[00:00:02]
>> GOOD MORNING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
WELCOME. THIS IS THE MEETING OF THE YAVAPAI COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
WE'RE MEETING TODAY IN THE YAVAPAI COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
[ CALL TO ORDER]
VERDE VALLEY COMPLEX HEARING ROOM, FIRST FLOOR, 10 SOUTH 6TH STREET IN COTTONWOOD, ARIZONA.TODAY'S DATE IS FEBRUARY 21ST, IT IS 09:00 AM.
ALL ITEMS LISTED ARE POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
THE ORDER OF THE ITEMS MAY BE MODIFIED AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING.
ONE OR MORE BOARD MEMBERS MAY ATTEND TELEPHONICALLY OR VIRTUALLY.
BOARD MEMBERS ATTENDING TELEPHONICALLY AND VIRTUALLY WILL BE ANNOUNCED AT THE MEETING.
CITIZENS ARE ENCOURAGED TO WATCH THE MEETING VIRTUALLY AT YAVAPAIAZ.GOV/MEETINGS.
THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE PHYSICAL ACCESS TO THE MEETING LOCATION 15 MINUTES PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
WRITTEN COMMENTS OR CURRENT AGENDA ITEMS WILL BE RECEIVED BY THE CLERK OF THE BOARD'S OFFICE AT CLERKOFTHEBOARD.WEB@YAVAPAIAZ.GOV 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THE BOARD MEETING.
HEARING AID DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE AT BOTH BOARD HEARING ROOMS. REQUESTS FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES SHOULD BE MADE AT LEAST THREE WORKING DAYS IN ADVANCE OF A SCHEDULED MEETING.
I NOW CALLED MEETING TO ORDER, AND WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE INVOCATION BY MISS MICHAELS AND THE PLEDGE BY MS. MALLORY.
OUR HEAVENLY FATHER, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO GATHER HERE TODAY TO DO YOUR WORK TO MAKE SURE THAT WITH INTEGRITY, WE APPROACH EACH AGENDA ITEM, AND WITH CONCERN AND ENGAGEMENT, WE EMBRACE THE ISSUES BEFORE US AND THOSE WHOSE LIVES THEY AFFECT.
WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE IN THIS WAY AND ASK THAT YOU GIVE US THE WISDOM TO GUIDE US.
PLEASE BLESS THOSE WHO WORK SO HARD IN OUR COUNTY TO BRING PROSPERITY AND TO RAISE CHILDREN WITH A SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND TO ENSURE THAT OUR EDUCATION AND HEALTH CARE IS WHAT IT CAN BE AND SHOULD BE TO SERVE YOU, IN YOUR NAME, I PRAY.
>> PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
>> THANK YOU LADIES. WITH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD, PLEASE READ THE ROLL CALL.
>> THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE ON IMMEDIATELY TO PRESENTATIONS,
[ PRESENTATIONS]
AND PRESENTATION WILL BE BY ADULT PROBATION.ADULT PROBATION IS HERE FOR A HONORING MOMENT, RIGHT?
>> THANK YOU. CHAIR BROWN, HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MY NAME IS BRYAN PRIETO.
I HAVE THE PLEASURE OF SERVING AS CHIEF OF THE YAVAPAI COUNTY ADULT PROBATION DEPARTMENT.
I WANT TO FIRST START OUT THIS MORNING BY THANKING CHAIR BROWN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD FOR ALLOWING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECOGNIZE AND THANK CHIEF DEPUTY CLAY HILDAHL FOR THE 19 YEARS OF SERVICE THAT HE'S PROVIDED, NOT ONLY TO THE YAVAPAI COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, BUT TO THE COUNTY, AND CERTAINLY HIS ORGANIZATION, THE YAVAPAI COUNTY ADULT PROBATION DEPARTMENT.
THE BOARD MAY ALREADY BE AWARE THAT CLAY WILL BE EXPLORING NEW ADVENTURES IN LIFE, AND HE'LL BE EFFECTIVELY RETIRING FROM COUNTY SERVICE NEXT THURSDAY, FEBRUARY THE 29TH.
BEFORE THAT DATE, I THOUGHT IT APPROPRIATE TO REVIEW AND THANK THIS INDIVIDUAL FOR THE 34 YEARS THAT HE SET ASIDE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE, AND REVIEW WHY THE PAST 19 YEARS OF SERVICE WERE NOT ONLY IMPACTFUL TO US HERE IN YAVAPAI COUNTY, BUT CERTAINLY TO HIS ORGANIZATION, THE YAVAPAI COUNTY ADULT PROBATION DEPARTMENT.
HIS ROUTE TO YAVAPAI COUNTY CAME WITH SOME TWISTS AND TURNS, BUT I'M CERTAINLY GRATEFUL THAT HE MADE HIS WAY HERE TO US.
AFTER HE HAD GRADUATED AND EARNED HIS DEGREE IN PSYCHOLOGY FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA,
[00:05:01]
CLAY HAD ACTUALLY WORKED AS A FULL TIME CASE MANAGER MANAGING DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED ADULTS WHO ARE LIVING INDEPENDENTLY.HE WOULD SERVE IN THAT CAPACITY UNTIL HE FOUND HIMSELF IN CALIFORNIA, THIS TIME WORKING AS AN EMPLOYMENT SPECIALIST WORKING WITH YOUTH AND YOUNG ADULTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS THAT WERE TRANSITIONING FROM SECONDARY OR HIGH SCHOOL OUT INTO THE WORKFORCE.
HE WOULD CONTINUE UNTIL THIS ROLE UNTIL MAY OF 1990.
IT WAS AT THAT TIME THAT HE GRADUATED FROM ACADEMY CLASS 590 AND HE JOINED THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT.
OFFICER CLAY HILDAHL SERVED THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES HONORABLY EARNING ACCOMMODATIONS ALONG THE WAY.
HE SERVED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT UNTIL CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGED AND HE FOUND HIMSELF BACK IN MINNESOTA, THIS TIME AS A SENIOR CASE MANAGER AND ULTIMATELY A PROGRAM DIRECTOR OF A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT WAS PROVIDING SERVICES TO ADULTS WHO WERE CONVICTED OF OFFENSES AND PLACED ON PROBATION, AS WELL AS THOSE WHO WERE RELEASED FROM STATE PRISON AND PLACED ON PAROLE.
IN ADDITION TO THAT CAPACITY, HE ALSO SERVED PART TIME AS A PROBATION OFFICER MANAGING YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS WHO WERE PLACED ON PROBATION IN ANOKA COUNTY.
