[ CONSENT AGENDA (Routine items that may all be approved by one motion.) ALL ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEMS 13, 25, and 49.]

CONSENT ITEMS ARE ROUTINE ITEMS THAT MAY BE PULLED OR MAY BE APPROVED BY ALL ONE MOTION.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT SUPERVISOR BROWN IS PULLING ITEM NUMBER 1325 AND 49.

IS THERE ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT OTHER SUPERVISORS WISH TO PULL? OKAY, WITH THAT, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS ONE THROUGH 52 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 13, 25 AND 49.

SECOND. SECOND. OKAY.

WE GOT A MOTION BY MYSELF TOO, AND SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR OBERG.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OKAY.

MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUS.

OKAY. ITEM NUMBER 13.

SUPERVISOR BROWN IS A COUNTY ATTORNEY HERE OR ANYBODY REPRESENTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY.

[13. County Attorney - Approve an Advanced Salary Placement above midpoint for a highly experienced Attorney. DENIED BY A 4 TO 1 VOTE, SUPERVISOR MICHAELS ABSTAINED FROM VOTING.]

THEN I VOTE TO I MAKE A MOTION TO NOT ACCEPT THIS ITEM.

SECOND. OKAY.

MOTION TO DENY.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. STAY.

ABSTAIN. ABSTAIN.

OKAY. OKAY.

SUPERVISOR MICHAEL ABSTAINED.

EVERYBODY ELSE WAS AYE.

OKAY. GOING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 25.

[25. Jail District - The Board of Supervisors will resolve into the Board of Directors of the Yavapai County Jail District and following consideration of this item, will reconvene as the Board of Supervisors - Approve overfill of up to twenty-five (25) Detention Officer I positions between July 1, 2023, and June 30, 2024. APPROVED BY A 4 TO 1 VOTE. SUPERVISOR BROWN OPPOSED.]

MORNING. THE REASON I PULL THIS OUT IN REGARDS TO THE JAIL DISTRICT IS WE'RE APPARENTLY APPROVING AN OVERFILL OF 25 DETENTION OFFICERS, ONE POSITIONS, YOU KNOW, DURING JULY, FIRST TO THE JUNE OF THIS NEXT YEAR.

AND IS THIS GOING TO BE A PERMANENT CHANGE IN OUR BUDGET? JEFF? GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

JEFF NEWNHAM, I'M THE CHIEF DEPUTY FOR THE YAVAPAI COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE HERE REPRESENTING SHERIFF RHOADES.

THIS WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WE BRING TO THE BOARD AT THE NEXT BUDGET SEASON, POTENTIALLY THIS THIS OVERFILL IN OUR DETENTION.

OFFICER TWO POSITION.

IT IS A POSITION THAT WE DESPERATELY NEED IN THE JAIL.

IT'S A QUALIFICATION, IF YOU WILL, THAT WHEN WE HAVE OFFICERS THAT NEED TO BE WEAPONS QUALIFIED, FOR INSTANCE, FOR COURT SERVICES OR HOSPITAL DUTY OR WHATNOT, THAT'S WHEN THEY THEY RISE TO THIS LEVEL OF DETENTION.

OFFICER TWO WITH SOME SPECIAL SKILLS THAT WE HAVE WITH OUR VACANCY RATE.

A LOT OF THE POSITIONS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE ARE SOME OF THE ONES THAT WE WANT TO RETAIN, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE GETTING CLOSE TO NEEDING TO OVER FILL SOME OF THOSE

[00:05:03]

DETENTION. OFFICER TWO OR DETENTION OFFICER ONE POSITION.

SO WE HAVE THE ROOM IF NEEDED.

RIGHT NOW WE DON'T NEED TO OVERFILL ANY, WE'RE JUST UNDER THAT CAPACITY CURRENTLY.

BUT AS WE GO FORWARD IN THIS COMING YEAR, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO OVERFILL A DETENTION OFFICER ONE POSITION WITH THOSE TWO POSITIONS.

AND THEN WHEN WE GET TO NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET, WE WILL COME TO THE BOARD AND MAKE IT VERY CLEAR WHERE WE STAND AND WHICH POSITIONS NEED TO BE UPGRADED, IF YOU WILL, TO A TWO POSITION PERMANENTLY, ESPECIALLY AS WE GO FORWARD WITH THE OPENING OF THE NEW FACILITY AND GETTING UP TO CAPACITY THERE.

THE REASON I'M ASKING THIS IS, IS WE GO FORWARD WITH THE OVERFILL AT 25 DETENTION OFFICER POSITION.

THAT'S APPROXIMATELY WHAT, HOW MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS? AND IF WE DO THAT AND MAKE IT AVAILABLE, THAT'S A GOOD THING.

BUT THE BAD THING IS IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO READJUST THE BUDGET.

YES, IF I MAY, AND I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ADDITIONAL STAFF.

YOU'RE THIS IS REALLY A CAREER LADDER, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD.

YOU'VE GOT ONES THAT NOW MEET QUALIFICATION FOR DOE TWO.

YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH POSITION NUMBERS AUTHORIZED AT THE DOE TWO.

SO THIS ALLOWS YOU TO BUMP THEM UP IF AND WHEN THEY MEET THOSE QUALIFICATIONS.

THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

SO WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY ADDITIONAL STAFF AT ALL.

WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR THE CAPACITY.

AND IT'S NOT AS MUCH OF A PECUNIARY COST TO THE COUNTY AS YOU WOULD THINK WHEN IF WE WERE ASKING FOR MORE STAFF, THEN YES, YOU WOULD BE CORRECT.

BUT THIS IS JUST TO TO BUMP THOSE EXISTING STAFF UP TO THAT DETENTION OFFICER TWO POSITION WHEN THEY QUALIFY.

OKAY. AND HOW IS THE HR DIRECTOR FEEL ABOUT THIS? WE I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR I DON'T KNOW IF WENDY IS HERE.

I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR WENDY.

BUT WE WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT.

GOOD MORNING. WENDY ROSS, DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND RISK MANAGEMENT.

WE HAVE TALKED THROUGH THIS AND AND AGREE THAT AT THE DURING BUDGET NEXT YEAR, IF THEY BELIEVE THEY NEED ADDITIONAL PERMANENT DETENTION OFFICER TWO POSITIONS THAT THEY WOULD ASK FOR THAT IN THE BUDGET.

SO THIS IS SORT OF A TEMPORARY FIX, IF YOU WILL, TO ALLOW THEM TO PROMOTE THOSE PEOPLE UP DURING THIS COMING YEAR.

AND THEN NEXT YEAR THEY'LL HAVE A BETTER FEEL FOR HOW MANY THEY NEED.

DOES THIS FIT WITHIN THE COMPENSATION PLAN STUDY THAT WE JUST HAD? YES. AS FAR AS THE WHERE A DETENTION OFFICER ONE AND WHERE A DETENTION OFFICER TWO IS PLACED WITHIN THE COMPENSATION STRUCTURE AND THEN IT'S UP TO THE DEPARTMENTS TO DETERMINE HOW MANY OF EACH DIFFERENT TYPE OF POSITION THEY NEED IN ORDER TO RUN THEIR ORGANIZATION.

OKAY. MR. CHAIR, MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

OKAY, I'LL SECOND THAT.

SO A MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR BROWN, SECONDED BY MYSELF.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE? AYE. OKAY.

UNANIMOUS MOTION CARRIES.

OKAY, LET'S PUSH ON TO NUMBER 49.

[49. Sheriff - Approve acceptance of an Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) Annual Funding Award for the 2024 Drug, Gang, and Violent Crime Control (DGVCC) FY 2024 Award, DC-24-011. YC Contract No. 2023-265]

IT'S ALSO THE SHERIFF.

THE ONLY QUESTION I REALLY HAD ON THIS AND JEFF WAS GOING TO FIND OUT FOR US HOW MUCH THE AMOUNT IS BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE THAT ANYWHERE.

SO HAVE YOU GOTTEN A HOLD OF ANYBODY? NO. YES, SIR.

MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

SUPERVISOR BROWN.

AGAIN. JEFF NEWNHAM FROM THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

YES, IT'S ON THE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE THE AGENDA ITEM, IT'LL BE UNDER THE SOURCE OF REVENUE.

SO THIS IS A THIS IS ONE OF THE WAYS THAT WE FUND THE PARTNERS AGAINST NARCOTICS TRAFFICKING HERE IN THE COUNTY.

AND THIS IS THIS WILL NOT FUND IT COMPLETELY.

BUT YOU CAN SEE THAT WE RECEIVED A FEDERAL GRANT FOR 145,000, JUST OVER 145,000 FROM THE FEDERAL PARTNERS, THE STATE GRANT FOR $120,000 AND THEN OUR GRANT MATCH OF $88,000.

AND THIS GOES TO PARTIALLY FUND PANT.

WE ALSO WILL HAVE ANOTHER GRANT THAT'S COMING IN FROM FEMA.

THAT WAS AWARDED TO US FROM THE STATE.

THAT'S GOING TO BE APPROXIMATELY $578,000 THAT WILL COME TO THE BOARD HERE SHORTLY, WHICH ALLOWS US TO TO COMPLETELY FUND PANT OUT OF SPECIAL REVENUES. AND THIS IS AN ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL PART OF DOING BUSINESS, PROVIDING LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY THROUGHOUT YAVAPAI COUNTY.

AS YOU KNOW THIS, THE PARTNERS AGAINST NARCOTICS TRAFFICKING IS NOT JUST NARCOTICS ANYMORE.

WE GO TO GREAT LENGTHS TO INVESTIGATE AND GO AFTER HUMAN SMUGGLING, FORCED LABOR.

AND A LOT OF THE THE CRIMINAL ELEMENTS THAT THAT COME ACROSS THE BORDER.

SO THIS IS JUST PART OF THAT FUNDING.

OKAY. SO IT'S TWO DIFFERENT AWARDS, ACTUALLY, AT LEAST.

[00:10:02]

YES, BUT IT'S COMING THROUGH ACJC.

YEAH. THEN I'D MOVE TO ACCEPT.

SECOND. OKAY.

MOTION BY SUPERVISOR BROWN.

SECONDED BY MYSELF.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE? AYE. OKAY.

UNANIMOUS MOTION CARRIES.

ALL RIGHT, WE'LL PUSH ON TO ACTION.

TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF THE COUNTY'S PRIMARY AND SECONDARY BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024.

[1. Board of Supervisors - Tentative approval of the County's primary and secondary budgets for Fiscal Year 2023-2024. Catherine Boland, Budget Manager. (All Districts) APPROVED BY A 4 TO 1 VOTE. SUPERVISOR BROWN OPPOSED.]

KATHRYN BOLAND, OUR BUDGET MANAGER AND THE COUNTY MANAGER, MAURIE THOMPSON.

MICROPHONE. MICROPHONE.

