Vice Mayor Barotz asked about the status of the Greentree contract. Economic Vitality Director Heidi Hansen stated that staff is still working on the contract with Greentree and the agenda item is a placeholder. Councilmember Putzova requested clarification on the note in the staff summary regarding the benefit to the Airport and the use of the proceeds of the sale. Ms. Hansen stated that they will make sure that information is included for the final agenda.

Councilmember Putzova requested that if there are specific findings Council has to make for Item 14-A that they be included in the staff report. Planning Development Manager Tiffany Antol stated that she will include those in the staff summary.

Mr. Copley reported that Item 9-A will be moved from the Consent Agenda to the Routine Agenda with a staff presentation.

None.

Mayor Nabours re-arranged the agenda and took Item 9 first.

Assistant to the City Manager Stephanie Smith introduced the City’s contracted Lobbyist Richard Travis and provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
OVERVIEW

Mr. Travis continued the presentation.

FY 2017 GENERAL FUND REVENUE – WHERE IT COMES FROM
FY 2017 GENERAL FUND REVENUE – WHERE IT GOES
FY 2017 TOTAL SPENDING BY FUND SOURCE
FY 2017 TOTAL SPENDING ALL SOURCES
AGENCY SHARE OF GENERAL FUND
GENERAL FUND TAX SOURCES AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL REVENUE

Vice Mayor Barotz asked for further clarification about the decrease in the General Fund Tax Sources. Mr. Travis explained that from 2007-2017 the corporate income percentage has gone from 9.7 percent to 4.9 percent. There is discussion at the Legislature about eliminating the corporate income tax. One idea for replacing that revenue is to increase the State sales tax rate; the other idea is to apply State transaction privilege tax to services. These ideas have been around for a while and he will be monitoring those discussions as the results will have an impact on cities who share those funds. Additionally, construction sales tax has come back as an issue. There is a group that has been meeting with the League as well as the Counties and it is anticipated that there will be a move to migrate to a point of sale with a new formula to help try to hold cities and towns harmless from their historic collections.

Mr. Travis continued.

SB 1487 PREEMPTION
PROSPERITY DISTRICTS
TRANSPORTATION FINANCING
2016 BALLOT INITIATIVES
2016 CITY PRIORITIES

Ms. Smith continued the presentation.

TIMELINE

Councilmember Oravits asked if there has been discussion from a budgeting perspective regarding the condition of I-17. Mr. Travis stated that last year there was some money that the Legislature applied to ADOT projects but it was such a small amount in comparison to the work that needs to be done. ADOT is in maintenance mode and there is just not the funding needed to do what it will take to improve I-17; unless another revenue source can be found it will likely not be on the 20 year plan. Ms. Smith offered that the Surface Transportation Financing Committee is working to develop financing options. Mayor Nabours stated that the Northern Arizona Mayors are working with ADOT and there has been discussion about bypass lanes in high closure areas.

Traffic Engineer Jeff Bauman provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

LONE TREE TRAFFIC INTERCHANGE (LTTI)
TONIGHT’S PRESENTATION
LONE TREE TRAFFIC INTERCHANGE MAP
HISTORY
THE INTERCHANGE IS A CRITICAL PART OF THE LONG-TERM NETWORK
LTTI IMPACT 2040 & 2090
BENEFITS
LTTI PERFORMANCE
PRIORITY PROJECTS WITHOUT COST CONSIDERATION
COST

Community Development Director Mark Landsiedel continued the presentation.

POTENTIAL LTTI PARTNERS
PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC AGENCIES
DIRECTION

Mike Naifeh addressed Council stating that the City needs to help itself and work together to do so. The interchange will not be done overnight or all at once. He suggested getting John Wesley Powell done and fixing Old Lone Tree Road with a bond. This will demonstrate to ADOT that the City is helping themselves and is more credible when asking for the traffic interchange to be done.

Mayor Nabours stated that the thinking of some on Council was to use those set-aside dollars for another need immediately rather than putting it on a shelf for an unknown length of time.

Councilmember Overton offered that he is not in favor of taking the traffic interchange out of the equation. It is the same money spent whether it is set aside for the traffic interchange or used for smaller projects. Mayor Nabours clarified that he is not suggesting taking the interchange out of the plan but taking it out of the funding right now.

Jeff Meilbeck addressed Council encouraging them to develop a plan; it is important to see the big picture first then put the necessary pieces together. It might be that through the transportation tax renewal a portion is set aside to use as leverage for other funding so it is not all on the backs of the taxpayers.

Vice Mayor Barotz indicated that she feels that the overall contribution from the developers should remain the same regardless of which project the monies are directed to.

Councilmember Putzova pointed out that if the direction is to not tie up the money for the next 20 years and apply it to other projects, the City will be left with nothing to offer when it comes time to move the traffic interchange forward. Councilmember Oravits offered that the other improvements that are done will aid in the development of the traffic interchange; the money would not be lost but redirected to smaller pieces of the larger project.

Brian Rhoton addressed the Council stating that there is often a sunset clause in the development agreements that the City will reimburse the money to the developer if certain time frames are not met. There should be flexibility to redirect those funds to more immediate projects.

Mayor Nabours stated that the majority of Council would like to keep things as they are and rely on staff to work through the projects and impacts with the developers.

Mr. Landsiedel offered that he will work with the City Manager to bring an item to Council during the budgeting process to discuss the fund balances that are available in the transportation accounts and provide some options. Some of the caution would be that if all the money is spent now, when it comes time to do a grant or enticing ADOT to come in there would not be development funds for matching or providing leverage. Finding a balance between getting the smaller projects moving and saving for the bigger project is what can be discussed further.