FINALLY, HE MEANDERED HIS WAY INTO ARIZONA ON JANUARY 3RD, 2005, WHEN HE ACCEPTED A POSITION WITH THE YAVAPAI COUNTY ADULT PROBATION DEPARTMENT AS AN ENTRY LEVEL PROBATION OFFICER.
ALREADY A SEASONED CASE MANAGER AND TRAINED IN EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES, CLAY ASSUMED HIS ROLE AND HE ASCENDED THROUGHOUT THE ORGANIZATION UNTIL HE ACHIEVED HIS CURRENT ROLE AS CHIEF DEPUTY.
AS CHIEF DEPUTY, HE WENT ON TO EARN HIS MASTER'S DEGREE IN JUSTICE MANAGEMENT FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO, AND HE ACTUALLY SERVED AS INTERIM CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER IN JULY OF 2014.
AMONG THE COUNTLESS LIVES THAT HE MENTORED AND CHANGED AS A PROBATION OFFICER, MANAGING BOTH YOUTHFUL AND ADULT CLIENTS AND THE COUNTLESS NUMBERS OF PERSONNEL THAT HE MENTORED AS A SUPERVISOR, MANAGER, AND ULTIMATELY AN EXECUTIVE, HE ALSO, AS CHIEF DEPUTY, SERVED UNDER THREE SEPARATE CHIEF PROBATION OFFICERS.
IN THAT CAPACITY AND IN THAT ROLE, HE PROVIDED WHATEVER SERVICE WAS NEEDED BY HIS CHIEFS.
I CAN TELL YOU CERTAINLY FOR ME, HIS KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE WAS ESSENTIAL TO MY TRANSITION HERE IN YAVAPAI COUNTY, AND I COULD NOT BE MORE GRATEFUL AND THANKFUL FOR HIS DEDICATION AND HARD WORK.
WITH THAT, AND ON BEHALF OF THE HONORABLE JUDGE JOHN NAPPER, I HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION FROM THE YAVAPAI COUNTY ADULT PROBATION DEPARTMENT RECOGNIZING THE 19 YEARS OF SERVICE TO CLAY.
IT WOULD BE MY HONOR, CHAIR BROWN ALSO TO PRESENT ON YOUR BEHALF, AS WELL AS THE BOARD, A CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION THAT YOU'VE PREPARED RECOGNIZING HIS 19 YEARS OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO OUR COUNTY.
FINALLY, HE DOESN'T KNOW THIS IS COMING, I WANT TO THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN BROWN, AS WELL AS BRANDON SCHULTZ WITH FACILITIES FOR ASSISTING ADULT PROBATION WITH ACQUIRING A FLAG.
I'D LIKE TO PRESENT THIS FLAG TO CLAY THIS MORNING AS WELL.
CERTIFIED BY CHAIRMAN BROWN, THIS FLAG THAT CLAY WILL BE PRESENTED AND RECEIVING THIS MORNING FLEW OVER OUR HISTORIC COURTHOUSE IN PRESCOTT.
WITH THAT, WITH THE BOARD'S INDULGENCE, I'D LIKE TO HAVE CLAY COME UP SO THAT WE CAN PRESENT HIM WITH OUR TOKENS OF APPRECIATION.
>> JUST ONE OBSERVATION, BRYAN, I WONDER IF CLAY FIGURED THIS OUT, BUT HE ONLY GETS TO CELEBRATE HIS RETIREMENT ONCE EVERY FOUR YEARS.
>> [LAUGHTER] ABSOLUTELY. WHAT IS YOUR CONCERN FOR YOU?
>> JUST A QUICK THANK YOU TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THIS HONOR AND FOR YOUR SUPPORT TO THE CHIEF, AS WELL AS THE SUPPORT FOR OUR DEPARTMENT.
I'D LIKE TO THANK THE MEN AND WOMEN OF OUR DEPARTMENT FOR THEIR PROFESSIONALISM AND DEDICATION.
I'D LIKE TO THANK MY WIFE AND FAMILY FOR THEIR SUPPORT OVER THE MANY, MANY YEARS, IT SEEMS LIKE, AND FINALLY, I'D LIKE TO THANK CHIEF PRIETO AND CHIEF DEPUTY GARY THAGERD FOR THEIR LEADERSHIP.
I FEEL HAPPY RETIRING, LEAVING THE DEPARTMENT IN THEIR CAPABLE HANDS.
IT'S BEEN AN HONOR AND PRIVILEGE SERVING THE CITIZENS OF YAVAPAI COUNTY. THANK YOU.
>> WE'RE GOING TO COME DOWN, BRYAN, AND CLAY WILL COME DOWN.
GARY, WHY DON'T YOU JOIN US DOWN HERE, TOO, AND GET A LITTLE PICTURE.
JUST ONE LITTLE QUESTION, CLAY, BEFORE WE COME DOWN FOR THE PHOTO. WHAT NEXT?
[00:10:04]
>> WELL, THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION.
I'VE BEEN ASSURED BY OTHER RETIRED FOLKS, MOST NOTABLY YOUR PAST JUVENILE PROBATION DIRECTOR, SCOTT MAYBERRY, THAT YOU WON'T BE BORED, YOU DON'T NEED ANOTHER JOB.
I'VE BEEN ON THE GO, GO, GO, CLAY. IT'S GREAT.
SO I'M GOING TO TRY TO TAKE ADVICE AND DO SOME TRAVELING.
>> JUST GO FROM THAT DIRECTION.
[ 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 5, 10, 16, and 18. ]
>> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE GOING TO BE PULLED OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
AND IT'S ITEMS NUMBER 5, 10,16 AND I AM PULLING NUMBER 18.
SO IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD TO THAT, MADAM CLERK?
AND SO WITH THAT IN MIND, JUST TO HAVE AND I KNOW WE HAVE VINNIE I BELIEVE IN PRESCOTT, SO TO HELP BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT CYMPO IS ABOUT.
WHY DON'T WE JUST GO AHEAD AND TAKE THOSE OTHER CONSENT ITEMS AND APPROVE THEM AND THEN SET THESE ASIDE?
>> ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL BE PULLING 5, 10, 16 AND 18 AND THEREFORE, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS ONE THROUGH, I THINK IT'S 28.
[5. Board of Supervisors - Approve establishment of a new fund for Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization (CYMPO) for Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). Due to savings from previous projects, CYMPO currently has a balance of $92,591.59 to be spent on eligible HSIP-related projects.]
>> OKAY. MOVING ON TO NUMBER FIVE.
NUMBER FIVE ESTABLISH A NEW FUND FOR CENTRAL YAVAPAI METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION FOR FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION SAFETY IMPROVEMENT MONEY DUE TO SAVINGS FROM PREVIOUS PROJECTS.
