CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2016
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 the Flagstaff City Council held May 3, 2016, to order at 4:00 p.m.
Mayor Nabours called the meeting of the Flagstaff City Council held May 3, 2016, 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 Interim City Attorney Sterling Solomon.
| 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 Interim City Attorney Sterling Solomon.
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.
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
A.
Consideration and Approval of Minutes: City Council Work Session of April 12, 2016; and Regular Meeting of April 19, 2016.
Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to approve the minutes of the City Council Work Session of April 12, 2016; and the Regular Meeting of April 19, 2016.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
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.
None
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.
None
6.
PROCLAMATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS
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).
None
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).
None
8.
LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mayor Nabours opened the Public Hearing for all five of the following liquor license applications, noting that there were no concerns voiced by Community Development, the Police Department or Sales Tax on any of the applications. There being no public input, Mayor Nabours closed the Public Hearing.
Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Councilmember Coral Evans to forward all five applications to the Arizona State Department of Liquor Licenses and Control with recommendations for approval.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
A.
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Eric Greenwald, "Grimaldi's Pizzeria", 601 E. Piccadilly Dr., Suite 55., Series 12 (restaurant), New License.
B.
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Danny Thomas, “O-Sushi", 106-8 N. San Francisco St., Series 06 (bar- all spirituous liquor), Person and Location Transfer.
C.
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Brandon Kimball, “Vino Loco", 22 E. Birch St., Suite 1, Series 07 (beer and wine bar), Person Transfer.
D.
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Mark Wagner, “Mobil", 2020 S. Milton Rd., Series 09 (liquor store - all spirituous liquor), Person Transfer.
E.
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Jamie Thousand, "Roux 66", 2620 N. Steves Blvd., Series 12 (restaurant), New License.
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 Cooperative Contract: Consideration of Contract Approval and Purchase: Enter into a contract with Simpson Norton of Phoenix, Arizona to purchase the Groundsmaster 5910 Mower in the amount of $110,914.52.
Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to approve the purchase of the Toro Groundsmaster 5910 Mower through Simpson Norton of Phoenix, Arizona in the amount of $110,914.52 utilizing a cooperative purchase agreement through Mohave Educational Services Contract #15G-SNC-0824.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
10.
ROUTINE ITEMS
A.
Consideration and Approval of Grant Application and Acceptance upon Award: Arizona Governor's Office of Highway Safety (GOHS) Federal Fiscal Year 2017 for Police Department Applications for DUI Task Force, Youth Alcohol Prevention and Traffic Safety Grants.
Sergeant Gregory Jay of the Flagstaff Police Department briefly reviewed the item before Council. Mayor Nabours said that sometimes when they get a grant for the Police Department it entails the hiring of officers, and then there is the question of what happens when it runs out, but it appears that this is not being used for that purpose. Sergeant Jay replied that was correct; this grant would be used for overtime of officers and he added that there were no matching funds required.
Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Coral Evans to approve the application(s) and acceptance of an award to the Arizona Governor's Office of Highway Safety (GOHS) for grant funds for the Police Department in the amount of $56,550.00 for DUI Task Force activities, $59,029.00 for Youth Alcohol Prevention and Interdiction task force, and $58,094.00 for Traffic Safety Equipment Grants.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
B.
Consideration and Approval of Cooperative Contract: 2016 Cooperative Fire Rate Agreement (CFRA) with AZ State Forestry
Wildland Fire Manager Paul Summerfelt said that this was a renewal of a long-standing agreement with the State, and it is renewed every other year. It is the basis of their cooperative partnership with all of the other entities they deal with and it does allow them to be reimbursed. As an example, last year the City was reimbursed for $1.1 million for services they provided. He said that the rate for equipment is the same, but the rates for personnel and related overtime have increased.
Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz to approve the renewal of the CFRA with AZ State Forestry.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
C.
Presentation: National Travel and Tourism Week Update and Arizona Winter Wonderland Recap
Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) Director Trace Ward gave a brief PowerPoint presentation regarding the City's new designation as Winter Wonderland in Arizona, as well as the week being Travel and Tourism Week. He reviewed some of the activities of the CVB in the PowerPoint which addressed:
ADVERTISING
THE RESULTS
NATIONAL TRAVEL & TOURISM WEEK
TOURISM MATTERS FOR FLAGSTAFF
HUG A TREE...HUG A VISITOR
Councilmember Oravits said that he was excited to see the increased numbers. He said that a few of them had been at the new Fairfield Inn today and it was nice to see signs of new growth.
