Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to approve the minutes of the City Council Special Work Session of October 19, 2015; City Council Work Session of October 27, 2015; and City Council Regular Meeting of December 1, 2015.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Mayor Nabours said that since the Dew Downtown item had been moved to the 6:00 p.m. portion of the meeting, he would welcome comments at this time as well if anyone was present regarding that matter.

Mayor Nabours said that the Police , Community Development and Sales Departments had reviewed these applications and found no issued. He then opened the Public Hearing on both liquor license applications. There being no put input, the Public Hearing was closed.

Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to forward both applications to the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses with recommendations for approval.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Sustainability Specialist McKenzie Jones reviewed proposed changes in response to comments made at the last meeting. Under 6-03-001-0001, Purpose, they inserted "common household and others." In addition, under 6-03-001-0002, Definitions, they changed the wording about six months ago and forgot to take out the definition "dehorned."

With regard to 6-03-001-0-003, Slaughter, Ms. Jones said that they added the words "slaughter must be for personal consumption and in compliance with all county, state and federal laws." Under 6-03-001-0004, Beekeeping, it should now read, "beekeeping is allowed in all zones where the use of the property on which the beehives are kept is residential or educational." She noted that last week they removed "marked and nonswarming characteristics."

Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Councilmember Coral Evans to read Ordinance No. 2015-17, as amended, by title only for the final time.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, AMENDING THE FLAGSTAFF CITY CODE, BY DELETING TITLE 6, POLICE REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 6-03, ANIMALS, IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADOPTING REVISED CHAPTER 6-03, ANIMAL KEEPING; 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. 2015-17.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Community Design and Redevelopment Manager Karl Eberhard briefly reviewed the proposed documents, noting that last week they had direction to include newspaper and website in the noticing section. Council had also questioned whether they could repay the seed money and stash away the 20%. He did a five-year plan and the answer to those questions is yes.

He said that they had discussions with the stakeholders and one of the things they talked about was staff coming back in a year's time or 15 months, with a review of expenditures/income and allocations, reviewing the overall program.

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to read Ordinance No. 2016-05, as amended, by title only for the final time.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA, AMENDING CERTAIN TRAFFIC AND PARKING REGULATIONS BY AMENDING THE FLAGSTAFF CITY CODE TITLE 9, TRANSPORTATION, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 9-01, TRAFFIC CODE; SECTION 9-01-001-0001, TRAFFIC LAWS ADOPTED; SECTION 9-01-001-0003, STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING RESTRICTIONS; SECTION 9-01-001-0007, OFFICE OF TRAFFIC ENGINEER CREATED; 9-01-001-0008, MUNICIPAL PARKING LOTS; BY ADDING SECTION 9-01-001-0014, OFFICE OF THE PARKING MANAGER CREATED; AND BY ADDING SECTION 9-01-001-0015, COMPREHENSIVE PARKING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SPECIAL REVENUE FUND, AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, AND EFFECTIVE DATES

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Coral Evans to adopt Ordinance No. 2016-05.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Mayor Nabours added that it was Council's direction to bring this ordinance back for a status report and update no later than 15 months.

Planning Director Dan Folke reviewed the three items involved with this project, noting that the first two were second readings of ordinances. The first was to acquire right-of-way and the second was to abandon right-of-way at the corner of Aspen/Beaver, and there was a new exhibit included which identified the square footage at 64 sq. ft. rather than the earlier 82 sq. ft.

He said that the third item is the development agreement and the terms remain the same. He noted that revisions were made to section 4.1.5 to clarify that the City was participating in relocation of improvements to allow for the ramp; the developer was responsible for the ramp itself.

Shane Shumway, representing the developers, said that he had nothing to add but was available for any questions that anyone may have.

Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to read Ordinance No. 2016-03 by title only for the final time.

Councilmember Putzova said that she would be voting no due to the language in the clause talking about the City's interest in purchasing the right-of-way for the widening of Humphreys. She has not been a part of any discussion and she feels it would not be in the best interest of the citizens to jump to the conclusion that it is the best option to deal with traffic issues.

Vice Mayor Barotz added that the FMPO may have had discussions, but it has not been given to her. The only thing she could find on the internet was a 2003 letter to the editor talking about the overuse of left-turn lanes.

Mayor Nabours said that he thought this was a rare opportunity to gain right-of-way for possible future expansion. He appreciated that the Shumways have been cooperative in giving the City this opportunity. He believed the Council would be ill-advised to not take the opportunity.

Vice Mayor Barotz said that she thought it had not been transparent the way it has been framed.

