Mr. Solomon introduced Michael Cafiso with Greenberg Traurig, Flagstaff’s outside bond counsel.
 
Mr. Cafiso stated that he is taking full responsibility for the error that is before the City Council. In reviewing the informational packet they realized that some of the language in the ballot question did not meet the standards set forth in state statute. He indicated that he and his staff worked with the City to correct the resolution and ballot wording. He apologized for the error and the confusion that was caused.
 
Mayor Nabours stated that the corrections appear to be semantic and asked if there was any substantive changes. Mr. Cafiso stated that there are no substantive changes; the changes are simply a reflection of the language required by state statute.
 
Vice Mayor Barotz asked if the state statute requires only the presented language in the question or if additions can be made. Mr. Cafiso explained that the question is confined to the presented language, nothing can be added or deleted per state statute.
 
Vice Mayor Barotz asked Mr. Cafiso to explain how the publicity pamphlet speaks to the interest of the bond. Mr. Solomon stated that the posted agenda does not address the publicity pamphlet, only the bond question and associated resolution. Vice Mayor Barotz requested a CCR and a copy of how the interest is presented in the publicity pamphlet.

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to read Resolution No. 2016-32 by title only.

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to adopt Resolution No. 2016-32.

Vice Mayor Barotz addressed item 9-B and asked if SWCA is a Flagstaff based company and what GIS service they will be providing. Senior Procurement Specialist DiAnn Butkay responded that SWCA is a local company and they will be providing GIS mapping for the FMPO program.

Councilmember Putzova asked how many future agenda item requests are placed on the agendas. Mr. Copley explained that there is not any specific criteria on that however, he has tried to limit future agenda item requests to two per meeting but due to how many are in the queue he is elevating that to three to try and get through them.

John Viktora addressed Council offering an apology to Councilmember Oravits for cutting off his statements at the last meeting.

Charlie Silver addressed Council in regards to parking and flooding issues and concerns in the Southside Neighborhood.

President Smith thanked the City for allowing her the opportunity to present. She provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:
 
VISION AND MISSION
TRAINING WORKERS
TRANSITIONING STUDENTS
STRENGTHENING THE ECONOMY
LIFELONG LEARNING
PARTNERS
 
President Smith introduced Christina Caldwell with Goodwill who offered that the partnership with Coconino Community College (CCC) consists of several initiatives. She discussed the Certified Apartment Maintenance Technician (CAMT); CAMT is a cohort between Coconino Community College, Goodwill Industries of Northern Arizona, Coconino County Career Center and the National Apartment Association. It is a four week course and a national certification that teaches everything from HVAC repair, fair housing, equipment maintenance and repair. The program is currently in its third year. She highlighted the experience of one of the 2015 graduates who was offered a job at a Flagstaff apartment complex; in six months he was promoted to supervisor. Because of the CAMT program this individual was able to provide stable income for his family, his wife was able to go to college and his quality of life was vastly improved. Ms. Caldwell emphasized that these partnerships are important and she hopes that they continue and grow. 

President Smith continued the presentation.
 
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
THE CHALLENGE
FUNDING SOURCES
STATE FUNDING DECLINE
TUITION INCREASES
STATE FUNDING DECLINE & TUITION INCREASES
ARIZONA COMMUNITY COLLEGE TUITION & FEES COMPARISON
ARIZONA COMMUNITY COLLEGE TAX RATE COMPARISON
WHAT WE COULD DO
$1/MONTH INCREASE OVER CURRENT PROPERTY TAX BILL
THE OUTCOME
WHAT THE OVERRIDE WOULD HELP FUND
SERVING ALL OF COCONINO COUNTY
IMPORTANT ELECTION INFORMATION
IMPORTANT ELECTION DATES
THANK YOU
 
Councilmember Brewster asked if there are plans to restore some of the programs that were cut should the proposition pass. President Smith stated that the industry training and continuing education are very important to bring back at a stronger level then they were at before. They have worked on budgets to determine what would be accomplished with the additional resources.
 