Councilmember Putzova asked what the total amount was that was invested in promoting tourism across activities. Economic Vitality Director Heidi Hansen replied that their total budget is about $1.9 million from the Tourism Fund and about 54% of that budget goes solely to marketing.
ADVERTISING
THE RESULTS
NATIONAL TRAVEL & TOURISM WEEK
TOURISM MATTERS FOR FLAGSTAFF
HUG A TREE...HUG A VISITOR
Councilmember Oravits said that he was excited to see the increased numbers. He said that a few of them had been at the new Fairfield Inn today and it was nice to see signs of new growth.
Councilmember Putzova asked what the total amount was that was invested in promoting tourism across activities. Economic Vitality Director Heidi Hansen replied that their total budget is about $1.9 million from the Tourism Fund and about 54% of that budget goes solely to marketing.
RECESS
The 4:00 p.m. portion of the May 3, 2016, Council meeting recessed at 4:20 p.m.
The 4:00 p.m. portion of the May 3, 2016, Council meeting recessed at 4:20 p.m.
6:00 P.M. MEETING
RECONVENE
Mayor Nabours reconvened the Regular Meeting of May 3, 2016, at 6:08 p.m.
Mayor Nabours reconvened the Regular Meeting of May 3, 2016, at 6:08 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 Interim City Attorney Sterling Solomon.
| 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 Interim City Attorney Sterling Solomon.
12.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Chelsea Bergner, Flagstaff, and her husband came forward regarding a water main burst that caused $25,000 in damage at their house. After submitting a claim she was notified by the City that the claim was denied and they asked that the Council direct the Risk Manager to reconsider their claim.
13.
CARRY OVER ITEMS FROM THE 4:00 P.M. AGENDA
14.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A.
Public Hearing, Consideration and Possible Adoption of Resolution Nos. 2016-21 and 2016-13, and Ordinance No. 2016-22: Public hearing to consider proposed amendments to Flagstaff Zoning Code, Chapter 10-50 (Supplemental to Zones), Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards), and other related amendments in Chapter 10-20 (Administration, Procedures and Enforcement), Chapter 10-80 (Definitions) and Chapter 10-90 (Maps); consideration of Resolution No. 2016-13 declaring the proposed amendments as a public record; and adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-22, adopting amendments to Flagstaff Zoning Code Chapter 10-50 (Supplemental to Zones), Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards), and other related amendments in Chapter 10-20 (Administration, Procedures and Enforcement), Chapter 10-80 (Definitions) and Chapter 10-90 (Maps), by reference, and consideration of Resolution No. 2016-21 to adopt the Flagstaff Sign Free Zone (Zoning Code Amendments - Sign Standards; adopting the Flagstaff Sign Free Zone)
Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to postpone the Public Hearing on this item to the May 17, 2016, Council Meeting.
Vote: 6 - 1
- NAY:
-
Councilmember Scott Overton
15.
REGULAR AGENDA
A.
Consideration of: Council Travel Policy
Executive Assistant to the Mayor and Council Meg Roederer briefly reviewed this item, noting that it was first presented at the November 3, 2015, Council meeting where the Council directed staff to bring back a policy for consideration and also to discuss the posting of the actual expenses of Council to be posted on the City's website.
Mayor Nabours said that one of the questions that came forward last time was whether the Council wanted to have any limitations on what the funds could be used for. He believed it was proposed that the policy would allow for subscriptions, classes, software, etc.-- something to enhance their ability to do their job. Mr. Solomon said that was correct; it was included in the proposed policy to define some examples of what miscellaneous expenses might be.
Mayor Nabours asked if there would be a restriction on hiring someone and paying them from this account. Mr. Solomon said that with the way it is written at this time that would not be permitted. Mayor Nabours added that there could be no expenditures for campaigns.
Mayor Nabours asked if they could move forward at this time with posting the information on the website. Ms. Roederer said that she could work with the Communications Manager to have that done.
Councilmember Putzova asked if expenses would be covered to have someone review a report. Mr. Solomon said that as long as it fit within the definition. Councilmember Putzova asked who would challenge the expenses. Mr. Solomon said that they could bring that to the Legal Department if there was a question of interpretation.