CYMPO CURRENTLY HAS A BALANCE OF 92,590.159 TO BE SPENT ON ELIGIBLE HSIP RELATED PROJECTS.
HSIP STANDS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
>> SO VINNIE, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE JUST TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT.
FIRSTLY, CONGRATULATIONS, COST SAVINGS IS AN IMPRESSIVE FEAT TO ACCOMPLISH AND WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR THAT.
BUT I THINK AS WE BEGIN TO LOOK AT OUR INFRASTRUCTURE COUNTY WIDE, IT'S GOING TO BE INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT'S ABOUT AND THE ROLE THAT CYMPO PLAYS IN IT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND SUPERVISOR MICHAELS, HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
SPECIFIC TO THIS ITEM AS MANY OF YOU KNOW OR MAY NOT KNOW, YAVAPAI COUNTY SERVES AS A FISCAL AGENT TO THE CENTRAL YAVAPAI METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION.
THIS PARTICULAR FUND THAT IS BEING REQUESTED TODAY IS A PASS THROUGH FUND.
THERE IS NO FISCAL IMPACT TO YAVAPAI COUNTY.
WHAT IT WOULD ALLOW IS FOR THESE PARTICULAR FEDERAL FUNDS TO BE RETAINED IN THAT.
AND THEN MORE SPECIFICALLY, SUPERVISOR MICHAELS, TO YOUR POINT, YES, THANK YOU.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR AFFIRMATION TO THE EXECUTIVE BOARD AND THE STAFF OF CONTINUING TO WORK ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE.
AS CHAIRMAN BROWN ALLUDED TO, THIS IS THE HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
THIS PROGRAM COMES AROUND EVERY TWO YEARS.
[00:15:01]
THERE'S ABOUT $75 MILLION AVAILABLE TO THE STATE WITH A VARIETY OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR SAFETY PROJECTS.IT REALLY IS BASED UPON FATALITIES AND CRASHES AND A WAY TO RESPOND TO THOSE WITH SAFETY PROJECTS.
SOME OF THOSE IN YAVAPAI COUNTY CURRENTLY ARE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG IRON SPRINGS ROAD BETWEEN PRESCOTT AND SKULL VALLEY, AND THEN THERE ARE SOME ON WILLIAMSON VALLEY AND STAZENSKI, AND SOME TRAFFIC SIGNALS IN THE CITY OF PRESCOTT.
SO THOSE ARE THE TYPE OF PROJECTS.
AND THEN JUST MORE BROADLY TO YOUR POINT, SUPERVISOR MICHAELS.
AGAIN, CENTRAL YAVAPAI METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION OR CYMPO, WORKS DIRECTLY WITH YAVAPAI COUNTY AND OUR QUAD CITIES AREA ON TRANSPORTATION PLANNING.
WE LOOK AT MULTIMODAL HIGHWAY, ROADWAY, BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, PUBLIC TRANSIT, AND A WAY TO IMPROVE THAT.
HOPEFULLY, I ADDRESSED YOUR POINTS.
HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
>> I THANK YOU FOR THAT, VINNIE.
I KNOW THERE'S BEEN CONVERSATION ABOUT MOVING TOWARD A BETTER 30,000 FOOT LEVEL TO START WITH OF THE ENTIRE COUNTY.
AND I KNOW THERE'S BEEN RECENT DECISIONS TO CONTINUE THE FOCUS AS IT HAS BEEN, WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT INCREASINGLY ON THIS SIDE OF THE MOUNTAIN, AS WE LIKE TO CALL IT, WE'LL BE LOOKING TOWARD HOW WE IMPROVE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONCERT WITH THE WORK THAT YOU'RE DOING WITH CYMPO.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SUPERVISOR MICHAELS.
YES, CURRENTLY CYMPO IS THE CENTRAL YAVAPAI AREA AROUND 400 SQUARE MILES.
WHAT WE COMMONLY CALL AGAIN, THAT CENTRAL YAVAPAI AREA, THE GREATER PRESCOTT REGION.
TO YOUR POINT, RECENTLY WE HAD A STRATEGIC PLANNING RETREAT WITH THE CYMPO BOARD.
CHAIRMAN BROWN IS ALSO THE CHAIR OF THE CYMPO BOARD.
AT THAT RETREAT, WE DID DISCUSS SOME OPTIONS OF EXPANDING THE CYMPO BOUNDARY, THE PLANNING BOUNDARY.
AND THE CONSENSUS WAS ACHIEVED.
WE'LL HAVE THE FORMAL EXECUTIVE BOARD ACTION A WEEK FROM TODAY, AND THE BOARD WILL BE PRESENTED WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION FROM MYSELF.
AT THIS TIME CYMPO IS LOOKING AT EXPANDING ITS BOUNDARY CURRENTLY TO THE WESTERN BORDER OF YAVAPAI COUNTY AND TO THE SOUTHERN BORDER OF YAVAPAI COUNTY.
PART OF THIS WAS TO BETTER HAVE A PARTNERSHIP THAT'S MORE SEAMLESS WITH OUR PARTNER IN NORTHERN ARIZONA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS.
YAVAPAI COUNTY IS SERVED BY ONE OF TWO ENTITIES, EITHER CYMPO OR NACOG.
SO, TO YOUR POINT, WE FEEL THAT THIS WOULD BETTER TAKE IN THE CITIZENS THAT ACCESS SERVICES AND TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IN CENTRAL, WESTERN AND SOUTHERN YAVAPAI COUNTY.
AND THEN FINALLY SUPERVISOR MICHAELS'S TO YOUR POINT, WE ARE LOOKING AT WAYS OF WORKING MORE CLOSELY WITH THE VERDE VALLEY TO SUPPORT ONE ANOTHER.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT FOR THE CITIZENS, IT'S IRRELEVANT IF YOU'RE IN A CYMPO OR NACOG.
AND MANY PEOPLE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THOSE ACRONYMS ARE, THEY JUST KNOW THAT THEY TRAVEL THE ROADS AND WE'RE HAPPY TO SERVE ALL THOSE PEOPLE.
>> WELL, THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP.
MOVING THIS IDEA, A NEED A LONG A STRATEGIC PATH AND OF COURSE, COMPLIMENTS ALWAYS TO THE CHAIR FOR DIRECTING IT ACCORDINGLY.
WE LOOK FORWARD IN THE VERDE VALLEY TO GETTING ON THAT LIST OF HOW WE HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE OVERVIEW OF INFRASTRUCTURE FOR OUR COUNTY.