Councilmember Brewster asked if higher tuition costs has reflected a lesser student population at CCC. President Smith indicated that the student population has leveled off. They have been working to develop more funding resources and scholarships to help attract new students as well as help existing students.
 
Councilmember Putzova stated that President Smith had said that CCC would like to keep the impact on the taxpayers as minimal as possible; she asked who should pay for education if not the tax-payers or the public. President Smith offered that the community college is truly an American form that was designed to be accessible to give people a chance at education and bettering themselves. The question is a hard one to answer but she believes that it is important to keep the cost as low as possible and share the burden. Students have a responsibility as well to work and help pay for their education.
 
President Smith introduced Patty Garcia, President of CCC Board of Trustees and Chair of the Governing Board. Ms. Garcia stated that the passage of Proposition 410 is critical to CCC; three years ago they went to the voters with an override request that was not successful and they had to reduce their programs even further as a result. CCC has almost fully eliminated its community and corporate learning and lifelong learning programs. She believes that one of the fundamental things that a community college does is allow people to just learn new things and improve their skills. They hope that with the successful passage of Proposition 410 they can restore some of those most severely cut and needed programs.

Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization Manager Dave Wessel addressed Council with a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

LONE TREE TRAFFIC INTERCHANGE
IMAGE FROM I-40 CONCEPT REPORT
HISTORY
LONE TREE T.I. CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Councilmember Evans asked what the cost of the project was in 1987 when it was first being discussed. Mr. Wessel stated that he does not have those costs estimates from that time. As the plans for the system interchange was developed back in the early 1990s the cost was in the $22 million range. Councilmember Evans indicated that the costs listed in the presentation are from 2010; she asked if the costs are higher now. Mr. Wessel indicated that the costs would be inflated at around four percent per year putting the project in the $80 million range. The totals include some of the soft costs as well. He added that if the City were to then bond for the project and pay it over a 20 year period the cost goes closer to $100-$140 million.

Mayor Nabours asked for clarification on the location of the overpass as the drawing shows the overpass over Lone Tree would occur at a spot east of the existing Lone Tree. Mr. Wessel stated that the existing Lone Tree road would remain but there would be a realignment of about a half a mile, referred to as "new" Lone Tree, to create a separation from the system interchange at I-17. As ADOT did its analysis that realignment was still not sufficient enough to allow a straight diamond interchange and a braid interchange was developed. Mayor Nabours asked if the cost estimates include building the new Lone Tree road. Mr. Wessel stated that the costs do not include the new Lone Tree section.

Councilmember Oravits asked if there are any costs estimates for acquisition and construction for the new Lone Tree. Mr. Wessel stated that the cost is roughly $150 million with bonding.

Councilmember Evans asked if ADOT would be paying for any of the realignment of Lone Tree. Mr. Wessel indicated that there is a general interest by ADOT to participate; however, in terms of priorities across the state this project is not a high priority. That being said, if the project is done at the same time ADOT widens I-40 there may be some cost sharing and cost savings opportunities with ADOT with regard to construction.

Mr. Wessel continued the presentation.

BENEFITS

Councilmember Oravits stated that the presentation shows an 11% drop in traffic off Milton; he asked for clarification on that. Mr. Wessel stated that there was a lot of debate as to if the interchange could be afforded; in the analysis, the interchange was the only project that brought the level of service on Milton down from an E to a D which is quite significant. There is a slight curve in terms of level of service from A to C but when it is dropped from D to E it is hugely significant.

Councilmember Evans added that both the interchange and the Tank Farm overpass are needed to maximize the effect. Mr. Wessel agreed stating that the interchange has benefit to the south end, the overpass has benefit to the north end and together there is a collective advantage. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts in terms of corridor development.

Traffic Engineer Jeff Bauman continued the presentation.

JUNIPER POINT PHASE I CONCLUSIONS
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND

Councilmember Evans asked how much Pinnacle Pines and Pine Canyon have contributed. Mr. Bauman stated that Pine Canyon is about halfway through the approximately $2 million commitment and Pinnacle Pines is about two-thirds through their $30,000 commitment. Mayor Nabours asked if the amount is for just the Lone Tree Traffic Interchange or all traffic impacts. Mr. Bauman stated that it is for the Lone Tree Interchange; however, the development agreements were modified a few years ago to allow those monies to be used for Lone Tree corridor improvements. Councilmember Oravits asked what the total contribution is at maximum build out. Mr. Bauman stated that it is around $6 million total.