Councilmember Overton said that he was comfortable with most of it as it mirrored staff's policy. Vice Mayor Barotz said that there is one difference between the process for Council and for staff. The Council is not required to seek advanced approval. She asked where the "teeth" would be if there was some violation. Mr. Solomon said that in such a case they would ask that the councilmember cover the expense themselves.
Councilmember Putzova said that if they were calling this a policy she believed that it should be approved by the Council, including any amendments to it. Mr. Copley said that the administrative amendment proposed was to address such things as the annual change to per diem rates and mileage. After brief discussion, staff was directed to clarify that wording and bring it back for consideration.
Councilmember Putzova thanked Ms. Roederer and the City Attorney for their work on this item. She said that it is good to have a policy that is going to be followed and it is good to have clarity.
Mayor Nabours said that one of the questions that came forward last time was whether the Council wanted to have any limitations on what the funds could be used for. He believed it was proposed that the policy would allow for subscriptions, classes, software, etc.-- something to enhance their ability to do their job. Mr. Solomon said that was correct; it was included in the proposed policy to define some examples of what miscellaneous expenses might be.
Mayor Nabours asked if there would be a restriction on hiring someone and paying them from this account. Mr. Solomon said that with the way it is written at this time that would not be permitted. Mayor Nabours added that there could be no expenditures for campaigns.
Mayor Nabours asked if they could move forward at this time with posting the information on the website. Ms. Roederer said that she could work with the Communications Manager to have that done.
Councilmember Putzova asked if expenses would be covered to have someone review a report. Mr. Solomon said that as long as it fit within the definition. Councilmember Putzova asked who would challenge the expenses. Mr. Solomon said that they could bring that to the Legal Department if there was a question of interpretation.
Councilmember Overton said that he was comfortable with most of it as it mirrored staff's policy. Vice Mayor Barotz said that there is one difference between the process for Council and for staff. The Council is not required to seek advanced approval. She asked where the "teeth" would be if there was some violation. Mr. Solomon said that in such a case they would ask that the councilmember cover the expense themselves.
Councilmember Putzova said that if they were calling this a policy she believed that it should be approved by the Council, including any amendments to it. Mr. Copley said that the administrative amendment proposed was to address such things as the annual change to per diem rates and mileage. After brief discussion, staff was directed to clarify that wording and bring it back for consideration.
Councilmember Putzova thanked Ms. Roederer and the City Attorney for their work on this item. She said that it is good to have a policy that is going to be followed and it is good to have clarity.
16.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
17.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS
After discussion and upon agreement by a majority of all members of the Council, an item will be moved to a regularly-scheduled Council meeting.
After discussion and upon agreement by a majority of all 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 Mayor Nabours to place on a future agenda a discussion on Walnut Canyon Road
Mayor Nabours said that he has asked that this item be placed on a future agenda to discuss issues such as where they stand on Walnut Canyon Road, who owns it, who maintains it, etc.
The following individuals came forward and spoke in favor of placing this on a future agenda:
•Gary Howell
•Joe Richards
Comments received included:
•Lives on it and has been a lifelong resident
•Lives at the end of the road, but is a City of Flagstaff resident
•It is adjacent to hiking trails on the mesa
•Would like to see the City install some type of coating on top to help reduce the dust
•Thank you for working on the problem and past dust-reduction efforts
•Have been told that City has access to millings and they may be useful
Vice Mayor Barotz asked if there were other dirt roads in the City limits. Mr. Copley replied that there were. Vice Mayor Barotz said that she would support putting it on an agenda, but she would appreciate some historical information and the various options available.
Councilmember Evans said that she has talked with several of the property owners and she would like to better understand the private property rights involved in the road.
Councilmember Putzova said that she would like to have a better understanding of how it fits in with the current road plans and the other roads in the City that do not belong to the City that are not paved.
Councilmember Oravits said that he would support placing this on a future agenda. Councilmember Brewster said that she has been on the road and they need to do something, but once they make it nicer there will be more traffic.
Consensus of Council was to place the item on a future work session agenda.