AND APPRECIATE YOUR HARD WORK TO THAT END. THANK YOU, VINNIE.
|>> I MOVE, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT WE ACCEPT ITEM NUMBER, WHAT NUMBER IS THIS? FIVE. THANK YOU.
>> AND I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR?
[10. Community Health Services - Approve a total disbursement amount of $211,395.52 from the One Arizona Distribution of Opioid Settlement Fund Agreement (Agreement) monies to the Participating Cities and Towns in the default percentages as outlined in Exhibit C of the Agreement. ]
>> MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 10, MISS MICHAELS.
THIS IS RELATED TO COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES AND IT'S APPROVING THE DISBURSEMENT AMOUNT OF 211,000 PLUS FROM THE ONE ARIZONA DISTRIBUTION OF THE OPIOID SETTLEMENT.
I KNOW FROM TIME TO TIME YOU COME BEFORE US, LESLIE, TO JUST GIVE US THIS INFORMATION, AND OF COURSE, ONCE AGAIN.
I'M SUSPECTING THAT MY COLLEAGUE ON THIS SIDE OF THE MOUNTAIN, SUPERVISOR GREGORY, SHARES IN THE DESIRE TO SEE MORE OF THESE DOLLARS ON THIS SIDE WHERE THE NEED IS SO GREAT AND LOOK FORWARD TO BEING ABLE TO WORK WITH YOU ON THAT.
[00:20:02]
TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS.>> ABSOLUTELY. GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN, VICE CHAIR AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
I'M LESLIE HORTON, THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES.
THIS AGENDA ITEM IS TO ACCEPT THE DISBURSEMENT OF, LET'S SEE, $211,395.52 AS THE YEARS THREE DISBURSEMENTS OF AMERISOURCEBERGEN, CARDINAL HEALTH AND MCKESSON, AND FROM JANSEN.
THEN YEARS 1 AND 2 FROM MALLINCROFT.
NOW, I HAVE COME TO LEARN THAT THIS IS PROBABLY ALL THE MONEY THAT WE WILL SEE FROM MALLINCROFT AS THEY HAVE SINCE FILED BANKRUPTCY FILINGS, SO WE WILL SEE WHERE THAT GOES.
WE'RE SEEING MORE OF THESE COMPANIES SETTLE OUT OF THE OPIOID SETTLEMENTS, SO WE MAY SEE SOME MORE MONEY COMING IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS.
BUT WITH THIS, EACH OF THE DISBURSEMENTS AT THE COUNTY LEVEL, WE KEEP BACK 69.29% OF THE DISBURSEMENTS, AND THEN THE REST IS DISTRIBUTED ACROSS EIGHT CITIES AND TOWNS, INCLUDING CAMP VERDI, CHINO VALLEY, CLARKDALE, COTTONWOOD, DEWEY, HUMBOLDT, JEROME, PRESCOTT, AND PRESCOTT VALLEY.
WITHIN THOSE, EACH HAS THE ABILITY TO DECIDE WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO WITH THEIR MONEY.
NOW, THIS PAST YEAR, AND PROBABLY I'LL MEET WITH THEM NEXT WEEK, BUT WE DID ACCEPT AN ASK FROM PANT WHO SERVES THE ENTIRE COUNTY WITH NARCOTICS INTERDICTION AND THEY DO A GREAT JOB SERVING ALL OF THESE JURISDICTIONS.
THEY DID ASK THAT WE PROVIDE THEM 150,000 LAST YEAR.
IS THAT RIGHT, JEFF? AM I RIGHT ON THE AMOUNT? 250, I'M SORRY.
I WAS THINKING THAT WAS A LITTLE LOW.
I WILL GO BACK AND MEET WITH THEM ON THIS NEXT WEEK, BUT THAT'S ONE WAY THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT A LOT OF THE JURISDICTIONS CAN BE SERVED OR THE WHOLE COUNTY CAN BE SERVED WITH THIS FUNDING IS TO FUND AGENCIES THAT SERVE THE ENTIRE COUNTY, INCLUDING BOTH SIDES OF THE MOUNTAIN.
I DO BELIEVE THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK WITH ANOTHER REQUEST THIS YEAR, I'LL FIND OUT, AND THEN WE'LL BRING IT TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
NOW, EACH OF THOSE CITIES AND TOWNS DOES DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THAT FUNDING.
MOST OF THEM DID DECIDE TO PUT THEIRS TOWARDS THAT PANT CONTRIBUTION.
IT WASN'T SIZABLE ENOUGH AMOUNTS FOR THEM TO DO A WHOLE LOT INDIVIDUALLY WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION, SO THEY WENT AHEAD, GAVE IT TO PANT LAST YEAR, I THINK CLARKDALE, I BELIEVE, KEPT A LITTLE BIT OF THEIRS TO DO SOME ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.
THAT'S ALWAYS A GOOD OPTION IF THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH IT THEMSELVES, IS TO GIVE IT TO A LARGER ORGANIZATION THAT WILL DO A GREAT JOB WITH THE FUNDING.
AS A COUNTY, WE DISTRIBUTED, LAST YEAR, FIVE $50,000 GRANT AWARDS.
IT WAS A $50,000 CEILING AND WE FOCUSED ON AGENCIES THAT COULD EITHER SERVE THE ENTIRE COUNTY OR SOME THAT SERVED ON EITHER/OR SIDE OF THE MOUNTAIN.
WE DID FUND A COUPLE OF THOSE AGENCIES OVER IN THE VERDE VALLEY, A COUPLE IN THE PRESCOTT QUAD CITY AREA, AND THEN OR AT LEAST ONE THAT WAS SERVING THE ENTIRE COUNTY WITH THOSE DOLLARS.
ANY OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE SET UP ALSO WITHIN THE COUNTY, IF WE ASK YOU TO USE THOSE DOLLARS FOR COUNTY PROJECTS, THEY ARE TO SERVE THE ENTIRE COUNTY AS WELL.
THINGS LIKE WORKING IN THE CONNECTION CENTER, SOME OF THE NARCAN AND THE LOCK ZONE DISTRIBUTIONS AND OTHER THINGS, WE MAKE SURE THAT THAT WORK IS DISPERSED THROUGH THE COUNTY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE MOUNTAIN.
BUT YES, IF THERE'S PROJECTS THAT WE WANT TO FUND THOUGH, COMING INTO THESE NEXT YEARS, I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR ABOUT THEM.
WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO DO THOSE SAME SIMILAR GRANT APPLICATIONS THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE, COMING UP NEXT MONTH.