OKAY. NOW WE BEGIN.

I'M GOING TO BE SPEAKING ON THE ACTION ITEMS ONE AND TWO TODAY AND OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS.

MAURIE THOMPSON, THE COUNTY MANAGER, HAS BROUGHT SEVERAL MINI BUDGET ITEMS TO YOU AS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION.

SO THIS BUDGET HERE TODAY IS A CULMINATION OF ALL THOSE IN ACTION.

ITEM ONE, YOU'RE GOING TO BE VOTING ON THE TENTATIVE ADOPTION OF THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY TAX RATES AND BUDGETS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2324.

ACTION ITEM TWO YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO BE VOTING ON THE BUDGETS FOR 2324 AS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS, WHICH INCLUDES YAVAPAI COUNTY FLOOD DISTRICT, YAVAPAI COUNTY FREE LIBRARY DISTRICT, YAVAPAI COUNTY JAIL DISTRICT, THE ASH FORK, SELIGMAN AND YARNELL STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS AND THE SELIGMAN SANITARY DISTRICT AND POQUITO VALLEY ROAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

BEFORE I GET INTO THE FISCAL YEAR 24 BUDGET, I HAVE NOT UPDATED YOU ON THE MAJOR REVENUE SALES TAX REVENUES FOR FISCAL YEAR 23, SO I'M GOING TO DO THAT JUST VERY QUICKLY.

THE STATE SHARED SALES TAX IS WE WERE BUDGETED AT 45.6 MILLION.

WE ESTIMATE THAT'S GOING TO COME IN AROUND 48.6 MILLION OR 2 POINT 7 MILLION OR 5.9% OVER BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 24.

THAT REVENUE IS SET AT 48,870,000.

THE HALF CENT SALES TAX WAS BUDGETED AT 27.3 MILLION INCHES FISCAL YEAR 23.

WE'RE PROJECTING THAT TO COME IN AROUND 29 MILLION AND WHICH IS ABOUT 1.7 MILLION OVER BUDGET AND FISCAL YEAR 24 IS SET AT 29,827,000.

AND YOU CAN SEE FROM BOTH OF THOSE CHARTS THAT THE REVENUES ARE STILL RUNNING ABOVE TARGETS, BUT THAT'S IT'S FLATTENED OUT JUST A LITTLE BIT.

SO GOING FORWARD, THE PROJECTIONS ARE NOT AS HIGH AS PREVIOUS YEARS.

VEHICLE LICENSE TAX WAS BUDGETED AT 11 MILLION.

WE'RE PROJECTING TO COME IN AROUND 12 MILLION OR ABOUT A MILLION OVER OR 9% OVER FISCAL YEAR 24.

BUDGET IS SET AT 11,720,000, AND HIGHWAY USER REVENUE FUND IS BUDGETED AT 15.5 MILLION AND WE ANTICIPATE THAT TO COME IN AROUND 16.4 MILLION OR 900,000 ABOVE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 24 IS SET AS 6,275,000.

SO MOVING ON TO FISCAL YEAR 24, THIS IS THE PRIMARY.

THE TAX LEVIES FOR YAVAPAI COUNTY FOR THE FOR YAVAPAI COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT AND THE LIBRARY DISTRICT PRIMARY PROPERTY TAX LEVY IS SET AT 60,990,000. LAST YEAR THAT WAS 59,748,000.

SO THAT'S ABOUT A $1.2 MILLION INCREASE.

THAT'S BASICALLY THE NEW CONSTRUCTION.

FLOOD CONTROL IS SET AT 5,595,000 LAST YEAR WAS 5,485,000.

AND THE LIBRARY DISTRICT IS 4,993,000.

LAST YEAR WAS 4,893,000.

THE TAX LEVIES INCLUDE NEW CONSTRUCTION AND ARE ONLY SET AT THE TRUTH IN TAXATION RATES, WHICH MEANS THAT THERE'S NO TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING REQUIRED BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT RAISING THE TAX LEVY ON CURRENT PROPERTY TAX OWNERS.

PROPERTY OWNERS.

THIS IS A HISTORY OF THE TAX LEVIES.

SO THE TOP LINE IS THE MAXIMUM TAX LEVY.

THE BOTTOM IS OUR ACTUAL TAX LEVIES.

SO JUST LOOKING AT THE LAST HALF DOZEN YEARS OR SO, THE MAXIMUM LEVY IN 2019 WAS 57.7 MILLION.

2024 IS 71,000,000.3.

[00:15:04]

THAT'S THE MAXIMUM TAX LEVY.

OUR ACTUAL TAX LEVIES IN 2019 WAS 46.2 MILLION AND IN 2024 IT IS SET AT 60.9 MILLION.

SO THIS GRAPH SHOWS IS A 44 YEAR AVERAGE OF ALL THE TAX RATES.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT JUST THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, THAT PEAK THAT YOU SEE TOWARD THE END, THAT'S IN 2020, THE TAX RATE WAS 2.0152 AND IS STEADILY GONE DOWN TO 2024 AT 1.71.

THE 44 YEAR AVERAGE IS 1.83.

SO YOU CAN SEE FROM THE CHART WE'RE BELOW THE 44 YEAR AVERAGE.

FLOOD CONTROL PRIOR YEAR WAS 0.1834 AND THAT WENT DOWN FOR 2024 TO 0.1750.

THE LIBRARY AND THE PRIOR YEAR TAX RATE WAS 0.1468 AND WENT DOWN IN THE CURRENT YEAR TO 0.1404.

THE COMBINED RATES PRIOR YEAR WAS 2.1227.

CURRENT YEAR 2.020302.

SO MOVING ON TO THE BUDGET AND THE IMPACT OF ALL OF ALL OF THE DECISIONS.

GENERAL FUND REVENUE CURRENTLY THAT'S SET AT 166 MILLION FOR ALL FUNDS, INCLUDING SPECIAL REVENUE AND DISTRICTS, IS $326 MILLION.

THE PROPERTY TAX IS 37% OF THAT.

IF YOU TAKE BOTH THE SALES TAX, THE STATE SHARED REVENUE AND THE COUNTY TAX, THAT'S AROUND 47% OF THE REVENUE OR $79 MILLION OF THE BUDGET VEHICLE LICENSE TAX, 11.7.

AND THEN THERE'S OTHER REVENUES THAT INCLUDE THINGS LIKE LICENSES, PERMITS, FEES FOR SERVICES, INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS WHICH EQUAL 15 MILLION, 15 MILLION OF THE BUDGET.

AND WHEN YOU INCLUDE FUND BALANCE AND TRANSFERS IN, IT CHANGES THE PERCENTAGES A LITTLE BIT.

EVERYTHING SHIFTS. BUT I JUST LIKE SHOWING THIS BECAUSE THIS SHOWS OUR TOTAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO THE COUNTY, WHICH BRINGS THE TOTAL RESOURCES FOR GENERAL FUND AROUND $240 MILLION FROM THE 166 MILLION.

WHEN YOU ADD IN 65 MILLION IN FUND BALANCE AND $99 MILLION IN TRANSFER ENDS TOTAL FOR ALL FUNDS, INCLUDING FUND BALANCES AND TRANSFERS IN IS 615 MILLION.

AND MOVING ON TO EXPENDITURES.

TOTAL EXPENDITURES IN THIS BUDGET INCLUDED IN THIS BUDGET ARE $416 MILLION.

THAT INCLUDES ALL FUNDS.

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS ARE THE BIGGEST PIECE OF THAT PIE THERE AT 52% OF IT, $216 MILLION GENERAL FUND IS AT $149 MILLION AND LAST YEAR WAS $135 MILLION.

I WANT TO JUST POINT OUT THE INCREASE HERE.

IT'S AN INCREASE OF 14.9 MILLION, WHICH IS 11%.

AND JUST TO BEAR IN MIND, OUR EXPENDITURE LIMIT WENT UP 9%.

THE SPECIAL REVENUE DISTRICTS ARE $44 MILLION AND WE HAVE A RELATIVELY SMALL DEBT SERVICE AT $6 MILLION AND GENERAL FUND COMPRISES ABOUT 36% OF OUR OUR EXPENDITURES.

AND WHEN YOU BREAK DOWN JUST GENERAL FUND ITSELF, WHERE THE LARGEST EXPENDITURES ARE, YOUR COURTS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ARE THE BIGGEST PIECE OF THE PIE, THAT IS 52% OF THE BUDGETS, AND THAT'S A $78 MILLION OF THE BUDGET.

INTERNAL SERVICE DEPARTMENTS COMPRISE 20% OF THE BUDGET, AND THAT'S THINGS LIKE FACILITIES, FINANCE, HR, ALL THOSE DEPARTMENTS THAT SERVICE THE REST OF THE COUNTY, AND THAT'S 20%.

GENERAL SERVICES OR THINGS LIKE THE WHAT'S WHERE THE CONTINGENCIES ARE HOUSED.

YOU HAVE LONG TERM CARE.

YOU HAVE THINGS THAT ARE NOT DEPARTMENT SPECIFIC, AND THAT'S 15.6 MILLION OR 11%.

AND THEN THERE'S 17% FOR THE REST OF THE DISTRICTS.

AND THOSE ARE THE DISTRICTS THAT HAVE SERVICES FOR THE COMMUNITY, SUCH AS THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, ELECTIONS, MEDICAL EXAMINER, PUBLIC WORKS RECORDER, SCHOOLS, TREASURER'S OFFICE, THOSE DEPARTMENTS.

MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I ASK A QUESTION? SO MY VERY POOR MEMORY IS THAT THE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT PERCENTAGE WAS HIGHER LAST YEAR THAN IT IS THIS YEAR, WHICH IS INTERESTING.

I THINK IT WAS UP A LITTLE BIT.

SLIGHTLY HIGHER. YES.

BUT NOT NOT CLOSER TO 60% RATHER THAN 52.

I DON'T BELIEVE SO. BUT I'LL CHECK ON THAT FOR YOU.

I THINK IT WAS PERCENTAGE WISE.

IT WAS 53%.

THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBER AROUND 53.

THE DOLLAR AMOUNT WAS HIGHER.

RIGHT. JUST AN INTERESTING OBSERVATION THAT EVEN WITH SOME OF THE NEW EXPENDITURES REQUIRED, THAT THEY STILL ARE HOLDING THEIR OWN IN TERMS OF

[00:20:07]

THE PIECE OF THE PIE. YEAH, BUT I'LL GET YOU THOSE FIGURES FOR LAST YEAR COMPARED TO THIS YEAR.

SO JUST AS A REMINDER, THOSE THINGS THAT YOU APPROVED FOR THE BUDGET, THESE ARE FROM THE PROGRAM CHANGE REQUESTS FROM ALL THE DEPARTMENTS IN GENERAL FUND YOU APPROVE 2.5 MILLION A ONE TIME CHANGES IN PERMANENT EXPENDITURES, 2.7 FOR A TOTAL OF 5.2.