Vote: 5 - 2

NAY:

Vice Mayor Celia Barotz
Councilmember Eva Putzova

AN ORDINANCE OF THE FLAGSTAFF CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE POSSIBLE WIDENING OF HUMPHREYS STREET BETWEEN ROUTE 66 AND CHERRY AVENUE

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to adopt Ordinance No. 2016-03.

Vote: 5 - 2

NAY:

Vice Mayor Celia Barotz
Councilmember Eva Putzova

Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Councilmember Scott Overton to read Ordinance No. 2016-04 by title only for the final time.

Vote: 5 - 2

NAY:

Vice Mayor Celia Barotz
Councilmember Eva Putzova

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST IT HAS IN AN APPROXIMATELY 82 SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ASPEN AVENUE AND BEAVER STREET TO FMH ENTERPRISES, LLC

Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to adopt Ordinance No. 2016-04.

Vote: 5 - 2

NAY:

Vice Mayor Celia Barotz
Councilmember Eva Putzova

Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to approve the Development Agreement with FMH Enterprises, LLC.

Councilmember Overton thanked the applicant, stating that it was a great example of an infill property which had been underutilized and undeveloped.

Councilmember Putzova said that she would reiterate what was said before; she was not opposed to the Development Agreement if it did not have the acquisition of the land built into it. She said that it was her understanding that they could achieve the agreement with current setbacks; instead staff went ahead and negotiated the purchase of the property. They have not discussed anything about such widening.

Councilmember Brewster said that staff had the foresight to see the need for the right-of-way, whether developed now or years from now.

Vote: 5 - 2

NAY:

Vice Mayor Celia Barotz
Councilmember Eva Putzova

Vice Mayor Barotz commented to outgoing Public Works Director Erik Solberg that she thanked him from the bottom of her heart for everything he has given to the City. She said that she has admired him; he was the most level-headed guy she has ever met. She wished him happiness and relaxtion in his retirement.

Zoning Code Administrator Roger Eastman began the presentation, noting that they would not be doing the sign standards today as they need to go back to the Planning and Zoning Commissions due to the Reed case.

He said that staff started collecting amendments right after the 2011 adoption of the new Zoning Code. In 2014, he started pulling them together and last year they started the outreach, which included four or five policy work sessions with the Council.

Vice Mayor Barotz questioned the changes in the definition for dormitories and completely eliminating rooming and boarding. She said that the reason she is reviewing this is that it relates to student or high occupancy housing and these definitions are all part of the larger conversation. If they remove rooming and boarding and dormitory, when a high occupancy project comes before Council there will not be a conditional use permit (CUP) process any more. Mr. Eastman said that was correct. It would either be dormitory or multifamily apartment.

Mr. Eastman said that one of the recommendations of the Student Housing Work Study Group was to discuss high occupancy housing as presented last year, and as discussed with Council by Sara Dechter, that is one of her tasks.

Vice Mayor Barotz asked why they would not have some guidance, then, in the Zoning Code. She asked why they would not include definitions during that review time. Mr. Eastman said that he did not know that it was a bad idea, but it came out through the working group. He said that if there were concerns, they could not amend that part of the Code and leave it as is until they get through those discussions.

Vice Mayor Barotz asked if there was a reason why staff would not want to bring the Council changes to the Code based on what they have learned. Mr. Eastman said that the process is going to be a community process. They have existing definitions and the question is how they enforce the separate leasing arrangements per room. They do not have the ability to go into a building and start asking for lease arrangements.

Mr. Folke said that they currently do not need a CUP to achieve more than 29 units per acre. They have the mixed-units incentive. In order to get more than that, such as Aspen Place at Sawmill, it requires a Mixed Use project; it did not need a CUP to achieve those. He said that they started these amendments some time ago and are trying to get this round done. There are things that are critical to how they apply the Code. He said that rooming and boarding is not critical; if they do not want to change that now they do not need to. However, one concern would be to slow this down to include something on high occupancy housing.

Vice Mayor Barotz said that she was not suggesting that they slow anything down. Her idea was to understand the consequences of removing the definitions. She understands that the CUP comes into play with only rooming and boarding. What they are seeing in the community is that if they do not have the CUP process for higher density, there is less opportunity for the public to express their concerns.

Mr. Folke said that any project over a certain density may require a CUP, but they want to create some standards. The CUP is a permitted use, but those instances where they may to apply certain conditions. All of these things they have talked about is what they are going to go through. What they have proposed does not change when they need a CUP for density. Vice Mayor Barotz said that she was not sure she would support removing rooming and boarding and would like to vote on each separately.