A break was held from 8:19 p.m. through 8:31 p.m.

Mr. Landsiedel introduced Senior Project Manager James Duval and provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:
 
JOHN WESLEY POWELL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
COUNCIL PRESENTATION

AREA OF SPECIFIC PLAN
PROJECT HISTORY
FINANCING DISTRICT FORMATION
            IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
            COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT
FINANCING DISTRICT FORMATION
            STAFF RECOMMENDATION
 
Mr. Duval continued the presentation.
 
AREA SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY PURPOSE
STUDY SCOPE
STUDY FUNDING
STUDY SCHEDULE
COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
 
Councilmember Putzova asked what other Specific Plans are currently underway or are being discussed. Mr. Landsiedel stated that in discussing the plan with Comprehensive Planning Manager Sara Dechter, this Specific Plan would not be a heavy lift for her like some of the neighborhood Specific Plans. Mr. Duval will be managing most of the plan as it is infrastructure intensive and there will be just a little help needed from Ms. Dechter’s program.
 
Kelly Gibson addressed Council indicating support of the district. Mayor Nabours pointed out that the proposed alignment of John Wesley Powell does not go through his property. Mr. Gibson stated that John Wesley Powell is needed and he would seriously consider being a part of the solution. Mayor Nabours offered concern that people might change their mind after seeing how busy the road could be. Mr. Gibson offered that the property owners in the area agree that something needs to be done and this is a viable option. It makes sense to do a feasibility study so property owners can see what the options are and what the costs might be.
 
Brian Rhoton addressed Council on behalf of Canyon Del Rio and their thoughts are that they are willing to participate in studies and providing whatever engineering they have done for the analysis. He offered that the big concern for Canyon Del Rio is the timing as they feel that they are very close to being ready to bring forward a Development Agreement and this study will likely last past that. It is a positive direction to go in and while Canyon Del Rio will be ready to go before the study, it is definitely a financing facility they would be interested in long term.
 
Harold Gries addressed Council on behalf of Southface, LLC; they are not interested in the financing district. He offered that their parcel would not benefit from the formation of the district and was not sure why the property was included in the proposed boundary. Mr. Landsiedel offered that what is presented is a preliminary district boundary looking at the properties that would benefit. If Mr. Gries’ property does not benefit then he would not want to participate and can be removed. The first step is engaging the property owners to make sure there was a solid benefit to participating in the district.
 
Mike Naifeh addressed the Council and read a statement in support of the district submitted by Mr. Kent Wick. Additionally he offered that Juniper Point supports proceeding with the study.
 
Councilmember Overton asked what the position is of the State Land Trust. Mr. Landsiedel stated that he has not spoken to the current State Land Commissioner but the previous Commissioner sent a letter in 2013 in support of participating in the study effort and that they would make available the right of way for John Wesley Powell. They are prohibited from giving the land away but would put it up for purchase; they are willing to explore a mechanism for condition of sale that they would pay back whoever carries the financing for the State Land Department.
 
Councilmember Overton asked if private property owners located in the County islands will have an opportunity to participate in the discussions and possible financing district. Mr. Landsiedel explained that if there is an interest they can participate but it would likely require an annexation to participate in the financing district.
 
A majority of Council is interested in moving forward with the program.

Deputy City Attorney Kevin Fincel introduced the proposed Resolution and provided a brief overview.

Mayor Nabours stated that the item came up a few weeks ago and it is not scheduled for any action tonight but rather to offer comments and suggestions regarding the Resolution.

The following individuals addressed Council in support of the Resolution:

• Ben Murphy
• Robin Prema
• Nick Bejarano

The following comments were received:

• Flagstaff is an outdoor community and should remain as such.
• Flagstaff should be against any movement towards privatization of the outdoor industry.
• Giving only a few companies the ability to do all backpacking will take away from the local businesses that provide that service.
• The plan is bad for tourism and bad for Flagstaff; it creates monopolies in the outdoor industry.
• The Resolution should be as hard hitting as possible.
• The plan reduces backpacking trips to the Grand Canyon so severely that the backpacking portion of our business would have to close.
• This plan will take money out of the community because local companies will likely not be selected.
• There are enough people willing to listen if there are enough voices to speak out against this plan.
• This affects Flagstaff so much because there is a robust population of backpacking and river guides.

Councilmember Evans suggested that staff work with Mr. Bejarano to make sure the wording in the Resolution is accurate and the intent is captured correctly.

Councilmember Overton offered concern that there has been little input from the Park Service on their Management Plan. He feels that it would be an interesting perspective to understand the Management Plan before there are actions on sections of it. It would be helpful to have the entire picture and understand why they are recommending what they are.

A majority of Council would like for this Resolution to continue forward.

Councilmember Putzova asked that a Whereas Clause be added to the resolution that states “The City of Flagstaff recognizes, appreciates, and seeks protection of the fragile eco system in the Grand Canyon National Park.” She indicated that the City should express understanding of the reasoning that led them to the Management Plan. Vice Mayor Barotz added that the Resolution can be kept quite narrow and express that the City supports the end result but that there are other ways of getting there.

Councilmember Putzova requested a special session to have staff give an overview of what the different funding mechanisms are for the City and use an example that can be modeled using the different financing models. She believes it would be helpful for the public to understand what happens when the City issues bonds, or applies a sales tax or secondary property tax. Additionally, information should be presented on who the mechanisms impact and how.

Mr. Copley stated that the Mayor’s Summit is coming up on Thursday, October 27, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.