The following individuals came forward and spoke in favor of placing this on a future agenda:
•Gary Howell
•Joe Richards
Comments received included:
•Lives on it and has been a lifelong resident
•Lives at the end of the road, but is a City of Flagstaff resident
•It is adjacent to hiking trails on the mesa
•Would like to see the City install some type of coating on top to help reduce the dust
•Thank you for working on the problem and past dust-reduction efforts
•Have been told that City has access to millings and they may be useful
Vice Mayor Barotz asked if there were other dirt roads in the City limits. Mr. Copley replied that there were. Vice Mayor Barotz said that she would support putting it on an agenda, but she would appreciate some historical information and the various options available.
Councilmember Evans said that she has talked with several of the property owners and she would like to better understand the private property rights involved in the road.
Councilmember Putzova said that she would like to have a better understanding of how it fits in with the current road plans and the other roads in the City that do not belong to the City that are not paved.
Councilmember Oravits said that he would support placing this on a future agenda. Councilmember Brewster said that she has been on the road and they need to do something, but once they make it nicer there will be more traffic.
Consensus of Council was to place the item on a future work session agenda.
B.
Future Agenda Item Request (F.A.I.R.): A request by Councilmember Oravits to place on a future work session agenda discussion on the Heritage Preservation Ordinance.
Councilmember Oravits said that he had requested this as a FAIR item on March 29, to hold a work session to discuss the role of the Preservation Officer, their duties and the Code, and how it is applied. He said that he had brought this forward on behalf of John Conley, who had frustrations with the Historic Preservation Ordinance. He said that once he started looking into it further he realized that he knew very little about the ordinance and had requested a work session to learn more.
John Conley, Flagstaff, voiced concerns with the process he has been going through in trying to remove an old building on the lot next to Fat Olives so that they could provide more parking for their patrons. He came down to the City and got a packet and was told there was a new code. He reviewed the various steps he has gone through to date, and said that in the end he would be looking at $13,000 to $14,000 to put a shovel in the ground.
Brief discussion was held on the Phase I and Phase II requirements. Mr. Conley said that Flagstaff was the only city in the state that requires an individual property owner to pay these expenses. Mr. Conley said that he believes in the preservation of historical homes, but he is concerned for those families in the southside that may want to push a wall out on their house and have to go through this. He said that a lot comes down to interpretation, and while he believes in preservation, he believes that the ordinance needs to be polished.
Vice Mayor Barotz said that she appreciated what Mr. Conley was saying. She said that codes are reviewed all the time, and she thinks this one needs to be looked at. She said that just because Flagstaff is the only city in the state to require this, does not necessarily make it bad. She said that she would support moving this forward, but cautioned everyone to be sensitive among many in the community because there is so much change going on.
Mr. Conley said that it is a hot button issue right now. The letter that was sent out signed by a commissioner completely misrepresented everything that was talked about at the commission meeting.
The following individuals spoke in support of moving this item to a work session for further discussion:
•Patty Luttrell
•Kevin Heinonen
•Jamie Whelan
•David Zimmerman
Comments received included:
•The Heritage Preservation Officer is in conflict with regulations.
•She considers everything based on regulations and what they say, not how they are interpreted
•Proposition 207 prohibits some of this action, which is why it is not called an overlay district
•Filed a complaint in April 2015, and in January 2016 a second complaint
•Was repairing a wall and it has now taken 4.5 months; still waiting for permit
•Had similar issues arise with work done at Tourist Home; did get it done, but with a three month delay and cost overruns
•The Code has no checklist to understand what is expected; completely up to interpretation
•Should have further discussion; not to get rid of but to make it easier to understand
•The City needs to simplify, clarify and expedite issues dealing with historic buildings
•The current process is inconsistent, unclear and has a price tag for owners that is exorbitant
•Ordinance needs to be reviewed, not rescinded
•Former member and chairman of the Historic Preservation Commission; sits on the Arizona Historic Preservation Foundation and is a historic specialist for the Arizona Department of Transportation
•Over his time sitting on the commission they heard numerous requests for demolitions and changes on historic properties
•Does believe that a work session would be a good opportunity to collect invoices and determine actual costs
•He has not heard of an undue burden
•Would be worth hearing from all sides
Vice Mayor Barotz asked that the City Attorney address the issue of the Council's role as it relates to staff. She said that it was uncomfortable for her to hear criticism of staff as the only staff that reports to the Council is the City Manager and City Attorney. It is the City Manager's job to oversee the City employees.