THEN FUNDING JULY 1, FOR FUNDS, WE DO ONE YEAR GRANTS BECAUSE EACH YEAR WE'RE NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW MUCH FUNDING WE'LL GET, BUT EACH YEAR WE CAN DECIDE IF WE WANT TO DO MORE OF THOSE COMMUNITY GRANTS OR FEWER.
THEN AGAIN, WE'LL COME TO YOU WITH ASKS AS WELL TO POSSIBLY USE SOME OF THOSE FUNDS FOR EITHER NEW COMMUNITY PROJECTS OR THINGS THAT WE CAN DO AS A COUNTY.
>> ALL OF THESE GRANTS AND DISBURSEMENTS ACTUALLY ARE GOVERNED BY THE LEGAL AGREEMENT THAT'S BEEN SET UP ON THE SETTLEMENT.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WHERE WHERE WE CAN TAKE THE MONEY AND USE IT ON A ROAD, OR GO OUT AND FIX A FLOOD PLAIN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, OR CREATE A PARK, THIS HAS TO BE USED FOR ACTUALLY OPIOIDS SPECIFIC ITEM.
>> IT HAS TO REDUCE THE BURDEN OF OPIOIDS IN OUR COMMUNITY.
>> THAT'S AN EXCELLENT WAY TO SAY IT, LESLIE.
I APPRECIATE YOUR THOROUGH REPORT, HOW ARE WE DOING? DO YOU HAVE ANY DATA ALONG THE WAY WITH THE EFFICACY OF THIS WORK?
>> ABSOLUTELY. I SHOULD SAY, WE'RE GATHERING AT THIS POINT.
WE'RE JUST COMING UP TO THE END OF THE FIRST YEAR OF FUNDING, SO WHAT WE'LL BE DOING IS GETTING THAT REPORT FROM PANT ON WHAT THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO WITH THE FUNDS AND EACH OF THE JURISDICTIONS,
[00:25:04]
IF THEY DID USE THE FUNDING THEMSELVES, THEY WILL GIVE US A REPORT.THEN WE WILL ALSO HAVE A REPORT OF, LIKE IN THE CONNECTION CENTER, HOW MANY FOLKS THAT WE'VE REACHED AND HOW MANY PEOPLE WE'VE CONNECTED WITH, RESOURCES AND ALL THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE'VE DONE.
WE WILL HAVE A REPORT COMING UP, SO IF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE, I CAN DEFINITELY COME OUT AND TALK ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THESE FUNDS IN THE NEXT, I GUESS WE'LL HAVE IT BY THE END OF JUNE.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I CERTAINLY WOULD REQUEST THAT WE DO HAVE THAT REPORT.
LESLIE, IT IS SUCH A WEIGHT ON OUR SOCIETY AND SUCH A LOSS OF POTENTIAL, AND THE PROGRAMS ARE SO POWERFUL IN THEIR ABILITY TO TURN PEOPLE'S LIVES AROUND.
THAT WHILE I'M SAD THAT WE HAVE AN OPIOID SETTLEMENT TO TALK ABOUT, I'M DELIGHTED THAT IT CAN BE PUT TO GOOD USE BECAUSE IT AFFECTS SO MANY PEOPLE'S LIVES IN THE HEALTH OF THE COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU FOR THAT WORK AND I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING THAT REPORT.
>> JUST TO ADD TO THAT, WE'VE REFERENCED PANT A WHOLE LOT DURING THIS DISCUSSION.
PANT IS A MULTI AGENCY TASK FORCE THAT ACTUALLY GOES AND THEY DO A REALLY GOOD JOB.
THEY'RE COUNTY WIDE, THEY HAVE OFFICERS THAT WORK FROM EACH JURISDICTION AND THEY'RE PROACTIVE IN SUPPRESSING NARCOTICS AND GETTING THAT FENTANYL OFF THE STREET.
THEY DO A REALLY GOOD JOB AND THEY'VE BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME AND THAT'S A GOOD ORGANIZATION TO CONTRIBUTE TO.
>> IT'S GREAT. EVEN JUST YESTERDAY, I WAS ON THE PHONE WITH CHIEF DEPUTY NEWHAM AND HE WAS BRINGING UP SOME NEW IDEAS OF THINGS THAT REALLY COULD HELP IN THEIR LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS ACROSS THE COUNTY AND EVEN IN THE MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFICE, SOME OF THE OPIOID TESTING THAT WE DO TO FIND OUT WHAT'S ACTUALLY AFFECTING OUR COMMUNITIES AND WHAT STRAINS OF OPIOIDS OR COMBINATIONS OF CHEMICALS THAT WE'RE SEEING.
THERE'S A LOT MORE THAT WE CAN DO AND WE KNOW THAT WE'RE, AGAIN, LIKE YOU SAID, VERY SAD TO SEE THESE FUNDS COMING IN BECAUSE OF ALL THE DAMAGE THAT THEY HAVE DONE TO INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES, AND YET I FEEL LIKE WE CAN DO A LOT ACROSS THE WHOLE COUNTY AND IF WE KNOW OF PROJECTS WE WANT TO FUND, PLEASE LET ME KNOW BECAUSE WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO PUT THESE TO USE IN OUR COMMUNITIES TO REALLY REDUCE THAT BURDEN.
>> WITH THAT IN MIND, I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THIS ITEM NUMBER 10.
>> ANY OPPOSED? NO. THANK YOU.
>> ONE OTHER THING, LESLIE, JUST REAL QUICK, SINCE YOU'RE OUT THERE, JUST NOT ON THE AGENDA AND I'LL MAKE IT A LITTLE ANNOUNCEMENT IS THAT YOU'RE STARTING THE TELEHEALTH SERVICES AT THE LIBRARY UP IN SELIGMAN AS A PILOT WHICH WE WILL LOOK AT GOING FORWARD IN THE FUTURE TO OTHER LOCATIONS, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT, SIR. CHAIRMAN BROWN HAS A FLYER IN HIS HAND AND WE'LL MAKE SURE WE DISTRIBUTE THIS.
>> GO AHEAD. EXCUSE ME. CHAIRMAN, VICE CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, AS YOU'VE INDICATED, THIS IS NOT AGENDIZED, SO IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO DISCUSS AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW SORRY I AM.
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT AS WELL.
>> WE'LL USE TELEHEALTH IN THIS AS WELL, OF COURSE.
>> WE'LL TALK LATER. THANK YOU.
[16. Flood Control District - The Board of Supervisors will resolve into the Board of Directors of the Yavapai County Flood Control District, and following consideration of this item will reconvene as the Board of Supervisors - Approve Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-2024 funding in the amount of $300,000.00 for a new Community Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Sedona for new Drainage Improvement projects. YC Contract No. 2024-050 (District 3 - Director Michaels)]
>> MR. CHAIRMAN I DO HAVE ALSO ONE OTHER ITEM I BELIEVE.