AND THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS YOU APPROVED 8.51 TIME EXPENDITURES AND 295,000 IN PERMANENT CHANGES WITH $9 MILLION.

AND THERE WAS ALSO AN APPROVAL FOR $25 MILLION OF ADDITIONAL PLACEHOLDER.

SHOULD GRANTS COME IN DURING THE YEAR THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ACCEPT THAT GOT PLACED INTO THE BUDGET? THE INCREASES WITHOUT THAT $25 MILLION PLACEHOLDER EQUAL 414.1 MILLION 11.1 OF THAT IS ONE TIME, AND 3 MILLION OF THAT IS PERMANENT. AS FAR AS PERSONNEL IN THIS BUDGET, THERE WERE TEN ABOUT TEN AND A HALF NEW FTES WITH ABOUT THREE REDUCED THREE FTES IN THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS AND THE NET OF UPGRADES AND RECLASSIFICATIONS OF WHICH THERE WERE A LOT, ENDED UP BEING 37 AND THEN THERE WERE A 10% INCREASE TO BASE PAY AFFECTED ABOUT 21 FTES.

TOTAL DOLLARS TO THE GENERAL FUND WAS 1.4 MILLION AND A SLIGHT DECREASE TO THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OF 203,000 FOR THE REDUCED FTES. AND JUST AS A REMINDER, THE WHAT ELSE WAS APPROVED FOR PERSONNEL WAS THE 5.73 COLA THAT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTED THIS MONTH AND THEN A PRORATED 3% MERIT INCREASE PROBABLY AROUND OCTOBER.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S BEEN APPROVED YET, THOUGH, HAS IT? NOT UNTIL THE BUDGET IS APPROVED AND THEN NOT.

THE MERIT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY US AS PART OF THE BUDGET.

IT WILL WHEN THE BUDGET GETS APPROVED.

MAURIE YOU HAVE SOME FEEDBACK ON THAT? NO, JUST TO REITERATE, YOU ARE CORRECT.

THAT'S BUILT INTO THE BUDGET AS WE WERE DIRECTED.

SO THAT WOULD BE PART OF YOUR CONSIDERATION WITH THE OVERALL BUDGET.

WE DO HAVE A LOT OF BUDGET CAPACITY AND CONTINGENCY TYPE LINES, SO I JUST SUMMARIZE THEM HERE FOR YOU SO YOU WOULD KNOW WHAT'S IN THE BUDGET.

4 MILLION. THAT HAS BEEN THE SAME FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS IN THE GENERAL FUND.

WE HAVE ANOTHER ADDITIONAL 1.5 MILLION THERE FOR THE DEPARTMENTAL CONTINGENCIES THAT WERE APPROVED.

WE HAVE 10 MILLION IN SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS.

THAT IS THE SAME AS THE LAST FEW YEARS.

AND NOW WE HAVE THE NEW $25 MILLION ADDITIONAL TO THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS.

THERE'S ALSO SIX AND ONE HALF MILLION THAT WAS PLACED AS A PLACEHOLDER FOR THE LOCAL ASSISTANCE AND TRIBAL CONSISTENCY FUND DOLLARS.

AND THERE'S ALSO 26.6 MILLION PLACED INTO THIS BUDGET AS A PLACEHOLDER FOR ARPA EXPENDITURES.

AND IN ADDITION, WHAT I DIDN'T GET ON THIS LIST WAS THERE'S A $10 MILLION PLACEHOLDER FOR THE CAPITAL RESERVE SHOULD YOU EVER NEED TO SPEND THOSE EMERGENCY DOLLARS.

THOSE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE.

AND THIS IS JUST A SUMMARY.

YOU'VE SEEN THIS CHART BEFORE, BUT I JUST ADDED IN FISCAL YEAR 24 WITH THE NUMBERS, IF WE WERE TO ADD $5 MILLION, YOU WOULD HAVE A PROJECTED $35 MILLION IN THE CAPITAL RESERVE, WHICH WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 2,824% RESERVE BALANCE.

TYPICAL IS ANYWHERE FROM 17 TO 25% IS A GFOA RECOMMENDATION.

WE'RE RIGHT. RIGHT IN THERE? YEP. SO THE REMAINING BUDGET SCHEDULE.

SO WE'VE GOT THE TENTATIVE ADOPTION TODAY.

WE WILL NOT NEED THE COURTESY TNT HEARING AS MENTIONED EARLIER.

SO ON JULY 31ST WILL BE THE FINAL BUDGET ADOPTION AND ON AUGUST 14TH WILL BE THE TAX RATE APPROVAL FOR ALL TAXING DISTRICTS.

AND IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS.

CHAIRMAN. YEAH. THANK YOU.

IF I MAY, JUST ONE THING.

GREAT SUMMARY. THANK YOU, CATHERINE.

I WOULD COMMENT ON BACK ON THE SLIDE OF PERSONNEL CHANGES, UPGRADES OR RECLASSIFICATIONS.

YOU KNOW, THERE WAS 37 AND I BELIEVE, CATHERINE, YOU REFERENCED THAT BEING HIGH JUST FOR THE BOARD'S INFORMATION.

THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR AND I HAVE HAD SOME CONVERSATION WITH THAT AND I WOULD RELATE IT BACK TO SUPERVISOR BROWN.

[00:25:04]

YOUR QUESTION OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE ABOUT BEING CONSISTENT WITH OUR COMPENSATION STUDY.

THESE ARE HOWEVER, I DO BELIEVE AND I BELIEVE THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR AGREES WITH ME.

WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT PROCESS FOR FOR NEXT YEAR HOW WE'RE HANDLING THOSE UPGRADES AND RECLASSIFICATIONS I THINK THERE MAY BE ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT THERE.

SO JUST A NOTE FOR NEXT YEAR.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, CATHERINE.

SUPERVISOR OR MANAGER.

THOMPSON DO WE NEED? DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON THIS? OKAY, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE COUNTY'S PRIMARY AND SECONDARY BUDGETS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023.

SECOND. OKAY.

MOTION BY MYSELF.

SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR MICHAELS.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

[2. Board of Supervisors - The Board of Supervisors will resolve into the Board of Directors of the special improvement districts and following consideration of this item, will reconvene as the Board of Supervisors - Approve the tentative budgets for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 for the following special and improvement districts: a. Yavapai County Flood Control District b. Yavapai County Free Library District c. Yavapai County Jail District d. Ash Fork Street Lighting Improvement District e. Seligman Street Lighting Improvement District f. Yarnell Street Lighting Improvement District g. Seligman Sanitary District h. Poquito Valley Road Improvement District]

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WAS RESOLVED INTO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS AND FOLLOWING CONSIDERATION OF THIS, ITEMS WILL RECONVENE AT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVED THE TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023 FOR THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS.

YAVAPAI COUNTY FLOOD DISTRICT.

YAVAPAI COUNTY FREE LIBRARY DISTRICT.

YAVAPAI COUNTY JAIL DISTRICT.

THE ASH FORK STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

THE SELIGMAN STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

THE YARNELL STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

THE SELIGMAN SANITARY DISTRICT AND THE PAQUITO VALLEY ROAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT MANAGER.

THOMPSON. SO MOVE, MR. CHAIR. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND I'LL SECOND THAT.

SO WE GOT A MOTION BY SUPERVISOR BROWN, SECONDED BY ME.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OKAY.

SO UNANIMOUS MOTION CARRIES.

OKAY. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IMPROVE CONTRACT WITH RAPID VENTURES, LLC.

[3. Development Services - Approve contract with Rapid Ventures, LLC, authorize Development Services to proceed with the abatement process for property located at 2303 South Kachina Drive in Cottonwood, Arizona; and approve the transfer of $23,800.00 from General Fund contingency to Development Services - Outside Services account. YC Contract No. 2023-252]

AUTHORIZED DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO PROCEED WITH THE ABATEMENT PROCESS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2303 CANTINA DRIVE IN COTTONWOOD, ARIZONA. DIRECTOR DYE.

YEAH. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS.

JEREMY DYE, DIRECTOR FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

AND SO, YES, THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS TO APPROVE A CONTRACT WITH RAPID VENTURES LLC TO PROCEED WITH CLEAN UP OF A PROPERTY THAT'S A SITE OF EXTREME HOARDING IN AT THE 20 303 SOUTH KACHINA DRIVE ADDRESS IN COTTONWOOD.

THAT'S IN SUPERVISOR MICHAELS DISTRICT.

AND JUST A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ON THIS PROCESS.

THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR ABOUT FIVE YEARS NOW.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO CLEAN THE PROPERTY, BEEN VERY WE'VE BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL AT THIS POINT, BUT WE'VE ACTUALLY GONE THROUGH THE A VERY UNUSUAL PROCESS WITH THIS PROPERTY.

WE ACTUALLY WENT TO COURT AND OBTAINED AUTHORIZATION FROM A COURT ORDER TO TO GO IN AND CLEAN THIS PROPERTY UP.

JUST GIVEN THIS GIVEN THE EXTREME HOARDING NATURE OF IT AND HEALTH RISKS TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS.

SO THIS WE'VE GONE OUT TO BID.

WE'VE RECEIVED THE THE BID FROM RAPID VENTURES WAS THE LOWEST BID.

THAT WAS AT $23,800.

THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE DO ON A REGULAR BASIS.

WE WE ONLY WE ONLY DO THESE KINDS OF CLEANUPS AT THE COUNTY'S EXPENSE FOR FOR THE VERY FOR THE MOST EGREGIOUS CASES.

AND SO THIS IS ONE OF THOSE CASES.

WE'RE NOT BUDGETED REGULARLY FOR THESE KINDS OF CLEANUPS.

SO WE'RE I'M ASKING THE BOARD ALSO TO OBTAIN THIS $23,800 FROM GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY AS WELL.

AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

SUPERVISOR MICHAELS, THIS IS YOUR DISTRICT.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR RECOGNIZING THAT.

I APPRECIATE IT.

I KNOW THAT THIS IS AN EXPENSIVE, UH, PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE CONTEXT AND HISTORY OF WHERE WE WOULD LIKE TO SPEND MONEY.

I CANNOT REMEMBER.

SUPERVISOR OBERG WHAT YOUR HOARDING SITUATION ENDED UP COSTING THE COUNTY ABOUT 17 K OKAY.

OKAY. SO WE ARE JUST DEEPER, BETTER HOARDERS NEED MORE.

BUT I, I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT IT'S PROBABLY TIME, IN MY OPINION, FOR US TO ADDRESS THIS SITUATION IN SOME POLICY FASHION UNDER SOME RUBRIC HARDSHIP CASES, SOMETHING.