Councilmember Evans agreed, stating that if they were not sure of what they were going to do with this element, they should just leave it alone. She would not support removing them.

Mr. Eastman said that there are specific findings listed in the Zoning Code that staff uses for evaluating a CUP that becomes the basis of the staff report that goes to the Commission. The Commission has to base their decisions on those findings.

Discussion was held on a potential rent by the room situation in La Plaza Vieja. Mr. Eastman said that it comes down to how staff would determine if there is a lease arrangement by bed. He said that there is not a way that would stand up in court.

Councilmember Overton said that he liked the clarification of what they were doing. He said that they would ask for a CUP for rooming and boarding, and they may add a condition or two. He said that he did not know that the CUP process is understood as well as it needs to be as it relates to leasing.

Mayor Nabours said that he was hearing that as far as density, whether they have a four bedroom apartment leasing as one unit or four rooms, the density is the same.

Councilmember Putzova said that she has a problem in the argument that the City is unable to track the leasing arrangements. If they do not disclose it in the beginning and a CUP is required, and it is then brought to the attention of the City, it would be a matter of dealing with a violation of the code. She did not support removing rooming and boarding until they had an adequate replacement.

Discussion was held on single room occupancy (SRO). Mr. Eastman explained that SRO's are permitted by right. They are only required a CUP in the suburban commercial zone. They are treating them much like a hotel/motel.

Mr. Solomon said that if the Council wants to propose amendments they can do so. They would vote on the amendments separately and then vote on the overall document.

Council then began review of the documents presented.

DOCUMENT A

Mr. Eastman said that this is talking about completeness of an application and if it is contested by the applicant to the Director. He said that when they use Director, they are talking about the Planning Director. The idea was to define Planning Director as Director and the Community Development Director, which is used a lot less frequently, would not be defined. In this area the Director and his staff would do the review. If there was an appeal it would go to the Community Development Director.

Councilmember Overton suggested they go up one more level so that it was outside of the Community Development division, for a more objective look, perhaps to the Deputy City Manager. Mr. Eastman said that appeals of excactions and dedications would be heard by the City Manager. Councilmember Overton said that he likes knowing there is a different division, but he was not ready to make that amendment this evening.

Councilmember Oravits said that he would like to see that as well, to have a different body or division review, and asked if that could be brought back in the future.

Mr. Landsiedel said that he thought it was appropriate to consider other sources and had no problem with that. The Council needs to keep in mind that the subject matter is extremely technical and that is the reason they have done this in the first place. To get someone up to speed with the technical knowledge could be challenging.

Mayor Nabours, in referring to page 243, is talks about imposing special requirements to ensure future rights-of-way needs. He was wondering if they can say to a property owner they cannot use that 154 feet of property because some day in the future the City may want it. Mr. Solomon said that he would review that section further. Councilmember Overton asked why they would call out one rather than all of the things they could impose. He would prefer to not call anything out.

Mayor Nabours said that in the prior paragraph it talks about necessary public improvements that are required for "this develoipment." But in the following paragraph it does not say anything about "this development," it talks about future needs. He asked that Mr. Solomon look at that before second read.

Councilmember Oravits, in referencing page 248, asked about the site drainage and how it affected it, or if it was just referring them to that document. Mr. Eastman said that was correct, it was referencing the LID (low impact development) manual. Councilmember Oravits said that he still wants to discuss that in a future session. Mr. Eastman said that the philosophy they approached in 2011 was to not duplicate standards. The Zoning Code excludes all of the standards in other documents and refers them to each.

Council agreed that chapters up through 10-30 were good.

DOCUMENT B (Page 310)

Mayor Nabours referenced the LIO (Light Industrial) zoning, noting that it has permitted uses of a school, charter school, public, and with a CUP even a hospital. He said that there is a lot of LIO zoning in the Woodlands Village area, originally contemplated to be light industrial, but it has evolved into a lot of retail, offices, apartments, etc. With that in mind he was wondering why churches and synagogues would not be allowed in an LIO zone, at least with a CUP.

Rabbi Shapiro, Flagstaff, said that about five years ago the Jewish community purchased two acres of land at the top of University across from the movie theater. The goal was to build a synagogue and community center. They now have the opportunity to move forward, but there is a challenge of a rezoning and the tremendous task involved. He said that they were asking that a minor amendment be made at this time to permit a house of worship in that zone.

Vice Mayor Barotz asked the Rabbi if they had investigated the zoning issue when they purchased the property. Rabbi Shapiro said that they did and the City official said they did not see why it would be a problem to go through the rezoning, but that figure is now close to $100,000. He said that he did not want to get sidetracked. The issue is not whether they should have to go through the process, but rather the ability to allow for a house of worship in a LIO zone.