THIS IS A POINT OF EDUCATION AS WELL.
I THINK IT'S SO CRITICALLY IMPORTANT FOR OUR CONSTITUENTS, OUR COMMUNITY, TO KNOW WHAT OUR DEPARTMENTS ARE DOING, WHETHER IT'S ABOUT THE OPIOID SETTLEMENT, WHETHER IT'S ABOUT COMMUNITY HEALTH IN GENERAL, OR IN THIS CASE, FLOOD CONTROL.
THIS IS A GOOD NEWS STORY, AND FRANKLY, WE DON'T GET ENOUGH OF THEM.
I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE MISS WHITMAN COME AND TALK TO US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THIS IS, A BIT OF THE HISTORY, AND WHAT IT'S GOING TO MEAN.
>> LYNN WHITMAN, I'M THE DIRECTOR OF THE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT.
WE GIVE A PORTION OF THE TAXES WE COLLECT FROM THE COMMUNITIES BACK TO THEM.
THEY USE THAT MONEY FOR DRAINAGE PROJECTS.
IN THIS CASE, $300,000 IS GOING TO THE CITY OF SEDONA TO PAY FOR A DRAINAGE PROJECT ON BACK O BEYOND ROAD.
IT IS A ROAD THAT IS ONE WAY OR THE ONLY ACCESS TO THE, I KEEP FORGETTING, CATHEDRAL ROCK TRAILHEAD AND THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL AREA.
THIS WILL ALLOW MORE FREQUENT ACCESS IN THERE, SO THOSE RESIDENTS CAN BE SAFE, PEOPLE CAN ACCESS THAT TRAILHEAD MORE FREQUENTLY.
IT'S A GREAT PROJECT. IT'S DONE.
THIS IS A REIMBURSEMENT OF THAT PROJECT.
>> WELL, I APPRECIATE HEARING THAT, ONE, SEDONA IS A GREAT PARTNER, AND TWO,
[00:30:02]
THAT WE'RE GOING TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM BEING TRAPPED BY THE FLOODWATERS.THOUGH I'M AMBIVALENT ABOUT WANTING TO OPEN UP ACCESS TO MORE TRAILS.
>> WELL, THE TRAIL IS THERE. [OVERLAPPING] IT JUST WILL IMPROVE.
THINK IF IT RAINS AND PEOPLE ARE OUT THERE HIKING, YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO BE STRANDED OUT THERE.
NOW THEY'LL BE ABLE TO GET OUT MORE FREQUENTLY.
>> THANK YOU, LYNN. I APPRECIATE IT.
WITH THAT IN MIND, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 16.
>> SECOND BY ME. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSED? NO. ITEM NUMBER 16 IS APPROVED.
[18. Library District - The Board of Supervisors will resolve into the Board of Directors of the Yavapai County Free Library District and following consideration of this item, will reconvene as the Board of Supervisors - Approve an agreement with TrueGivers, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $100.00, to verify and validate patron records to Postal Service standards, and authorize the Library District Director to sign all required documents for a term of twelve months. YC Contract No. 2024-052 (All Districts)]
MOVING ON TO NUMBER 18 IS THE LIBRARY DISTRICT.IS COREY OUT THERE? THERE HE IS.
>> I'M COREY CHRISTIANS, LIBRARY DISTRICT DIRECTOR.
THIS ITEM IS TO ALLOW US TO UPDATE OUR PATRON DATABASE WITH NEW AND UPDATED ADDRESS INFORMATION FROM THE POSTAL SERVICE.
IT'S A FEE OF $20 FOR EACH TIME WE DO IT, WE'RE ASKING FOR AT LEAST UP TO FIVE OF THOSE LOADS.
THE REASON WE'RE DOING THIS IS BECAUSE WE'RE SWITCHING TO A NEW INTEGRATED LIBRARY SYSTEM AS OF JULY 1, AND WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE ALL OF OUR INFORMATION IS UPDATED.
WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I'M OPEN OPEN FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
>> THE REASON I ACTUALLY PULLED THIS ITEM, AND WE DISCUSSED THIS YESTERDAY, COREY, IS THAT BECAUSE GENERALLY WE ALLOW OUR DIRECTORS AND OR PEOPLE WITHIN OUR DISTRICTS, SUPERVISORS AND OR MANAGERS ARE USUALLY GIVEN THE ABILITY TO ENTER INTO CERTAIN AGREEMENTS OR PURCHASE CERTAIN THINGS AT A CERTAIN PRICE UP TO I THINK IT'S $5,000.
>> IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WE FIND OURSELVES WITH A $100 AGREEMENT THAT YOU CANNOT SIGN, WHICH HAS TO COME BACK TO US AND BE DELAYED FOR A MONTH OR SO.
THE QUESTION WOULD BE IS THAT WE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK, THIS IS A POLICY AND CHANGE IT SO THAT IN THE FUTURE WE GIVE YOU THE ABILITY TO ENTER INTO THESE SITUATIONS OR CONTRACTS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT IN REGARDS TO HIM? MAURY.
>> YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIRMAN.
ACTUALLY AT STAFF AGENDA REVIEW, WE HAD THIS VERY CONVERSATION AND THEN YOU AND I HAD THE CONVERSATION, AND I APPRECIATE YOU NOTING IT WITH ME.
THE ISSUE AS I TRACE THIS DOWN IS THAT OUR LIBRARY DISTRICT IS NOT SUBJECT TO OUR COUNTY PROCUREMENT POLICIES.
I BELIEVE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER AND BRING BACK TO THIS BOARD FOR ACTION.
>> JUST TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT WE HAVE SEVERAL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE COUNTY THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SITS AS THEIR BOARDS.
THEREFORE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SEPARATION BETWEEN THE ENTITIES.
THEREFORE, WE'LL HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A POLICY WHERE IT AFFECTS THE ACTUAL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTING AS THE BOARD OF THE LIBRARY DISTRICT.
BUT FOR NOW, I WOULD SAY WE MOVE AHEAD AND APPROVE THIS ITEM NUMBER 18.
>> THANK YOU, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
[1. Board of Supervisors - Discussion and consideration of approval of a Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS) policy in accordance with A.R.S. § 38-863.01. (Maury Thompson, County Manager)]
>> MOVING ON TO ACTION ITEMS. ACTION ITEM, DISCUSSION CONSIDERATION, APPROVAL OF A PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL RETIREMENT SYSTEM, PSPRS POLICY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARS 38-863.01. MAURY.