[00:30:03]

SO IF THIS CONTINUES AND APPARENTLY HOARDING IS IS REALLY ON THE RISE AND THAT'S A BIG HIT FROM OUR BUDGET, I JUST PUT IT BEFORE US FOR SOME SORT OF CONSIDERATION OR DIRECTION TO OUR OUR COUNTY MANAGER OR THE APPROPRIATE OTHERS TO LOOK AT WHAT OUR BUDGET NEEDS MIGHT BE GIVEN WHAT WE'RE TRENDING NOW.

THIS WOULD BE TWO IN A YEAR.

WE'RE APPROACHING $50,000 ON HOARDING ISSUE.

NOW. WE MAY WANT TO LOOK AT WHAT A MECHANISM COULD OR SHOULD BE TO MANAGE THAT SORT OF DOLLARS.

UH, JUST A COMMENT, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION.

SO MOVED. QUESTION MR. CHAIR. OH, SORRY ABOUT THAT.

SUPERVISOR BROWN. JEREMY, I JUST WANTED TO CHECK THAT WE'VE ALSO THE COURT ORDER HAS OBVIOUSLY BEEN SERVED ON THE OWNER.

THAT IS CORRECT, SIR.

AND IN PROPER LEGAL FORM.

SO WE'RE NOT JUST GOING IN TAKING SOMEBODY'S LAND OR TAKING ACTION ON SOMEBODY'S LAND WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE FULL PROCESS, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT, SIR. WE'VE WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT AS WELL.

NO, I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU.

OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY SUPERVISOR MICHAELS.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE? AYE. OKAY.

THAT'S UNANIMOUS. MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU, DIRECTOR DI. OKAY.

MOVING ON TO THE HEARING ITEMS. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEARING ITEMS TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED SPECIAL DISTRICT SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL 2324.

[1. Board of Supervisors - Hearing to approve the proposed Special District Fee Schedule for FY23/24. ]

CLERK OF THE BOARD KIM KAPIN.

GOOD MORNING, KIM. GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN AND BOARD.

OKAY, SO TODAY WE HAVE A FOLLOW UP FOR THE COURTESY FROM THE COURTESY HEARING THAT WE HAD IN THE COTTONWOOD MEETING IN JUNE.

THIS HEARING ITEM IS REGARDING THE FEE SCHEDULE PROVIDED TO SPECIAL DISTRICTS USE TO REIMBURSE THE COUNTY FOR SERVICES PROVIDED.

THE SCHEDULE WAS POSTED AND PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER WITH NO COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AND WILL REQUIRE A VOTE TO MOVE FORWARD.

EACH YEAR THE COUNTY IS REQUIRED TO ADOPT THIS FEE SCHEDULE FOR USE WITH SPECIAL DISTRICTS PER STATUTE.

THE REIMBURSEMENT SCHEDULE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE ACTUAL COST FOR SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY IN ORDER TO SET A FEE AT A RATE WHICH CAPTURES THE FULL VALUE OF THE COUNTY'S SERVICES.

THE FINANCIAL DIRECTOR PERFORMS A SET OF CALCULATIONS FIRST ESTIMATING THE WAGE AND FRINGE BENEFITS EXPENSE OF AN AVERAGE EMPLOYEE IN EACH POSITION. AND THE SECOND STEP IS TO ESTIMATE THE EXPENSE FOR OTHER EMPLOYEE RELATED COSTS AND COUNTY INDIRECT COSTS.

A SALARY SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED LAST YEAR WHICH AFFECTED THE SALARIES, AND IN PREVIOUS YEARS THERE WAS A COST ALLOCATION THAT ADDRESSED THE IT DEPARTMENT DIFFERENTLY THAN IT DID THIS YEAR, CAUSING A DECREASE IN FEES IN BOTH THE IT AND THE TREASURER'S DEPARTMENTS.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? SUPERVISOR BROWN? I HAVE NO QUESTIONS, BUT I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL DISTRICT FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2324.

OKAY. AND SUPERVISOR MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR BROWN, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR MICHAELS.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. THANK YOU.

OKAY, THAT'S UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU, KIM. MOVING ON.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPROVE A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE PERMANENT AND TRANSFERABLE USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ONE ON SITE 75 FOOT FREESTANDING SIGN TOTALING

[2. Development Services - Approve a Use Permit to allow permanent and transferrable Use Permit to allow for one (1) on-site 75-foot-tall freestanding sign totaling 1,001.16 sq ft of signage on an approximate 4.1-acre lot in the RCU-2A (Residential-Rural, 2-acre minimum lot size) zoning district, subject to the conditions of approval. Owner/Applicant: Jeannine L. Ohlinger Trust; Agent: KTH Consulting/Kathleen Tackett-Hicks; Project: Cordes Junction Travel Center 75-Foot Freestanding Sign Use Permit; APN: 500-05-032A; PLA23-000006. The property is located south of the intersection of Acrosanti Road and Stagecoach Trail on the east side of Interstate 17, in the community of Cordes Junction. Section 14, Township 11 North, Range 02 East. G&SRB&M Staff: Tim Olson (District 2 - Supervisor Gregory)]

1001FT² OF SIGNAGE ON APPROXIMATELY 4.1 ACRES IN COURTICE.

COURTICE JUNCTION.

TIM OLSEN.

GOOD MORNING, TIM. GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN GREGORY AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS TIMOTHY OLSON, A PLANNER WITH YAVAPAI COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

TODAY I'M PRESENTING THE THE CORTEZ JUNCTION TRAVEL STOP OF AMERICA FREESTANDING 75 FOOT SIGN.

AGAIN, THE PROPERTY.

THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN DISTRICT TWO.

THAT'S CHAIRMAN GREGORY'S DISTRICT.

THIS IS AN AREA MAP SHOWING THE AREA ALONG THE I-17.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE LOCATION OF THE SIGN AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

NOW, WHERE TO IS GOING TO BE LOCATED? THE. TRUCK STOP OR TRAVEL CENTER.

IT'S GOING TO BE RIGHT HERE.

IN ORDER FOR ANYBODY TO SEE THIS SIGN.

THEY NEED TO HAVE MORE VISIBILITY RIGHT HERE AT THE I-17 BECAUSE OF THE THE DECLINE OF THE LANDSCAPE AS IT GOES DOWN.

[00:35:01]

AGAIN, THIS IS THE CORTEZ JUNCTION, THE LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

AS YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE SIGN IS GOING TO BE UP HERE TO THE VERY NORTH AREA, YOU CAN SEE LOVE'S TRAVEL STOP JUST OFF THIS PICTURE.

THAT'S WHERE YOU'LL SEE PILOT TRAVEL STOP AND ALSO THE LOCATION OF TRAVEL STOP AMERICA.

AGAIN, WE ARE LOOKING NORTH.

WE'RE SEEING LOVE'S TRAVEL STOP.

YOU'RE SEEING THEIR 75 FOOT SIGN.

THERE ARE 30 FOOT SIGN.

AND THIS WILL BE THE LOCATION OF THE TRAVEL STOP AMERICA SIGN TRAVEL STOP OF AMERICA ALSO HAS A SIGN RIGHT HERE, TOO.

AGAIN, THEIR FIRST PROPOSAL TO KEEP THAT AT 50FT.

AND THAT'S WHERE THAT ONE'S GOING TO BE LOCATED.

THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH LOOKING TO THE, I BELIEVE, TO THE WEST.

YOU CAN SEE THE LOCATION OF THE OF THE TRAVEL STOP AMERICA SIGN, LOVE'S TRAVEL STOP AND LOVE'S TRAVEL STOP.

30 FOOT SIGN. AGAIN, YOU'RE LOOKING AT A PHOTOGRAPH, SUBJECT AREA.

WITH THE LOCATION OF THE TRAVEL STOPS GOING TO BE? AND I ALSO WANT TO BRING THIS UP.

I BROUGHT THIS UP ALSO TO THE COMMISSION AS WELL.

AS YOU'RE DRIVING NORTH TO THIS TRAVEL STOP OR YOU'RE GOING TO TURN OFF ON CORTEZ JUNCTION.

THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT HERE.

AS YOU GET CLOSER, YOU CAN SEE THE LOVE'S TRAVEL.

STOP RIGHT HERE.

THE MCDONALD'S, THE PILOT.

NOW, AS WE TURN INTO THE QUARTERS JUNCTION, WE SEE THE PILOT SIGN.

THERE ARE 30 FOOT SIGN.

AND THEN OVER HERE, TOO, AGAIN, YOU'RE LOOKING AT LOVE'S 75 FOOT SIGN AND ALSO THE 30 FOOT SIGN.

THE REASON WHY WE WANTED TO KEEP THIS SIGN ALSO AT 50FT, IT WAS MOVED TO REDUCE IT DOWN TO 40FT.

BUT WE STILL WERE. THE APPLICANT AND MYSELF WERE STILL ASKING TO KEEP.

PLEASE KEEP THAT AT 50FT.

SO AS PEOPLE COME IN, THEY CAN SEE THAT SIGN AS WELL.

SO THERE'S SOME PARTICIPATION WE'VE HAD.

NO, WE HAVEN'T.

NO, WE ACTUALLY HAD ONE OPPOSITION AGAIN FROM ARCOSANTI.

AND THEN WE ALSO HAD COMPLETE SUPPORT FROM THE JUNCTION LAKES COMMUNITY AS WELL.

IN REQUEST THE PERMANENT TRANSFERABLE USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR ONE OFF OFFSITE 75 FOOT FREESTANDING SIGN FOR THE CORTEZ JUNCTION TRAVEL STOP OF AMERICA TRAVEL CENTER, LOCATED ON RCU TO A RESIDENTIAL RURAL TWO ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE.

ZONING DISTRICT IS APPROXIMATELY THIS.

ACTUALLY, THE PARCEL IS APPROXIMATELY 4.1 ACRES.

IN THE 75 FOOT TWO SIDED SIGN WILL BE WILL BE FACING NORTH AND SOUTH SIGN COULD BE FACING WEST.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE FACING EAST.

SO ARCOSANTI IS THAT WAY.

YOU DON'T HAVE SO MUCH LIGHT POLLUTION.

THESE ARE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

AND AGAIN, ACTUALLY, I'M GOING TO ADD ONE MORE THING.

AGAIN, DURING THE COMMISSION HEARING, THEY REDUCED THAT SMALLER SIGN DOWN TO 40FT.

WE'RE REQUESTING TO MOVE IT BACK UP TO THAT 50 FOOT SIZE.

AGAIN, THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE FOR ME.

THE APPLICANT, KATHY HICKS, IS HERE AS WELL, AND COMMISSIONER FAMAS IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMISSION.

THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

SUPERVISOR BROWN. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THIS IS NOT IN ANY KIND OF RESIDENTIAL AREA OR ANYWHERE CLOSE TO IT.

AM I CORRECT? YOU ARE CORRECT.