Vice Mayor Barotz asked if the community center would require memberships. Rabbi Shapiro said that it would not; it would be open to the community.

Councilmember Oravits said that he would support this change. Mayor Nabours said that he did not think that Rabbi Shapiro was asking just for himself, but rather the ability for those properties to allow for a house of worship.

Mr. Eastman explained that one of the fundamental principles of the Zoning Code is that it needs to be consistent with the Regional Plan. One of the big projects of the 2011 Zoning Code rewrites was to reach that consistency. As explained in a CCR a few months ago, there is no consistency with the Regional Plan if they allow meeting facilities because the Regional Plan goal and policy talks about protecting zones. Industrial zones need to be for industrial uses and that is why meeting facilities were not added. They honored what was there already. Arguably schools should not be allowed, but they were already there and they could not take them away.

Mr. Eastman said that they were not saying the cannot put in meeting facilities, but what they should do is put the Regional Plan policy discussion first. He would argue that it is inconsistent with the Regional Plan policy.

Mayor Nabours said that in looking at the current code, the intent of industrial zones is to provide appropriate land uses in the areas that transition from industrial to commercial and residential. If that is the intent, then this seems to be a logical use. Mr. Eastman said that he understood his argument, but there is a different process to get there, involving the Planning and Zoning Commission, rather than making this change tonight.

Mr. Solomon said that this proposed change is not in the proposed amendments and is something that is new being brought to them right now. That coupled with the consistency needed for Regional Plans, tends to make him consider taking this through the process differently.

Councilmember Oravits said that it was his udnerstanding that in commercial zones, such as with a strip mall, churches would require a CUP. He said that people have brought this up to him. They have 500 to 1,000 sq. ft. of space with a congregation of 30 people and have been told they had to move because they did not have a CUP. He would like to look into that further.

Mayor Nabours said that it will be months to take this back through the commission process.

Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Solomon if his legal advice was that they take it up under a separate discussion. Mr. Solomon said that was correct, because it was not consistent with the Regional Plan and did not come through the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Eastman if it would be possible to have this discussion with Planning and Zoning Commission, to also amend the Regional Plan, and asked what that timeline would look like. He said that it may mean more of an amendment to the LIO zone. He has already drafted the amendment, which was included in the CCR. The question is if it was the right thing to do based on the Regional Plan. They could do it relatively quickly after the Sign Code amendments, or they have talked about a regular round of annual amendments.

Mayor Nabours said that in his opinion it was a minimal change. Vice Mayor Barotz said that she would highlight that process is important. She puts a lot of weight in the Regional Plan because it was adopted by the voters. They need to go through the proper steps.

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours and seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to add churches, synagogues and similar meetings places to the uses allowed with CUP in the LIO zone.

Councilmember Putzova said that she specifically recalled discussion about the industrial zones during the Regional Plan process. They were talking about the scarcity of land suitable for employment and the LIO was specifcally tied to employment. She could see where a church was not a place of employment. She felt strongly that if they think that the Regional Plan is a real document, it is a guiding document, going around the Regional Plan process is not really living up to the promise they gave the voters.

Councilmember Brewster asked about the chart on industrial zones, and asked what "miscellaneous requirements" meant. Mr. Eastman said that a table was put into the new Zoning Code as a result of combination of zones for 2011 zones. They have performance zones and conventional zones. The former performance zones had limits allowed in the LIO zone consistent with the Regional Plan. Councilmember Brewster asked if they could consider the church to be miscellaneous.

Councilmember Evans said that she does not disagree with the Rabbi's statement that this area would be amenable, but this is a different issue. She has heard that the process of looking at what they were doing could take only a few months. She said that they should go through the appropriate process. She said that she would not support the motion. Once they have clear legal advice, they should go that way.

Councilmember Evans asked what kind of example they were setting. She said that none of them have a problem with this. The importance is the process. They may get a council in the future that thinks that something else would be a great idea, but it might be something that the community would see as bad.

Councilmember Putzova said that it appears that a very specific case is driving a policy discussion that is to apply to the entire city.

Mr. Solomon recommended that they go into Executive Session to discuss further.

Moved by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz, seconded by Councilmember Eva Putzova to recess into Executive Session.

Vote: 4 - 3

NAY:

Mayor Jerry Nabours
Councilmember Jeff Oravits
Councilmember Scott Overton

The Flagstaff City Council recessed into Executive Session at 7:23 p.m. and reconvened into Open Session at 7:35 p.m.
 

Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to postpone the topic of adding this use to the LIO zone to a future work session with more conversation and staff time.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Mayor Nabours said that he understood that the law originally said there were geographic areas where they could have medical marijuana dispensaries in commercial zones, but that limitation was just for two years and now they can be located anywhere. He said that he understood that the statutes allow for a City to exercise reasonable land use control. He asked if they could look into that further.

Councilmember Putzova asked if it would not be a FAIR item. Mr. Solomon said that in the context of the Zoning Code amendments, the FAIR would be appropriate, or he could take it to Legal and look into it--whatever was the direction of Council. Vice Mayor Barotz said that a CCR would be fine for her. Councilmember Oravits asked if they could also get a CCR on the churches.

Mr. Coplay clarified that staff would begin work and the process through the Planning and Zoning Commission to bring the question back for a vote in reference to text amendment on whether to provide meeting houses.

Marie Jones, Flagstaff, said that she understood that tonight they were just doing these amendments and she was not addressing those specifically, but it was a good opportunity to bring up and suggest there should be some way to go back and take a second look at transect zones. They have been in effect for four or five years but they are just now seeing cases coming in. She has been in touch with dozens of concerned citizens about how they are being interpreted and they would encourage some type of review mechanism.

DOCUMENT C

No discussion

DOCUMENT D

Vice Mayor Barotz asked that they leave in the rooming and boarding, SRO and dormitories definitions for the time being.

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Scott Overton to close the Public Hearing and read Resolution 2016-02 by title only.

Moved by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz and seconded by Councilmember Coral Evans to amend the motion by leaving in the definition of rooming and boarding and other implications that would have in other chapters.

Vice Mayor Barotz said that she was disappointed to hear that people are interested in moving forward with these changes when this section of the code speaks to a contentious issue they have. She said that the community has asked them to leave this alone for now and Mr. Eastman said that leaving it alone was fine.

Vice Mayor Barotz said that she want to make sure the community understands that once this ordinance becomes effective, a large development coming through, such as the HUB or the Standard, would not require a public process because that process is being taken away.

Vote: 3-4 FAILED
AYE: Vice Mayor Celia Barotz
Councilmember Coral Evans
Councilmember Eva Putzova

Vote: 4 - 3

NAY:

Vice Mayor Celia Barotz
Councilmember Coral Evans
Councilmember Eva Putzova

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA, DECLARING AS A PUBLIC RECORD THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK AND ENTITLED "2015/2016 AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE TITLE 10, ZONING CODE, EXCEPT FOR DIVISION 10-50.100 (SIGN STANDARDS)."
 

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to read Ordinance No. 2016-07 by title only for the first time.

Vote: 4 - 3

NAY:

Vice Mayor Celia Barotz
Councilmember Coral Evans
Councilmember Eva Putzova

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, AMENDING THE FLAGSTAFF CITY CODE, TITLE 10, THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF ZONING CODE, BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT ENTITLED "2015/2016 AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE TITLE 10, ZONING CODE, EXCEPT FOR DIVISION 10-50.100 (SIGN STANDARDS)"; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, SEVERABILITY, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE

Sustainability Specialist Tamara Lawless said that in response to an August 4 citizen petition, Council directed staff to bring back a resolution supporting carbon fee and dividend legislation, which she then turned over to Clair Herrick to present a PowerPoint presentation.

OVERVIEW
CITIZENS CLIMATE LOBBY
THE COST OF CARBON
CORRECTING A MARKET FLAW
CARBON FEE & DIVIDEND
BUSINESS SUPPORT FOR CARBON PRICING
JOB GROWTH UNDER CARBON FEE & DIVIDENT
EMISSION REDUCTIONS
ARIZONA SUPPORT FOR CARBON PRICING
IN RESPONSE TO COUNCIL'S QUESTIONS
FEE VS. TAX
ADMINISTRATION OF DIVIDEND
LOCAL ECONOMY?
COST INCREASES
SUMMARY

The following individuals then spoke in support of the resolution:

•Mark Alexander
•Ellen Vaughan
•Suzanne Treit, CCL Coordinator for Arizona
•Don Bayles
•Eric Souders
•Amanda Ormond

Comments received included:

•Very concerned about global change and how to deal with it
•Could wait until some climate catastrophe happens; better way is in front of them
•Implementation of this would use free market principles in order to encourage businesses and individuals to reduce their carbon footprint
•Supports
•Most significant thing that can be done to move others is for US to lead and implement federal legislation on climate change
•Need to take action
•Polluters have for a century gotten subsidies
•Shows the legislators that they are not sitting and waiting for them
•Both Arizona senators acknowledge climate change is human related
•Both senators would like to do something now but they need key stakeholders being supportive of them
•Senators are asking for the cities' support
•The Council is the voice to represent the citizens
•Ripple effect; by third year they are seeing $2.1 million in revenue
•Businesses want tax certainty
•Cities are the innovation engine
•It has been found that carbon footprint and income correlate.

