Mary Norton addressed Council in support of the resolution for local control of short-term rentals, sharing her HOA’s struggle to regulate STRs due to restrictive state laws and legal barriers. She urged the city to advocate for change and encourage new developments to limit non-owner-occupied STRs, noting STRs also benefit from lower property tax rates than hotels.

Moved by Councilmember Khara House, seconded by Councilmember Anthony Garcia to read Resolution No. 2025-08 by title only.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Khara House, seconded by Vice Mayor Miranda Sweet to adopt Resolution No. 2025-08.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Vice Mayor Sweet requested a $1,000 allocation to feed volunteers during the Habitat for Humanity’s Blitz Home Build Volunteer Event. Council expressed their support for the request.

Moved by Vice Mayor Miranda Sweet, seconded by Councilmember Austin Aslan to authorize the use of the Council Initiative Fund to sponsor the Habitat for Humanity Blitz Home Build Volunteer Event in the amount of $1,000.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Councilmember Spence recited the Pledge of Allegiance. He stated that times were turbulent around both legal and illegal immigration. An aggressive federal deportation campaign targeted individuals without legal status. He referenced a specific state bill, Arizona Senate Bill 1164 (nicknamed the "AZ ICE Act"), and noted that, if passed, it would prevent Arizona cities from limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities. He requested a discussion on how the federal and state immigration policies may impact the city and its residents. One concern was the potential deputization of local police by federal agencies like ICE, which allowed them to enforce immigration actions in private and sensitive spaces such as homes, places of worship, and healthcare facilities.

The following individuals addressed Council in support of advancing the matter to a future agenda for discussion:

• Thomas Huttner
• Joan Arrow
• Eva Putzova
• Amy Martin
• Joe Bader
• Gwen Waring
• Sandra Lubarsky
• Charlie Silver
• Debra Block
• Jill Stephenson
• Kit Alvarez

The following comments were received:

• Please support a good-faith conversation on how to protect neighbors and prevent persecution.
• The request is only for discussion, not for policy changes.
• The issue is fundamentally about people and community well-being.
• The Council should consider how to move forward as a united community.
• There is fear and anxiety in the community due to national rhetoric.
• Immigrant workers provide vital contributions to daily life and the economy.
• The city should reflect national values like unity and justice through open dialogue.
• 1,500 Flagstaff residents signed a petition in support of an Immigrant Safety Ordinance.
• The City Council has avoided involvement in federal issues in the past.
• The ordinance should state that no city resources would be used for federal immigration enforcement, restrict data sharing by the city to protect residents' privacy, and train staff on compliance with the ordinance with mandatory compliance audits
• City residents cannot wait for the discussion to happen.
• Many cannot be here because they fear for their safety by sharing their identity.
• All people deserve dignity.
• So many people were brought over when they were very young and know no place other than Flagstaff.
• Students are disappearing, families are leaving our community out of fear, and going to worse conditions in Mexico.
• People deserve to stay here, and to demonize them is unconscionable.
• Many came here for an opportunity of a better future and for no other reason than to work and provide for their families.
• Young people are unable to accept offers to attend university.
• ICE is operating without guardrails.
• Many people are being detained, yet have not been charged or convicted.
• We may hold different opinions on this issue, but all of us are being bullied by an administration that is threatening to withhold funding.
• In light of current deportation practices, we need to talk together about human dignity and rights.
• This issue is severely affecting our friends and neighbors.
• Many immigrants are doing the jobs that most Americans do not want to dirty their hands with.
• The community has a right to discuss the issue.
• The end does not justify the means.
• You rely on community and expect that in return.

The following individuals addressed Council in opposition to advancing the matter to a future agenda for discussion:

• BJ Dempsey
• Phil Goldblatt
• Theresa Talley

The following comments were received:

• Immigration was not an issue for cities like Flagstaff to address.
• Legal immigrants are not at risk in Flagstaff.
• Coconino County Sheriff and others will not enforce Prop 314 until Texas’s similar law (SB4) is settled, which is currently held up in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court.
• Prop 314 itself states it cannot be enforced until SB4 is legally resolved.
• The proposal that was suggested would make Flagstaff a sanctuary city.
• A sanctuary city could attract undocumented immigrants, including dangerous individuals.
• There could be implications on federal funding and grants.
• The current federal administration is enforcing immigration laws more strictly.
• Local governments must uphold federal law.
• Do not spend time or resources on a moot issue.
• Concerned about discussions aimed at working around federal immigration laws.
• These laws are voter-approved and passed by state and federal authorities.
• The Department of Justice may cut federal funding to cities violating immigration laws.
• There is no intent to deport legal immigrants.
• Focus on the well-being of current residents.
• This is a divisive issue with opposing opinions that will never see eye-to-eye and having a public discussion will turn ugly.
• It is not legal, and we need to put it to rest.

The following individuals submitted written comments in opposition to advancing the matter to a future agenda for discussion:

• Joan Harris
• Robert Breunig

Tyson Fousel and Kim Curtis submitted a written comment in support of advancing the FAIR item to a future discussion.

Mr. Solomon explained that under the Rules of Procedure the first step in the FAIR process was to determine if there were three members of Council who were supportive of the matter advancing to a future agenda for discussion. Discussion on the matter would not happen during this meeting and would need to wait until an official agenda item had been scheduled.

There was not requisite support to advance the item to a future agenda for discussion.

Mayor Daggett invited the public to contact them after the meeting to discuss their various positions on the matter.

None

Councilmember Matthews shared that the topic of immigration was emotionally charged and deeply personal for many, but it lied outside the legal authority of the City Council. She supported migrant workers and shared personal ties to a farming community where their children grew up alongside them. Despite her sympathy and concern for vulnerable individuals, Councilmembers took an oath to uphold the Constitution and existing laws, regardless of personal feelings. She expressed concern that holding a public discussion would raise expectations, leading to hours of emotional testimony and ultimately end in disappointment, because the Council was not able to take legal action on the matter.

Councilmember Aslan expressed personal support for the immigrant community, noting his time living in a rural Spanish-speaking community, and his work organizing a Catholic immigration support network in Sacramento. He shared the same concern for the current situation and its impact on vulnerable Flagstaff residents, but believed the proposed, non-binding resolution would be ineffective and potentially provocative. It was important to be strategic rather than symbolic, and that was his basis for not supporting the FAIR request.

Vice Mayor Sweet shared her belief that the conversation could and should happen, but within and among the community rather than at the dais.

Councilmember House thanked Councilmember Spence for initiating the discussion and acknowledged the widespread concern in the community over the treatment of migrants, especially amid current state and federal deportation actions. She empathized with the fear and uncertainty many residents were feeling but the need was for a thoughtful, non-reactive, response. She cautioned that public discussions could inadvertently oppose legislation or place vulnerable individuals at greater risk. There was effective work already being done by advocacy and community organizations directly engaged with impacted individuals. She was committed to continuing to support those channels as an approach that better served community safety and well-being more than a formal Council discussion.

Mayor Daggett recognized that people were scared. There were conversations happening and many on Council were involved in those conversations. She expressed concern that a discussion would illicit a lot of divisive public comment that would not lead to the outcome that people would like to see. She believed that there were more effective ways to address the issue and those were underway.

The Regular Meeting of the Flagstaff City Council held March 4, 2025, adjourned at 8:39 p.m.