THE NEAREST RESIDENTIAL WOULD BE EITHER ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE I 17, ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE I-17 AND CURTIS LAKES, EVEN THOUGH THE ZONING IS R-2, RIGHT? CORRECT. FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.

SUPERVISOR MICHAELS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I KNOW THAT THE COMMISSION REALLY STUDIED THIS AND WORKED VERY HARD, TIM, AS I UNDERSTAND, AS REPORTED TO ME, BECAUSE THEY'RE LOOKING TO PROVIDE A MODEL FOR OTHERS TO FOLLOW ON WHAT SHOULD OUR INTERSTATES LOOK LIKE NOW? YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT JUST PLACES YOU PASS UP OR HAVE UTILITIES OR SERVICES PROVIDED TO YOU.

THEY'RE ALSO A VISUAL EXPERIENCE AND REFLECT PERHAPS WHAT THEY MIGHT FIND AS THEY GO INTO THEIR COMMUNITY.

SO I WOULD BE KEENLY INTERESTED KNOWING HOW MUCH THEY WORKED ON THIS, MR. CHAIRMAN, TO HEAR FROM OUR COMMISSIONER AND PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO THE REQUEST TO LOWER AND THEN THE MORE RECENT SUGGESTION OR RECOMMENDATION TO PUT IT BACK TO 75.

OKAY. THE COMMISSIONER HERE TODAY.

GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN SUPERVISORS DALE FAMOUS REPRESENTING THE COMMISSION TODAY.

[00:40:03]

SUPERVISOR MICHAELS YOU'RE CORRECT.

WE FELT AS THOUGH WE SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME ON.

DEVELOPING WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN AS A COMMISSION.

WE FIGURED THAT A MOVING OF THE SIGN WAS REALLY AN IDEAL PLACEMENT.

IT GIVES A LOT BETTER VISUAL FROM WAY DOWN THE HIGHWAY AS FAR AS MOVING THE HEIGHT FROM A 50 TO A 40 FOOT.

HAVE. IT WAS A GENERAL CONSENSUS THAT THERE WAS PLENTY OF SIGN ALREADY BEING PROVIDED.

IDEALLY. ONCE YOU'VE TURNED OFF THE FREEWAY, YOU DON'T NEED A TOWERING SIGN.

MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION WAS THAT 50 WAS.

ACTUALLY TOO HIGH, BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING OUT YOUR WINDSHIELD, DRIVING UP 50FT, IS LOOKING UP INTO THE ROOFTOP OF YOUR VEHICLE.

FOR TRUCKS. THEY HAVE A LITTLE DIFFERENT WINDSHIELDS.

THEY COULD SEE HIGHER.

I GUESS THAT'S ABOUT ALL I GOT ON THAT, IF THERE'S ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.

YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THAT.

SOMETHING ELSE I KNOW THAT YOU AS A COMMISSION CONSIDERED WAS THE FACT THAT WITH OUR TECHNOLOGY NOW, SIGNAGE IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT IN TERMS OF ITS RELEVANCE AS WE GO INTO THE FUTURE BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S LOOKING AT THEIR COMPUTER SCREEN IN THEIR CAR. SO THOSE ARE ALL THINGS I KNOW THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING AS A COUNTY.

BUT I JUST DO APPLAUD, YOU KNOW, THE REALLY SERIOUS THINKING ABOUT THIS AND HOW WELL YOU WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT ON GETTING IT TO A MITIGATED OUTCOME.

MR. CHAIRMAN. OKAY.

I HAVE A QUESTION, CATHY.

YES. CAN YOU STEP UP AND.

WHAT'S YOUR CONCERNS WITH HAVING TO SIGN AT 40FT VERSUS 50FT? ORIGINALLY, YOU HAVE APPROVED AT THE TO SITE DOWN ARCOSANTI, A 75 FOOT SIGN.

AND WHEN I WAS HERE LAST TIME WITH THE BOARD SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, I SAID THAT WAS NOT GOING TO BE SUITABLE BECAUSE IT DROPS IN HEIGHT.

SO THE ELEVATION FROM THE LOVE'S SITE DOWN TO THE TA DROPS ABOUT 18FT OR SOMETHING.

SO PART OF THE JUSTIFICATION OR THE REQUEST FROM A 40 TO A 50 IS TO HELP MITIGATE SOME OF THAT ELEVATION DIFFERENCE. THE 75 FOOT SIGN IS PROPOSED ALONG I-17, WHICH IS THE CORRECT LOCATION FOR IT.

AND I'M HAPPY THAT THERE WAS REALLY NO OPPOSITION OR BIG CONCERN WITH THAT BECAUSE I WAS AWARE OF THE ARCOSANTI CONCERNS.

IF YOU NOTICED ON YOUR INFORMATION, THIS SIGN IS ONLY GOING TO BE FACING WEST.

SO THE 40 OR 50 FOOT SIGN WILL JUST HAVE LIGHT TO THE WEST AND WILL NOT HAVE ANY LIGHT ON THE EAST, WHICH IS WHERE ARCOSANTI IS.

SO TOWARD THE HIGHWAY, NOT TOWARD ARCOSANTI THE OPPOSITE WAY.

SO THEY WON'T SEE ANY DIRECT LIGHT FROM THAT.

CORRECT? I MEAN, THE FACING FOR IT'S ON THE FRONT.

WHETHER THEY SEE SOMETHING, I DON'T KNOW.

BUT THERE WILL NOT BE ANY LIGHT FACING TO THE EAST, WHICH IS AWESOME.

AND IT ONLY WORKS IN THIS LOCATION BECAUSE THERE ARE STATE LANDS AND STUFF.

I MEAN, IT IS UNIQUE.

SO IF YOU HAD A BIG METROPOLITAN AREA TO THE EAST, THIS WOULDN'T WORK.

BUT IN THIS CASE, I THINK THAT'S THE WAY TO GO.

SO BUT 50 FOOT IS ONLY TO TAKE CARE OF THE ELEVATION DIFFERENCE.

OKAY. AND IT'S OKAY.

THAT MAKES SENSE. OKAY, I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

EXCUSE ME. I'M SORRY, CHAIRMAN.

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I'M LOOKING AT THE ITEM AS AGENDIZED.

AND IT SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT THE BOARD WOULD BE CONSIDERING A SIGN OF UP TO 40FT IN HEIGHT TODAY.

SO I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE BOARD TAKING ACTION IN RELATION TO A 50 FOOT SIGN.

I'M NOT SURE THAT NOTICE HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT THAT WAS A POSSIBILITY AT THE HEARING TODAY.

SO BASICALLY ALL WE CAN APPROVE IS WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA UP TO 40FT.

OR IT WOULD BE PUSHED OVER TO A SUBSEQUENT DATE AND ADEQUATE NOTICE WOULD BE PROVIDED.

I'M GOING TO JUMP IN HERE REAL QUICK AND EXPLAIN THIS AGAIN.

TIM OLSON, YAVAPAI COUNTY PLANNER.

SO THERE'S TWO SIGNS.

WE WERE HERE TO SEE THE 75 FOOT SIGN ON THIS PROPERTY, RCU.

THE ORIGINAL SIGN WAS APPROVED ALREADY BY THE BOARD FOR THE SITE OVER HERE ON THE C-2 RIGHT HERE. SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO A 75 FOOT SIGN THERE.

[00:45:01]

WE PROPOSE TO BRING THAT DOWN TO 50 FOOT.

ONLY FACING WEST.

AND THESE ARE SIGNS THAT BASICALLY GAS PRICES AND WHO IS THERE, WHAT VENDORS ARE THERE.

THAT'S SO. THAT SIGN'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED.

WE GO BACK AGAIN.

YOU'RE JUST RE APPROVING THE SAME THING.

YOU'RE APPROVED MONTHS AGO.

SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS SAYING 75 FOOT SIGN OVER HERE.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR.

WE'RE REDUCING THE SIGN FROM 75 FOOT ON THE C-2 PROPERTY TO 50FT.

WHEN WE LEFT LAST TIME, WE LEFT THE COMMISSION.

THE COMMISSION AT THE LAST MOMENT SAID, CAN WE REDUCE IT DOWN TO 40FT? OKAY. WE'RE STILL ASKING FOR THAT 40 FOOT SIGN.

YOU'RE STILL ASKING FOR THE 50 FOOT.

A 50 FOOT SIGN. YES.

YES. SO THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT UP IN CONJUNCTION WITH WHAT WAS ALREADY PRE APPROVED.

LET ME GO BACK HERE.

AS YOU CAN SEE, YOU HAVE A PILOT SIGN.

YOU HAVE A SMALLER SIGN.

AND THIS SMALLER SIGN ALSO FACES WEST AND EAST.

SO THE LOVES TRAVEL.

SO I APOLOGIZE. SO BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS YOU HAD A 75 FOOT SIGN.

WE ALREADY APPROVED THAT AND SAID, OKIE DOKIE WITH THAT.

SO NOW YOU'RE REDUCING THAT DOWN TO 50FT AND AND THE ANOTHER SIGN AND THEN THE OTHER IS LEARNED DOWN TO 40.

SO IS IT 40 OR 50FT? NOW, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, MARTY, IS THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE THIS, WE HAVE TO APPROVE IT WITH THE CHANGE, BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER HEARING.

NO, SORRY.

YES, CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

SUPERVISOR BROWN.

THAT IS WHAT I INDICATED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT NOTICED AS A 50 FOOT SIGN.

I WAS NOT AWARE IT HAD BEEN APPROVED PREVIOUSLY AS A 75 FOOT SIGN.

I BELIEVE THAT DOES MITIGATE THE CONCERNS THAT I EXPRESSED.

IT'S STILL TECHNICALLY NOT PROPERLY NOTICED, BUT IF IT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN APPROVED AS A 75 FOOT SIGN AND THIS IS ACTUALLY REDUCING THE THE THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN, I BELIEVE THOSE CONCERNS ARE MITIGATED BY THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.

OKAY. SO IF THE CHAIR WANTED TO REMOVE HIS HIS MOTION, WE COULD JUST MOVE TO APPROVE UP TO 50FT.

THAT'S CORRECT. SO AND I DO THINK HE'S CORRECT.

WE'RE APPROVING THE 75 FOOT SIGN AND THEN THE SECONDARY SIGN UP TO 50FT.

THAT'S. AND THAT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT.

KATHY, WE NEED THE 75 FOOT SIGN ON I 17.

THAT'S THE ITEM.

THE P AND Z COMMISSION ONLY WANTED TO GIVE THAT APPROVAL IF WE ADJUSTED THE OTHER SIGN, WHICH WE AGREED TO DO, WHICH IS THE 40 OR 50 FOOT SIGN ON MY AGENDA, IT DOES SAY 50 FOOT CROSSED OUT.

40 FOOT. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THIS HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY ADDRESSED.