Mayor Nabours asked ADOT North Central District Engineer Audra Merrick if it is likely that the interchange will be built before I-40 is expanded to six lanes. Ms. Merrick explained that it makes sense to widen I-40 and put the interchange in at the same time and there is an interest to bring them at the same time. Mayor Nabours asked if the interchange or the widening is on the ADOT five year plan. Ms. Merrick stated that they are not on the current five year plan that goes through fiscal year 2021. She explained that currently, about 60–65 percent of ADOT funding is noted for preservation projects and 20-25 percent is dedicated to modernization; that leaves only 15 percent for expansion projects such as a traffic interchange. Mayor Nabours noted that the interchange alone would take five years of ADOT funding. Councilmember Evans asked the likelihood that the State would consider the interchange in the next ten to twenty years. Ms. Merrick stated that it is unlikely.

Councilmember Overton stated that the interchange is not a financially feasible project for the City but it is a needed project. ADOT has already committed resources to get the interchange design where it is today. He asked how Ms. Merrick would advise the City to advocate better for the project and the coordination of the two systems. Ms. Merrick explained that ADOT has a sophisticated technical evaluation process with three phases. Phase One is where they look 40 years out, with no financial constraints, at the needs of the state system; that was completed in 2008 and 2009. Then Phase Two which is the long range transportation plan that estimates the financial resources and needs in the future about 25 years out. Phase Three is the five year program and where the projects are selected. All phases include public participation, the five year program is updated annually. She indicated that speaking out as a community with one message and one voice has proved beneficial. Councilmember Overton asked at what point ADOT shelves a project such as this for not being viable for decades out. It is frustrating that only 15 percent is available for expansion projects and stakeholders see their invested money in a process that may not come to fruition. Ms. Merrick agreed stating that the City is competing at a state-wide level for very limited resources.

Michael Naifeh addressed Council as one of the owners of Juniper Point. He stated that the City wants Juniper Point to pay $4,804 per unit for the first 1,369 units for a total of $6.58 million which is well over twice the amount of what Pine Canyon is contributing and their average home price is significantly higher than that of Juniper Point. Juniper Point’s goal is to develop affordable workforce housing. Juniper Point is willing to pay its fair share of the impacts; to that end, Juniper Point was installing two lanes of the new Lone Tree through the property as part of the development and dedicating right of way.

Mayor Nabours asked Mr. Naifeh about John Wesley Powell from Pine Canyon to Fourth Street and if it goes through the Juniper Point property. Mr. Naifeh stated that it does go through Juniper Point and they have expressed a willingness to contribute to that improvement district; he added that this is a more feasible project than the interchange is.

Mayor Nabours asked if the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for Juniper Point requires other traffic improvements. Mr. Naifeh explained that the TIA requires a lot of intersection improvements, participation in the extension of John Wesley Powell, the extension of the new Lone Tree traffic interchange to Pine Knoll and an obligation to participate in some of the existing Lone Tree improvements.

Vice Mayor Barotz asked Mr. Naifeh what he is asking for from the Council. Mr. Naifeh stated that Juniper Point is asking the Council to make a decision on the Lone Tree traffic interchange and extension recognizing that it may never be built. They are contributing to a project that may not be built and they are asking that those contributions focus instead on improvements that are attainable. Councilmember Evans asked if the Council were to remove the project from the equation if the impact fee per household would be lower. Mr. Naifeh stated that it would be lower, every dollar that they put into offsite infrastructure someone pays for; the more dollars you add on the less affordable the house becomes.

Vice Mayor Barotz stated that the Council is faced with this issue all the time and it boils down to where the money is going to come from to pay for the needed infrastructure to accommodate the development; she asked if the tax-payers at large would be expected to pay if the burden is removed from the developer. Mr. Naifeh stated that it seems unfair to ask for payment into a project that may never happen.