Councilmember Oravits said that his understanding is that within the ordinance there is specific language for the Preservation Officer that creates a very independent office. Mr. Solomon said that it was fine to discuss if it was the structure of the ordinance and not specific personnel.
The following individuals spoke in support of the ordinance, asking that it not be reviewed:
•Josh Edwards
•Adam Shimoni
•Tory Syracuse, Friends of Flagstaff's Future
•Dawn Tucker
•Roabie Johnson
Comments received included:
•Thank you to the Mayor and Council for putting this ordinance in place
•Flagstaff is a certified local government
•Tucson has a similar process
•Seems that the community has learned how to engage
•Council should support and encourage that the historic structures be saved
•Glad public is engaged early on; that was their goal
•Strongly supports the historic preservation regulations; would not support any discussion to weaken them
•Do think that some of the HPC is a deterrent and she supports that
•She has spent thousands of dollars complying with these regulations
•If they open up a conversation then they open up an opportunity to weaken the regulations
•This is an unsettling time to developers that would take advantage of any weakness
•Supports zoning regulations pertaining to historic preservation
Written comment cards were also received from the following individuals, supporting historic preservation:
•Anna Christoff
•Leslie Connell
•Chelsea Atwater
•Marie Jones
•Paul Zeller
•Juliana Bartlett
•Josh Ivey
•Mary McKell
•Jerry Reinhart III
Councilmember Putzova said that she was not supportive of opening up the discussion. She did not think the Council would clarify the code; she did not have faith in this Council. She shares the concerns that have been brought up. She said that a few weeks ago the Mayor mentioned that staff is very busy when she asked that they do some work on addressing climate change and goals within the Regional Plan, and this is not her priority. The ordinance at this point serves its purpose.
Vice Mayor Barotz said that Councilmember Putzova made a good point; however, she would support a further discussion. She said that she would not support any effort to undermine the purpose of the ordinance and goals that many have in the community.
Councilmember Evans said that when this comes back she would be interested in hearing how many people have gone through the process, how many had problems and how many did not, whether they were business owners versus owners living in the structure, background data, etc.
A consensus of Council supported moving this forward to a future work session.
John Conley, Flagstaff, voiced concerns with the process he has been going through in trying to remove an old building on the lot next to Fat Olives so that they could provide more parking for their patrons. He came down to the City and got a packet and was told there was a new code. He reviewed the various steps he has gone through to date, and said that in the end he would be looking at $13,000 to $14,000 to put a shovel in the ground.
Brief discussion was held on the Phase I and Phase II requirements. Mr. Conley said that Flagstaff was the only city in the state that requires an individual property owner to pay these expenses. Mr. Conley said that he believes in the preservation of historical homes, but he is concerned for those families in the southside that may want to push a wall out on their house and have to go through this. He said that a lot comes down to interpretation, and while he believes in preservation, he believes that the ordinance needs to be polished.
Vice Mayor Barotz said that she appreciated what Mr. Conley was saying. She said that codes are reviewed all the time, and she thinks this one needs to be looked at. She said that just because Flagstaff is the only city in the state to require this, does not necessarily make it bad. She said that she would support moving this forward, but cautioned everyone to be sensitive among many in the community because there is so much change going on.
Mr. Conley said that it is a hot button issue right now. The letter that was sent out signed by a commissioner completely misrepresented everything that was talked about at the commission meeting.
The following individuals spoke in support of moving this item to a work session for further discussion:
•Patty Luttrell
•Kevin Heinonen
•Jamie Whelan
•David Zimmerman
Comments received included:
•The Heritage Preservation Officer is in conflict with regulations.
•She considers everything based on regulations and what they say, not how they are interpreted
•Proposition 207 prohibits some of this action, which is why it is not called an overlay district
•Filed a complaint in April 2015, and in January 2016 a second complaint
•Was repairing a wall and it has now taken 4.5 months; still waiting for permit
•Had similar issues arise with work done at Tourist Home; did get it done, but with a three month delay and cost overruns
•The Code has no checklist to understand what is expected; completely up to interpretation
•Should have further discussion; not to get rid of but to make it easier to understand
•The City needs to simplify, clarify and expedite issues dealing with historic buildings
•The current process is inconsistent, unclear and has a price tag for owners that is exorbitant
•Ordinance needs to be reviewed, not rescinded
•Former member and chairman of the Historic Preservation Commission; sits on the Arizona Historic Preservation Foundation and is a historic specialist for the Arizona Department of Transportation
•Over his time sitting on the commission they heard numerous requests for demolitions and changes on historic properties
•Does believe that a work session would be a good opportunity to collect invoices and determine actual costs
•He has not heard of an undue burden
•Would be worth hearing from all sides
Vice Mayor Barotz asked that the City Attorney address the issue of the Council's role as it relates to staff. She said that it was uncomfortable for her to hear criticism of staff as the only staff that reports to the Council is the City Manager and City Attorney. It is the City Manager's job to oversee the City employees.