BUT ANYWAYS, CAN WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE 75 FOOT SIGN? SO I SAID LET ME MAKE A MOTION.

LET'S MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS PRIMARY OR THE 75 FOOT SIGN ALONG THE HIGHWAY AND THEN UP TO 50FT.

AT THE BUSINESS ITSELF.

OKAY. SO A MOTION BY MYSELF, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR MICHAELS.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. OKAY.

THAT'S UNANIMOUS. MOTION CARRIES.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OKAY. SO MOVING ON.

[3. Development Services - Approve a Use Permit to allow for one (1) off-premise sign totaling 96 sq. ft. of signage on an approximate 135-acre lot in the RCU-2A (Residential; Single-Family Rural; 2-acre minimum lot size) zoning district, subject to the conditions of approval. Project Name: Stringfield Off Premise Sign; Owner/Applicant: State of Arizona.; Agent: Jeff Davis; APN: 800-20-065H; PLA23-000062. The project is located just west of the intersection of North Williamson Valley Road and Pioneer Parkway, in the community of Williamson Valley. Section 08, Township 14 North, Range 02 West. G&SRB&M. Staff: Becca Sirakis (District 4 - Supervisor Brown)]

APPROVED A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR ONE OFF SIGN TOTALING 96 FOOT OF SIGNAGE ON APPROXIMATELY 135 ACRES.

AND SUPERVISOR BROWN'S DESK DISTRICT AND BECCA CIRACAS.

GOOD MORNING.

UH, GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN GREGORY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

BECCA CIRACAS, PLANNER WITH YAVAPAI COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

JUST A MOMENT. I'M GONNA BRING UP MY PRESENTATION.

SORRY FOR THE DELAY.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

SO THIS APPLICATION IS FOR A USE PERMIT FOR THE STRINGFIELD RANCH OFF PREMISE SIGN.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN SUPERVISOR BROWN'S DISTRICT.

DISTRICT NUMBER FOUR.

[00:50:04]

THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS LOCATED JUST WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH WILLIAMSON VALLEY ROAD AND PIONEER PARKWAY IN THE COMMUNITY OF WILLIAMSON VALLEY.

THE ZONING TO THE NORTH IS R1 L 70 WITH DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH IS R1 L 35, WITH DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS TO THE WEST.

YOU'LL SEE IN BROWN IS THE PAD ZONED DESIGNATED AREA FOR THE STRINGFIELD RANCH PROPERTY, AND TO THE EAST IS WILLIAMSON VALLEY ROAD AND VACANT STATE, ARIZONA LAND SHOWN IN LIGHT BLUE.

SO IN 2020, A ZONING MAP CHANGE WAS APPROVED TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM RC-2A TO THE PAD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY JUST TO THE WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY.

THE APPLICANT HAS COME FORWARD TODAY TO ASK FOR AN OFF PREMISE SIGN FOR THE SUBDIVISION TO BE PLACED ON THE STATE OF ARIZONA LAND RIGHT ALONG WILLIAMSON VALLEY ROAD. SO HERE IS WILLIAMSON VALLEY ROAD AND THE PROPOSED SIGN IS APPROXIMATELY HERE ON THE STATE OF ARIZONA LAND.

THIS WILL ALLOW THE SIGN TO BE VISIBLE FROM WILLIAMSON VALLEY ROAD, BUT ANY OFF PREMISE SIGN DOES REQUIRE A USE PERMIT.

AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.

SO THIS IS THE SIGN RENDERING THAT SHOWS THE 1946 TRUCK AND THE PROPOSED SIGN.

HERE'S A PHOTO SHOWN AT THE INTERSECTION OF PIONEER PARKWAY AND WILLIAMSON VALLEY ROAD, LOOKING WEST TOWARDS THE STATE OF ARIZONA, LAND THAT THE SIGN IS PROPOSED TO SIT ON.

MY COMMENT TO ALL THE SIGNS, THOUGH, IN THE LOWER FOREGROUND.

RIGHT. THERE ARE ALL POLITICAL SIGNS.

YES. HERE'S A PHOTO LOOKING NORTH.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS TO THE LEFT.

HERE WE ARE LOOKING SOUTH AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS TO THE RIGHT.

AND LASTLY, WE ARE LOOKING EAST FROM THE EDGE OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL TOWARDS THE WILLIAMSON VALLEY ROAD AND PIONEER PARKWAY.

THE APPLICANT HAS CONTACTED CONTACTED PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT.

TO DATE, STAFF HAS RECEIVED ONE COMMENT OF OPPOSITION FROM A PROPERTY OWNER TO THE NORTH.

THEY FELT THERE'S ALREADY TOO MUCH SIGNAGE ON THAT CORNER BECAUSE OF ALL THE POLITICAL SIGNS.

OKAY, SO THAT DOES CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION.

I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND AVAILABLE AS WELL.

SUPERVISOR BROWN, THIS IS IN YOUR DISTRICT? YES. THANK YOU. AND PUBLIC WORKS.

DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE? IS THIS GOING TO HAVE ANY ANY NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE TRAFFIC FLOW IN THAT AREA? CHAIRMAN GREGORY SUPERVISOR BROWN AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

I'M ROGER MCCORMICK, THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC WORKS.

WE HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENT IN REGARDS TO THIS.

IT SHOULDN'T CAUSE A PROBLEM.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

WITH THAT, I'D MOVE TO ACCEPT.

OKAY. AND FURTHER DISCUSSION.

SUPERVISOR MICHAELS.

JUST A QUESTION TO EDUCATE ME, BECCA.

IT'S STATE LAND, IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. AND I'M ASSUMING THAT WE'VE SECURED ALL THE PROPER REQUESTS AND PERMISSIONS TO HAVE THIS APPLICANT HAVE A SIGN ON THIS PROPERTY.

THEY ALREADY HAVE A 99 YEAR LEASE, SO.

YES. AND THEY HAVE RECEIVED A PERMIT THROUGH THE STATE.

AND NOW IF THIS IS APPROVED TODAY, WE WILL THEN ALSO HAVE A SIGN PERMIT ISSUED THROUGH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WHERE WE'LL BE MAKING SURE THAT THAT PERMIT THROUGH THE STATE WAS IN PLACE. VICE CHAIR OBERG? YES, MR. CHAIRMAN.

IS THERE A TIME PERIOD FOR THIS SIGN? IS IT TEMPORARY? IS IT GOING TO BE PERMANENT, LIVE THERE FOREVER OR WHATEVER? I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT INDICATED THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO NEED IT FOREVER.

WE HAVE APPROVED THIS USE PERMIT FOR UP TO TEN YEARS, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT WILL BE THERE FOR TEN YEARS.

AND I CAN. OKAY.

AND I CAN HAVE MR. JEFF DAVIS COME UP IF YOU WANTED A BETTER EXPLANATION OF THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN. BOARD JEFF DAVIS, 110, EAST GURLEY STREET.

PRESCOTT. SO IT'S A TEMPORARY SIGN PERMIT.

IT'S UTILIZED BECAUSE WE WE PURCHASED THAT 200 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY FROM THE INTERSECTION BACK TO THE STRINGFIELD PROPERTY.

SO THERE'S NO VISIBILITY OF OUR GATES OR OUR ENTRY INTO THERE.

[00:55:02]

SO IT'S STRICTLY JUST A KIND OF CATCH ATTENTION FOR TRAFFIC TO KIND OF KNOW THAT THIS IS WHERE THE STRING STRINGFIELD PROJECT IS.

ONCE WE ESTABLISH OUR ON SITE SALES CENTER EXCUSE ME, WHICH IS IN OUR COMMUNITY BUILDING, THERE'LL BE ENOUGH IDENTIFICATION, PEOPLE WILL KNOW WE'RE THERE, WILL ESTABLISH SALES AND THEN WE WON'T NEED TO SIGN UP FRONT.

I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT HAVING THE VEHICLE THERE, THAT IT WOULD DETERIORATE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AND PROBABLY LOOK LIKE A MESS.

SO JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AN EYESORE IN THE FUTURE.

NO, THAT'S NOT THE PLAN.

OKAY. THANK. OKAY.

WE GOT A MOTION BY SUPERVISOR BROWN.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY.

BY SUPERVISOR MICHAELS.

ALL IN FAVOR. SAY AYE? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

OKAY. ITEM NUMBER FOUR, APPROVE A USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCING WITH A ONE FOOT EXTENSION OF THE BARBED WIRE IN LIEU OF

[4. Development Services - Approve a Use Permit Amendment to allow for 6-ft chain link fencing with a 1-ft extension of barbed wire in lieu of protective screening and 7-ft chain link fencing with a 1-ft extension of barbed wire in lieu of the block wall substation screening. This request is amending stipulation #2 only, of the previously approved Use Permit H#PLA20-000043. Project Name: 1874 Solar & Battery Storage; Owner/Applicant: Fain Land & Cattle Co.; Agent: PV Solar Holding LLC; APN: 401-01-133D; PLA23-000055. The project is located on an approximate 1116-acre portion of a 1587-acre parcel in the RCU-2A (Residential; Single-Family; Rural) zoning district, northeast of Fain Rd. in the Prescott Valley area. Section 05, 21, 23, 27, 33, & 35; Township 15 North; Range 01 East. G&SRB&M. Staff: Becca Sirakis (District 2 - Supervisor Gregory)]

PROTECTING SCREEN OF A SEVEN FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH A ONE FOOT EXTENSION OF BARBED WIRE IN LIEU OF THE BLOCK WALL SUBSTATION SCREENING.

THIS REQUEST IS AMENDED STIPULATION NUMBER TWO ONLY OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PERMIT.

BECCA CIRAKAS. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN GREGORY.

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

BECCA CIRAKAS, PLANNER WITH YAVAPAI COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN DISTRICT TWO IN THE PRESCOTT VALLEY AREA UNDER SUPERVISOR GREGORY.

THE ADJACENT ZONING SURROUNDING ALL ON ALL SIDES OF THE PROPERTY IS RCU TO A RESIDENTIAL RURAL TWO ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE ZONING DISTRICT.

DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE PARCELS ARE EITHER STATE OF ARIZONA LAND SHOWN IN BLUE ON THE MAP OR UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL PARCELS OWNED BY FANE LAND AND CATTLE CO AND THE TOWN OF PRESCOTT VALLEY TO THE WEST.

TO THE NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ACROSS HIGHWAY 89 IS A MIX OF DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE PARCELS AS WELL.

SO SO A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ON THIS PROPERTY.

IN JANUARY OF 2020, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVED A PERMANENT AND TRANSFERABLE USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A SOLAR FACILITY WITH BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE ON APPROXIMATELY 101,116 ACRES OF THE SUBJECT.

1,587.87 ACRE PARCEL.