Mayor Nabours stated that staff is looking for direction on how to approach the development agreement with Juniper Point or any future development that might come forward. He offered that the expense for the Lone Tree interchange is so high and keeps growing and is so unlikely to move forward in the foreseeable future. The fee is adding several thousand dollars onto the cost of a house for nothing. He would like to see the Lone Tree interchange removed from the formula and have staff come back to Council with something to that effect.

Councilmember Overton offered that he is still a proponent of proportionate share and does not think the City will achieve all of its goals without the interchange. He does feel that removing the interchange will have impacts on the system at a greater degree and there will be other stresses that will need to be addressed. There is an impact to adding 1,500 homes but his value of the land use will far outweigh the mitigation. He is concerned that if they continue to come to disagreement points the City may push so hard that the development becomes luxury lots and that is not smart land use in his opinion. He believes that the City needs to be more realistic in its capital program. He is not at the point of pulling the interchange out but he certainly recognizes the challenges.

Councilmember Oravits stated that the traffic interchange pot has been expanded and he asked how John Wesley Powell to Fourth Street ties into the conversation with the developments, traffic and cost. Mr. Copley offered that there are some unknowns with regards to costs associated with the construction of John Wesley Powell; staff has been having discussions with property owners to find out what kind of improvement district could be formed and how that might fit into this equation.

Mayor Nabours asked if the cost for the John Wesley Powell connection is included in the current Juniper Point TIA. Mr. Bauman explained that John Wesley Powell is one of the options available to Juniper Point as a possible secondary access; the Lone Tree traffic interchange would also serve this purpose. Mayor Nabours stated that he would rather see the money spent on the John Wesley Powell extension rather then put into the pot for an interchange that may never happen.

Councilmember Oravits stated that out of all those developments there is $6 million being put towards a project that may never happen; he asked what the $6 million would do if it was directed to a project that can happen. Mr. Bauman explained that the cost estimate for the John Wesley Powell extension is $18.7 million for a bare bones, two lane road.

Mayor Nabours asked if the cost of the John Wesley Powell extension would be another expense to Juniper Point. Mr. Naifeh stated that it would be another expense; the portion Juniper Point is responsible for is $5.33 million.

Councilmember Evans stated that she believes that the development needs to pay for itself, she explained that she does not hear the developer saying it does not want to pay for the development but rather that there is some reasonableness factor that is not being considered. She stated that she has seen the Lone Tree traffic interchange cost go from $20 million to over $100 million and it does not appear that it will happen any time soon. With that being said, she questions that the Lone Tree interchange should be included in a development agreement.

Vice Mayor Barotz asked Mr. Naifeh about the workforce housing and if the developer is committing to a price point in advance. Mr. Naifeh explained that they are looking at small lots that are designed and targeted for workforce housing; it is hard to do million dollar homes on small lots. He cannot give a price point but he feels that there are builders out there who can provide a better product at a better price than the current inventory. It is smaller lots and bigger supply.

Councilmember Putzova stated that she is hearing from the developer that the impact should be reduced. She asked if another traffic solution is developed or assigned if it would be in line with the impact of the development. She explained that the focus should be on the cost to remedy the impact of development in the area and if it is not the interchange she asked what it is and what it costs. Mr. Naifeh stated that the money going to the interchange is a barrier for development in that area. It is stopping the community from getting affordable housing.

Vice Mayor Barotz stated that she feels that there is more than one goal, but would argue that an equally important goal is not to increase congestion. She cannot support having one goal trump another in the land use agreement. She is not in support of using the money for the Lone Tree interchange for the John Wesley Powell extension.

Councilmember Oravits stated that he supports looking at the arrangement and what can be accomplished with possible alternatives.

Councilmember Overton cautioned that if the Lone Tree interchange is taken out completely it may lock the City into John Wesley Powell as the only solution for traffic impact. He would like to provide as much flexibility as possible to property owners and the City.

Councilmember Brewster stated that she would like to look at alternatives with regards to traffic as the interchange does not look like it will happen anytime soon.