The following individual spoke in opposition to the resolution:

•Gabor Kovacs

Comments received included:

•Shady idea of promoting something like this has been rooted in decade old propaganda he told them about last week
•Need to educate themselves
•Any far left agenda-ponze scheme, pyramid of the evil
•Find the creators of certain agendas, such as global warming, and below that in academia they jump on the bandwagon for political or monetary benefits
•Below that are the foot soldiers, idiots, now called community organizers

Councilmember Brewster said that she believed in global change, but she thought it was up to individuals to do their own thing.

Councilmember Oravits said that he knew they had put a lot of work into the presentation, and he thanked them for changing it as a "tax." He said that he could not support a tax where all of the money is collected and distributed on a equitable basis. He said that the cost of living is high; cost of gas is going to go up again. His gut tells him that this is going to cost a lot of people a lot of money and will hurt those with little money.

Councilmember Putzova thanked them for their excellent presentation, noting that it was rare to see such a complex issue presented in such a clear manner. She said that a lot of them have a good idea of how much modeling went into these numbers. They are not guesses, they are real assumptions behind them based on reality and Flagstaff data. She thought it was a good proposal and was consistent with the City's Regional Plan.

Councilmember Evans thanked them for coming back and educating the Council. She found it encouraging that their senators have been supporting this. She said that it was fairly important for them to understand that change naturally happens at a grassroots level. She doubted that the current written legislation will be final, but it would at least give them an opportunity to show that it is more than just them.

Mayor Nabours said that this is something outside of the jurisdiction of the City, and he has been consistent in his position of not telling other government entities what to do. He thought this needed to be debated with appropriate testimony at the appropriate level. He did appreciate the presentation and encouraged anyone interested to feel free to write their senators and Congressmembers.

Moved by Councilmember Eva Putzova, seconded by Councilmember Coral Evans to read Resolution No. 2016-03 by title only.

Vote: 3 - 4

AYE:

Vice Mayor Celia Barotz
Councilmember Coral Evans
Councilmember Eva Putzova

A break was held between 8:45 p.m. and 8:57 p.m.

Assistant to the City Manager Stephanie Smith introduced the issue, noting that the contract lobbyist, Richard Travis, was on the telephone. She said that there are hundreds of bills being tracked, and thousands have been dropped in Legislature. That is more than she can keep up with which is why they rely so heavily on Mr. Travis's team.

Mr. Travis said that this was the third week of session. Most of the bills to be dealt with have been dropped. The Senate's deadline was Monday; the House's deadline will be next Monday.

He then reviewed the following issues:

Guns - moving again this year in four or five different forms. They are working to develop a coalition of folks that are concerned with them, but they do not know where the Governor is with the second amendment issues. The last session ended before many of the bills made it through and as a consequence, the Governor is not on the record of what he would do with some of these bills.

Preemption bills - From last year's bill that passed taking away local control over bags and energy reporting and recycling. Part of the litigation brought on that bill dealt with charter cities and if the bill that became law covered more than one subject it would be unconstitutional. So, the legislature has come back trying to repeal the bill and others are trying to pass separate bills to get around the same subject issue being litigated. They are renewing their calls to leave those decisions to the cities. Most are reverting back to their votes last year.

Airports - The City of Mesa and Gateway Airport had an issue with a charter school building within the flight path which had an impact on inbound and outbound flights. When the charter legislation was passed it was decided to not require charter schools to go through typical Planning and Zoning regulations and as a result every municipal airport is vulnerable. He said that they were promoting this legislation.

Pension Reform - They understand how important this is and each city is uniquely situated depending on the age of their employees. Senator Lesko is working with the Police and Fire unions and brought a consensus bill to the Senate. It has support of the Governor and President of the Senate. They were hoping to see a companion bill dropped in the House; however, the House wanted their own review. As of today, while the House is dropping their own bill, it looks like it will not be very different. The Governor and unions have agreed they would like to see a Constitutional change to make the bills work. They plan to have those changes go on the special election May ballot with Proposition 123, but the Legislature does not have a lot of time to deliberate to make that special election.