THE USE PERMIT WAS APPROVED WITH THE STIPULATION NUMBER TWO THAT READS APPROVAL OF A WAIVER OF THE PROTECTIVE SCREENING CONDITION REQUIRED PER SECTION 567 OF THE PLANNING YAVAPAI COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR CHAIN LINK FENCING WITH SLATS TO BE USED FOR VISUAL SCREENING.

THE SUBSTATION TO BE SCREENED WITH A BLOCK WALL.

SO TODAY THE APPLICANT IS COMING FORWARD TO ASK FOR CONSIDERATION OF A USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR SIX FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCING WITH A ONE FOOT EXTENSION OF BARBED WIRE IN LIEU OF THE PROTECTIVE SCREENING AND SEVEN FEET FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCING WITH A ONE FOOT EXTENSION OF BARBED WIRE TO SCREEN THE SUBSTANCE TO GO AROUND THE SUBSTATION.

THIS REQUEST IS AMENDING STIPULATION NUMBER TWO ONLY.

AND THIS HAS COME AFTER TALKS WITH THE ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT AND THE ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT HAS VOICED THEIR SUPPORT OR NO CONCERN WITH THIS REQUEST.

WAIT A MINUTE. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE THERE.

DID THEY SAY NO CONCERN OR DID THEY SUPPORT WHICH ONE? THEY ARE SUPPORTING THIS.

THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

UM, SO IN THE SUBJECT PARCELS ON THESE PHOTOS, WE ARE LOOKING EAST.

STATE ROUTE 89 A HERE AND THEN TO THE WE HAVE THE CEMEX PLANT FOR REFERENCE IN THE BACK AND THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS SHOWN HERE. TO THE NORTH.

WE ARE LOOKING TO THE NORTH IN THIS PHOTO AGAIN, STATE ROUTE 89 A AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

WE ARE LOOKING SOUTH EAST IN THIS PHOTO.

AND LASTLY, WE ARE LOOKING SOUTHWEST PRESCOTT VALLEY IN THE BACKGROUND.

AND THIS IS JUST ONE MORE PHOTO RIGHT OFF OF STATE ROUTE 89.

LOOKING TOWARDS THE SUBJECT PARCEL, YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A BERM OF LAND THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE THE CONSTRUCTION WILL BE BEHIND THAT BURN.

SO THAT'S A GOOD NATURAL VEGETATIVE BUFFER.

LASTLY, THIS FOR CITIZEN PARTICIPATION STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY LETTERS OF SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO DATE.

[01:00:02]

AND IN SUMMARY, THE APPLICANT IS COMING FORWARD TO ASK FOR THIS USE PERMIT FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE FENCING AND SCREENING OF THE BLOCK WALL.

I AM HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AS WELL.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I GUESS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT THEY AGREED TO A STIPULATION BACK IN 2020.

STIPULATION TWO.

NOW THEY'RE COMING FORWARD AND SAYING THEY WANT TO CHANGE THAT STIPULATION TO THIS AGREEMENT HERE.

YES. UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS I'M ALWAYS CONCERNED ABOUT IS WHEN PEOPLE AGREE TO THE STIPULATION THAT WE SET UP WHEN WE ORIGINALLY APPROVED THESE THINGS, AND THEN LATER ON THEY COME BACK AND THEY START CHOPPING AWAY AT SOME OF THOSE STIPULATIONS AND TRYING TO CHANGE THEM.

SO WHY DO WHY IS THIS BEING DONE? WHAT'S THE BENEFIT OF DOING THIS AND CHANGING THAT STIPULATION? THIS WAS BROUGHT TO STAFF'S ATTENTION AS A A PREFERABLE METHOD OF SCREENING PER THE ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT FOR THE WILDLIFE FLOW FOR THE CORRIDORS AND TO FOR THE WILDLIFE TO BE ABLE TO MORE EASILY MANEUVER THROUGH THE SITE.

THAT'S HOW IT WAS PRESENTED.

SO THE WILDLIFE CAN SEE THE GRASS THEY CAN'T GET TO.

UM, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT GAME OF FISH HAS TO DO WITH THIS.

I MEAN, IT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED.

IT'S ALREADY IN A WILDLIFE CORRIDOR.

IT'S ALREADY INHIBITING WILDLIFE MOVEMENT TO SOME EXTENT.

SO I'M NOT SURE, YOU KNOW, WHY WE NEED TO CHANGE THE STIPULATION BASED ON ANYTHING FROM THE ARIZONA GAME AND FISH.

AND IF THEY'RE HERE AND THEY WANT TO GO AHEAD AND COME FORWARD AND SAY SOMETHING, I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO HEAR IT.

BUT AT THIS POINT, I JUST DON'T FEEL THAT WE SHOULD BE CHANGING STIPULATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SET AND WERE PREVIOUSLY AGREED TO.

SO AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, I'LL BE A NO ON THIS.

MR. GREGORY, GO AHEAD.

JUST TO CLARIFICATION, THIS WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I ASKED BACK WHEN THIS ORIGINALLY CAME UP WAS WHETHER THIS WAS CLEARED WITH ARIZONA GAME AND FISH.

AND I WAS TOLD YES AT THE TIME.

AND THEREFORE NOW YOU'RE TELLING ME NO, THEY WANT TO REALLY CHANGE THEIR.

THEIR RESPONSE BACK AND CHANGE IT TO A DIFFERENT TYPE OF STIPULATION.

SO THAT FIRST VOTE WE TOOK, WHICH I VOTED NO ON, WAS, YOU KNOW, NOW IN QUESTION AGAIN.

NOW, PROBLEM WITH THIS IS THEY MOVED IT CLOSER TO THE ROAD.

THEY'VE ALSO MOVED IT CLOSER TO A HOUSING AREA.

SO IT'S CROSSED THE ROAD AND UP THERE JUST A LITTLE WAYS UP THERE FROM THERE.

BUT I STILL HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING IN REGARDS TO THE FIRE AND OR WHETHER KAUFMAN IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO COVER IT OR THEY HAVE THE RESOURCES BECAUSE THERE IS NO WATER HYDRANTS OUT THERE. IF THERE BECOMES A FIRE AND THAT WILL BE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S AN OPEN PLAIN AREA THAT IS GRASSLANDS, HUGE AMOUNT OF GRASSLANDS.

I AM VERY SURPRISED AT GAME AND FISH EVEN BEING OKAY WITH THIS PROJECT.

AND IF CHAIRMAN, DO YOU MIND, UM, I COULD ALSO BRING UP THE APPLICANT TO SEE IF THEY CAN SPEAK ANY ON THE.

I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.

YES. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING AND THANK YOU.

BOARD CHAIRMAN. MY NAME IS ANTONIO RESTA.

I'M A DEVELOPER WITH ENERGIES.

I'D LIKE TO TAKE ANY AND ALL QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS DO HAVE AND MAYBE ADD SOME CLARIFICATION AS TO A COUPLE OF YOUR GUYS' QUESTIONS.

SO IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC ONES, PLEASE ASK.

WE WANT TO KNOW WHY THE CHANGE SO SPECIFICALLY ON THE CHANGE FOR THE SLATS IS.

I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT WAS SAID PREVIOUS TO ME TAKING ON THE PROJECT AS THE DEVELOPER AND IF THEY HAD TALKED TO GAME AND FISH.

BUT I KNOW THAT THE FIRST TIME THAT I CAME TO ARIZONA AND I TALKED TO GAME AND FISH WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT THEY HEARD ABOUT THIS PROJECT, THEY STATED TO US THAT IF THERE WAS SLATS WITHOUT 150 FOOT CORRIDOR BETWEEN THE THE PARCELS THAT WE DO OR THAT WE ARE GOING TO BUILD ON, THEIR FEAR IS THAT THE MIGRATING PATTERNS OF THE PRONGHORNS, THEY WOULD GET SCARED BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO EASILY SEE THROUGH THE THE CHAIN LINK FENCE AND THEY WOULD STOP THEIR MIGRATING PATTERNS THROUGH THE NOW ARIZONA STATE LANDS.

SO THEIR SUGGESTION WAS LET'S REMOVE THE SLATS, LET'S OPEN THE BUFFERS BETWEEN THE GATES ON EACH PARCEL AT A MINIMUM OF 150 FOOT, AND THAT WOULD ALLOW THE MIGRATING PATTERNS TO CONTINUE IN A IN A PATTERN THAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY USED TO.

THAT ALSO ALLOWS THE THE LANDOWNER THAT OWNS THE FANE PROPERTY HAS GRAZING LEASES WITH CATTLE.

THEY'D BE ABLE TO MOVE THEIR CATTLE THROUGH THOSE THOSE CORRIDORS AS WELL.

BUT CAN I BRING UP THE THAT ONE RIGHT THERE.

TO THE POINT THAT WE'RE MOVING ANYTHING CLOSER.

OUR NEWEST DESIGN LAYOUT, PRELIMINARY FROM STATE ROAD 89 TO OUR FIRST FENCE LINE IS 0.82 OF A MILE AWAY. SO WE ARE 0.82 OF A MILE AWAY FROM THAT STATE ROAD.

SO I REALIZED THAT THE FIRST ONE THAT EVERYBODY DID SEE WAS WAS A BIG WHAT ESSENTIALLY WOULD BE A LOOK LIKE A BLANKET.

[01:05:06]

THAT IS NOT WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE ANYMORE.

THE CURRENT DESIGN BRINGS US WAY FAR OFF OF THAT STATE ROAD, TRYING TO BE THE BEST PARTNER THAT WE CAN BE WITH EVERYBODY AROUND US OPENING UP THOSE CORRIDORS TO ALLOW AND REMOVING THE SLATS TO ALLOW PRONGHORNS TO STILL MOVE FREELY.

THAT'S OUR GOAL IS NOT TO SHOW THEM GRASS THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO EAT, BUT TO ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE THEIR MIGRATING PATTERNS THAT THEY HAVE HAD FOREVER.

SO WHO INITIATED THIS CHANGE? YOU GUYS WERE GAME AND FISH.

AFTER TALKING TO GAME AND FISH, WE DID.

OH. HOW MUCH CHEAPER IS IT FOR YOU GUYS? UNSURE AT THIS TIME.

THE OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD.

MM. AND WHAT WAS THERE ORIGINALLY IS BLOCK WALLS.

CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH THOSE PLASTIC SLATS.

YOU SEE THEM SURROUNDING BASEBALL FIELDS AT TIMES.

THAT'S WHAT'S THERE CURRENTLY.

AND THE USE PERMIT.

OKAY. AND THEN YOU WANT TO TAKE THOSE SLATS OUT OF THE FENCE? CORRECT. SO THE ANTELOPE CAN SEE THROUGH THEM? CORRECT. SO MY I GUESS MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS IF IT'S THAT MUCH OF A CONCERN FOR GAME AND FISH, WHY AREN'T THEY HERE TODAY? UNSURE. SO.

AND ALSO THE. RIGHT.