Councilmember Putzova stated that Council is considering changing the requirement for development to pay for transportation impact and the real reason is to facilitate development. She is not supportive of doing so in this manner. Councilmember Evans disagreed stating that Council is discussing the issue because there is no certainty in the interchange. She is not suggesting removing the interchange from the equation all together but to use those monies to fix another road to mitigate traffic. Councilmember Putzova stated that the sequence of decisions should be to figure out the transportation solution in the area and if it is not the interchange then something else, determine the cost and assign a proportionate share to development. Councilmember Evans offered that the FMPO has a map with other solutions that have been identified; she would like to see staff analyze the map and identify other solutions that would address the issues in that area.

Mr. Solomon clarified that the direction of Council is to reduce the amount that goes toward the Lone Tree interchange from development and directing staff to look into those means and alternatives to be brought back to Council. Mayor Nabours stated that no decision is being made but rather some direction on what Council would like to evaluate. Mr. Solomon stated that the direction of Council is for staff to identify options and costs, get input from the developers and bring them back to Council for further direction.

A break was held from 8:17 p.m. through 8:27 p.m.

Assistant to the City Manager Stephanie Smith provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:
 
FLAGSTAFF TOWN HALL INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
COUNCIL DIRECTION, SPRING 2016
PROPOSED STRATEGY – GOAL
PROPOSED STRATEGY
 
Councilmember Putzova stated that her original request was to engage the Council in discussion about declaring an Indigenous Peoples Day not only as a symbolic gesture to recognize historic injustices of the Native American community but more importantly, to engage in a process that would bring about meaningful improvements. She would like to make progress on the action plan that will result from the community forums and designate the second Monday in October as Indigenous Peoples Day. She stated that over the spring and summer she met with a diverse group of people from all walks of life, people who have different tribe affiliations, people of all ages and professions. She tried to facilitate a discussion process and many of the ideas that came up will be discussed further by Ms. Smith.
 
Ms. Smith continued the presentation.
 
PROPOSED STRATEGY: PROPOSED TOPICS
COUNCIL INPUT ON TOWN HALLS
POSSIBLE TOWN HALL PARTNER HOSTS
OUTREACH
FORMAT
FACILITATION
NEXT STEPS
SUGGESTED DATES/LOCATION
DRAFT OUTREACH
 
Mayor Nabours stated that he would like to invite or reach out to the tribal councils at least in northern Arizona to invite all or a representative to participate and contribute. He likes the idea of several evenings of town halls so if there is interest in a particular area people can pick and choose which evenings to attend.
 
Councilmember Evans offered that the economic impact of tribes in the region is large and the community needs to understand this impact; she stated that she would like to see a topic on economic impact. She added that it would be helpful to have a report of each session posted on the website and in written format. She also suggested having the meetings streamed or recorded for viewing by those who may not be able to attend. She stated that translation services may be something to consider for the meetings as well as possibly partnering with NAIPTA for transportation services to get people to the town halls.
 
Ms. Smith was thankful for the suggestions and offered that documenting the input received is very much a part of the strategy; whether it happens after each town hall or at the end of the series will depend on the timing between sessions.
 
Councilmember Overton asked what staff is envisioning as the format for each town hall session. Ms. Smith stated that many of the details are going to be worked out when partnering with a facilitator or co-host. There will be some sort of presentation at the start but the goal is really to hear from as many people as possible at the event. Councilmember Putzova added that she has recently heard that the timeline is a little bit too aggressive and may not leave enough time for reflection. She suggested starting with two sessions in November with a break for the holidays and resume in January. She also suggested switching the topics a little bit to frame and highlight some of the issues that will be heard throughout the series. She suggested starting with race, culture and social justice for the first meeting and homelessness for the second session. She also stated that two hours may not be enough time and it would be better to offer a three hour time window.
 