>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN, VICE CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
I'M STARTING TO FEEL LIKE I'VE BEEN HERE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME NOW BECAUSE THIS IS THE SECOND TIME I'VE STOOD BEFORE YOU TO PRESENT THIS ITEM OF BUSINESS.
THIS IS ONE OF THOSE ITEMS THAT I WOULD CALL A PIECE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HOUSEKEEPING.
AS THE CHAIR JUST STATED, WE ARE REQUIRED BY STATE STATUTE TO ADOPT A POLICY ON HOW WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH OUR ISSUES AROUND OUR RETIREMENT SYSTEM ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.
THIS YEAR THE POLICY SHOULD LOOK JUST LIKE IT DID LAST YEAR AND PROBABLY THE YEAR BEFORE.
THE POLICY INTENT IS TO REALLY LAY OUT A LIST OF STRATEGIES THAT THIS BOARD CAN CONSIDER WHEN IT COMES TO BUDGET TIME ABOUT HOW WE MIGHT ADDRESS THAT UNFUNDED LIABILITY.
AGAIN, THE POLICY IS JUST UPDATED THAT YOU WILL SEE ON PAGE 2 OF THE POLICY WITH THE NEW NUMBERS THAT WE RECEIVE FROM THE STATE.
AGAIN, THE REAL DISCUSSION AROUND THIS COMES AT BUDGET TIME.
THIS IS JUST LAYING OUT THE STRATEGIES THAT THE BOARD MIGHT CONSIDER.
WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO STAND FOR QUESTIONS, CHAIR.
>> NOW, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THIS IS A PSPRS.
THIS DOES NOT AFFECT ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES.
[00:35:02]
THIS ONLY AFFECTS THOSE THAT ARE IN THIS PARTICULAR PROGRAM PRIMARILY WITH OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.>> YES, PRS AS YOU SAID. EXACTLY.
>> WHAT IS OUR CURRENT UNFUNDED LIABILITY?
>> IT'S BROKEN DOWN IN THE POLICY.
IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE IT THERE AND CAN ACCESS IT, WE BREAK IT OUT BY THE DIFFERENT TRUST FUNDS, THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, CORRECTIONS, DISPATCHERS, ATTORNEY INVESTIGATORS.
I'LL GIVE YOU THE FUNDED RATIO, IS MAYBE THE QUICKEST, SIMPLEST WAY TO LOOK AT IT.
OUR SHERIFF'S OFFICE, OUR FUNDED RATIO IS 70 EVEN PERCENT, CORRECTIONS, WE'RE AT 66.6%, DISPATCHERS 63.6%, AND THEN OUR ATTORNEY INVESTIGATORS, 17.6%.
OBVIOUSLY, A MUCH SMALLER POOL, BUT ONLY 17.6 THERE.
>> WHAT'S THE TOTAL UNFUNDED LIABILITY IN DOLLARS?
>> TOTAL UNFUNDED ACTUARIAL ACCRUED LIABILITY IS THE TERM THEY USE, $43,518,320.
>> I WAS AFRAID YOU'D ASKED ME THAT.
I DO NOT HAVE THAT NUMBER. I'LL GET THAT FOR YOU.
>> WE'RE GOING DOWN. WE'RE MAKING PROGRESS, CHIPPING AWAY.
>> BASICALLY, OUR APPROACH TO THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY, LET'S SAY IT'S $43 MILLION FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION.
BUT USUALLY THE APPROACH HAS BEEN BY THE BOARD IN THE PAST TO ALLOCATE A NUMBER OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO BE DEPOSITED AGAINST THAT NEGATIVE AMOUNT WE ACTUALLY HAVE.
I THINK LAST YEAR WAS FOUR MILLION.
>> YOU ARE CORRECT, CHAIR. AGAIN, I WOULD DIRECT YOU BACK TO THE POLICY UNDER PROCEDURES UNDER B, WE LAY OUT FORWARD SCENARIOS.
THE ONE THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED, CHAIR, IS ITEM NUMBER 4.
YOU'RE CORRECT, THAT'S THE STRATEGY THAT WE'VE BEEN UTILIZING OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS TO MAKE THAT ADDITIONAL PAYMENT IF BUDGET ALLOWS AT THE END OF THE YEAR.
>> DO WE VOTE OR DON'T WANT TO REALLY ACTUALLY WRITE THE POLICY NOW, SO WE'LL JUST MOVE THIS ON FROM BEING AN ACTION ITEM TO FURTHER DISCUSSION?
>> NO, THE POLICY IS INCLUDED IN THIS AGENDA ITEM.
THIS WOULD BE THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE POLICY.
>> THIS WILL BE THE CHANGE. OKAY.
>> THEN WE ALSO HAVE TO VOTE ON IT?
>> OKAY. I'LL MOVE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ACCORDANCE WITH ARS 38-863.01.
>> SECONDED BY MR. GREGORY, WAS THAT?
>> SECONDED BY MISS MICHAELS. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, DISCUSSION POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING LEGISLATIVE UPDATES.
[2. Board of Supervisors - Discussion and possible action regarding legislative updates. ]
THIS IS ALWAYS A FUN INFORMATION GATHERING TIME.>> MORE DEPRESSING. GOOD MORNING AGAIN, CHAIR, VICE CHAIR.
MAURY THOMPSON, COUNTY MANAGER WITH A LEGISLATIVE UPDATE AND I'M GOING TO PROVIDE A FEW COMMENTS.
THEN I BELIEVE WE MAY HAVE A COUPLE OF SUPERVISORS WHO ARE ENGAGED IN SOME CONVERSATIONS LEGISLATIVELY THIS WEEK.
YOU MAY WANT TO ADD TO MY REPORT.
I'LL START WITH A QUICK OVERVIEW OF THE COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION LEGISLATIVE POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING LAST WEEK.
THEY HAD IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF BILLS.
I HAVE, JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION, HAVE FARMED THOSE OUT AS YOU SAID TO THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR FOR THEIR INPUT.
AS ALWAYS I'M GETTING A WONDERFUL RESPONSE AND GREAT FEEDBACK FROM OUR DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS ON THAT.
THANK YOU TO ALL OF YOU FOR PROVIDING THAT.
MOST NOTABLY, THIS WEEK WE HAD ONE FIREWORKS BILL.
I'M NOT GETTING A LOT OF FEEDBACK ON THAT ONE, BUT A NUMBER OF ELECTION BILLS WERE ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS WEEK AT LPC 1, 2, 3, THREE OF THOSE WERE ON THE AGENDA AND I'VE HAD OUR ELECTIONS DIRECTOR HAS PROVIDED ME SOME FEEDBACK ON THOSE ITEMS. I'LL SHARE THAT WITH CSA AS WE PROCEED FORWARD.