Councilmember Oravits said that his understanding is that within the ordinance there is specific language for the Preservation Officer that creates a very independent office. Mr. Solomon said that it was fine to discuss if it was the structure of the ordinance and not specific personnel.
The following individuals spoke in support of the ordinance, asking that it not be reviewed:
•Josh Edwards
•Adam Shimoni
•Tory Syracuse, Friends of Flagstaff's Future
•Dawn Tucker
•Roabie Johnson
Comments received included:
•Thank you to the Mayor and Council for putting this ordinance in place
•Flagstaff is a certified local government
•Tucson has a similar process
•Seems that the community has learned how to engage
•Council should support and encourage that the historic structures be saved
•Glad public is engaged early on; that was their goal
•Strongly supports the historic preservation regulations; would not support any discussion to weaken them
•Do think that some of the HPC is a deterrent and she supports that
•She has spent thousands of dollars complying with these regulations
•If they open up a conversation then they open up an opportunity to weaken the regulations
•This is an unsettling time to developers that would take advantage of any weakness
•Supports zoning regulations pertaining to historic preservation
Written comment cards were also received from the following individuals, supporting historic preservation:
•Anna Christoff
•Leslie Connell
•Chelsea Atwater
•Marie Jones
•Paul Zeller
•Juliana Bartlett
•Josh Ivey
•Mary McKell
•Jerry Reinhart III
Councilmember Putzova said that she was not supportive of opening up the discussion. She did not think the Council would clarify the code; she did not have faith in this Council. She shares the concerns that have been brought up. She said that a few weeks ago the Mayor mentioned that staff is very busy when she asked that they do some work on addressing climate change and goals within the Regional Plan, and this is not her priority. The ordinance at this point serves its purpose.
Vice Mayor Barotz said that Councilmember Putzova made a good point; however, she would support a further discussion. She said that she would not support any effort to undermine the purpose of the ordinance and goals that many have in the community.
Councilmember Evans said that when this comes back she would be interested in hearing how many people have gone through the process, how many had problems and how many did not, whether they were business owners versus owners living in the structure, background data, etc.
A consensus of Council supported moving this forward to a future work session.
18.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AND REPORTS FROM COUNCIL AND STAFF, FUTURE AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS
Councilmember Evans said that she had asked for a CCR in the past on whether they could issue sales tax licenses for panhandlers. There was a legal opinion issued, but she would like to have it looked at again. In New York City they can legally require people to have vendor licenses. She also requested a memo on the Better Bucks Program and where they may be redeemed.
Vice Mayor Barotz asked that Council receive a report on the issue brought up at the beginning of the meeting regarding a claim being denied. She would like to understand the denial, and what the Council's role may be. Mr. Copley said that he has already asked staff to begin a CCR on that issue.
Councilmember Oravits thanked Senator Allen for her support on the $10 million in the state budget for the VA Home. He said that it still needs to be signed by the Governor, but it is included.
Vice Mayor Barotz asked that Council receive a report on the issue brought up at the beginning of the meeting regarding a claim being denied. She would like to understand the denial, and what the Council's role may be. Mr. Copley said that he has already asked staff to begin a CCR on that issue.
Councilmember Oravits thanked Senator Allen for her support on the $10 million in the state budget for the VA Home. He said that it still needs to be signed by the Governor, but it is included.
19.
ADJOURNMENT
The Regular Meeting of the Flagstaff City Council held May 3, 2016, adjourned at 7:44 p.m.
| _______________________________ MAYOR |
|
| ATTEST: |
|
| _________________________________ CITY CLERK |
CERTIFICATION
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 May 3, 2016. I further certify that the Meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.
| DATED this 17th day of May, 2016. | |
| ________________________________ CITY CLERK |