The following individuals addressed Council in support of Indigenous Peoples Day:
 
Jamie Yazzie
Makairyn Marks
Makaius Ruben Marks
Marnie Vail
John Viktora
 
The following comments were received:

• There are still ignorance and racism issues that isolate the indigenous community.
• I am excited to see this moving forward and having community conversations.
• Environmental Justice should be added as a topic for one of the town hall sessions.
• Christopher Columbus enslaved many Native Americans and he is called a war hero, many other war heroes do not have their own day.
• Indigenous people have long been a part of the community of Flagstaff and lived here before Flagstaff was established.
• Native American lives and cultures have faced serious mistreatment in Flagstaff.
• Last year nearly a dozen cities across the United States renamed Columbus Day as Indigenous Peoples’ Day.
• This process is one of accountability and these changes must be systematic, culturally appropriate, transparent and implemented through policy actions of the City Council.
• The sessions should extend beyond the month of October and suggest two sessions in November and the remaining in January.
• Recommend three hour sessions with allowances for additional time if needed.
• Suggest that local organizations or town hall partnering hosts be free to choose a facilitator.
• The Flagstaff Indigenous Peoples’ Day working group will help facilitate break-out sessions on the Saturday following each town hall.
• Encourage the City Council to attend and participate in the town hall sessions.
• There is hope that this work will dove tail into a truth and reconciliation process to find some measure of healing.
• This is an Anglo document, how much Native American input went into its creation?
• Suggest establishing goals of respect, honor and cooperation.

Written comment cards in support of Indigenous Peoples' Day were submitted by the following:
 
Sallie Kladnik
Maria Archibald
Ned Begay
Lauren Brehan
Dawn Dyer
 
Councilmember Putzova offered that staff remain flexible when it comes to facilitators. She hopes that the process can be structured in a way so it is driven by the Native American community because they deserve all the respect and for the City to follow their lead in how these issues are addressed and discussed.

Community Investment Director David McIntire provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:
 
RETAIL DEVELOPMENT TAX INCENTIVES
PUBLIC SUPPORTED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SOME EXAMPLES OF THIS TOOL IN ARIZONA
GENERAL PURPOSE
CONSIDERATIONS
REQUIRED FINDINGS
OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
VINTAGE PARTNERS
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION MAP
 
Mr. McIntire introduced David Scholl from Vintage Partners to provide an update on the project.
 
Mr. Scholl offered that sales tax reimbursement tools have been used for 25 years in Arizona. It is a risk free proposal from a financial standpoint and is used for public benefited projects. Flagstaff is a place of scarcity, there is only a certain amount of commercial space available. This tool is not so much about getting the developer what they want but rather what the community wants and needs. The area is already zoned as highway commercial but it has sat undeveloped for many years and this development can address a need to have highway commercial, which is a scarce land use, moving forward with commercial development.
 
Mr. Scholl reviewed some of the things Vintage Partners hopes to achieve with the property.

• When they purchased the property they found that the original right-of-way for Country Club was not recorded in the right place. At the request of City staff they worked with ADOT to correct the right-of-way and that was done as part of the preliminary plat.
• They have worked with Habitat Harmony to focus on the relocation and preservation of prairie dogs in this location.
• It was made clear that preserving the Rio de Flag is very important and they voluntarily went to the Corp of Engineers and designated it as jurisdictional waters so that water course would be forever preserved and future development could not impact it.
• Vintage Partners was also asked by City staff if there was a way to expand the capacity for Lake Continental. The size and capacity will be expanded to further minimize the flooding downstream.
• Preservation of this area was also emphasized, the plans focus on trail connections, enhanced landscaping and more LID enhancements beyond what is required.
• The undocumented water and sewer easements that run through the area will be cleaned up.
• They have been asked to consider the area for possible future park additions as well as an area for possible snow play.
• Through a FEMA process it was determined that this development will take significant amounts of property out of the floodplain and make them developable.
• There is a portion of the property that Vintage Partners was asked by the neighbors and City staff to consider down-zoning to single family; they plan to do that with the development moving forward.
• Vintage Partners was asked to look for a solution to the Fanning Wash flooding and include that project as a part of the overall improvements to Soliere. As part of the project, Soliere is two lanes in both directions and the ask is that it is elevated to a main collector standard which will bring it to five lanes with bicycle lanes and sidewalks on both sides and median landscaping on the outsides of the road as well. There are other intersection improvements that the development has contributed to as well.