He said that they are following a number of water issues, technical in nature, where they rely on the City's expertise to guide them. Additionally, there is a new bill to create a Department of Forestry. They were not sure if it was cosmetic rf if by creating a new department forest health will get more attention and funding.

Vice Mayor Barotz asked if they were following any of the bills related to business regulations. Mr. Travis said that they have been following HB2517 regarding business professions. He said that many of the bills are also being supported or opposed by the League and they are in communication with them on those efforts so they are coordinated. That is one that has the League's attention.

Councilmember Putzova asked if there have been any water bills. Mr. Travis said that they usually see water quality, water control, goundwater issues. This year they were also seeing some bills dealing with a fee on hookups to prevent the City from using the hookup fees to offset other costs.

Erin Young, Water Resources Manager, said that HB2391 is very recent. She said that it was presented at the City of Phoenix and they were voting on the bill or how to approach the issue. They are all watching this through the Northern Arizona Municipal Water Users Association (NAMWUA).

Vice Mayor Barotz asked if the Council would be advised when NAMWUA considers its action. Ms. Young said that Councilmember Oravits sits on the Board of NAMWUA.

Ms. Smith said that if there was legislation that they were looking for participation on by the Flagstaff Council and it was not consistent with guiding principles or priorities, they would be brought back. She said that at the next intergovern update she could plan to focus on the different coalitions' activities.

Mr. Travis said that there was also a drone bill dropped by Kavanaugh. He said that there were a couple of citiens that have enacted drone restrictions. Phoenix was headed toward consideration, but have stopped in order to give state legislators an ability to do statewide legislation.

He said that there was also donation bin legislation being proposed. He said that there is no City regional required; it is the private right of action to allow owners to self regulate some of the bins on their property.

He said that there are two bills that they are actively lobbying on behalf of the City--the VA Home bill and the Technical Registration Bill. the Technical Registration is up for hearing tomorrow and Mike Scheau and the Mayor were going down to testify. He said that they will have a hearing in House Appropriations on the VA Bill and they believe they will have a companion bill on the Senate side.

Ms. Smith asked Mr. Travis to talk a little about opportunities for the Council to engage in advocacy at the Legislature. Mr. Travis said that those other than their own bills, the challenge is always that they have to react to what others are doing. Depending on the Chairs, they get cooperation or they don't. Part of the pension reform the League contacted a couple of mayors and they will be testifying on that bill. If they have enough lead time and there is an interest, they can cooperate and have members either come down and testify in committee or identify some legislators that could be e-mailed.

Mr. Travis said that as they get further into the session there will probably be some media opportunities with press conferences to be attended, such as with the gun bills. If anyone knows they are coming down, he would be happy to meet them there.

Councilmember Putzova asked Mr. Travis what he could tell them about the Governor's proposed budget and its impact on cities. She asked what position they should be taking and what the conversation is. Mr. Travis said that this year the Legislature did not put out an alternative budget; they supported the Governor's budget. It holds all spending at the same levels as last year with some increases for enrollment at prisons and universities. There are some discretionary monies put into the child protective services that was created to address the case backlog.

For the City's issues, the VA Home was not included in the Governor's budget. Their effort is to try and get as much attention focused and have legislators ask that it be added to the budget. The leadership in the House and Senate is already going around and asking for their priorities in thebudget.

Councilmember Putzova asked if there was any process for councilmembers or the public to learn more about the budget or become part of the public hearing.

Mr. Travis said that in the past the budget was built in the Appropriations Committee and they would have hearings on Friday, in three different subcommittees and slowly built it that way. In the end it would be blended; there would be trading and flexibility. That is not the process being used for about a decade. The reality of this budget is that leadership and the Governor will meet and develop a general agreement on a budget, then take that back to the House and Senate and leadership will meet in small groups with legislators to get their commitment to vote for their proposal. None of that is done in public.

Ms. Smith said that she shared a summary of the Governor's budget and tutorial in his recommended budget earlier last month. She thinks they could provide education to the public so they could be more informed with the process and could include that summary on the Intergov Site to share with the community. She said that the City's #1 priority was to preserve local funding and the Governor's recommended budget protects local funding. There are no additional HURF sweeps and they remain at the same level of state shared revenue.

Councilmember Oravits said that Speaker Gowan's office reached out to the Mayor and himself and there will be a budget town hall this Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.

Councilmember Evans said that the notice provided for that meeting was a little lacking, and she asked that the City Clerk post it for a possible quorum.