REDUCING THE BLOCK WALL AROUND THE SUBSTATION.

SO, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S A CONCERN FOR ME ALSO, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN PLACES WHERE SUBSTATIONS HAVE BEEN FIRED INTO AND A LOT OF SUBSTATIONS TODAY ARE BEING HAVING A BLOCK WALL PUT UP SO THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY THAT DOESN'T FIRE INTO THEM AND HIT A TRANSFORMER AND AND START FIRES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

SO APPARENTLY WE HAD A REQUIREMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WANTED THE SLATS, WE WANTED THE THE BLOCK WALL, AND NOW WE'RE WALKING AWAY FROM THAT.

SO, YOU KNOW, ARE WE GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO THIS? ARE WE GOING TO CHANGE OUR REQUIREMENTS GOING FORWARD WITH ANY OTHER PROJECT LIKE THIS? OR ARE WE GOING TO STICK TO OUR GUNS THAT WE FELT THIS WAS NECESSARY IN THE FIRST PLACE? MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY, SUPERVISOR MICHAELS.

YEAH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.

WE'RE NOT TAKING THIS LIGHTLY.

WILDLIFE CORRIDORS, AND I RESPECT THAT YOUR INTENT TODAY IS SO THE ANTELOPE CAN SEE THROUGH.

BUT THE QUESTION, OF COURSE, REMAINS WHAT ARE WE DOING TO OUR OUR GRASSLANDS WHERE IT IS SUCH AN EASY TARGET FOR FIRE IF, IN FACT, YOU DO HAVE WHAT SUPERVISOR OBERG JUST SUGGESTED AS A SCENARIO, THERE'S NO PROTECTION FOR WHAT WILL SOON BECOME A RAGING WILDFIRE IF, IN FACT, WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, A HOMELAND TERRORISTS SHOOT INTO THEM, WHICH IS APPARENTLY A PASTIME OF A LOT OF THEM NOW.

AND SO WITHOUT PROTECTION, I WORRY NOT ONLY FOR OUR WILDLIFE, BUT FOR OUR GRASSLANDS AND ALL THE HOMES AROUND THERE THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO PROTECTION TO PREVENT AN INTENDED AN INTENTIONAL ACT TO CREATE A WILDFIRE AND PUT NOT ONLY THE ANIMALS, BUT PEOPLE AT RISK.

WITH THAT, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST.

SECOND. OKAY.

IS THAT SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR MALLORY OR MICHAELS? OKAY. MOTION MADE BY MYSELF.

SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR MICHAELS.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. THAT'S UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

THANK YOU.

OKAY, NEXT ITEM IS GOING TO BE APPROVED PERMANENT AND TRANSFER USE PERMIT, ALLOWING A 100 FOOT SECOND RESIDENCE AND ON APPROXIMATELY 1.5

[5. Development Services - Approve a permanent and transferable Use Permit to allow a 1,200 SqFt. second residence on an approximate 1.52-acre lot in the R1L-35 (Residential; Single Family; Limited to site-built structures only; minimum 35,000-SqFt. lot size) zoning district, subject to the conditions of approval. Owner/Applicant: Arlin D. & Cynthia M. Washburn; Project: Washburn Second Residence Use Permit; APN: 112-03-089F; PLA23-000039. The property is located at 561 South Walnut Cove Trail, near the City of Prescott. Section 02, Township 13 North, Range 02 West. G&SRB&M. Staff: Tim Olson (District 1 - Supervisor Oberg)]

ACRES PROJECTS AND SUPERVISOR OBERG DISTRICT.

TIM OLSON. GOOD MORNING AGAIN, CHAIRMAN GREGORY AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS TIMOTHY OLSON, PLANNER WITH YAVAPAI COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

TODAY I'M PRESENTING THE WASHBOURNE SECOND BOARD.

WASHBURN SECOND RESIDENTS USE PERMIT.

SO THIS IS LOCATED IN DISTRICT.

I MAKE SURE I GET THE RIGHT DISTRICT ON HERE.

ONE, WHICH IS GOING TO BE.

THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR OBERG.

AND THE CURRENT PROPERTY IS THE AREA MAP WHERE IT'S LOCATED.

IT'S LOCATED NEAR THE CITY OF PRESCOTT.

THIS IS A ZONING MAP SHOWING THE ZONING AROUND THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS R1, R1, L, WHICH IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R1.

L IS LIMITED TO SITE BUILT ONLY R ONE IS LIMITED TO SITE BUILT AND MANUFACTURED HOMES.

THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THE PARCEL IS CREATED.

[01:10:01]

ACTUALLY LET ME GO OVER THE HISTORY OF THE PARTIAL PARCEL WAS CREATED AUGUST 1999.

THE WASHBURNS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN MAY OF 2021.

THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS ONE PRIMARY HOME IS PERMITTED THROUGH YAVAPAI COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

NOW, LET'S GO. I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME PHOTOS OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL.

ACTUALLY, LET'S GO TO THE SITE PLAN FIRST.

THE SITE PLAN, AS YOU CAN SEE RIGHT HERE, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE IS AND YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE SECONDARY RESIDENCE WILL BE HERE.

THE REASON WHY WE'RE CALLING IT A SECONDARY RESIDENCE IS BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSORS, 1.52 ACRES.

SO IT WOULD NOT ALLOW A GUEST HOME ON THIS PROPERTY.

YOU NEED AT LEAST 70,000FT² OF PROPERTY.

THIS ONE DOES NOT HAVE 70,000FT² OF PROPERTY.

THAT'S THE REQUEST FOR THE SECONDARY RESIDENCE.

LET'S LOOK AT SOME PHOTOGRAPHS.

WE'RE LOOKING WEST AND THIS IS AN AERIAL PHOTO.

YOU CAN SEE THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE, SECONDARY RESIDENCE, WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE LOCATED IN WALNUT GROVE TRAIL.

YOU ARE LOOKING TO THE EAST AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH SO YOU CAN SEE WALNUT COVE TRAIL.

THE LOCATION OF THE SECOND RESIDENCE AND THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE.

WHERE IS THAT? TIM? CAN YOU IDENTIFY? I CAN'T READ IT FROM HERE.

YES, IT'D BE OFF OF SENATOR HIGHWAY.

OKAY. AND YOU'RE LOOKING NORTH AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH, AS YOU CAN SEE, LOOK AT THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES.

THERE ARE A LOT IT'S NOT AS DENSE AS YOU SEE SOME OF THE OTHER COMMUNITIES AS YOU GO INTO THE CITY OF PRESCOTT.

THIS IS UNINCORPORATED COUNTY, AS YOU CAN SEE, WALNUT GROVE TRAIL, WHERE THE LOCATION OF THE SECOND RESIDENCE IS, AND ALSO THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE, ACTUALLY WHERE THE SECONDARY RESIDENCE IS PROPOSED.

WALNUT COVE TRAIL.

THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND LOCATION OF WHERE THE SECONDARY RESIDENCE WILL BE LOCATED ON THIS PROPERTY.

AND THIS IS JUST AN AERIAL OVERHEAD OF THE PROPERTY A LITTLE BIT CLOSER, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE PRIMARY HOME.

AND THEN IT'S ALSO THE LOCATION OF THE OF THE SECONDARY RESIDENCE WOULD BE RIGHT AROUND THIS AREA.

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REPORT.

WE'VE NOT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS OR LETTERS OF OPPOSITION FOR THIS REQUEST.

IN SUMMARY CONSIDERATION OF A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 1200 SQUARE FOOT SECOND RESIDENCE APPROXIMATELY ON APPROXIMATELY 1.52 ACRE LOT IN R1 35 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY LIMITED TO SITE BUILT STRUCTURES ONLY MINIMUM OF 35,000FT².

LOT SIZE. ZONING DISTRICT.

THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

THESE ARE THE CONDITIONS OF THE OF APPROVAL.

THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY OF THE QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE FOR MR. WASHBURN. AND I'M ALSO HERE TO ANSWER ANY OF THE QUESTIONS AS WELL.

AND AS WELL. COMMISSIONER FAMOUS IS IN THE AUDIENCE.

VICE CHAIR OBERG, THIS IS YOUR DISTRICT.

THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIRMAN. WHAT WAS P AND Z'S VOTE ON THIS? UNANIMOUS. OKAY, I MAKE THE MOTION TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THIS THIS CHANGE.

SECOND. OKAY.

MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR OBERG.

SECONDED BY MYSELF.

ALL IN FAVOR. SAY AYE.

AYE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUS.

OKAY, NEXT WE'LL BE CALLED IN PUBLIX.

[ CALL TO THE PUBLIC: Individuals may address the Board for up to three (3) minutes on any relevant issue within the Board's jurisdiction. Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.01(H), Board members shall not discuss or take action on matters raised during the call to the public. The Board may direct staff to study the matter or direct that the matter be rescheduled for consideration at a later date.]

INDIVIDUALS MAY ADDRESS THE BOARD FOR UP TO THREE MINUTES ON ANY RELEVANT ISSUES WITH THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO ARS 38 430 101. EACH BOARD MEMBERS SHALL NOT DISCUSS OR TAKE ANY ACTION ON MATTERS RAISED DURING THE CALL TO THE PUBLIC.

THE BOARD MAY DIRECT STAFF TO STUDY THE MATTER OR DIRECT THAT THE MATTERS BE RESCHEDULED FOR CONSIDERATION AT A LATER DATE.

VICE CHAIR OBERG. IS THERE ANY GREEN SHEETS? YES, MISTER CHAIRMAN, WE HAVE ONE.

RICHARD TWO-PACK.

WISHES TO SPEAK ON THE WALKER COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION ALLIANCE, AND I'LL REMIND YOU THAT YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.

GOOD MORNING. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

I WAS HERE AT THE LAST MEETING FOR THE PRESENTATION ON THE SCENIC HISTORIC ROAD FOR WALKER ROAD DESIGNATION AND EXTREMELY HAPPY THAT THAT GOT APPROVED, BUT AT THE SAME TIME DEVASTATED BY IN THE SAME SENTENCE, APPROVING AN APS PROJECT THAT WILL COMPLETELY DEVASTATE WALKER ROAD.

SO THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TODAY.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT APS PART OF THE PRESENTATION REMOVED FROM THE RECORD BECAUSE EVEN IN SUPERVISORS, BROWN'S WORDS, AT THE LAST MEETING WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE DISCUSSING THE VALUE OF WALKER ROAD DESIGNATION AND NOT THE PROS AND CONS OF AN APS PROJECT.

[01:15:01]

SO. AND IN A LATER PRESENTATION BY DAN CHERRY, HE ALSO SAID THAT HE THIS IS AN ITEM BETWEEN THE RESIDENTS OF WALKER AND APPS AND DIDN'T WANT TO GET THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN THE MIDDLE OF IT.