All of this represents a collaborative approach to solving some problems in the community as well as bring development and single family homes to the area. It is also estimated that almost 800 new jobs will be created in the area. The total project is $9 to $11 million depending on what is included. Vintage Partners is requesting to use some of the new found sales tax to cover up to $2.5 million for half of the cost of the Soliere road improvements.
 
Vice Mayor Barotz stated that there was reference to listening to the community; she asked if Vintage Partners had community meetings and how they would define that process. Mr. Scholl stated that Vintage Partners had meetings with the people from Habitat Harmony, Friends of the Rio, Friends of Flagstaff’s Future, snow play groups, City staff, Continental Country Club staff and neighbors. He added that they have been meeting with different people and groups for three to four years.
 
Vice Mayor Barotz asked if they looked at the City’s Parks Master Plan and open space priorities. Mr. Scholl explained that they did look at those plans and priorities. He added that the Parks Department has land east of the property and they currently do not have the funds to make those active use parks. This land is natural to be added onto in the future if they get the funding and the trail connections were a desire from the community.
 
Mr. McIntire continued the presentation.
 
SPECIFIC PROJECT BENEFIT
CONSIDERATION
 
Mayor Nabours stated that he has heard that there will be a big grocery store in this development; he asked if that grocery store is going to create new sales or if it will just take sales from existing grocery stores. He asked if those details would be identified with the third party report. Mr. McIntire explained that the shifting of sales from existing businesses to a new business is referred to as cannibalization. While one would assume some percentage of retail cannibalization will occur the idea of bringing in additional retailers to the market that are not well represented is one that will prevent further leakage. Leakage reports have been done and this area is a regional hub for retail; what this means is that more retail experience is seen in this area than one would expect from the population, meaning that people are coming in to the area specifically for retail. It can be assumed that some of this is due to the mall, but when it comes to things like a grocery store or other retailers there is the ability to look at that from the third party perspective. They can determine the percentage of cannibalization that will occur compared to the new sales and jobs that would be created.
 
Mayor Nabours indicated that he would like to understand how much money will be saved in the stormwater system with the proposed improvements. Mr. McIntire explained that if staff brings back a development agreement those numbers can be fleshed out. There has been some due diligence already done, but before the resources are expended to do the third party study staff wanted to know if it is something that the Council wanted to consider.
 
Councilmember Putzova stated that the basic question is if the City is willing to incentivize retail and if this is the kind of market conditions where it is needed. The mall is not far from this site and it has not been at full capacity in recent years; there is also a grocery store nearby. If there is a market for retail, the retail will come. She indicated that she is not convinced that the City should incentivize retail.
 
Mr. McIntire offered that generally speaking the Economic Development section does not focus on retail; that being said retail is a significant part of the economy. This particular type of retail development could be seen as infill and there are areas within the City’s retail environment that are underserved.
 
John Stigmon with ECoNA addressed Council and stated that tax incentives are sometimes good and sometimes bad. In certain situations they are valuable especially if they are giving back to the community and if the City does move in the direction of incentives there needs to be strong claw backs and criteria. In regards to this particular project there are about 2,500 households south of I-40 that do not currently have retail support. The realignment of Soliere could have significant benefit to the City and the two hotels that are going up in that area will bring more activity and will also relieve some pressure from Milton.
 
Mayor Nabours stated that he sees a big distinction between incentive that brings manufacturing and money from outside of town and enhancing the overall economy and retail that shifts money around. If there is demand for retail south of I-40 then the market will respond to that demand without incentives. He expressed that he is lukewarm on the idea of incentives for retail; however, if there are community benefits especially with regard to roads, infrastructure and stormwater then that is different. If the City will spend $2.5 million anyway over the next ten years then this would simply be someone fronting the money for the work now and that is where his interest is. He would like to have staff approach the incentive from that perspective; if it is $2.5 million that the City will spend anyway then there is at least a break even with the fringe benefit of getting property out of vacancy and into use.
 