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to change the March 15, 2016, Council meeting to March 22, 2016, due to Spring Break.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Vice Mayor Barotz said that she had requested this because there was great interest in the community about the issue of traffic congestion in the northwest corridor and whether it is caused by skiers or snow players. They would like to hold a work session and at a minimum learn about what the County is talking about with a larger snow play area which would divert some people from going through town. She would liie to have more discussion about other options for alleviating the problem, and perhaps invite the Forest Service and others that have a stake.

Councilmember Evans said that there was a document, 95% complete, that dealt with winter snow play in Flagstaff where several groups got together to help create it. Maybe that could be the basis for starting the discussion.

Mayor Nabours said that they have sort had a report like that a few years ago, but it would not hurt to have an update. Councilmember Evans said that while they have had updates in the past, she thought they could look at an update and let the citizens address the issue as well.

Consensus of Council was to bring this item forward.

Mayor Nabours said that he would like to get an answer on why housing in Flagstaff is so expensive and what can be done to make it less expensive. He said that there was a final report dated December 5, 2005, which did not make any conclusions.  Councilmember Brewster said that she was not against what was being asked, but they need to make sure to include what is going on presently where ECoNA has already had a meeting about the issue with major employers.

Mayor Nabours said that he would like to have members of the real estate community, contractors, land developers, anyone that is affected, major employers, etc. and figure out what the issue is.

Vice Mayor Barotz said that if it was just going to be a roundtable discussion in the back, they run into a credibility issue. If they are going to have a discussion, she thinks everyone should be able to participate. Councilmember Evans said that the conversation would be interesting. She would like to have another work session and they have information. She said that with everything she has read about housing, the why is not something that is well understood.

Councilmember Oravits said that whatever they do, he brought up the Light Impact Development (LID) some time back and what he asked about was to deal with costs on the policy basis. If they are going to get into it, he would like to talk about that as well and the resource protection and water meters on multifamily properties.

Vice Mayor Barotz said that she worries about people coming and giving their opinions. If this is about reducing the regulatory burden and lowering the cost and changing the Zoning Code, then they have to have a budget discussion.

Councilmember Overton said that they have been through this so many times. It will come down to regulation versus supply/demand. They have tried a number of things, but it is good to keep it in check and see where they are at. He said that they look to the City to solve the problem, but it is not a solvable problem. It is a supply issue and the City does not control that end of the market. They control the policies that tell the market what to do.

Consensus of Council was to bring the item back to a future meeting.

Councilmember Evans said that the Council recently received an e-mail from Sherri Hanna in Prescott regarding two bills being brought forward by Senators Gosar and McCain. It would expand the area for those affected by the downwind of nuclear testing from Nevada and those that were susceptible to cancer. She said that this was near and dear to her heart as her Mother was a survivor and she is a breast cancer survivor.

Consensus was to bring this item forward to consideration. Councilmember Evans noted that time was of the essence.

Vice Mayor Barotz asked for a FAIR item to have a work session with a presentation about transect zones, the history and how they work. Councilmember Evans said that she supported that request.

Councilmember Putzova said that awhile ago they asked for a presentation on wages that was presented to Board of Supervisors to be given to the Council, and she asked for the status on that.

Last time she requested a CCR on negotiations between the City and ADOT on route transfers and although it was addressed some at the last meeting, she would still like to receive that information.

She would like to get the meeting minutes or a CCR on the employer housing roundtable that the City is organizing.

She also requested a FAIR item to discuss an implementation plan for climate change.

Mr. Copley explained that staff had sent out the RPI information to Council that came from the presentation made to the County. He was looking currently at whether there was a benefit to giving a presentation. That is out further on the agenda. Councilmember Oravits said that he asked for an item that went through the process to get on an agenda a year ago, and it has still not made it.

Councilmember Evans said that one of the things that would be helpful for the public is knowing how to find the CCR's that Council requests from time to time. Mr. Copley noted that they are currently posted on the City's website.

Mr. Copley reminded everyone that next Tuesday's meeting is canceled and there will be a budget retreat on February 11 and February 16.

Mr. Copley also noted that they currently have 25 items, including FAIR items, on the future agenda item list. He said that from to time he gets questioned on when items are going to be brought forward. He endeavors to get those plugged into the calendar.

At this time Public Works Director Erik Solberg read a statement thanking the Council for their trust and the dedicated City employees. He said that they have had fun working, arguing, joking, etc.  He and his wife made Flagstaff home and his family has been here since 1914. He thanked the Mayor, the Vice Mayor, Councilmembers and citizens for allowing him to serve the City of Flagstaff.

The Regular Meeting of the Flagstaff City Council held February 2, 2016, adjourned at 9:58 p.m.