Councilmember Overton stated that he believes that the proof is in the third party analysis. He feels that if the City has the resources to look at this it would be a good process to go through. It is also something that takes a tremendous amount of political capital and he does not want to put forth the effort if no one is willing to support it at the end of the day. This is something that Council has talked about for years; the City’s capital program does not keep up with growth, development or infill. There are some valuable things that the developer has offered up. He would be in favor of continuing the process but with the understanding that, for him, it would come down to the analysis.
 
Mayor Nabours asked how much the third party analysis costs and who would be paying for it. Mr. McIntire explained that the City would pay for the analysis as the development could not be involved with the process. There is no process currently in place so the City would currently absorb those costs. If Council gives direction, a policy could be developed to recapture those costs through an application fee for future requests. There has been no formal procurement process for the analysis report but the cost is roughly $2,000 to $3,000.
 
Councilmember Brewster stated that she had lived in that area for several years and the road realignment really makes sense and some development is needed in that area. She is lukewarm as well on if she would be in favor of the third party report.
 
Councilmember Oravits indicated agreement with Councilmember Overton stating that the infrastructure in that area is in serious need of improvement. He would like to get a better understanding on the cost of the report first but is interested in seeing the data.
 
Councilmember Evans stated that she would like to see the third party analysis to make sure that the community benefit matches what is being given up. She indicated that claw backs are extremely important and she would request that they be included in any development agreement that is brought forward. Additionally, she would like to see staff work on developing a policy for this type of incentive and bring that back to Council to determine parameters so it is not dealt with on a case by case basis.
 
Mr. Scholl explained that the third party analysis cost is only a couple of thousand dollars because the finding that has to occur is that the City benefit will be higher than the incentive amount over some time period. It will not take a whole lot of study to find that the City will be getting at least what they are paying for with the road work. With regards to the cannibalization, the grocery store that they are working with already has a store in Flagstaff; they want to keep the existing store and add another because the market is saying it needs more grocery. The current tenants wanting to expand should give some comfort that sales tax will not just be moving around.
 
Councilmember Putzova offered that she is hoping to get some community input on the matter; infrastructure has a public benefit but is it the benefit that the community is seeking. The report is marginally important and would have very little impact to her unless the community is interested in the benefits. Before expending resources the public should weigh in on if they want the realignment of Soliere or the improvements that were presented or preserving that piece of land as open space. If the public says yes then the City should move to find out if the value is there. Vice Mayor Barotz agreed stating that she would like to get some sense from the community if they are interested in doing this first understanding that the City may incentivize retail. She is appreciative that Vintage Partners have done some meetings but she suspects many people in Flagstaff are not aware of this type of incentive.
 
Councilmember Evans offered that the first thing is to do is the analysis, then have a community work session after which would be a decision from the Council on the path forward. Mr. Copley suggested that when staff comes back with the report they can also come back with a community engagement strategy.

Charlie Silver addressed Council indicating that he was pleased to see item 17-C regarding transect zoning on the agenda for next week.

Charlie Silver addressed Council to clarify that a statement made during the first public participation section was from him.

Councilmember Evans stated that parking issues in Southside have ramped up again with

school starting. The parking plan is coming before Council in October and November; the community needs to know this. She requested an update to the community letting them know that the City is working on the plan and when the next meetings are. The residents in Southside do not see hope in sight and she believes that some kind of notice or public statement would be helpful in notifying people that a plan is coming forward. Mr. Copley stated that on October 11, 2016, Karl Eberhard will be presenting the parking plan to Council. The Streets Section and Police Department are also working on the issue of undefined curbs and some other issues that are being addressed. Staff will update the Southside on the issues and problems.

Councilmember Oravits requested that staff look at the Butler and Foxglenn area; there is a school zone speed limit that is set at 25 miles per hour and there has been concern from the neighborhood about the new Maverik there increasing traffic. He would like to see if there is a need to limit the speed to 15 miles per hour during school hours like all other school zones.

Mayor Nabours requested an agenda item to discuss the possibility of cancelling the meeting of November 8, 2016 due to the election. There is currently only one item on the agenda.