ONE ITEM IN PARTICULAR THAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT YOU SAW DIRECTLY AFFECTING BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS.
AT PRESENT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT CANDIDATES FOR A BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SEAT CAN ONLY COLLECT UP TO THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF NOMINATION PETITION SIGNATURES ON EQUAL, SO YOU CAN JUST GO UP TO YOUR CAP, YOU CAN'T GO OVER, OFTEN LEADING TO CANDIDATES NEEDED TO COLLECT SOME PAPER PETITIONS.
THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, TO SUPPLEMENT THEIR EQUAL SIGNATURES IN CASE ANY OF THOSE OF COURSE END UP NOT COMING THROUGH.
THIS PROPOSED PIECE OF LEGISLATION WOULD ALLOW COUNTY SUPERVISORS RUNNING FOR OFFICE TO COLLECT A BUFFER USING EQUAL, SIMPLIFYING THE PROCESS, HOPEFULLY FOR YOU.
WHAT THIS WOULD DO, NOT ONLY FOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, BUT FOR FEDERAL, STATEWIDE, COUNTY, MUNICIPAL,
[00:40:03]
AND PRECINCT COMMITTEEMAN CANDIDATES PERMIT A CANDIDATE TO COLLECT UP TO 125% OF REQUIRED NOMINATION PETITION SIGNATURES THROUGH EQUAL.THAT SENATE BILL 1429, IT'S CONFUSING MYSELF HERE BECAUSE THERE'S A SECONDARY BILL, SENATE BILL 1285, THAT ALLOWS UP TO 110%.
TWO DIFFERENT PIECES, BUT BOTH ALLOWING YOU TO COLLECT THAT BUFFER.
IF YOU'VE GOT ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT GOING FORWARD, PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND WE'LL SHARE THAT WITH CSA AS WELL.
WE HAD ONE PROBATION BILL, AND THANKS TO CHIEF CRITO FOR PROVIDING ME SOME THOUGHTS ON THAT ONE.
THEN A LARGE NUMBER OF MENTAL BEHAVIORAL HEALTH-RELATED BILLS THIS WEEK AND NOT REALLY PROVIDING ANY INPUT ON THOSE AT THIS TIME AND FINALLY, ONE ON HOMELESSNESS THAT I DON'T BELIEVE WE CURRENTLY HAVE ANY INPUT ON THAT ONE AS WELL.
WE WERE CONTACTED BY CSA THIS WEEK, SUPERVISOR GREGORY AND MYSELF, WITH A REQUEST TO REACH OUT TO OUR PARTICULAR LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION TO TALK WITH THEM ABOUT THE NEED TO PROVIDE ONGOING FUNDING FOR OUR STATE'S PROBATION OFFICERS.
AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS ONE OF THE CORE PIECES OF OUR LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM WITH CSA.
OUR MEMBERS AND OUR LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION ARE ALL ON APPROPRIATIONS SO COULD HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF INFLUENCE.
THANK YOU TO SUPERVISOR GREGORY, I KNOW YOU WERE ABLE TO SPEAK TO, I THINK, TWO OF THE THREE ABOUT THIS AND WOULD YIELD THE FLOOR CHAIR IF YOU SO DESIRE.
SUPERVISOR GREGORY, ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD?
>> WELL, I JUST CONTACTED SENATOR BENNETT AND THERE WAS COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT THE COUNTY SPLITTING UP MARICOPA COUNTY WHERE WE ACTUALLY END UP BEING 900,000 INSTEAD OF OUR CURRENT.
THAT WAS DISCUSSED YESTERDAY AND CSA OPPOSES THAT.
THEN ALSO ON THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT WITH SELENA BLISS.
I SHARED THAT INFORMATION ABOUT, TAKE SOME OF YOUR LIABILITY BACK DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEY HAVEN'T UP THEIR CONTRIBUTION IN YEARS, AND OUR CONTRIBUTION KEEPS ON INCREASING.
SHE TOOK THAT BACK AND HOPEFULLY, WE'LL GET SOME RESOLUTION LATER ON.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT OUTREACH.
AGAIN, THE MESSAGE IS SIMPLE THERE.
STATE, YOU NEED TO FULFILL YOUR OBLIGATION, YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, AND NOT SHIFT THAT TO THE COUNTY TAXPAYER.
>> THAT'S THE CLARIFICATION THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE FOR THE PUBLIC, IS THE FACT THAT MOST OF OUR PROBATION OFFICER AND THEIR FUNDING IS ACTUALLY TAKEN CARE OF THROUGH THE STATE, WHICH CAUSES AN ISSUE BECAUSE WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE RECEIVING PAY DIRECTLY FROM US AS WELL AS FROM THE STATE AND THEY MAY NOT BE THE SAME.
IT CAUSES A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH THE BUDGET AND SO WHAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE IS THAT THE STATE TO GIVE US THE MONEY, WE'LL DISTRIBUTE IT.
IN THAT WAY, IT'LL COME OUT EVEN FOR EVERYBODY BUT THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT CURRENTLY IS.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. THEN FINALLY, THERE WAS A HEARING THIS WEEK ON SENATE BILL 1221, A WATER BILL.
I KNOW SUPERVISOR MICHAELS WAS ABLE TO GO DOWN AND TESTIFY ON THAT.
AGAIN, WITH YOUR PERMISSION, CHAIR, ANY COMMENTS YOU'D LIKE TO SHARE WITH US ON THAT ONE?
>> WELL, IT'S AN EVOLVING PROCESS.
1221, AS IT STANDS TODAY, IS A VERY CONVOLUTED ROADMAP GENERALLY AGREED UPON BY CERTAINLY OUR RURAL COUNTIES AND FOCUSES MOSTLY ON WHAT IS DESCRIBED TODAY, USED TO BE CORPORATE, BUT NOW IT'S INDUSTRIAL AG INTERESTS.
WITH THAT IN MIND, MR. THOMPSON, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF GETTING BACK TO THE TABLE, I'M A BIT INVITED TO DO THAT.
SENATOR KERR CARES GREATLY ABOUT RURAL COMMUNITIES AND I THINK WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION AND THE OUTREACH SO THAT WE KNOW THAT THE VERDE RIVER, IT'S HEADWATERS AND LOWER VERDE ARE CONSIDERED.
WE HAVE 41% LOSS SINCE 1990 IN OUR VERDE RIVER, THE LOWER VERDE, AND THAT'S DRAMATIC AND NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AND PART OF THE CHALLENGE AS WE CONTINUE TO GROW IN OUR COUNTY, PARTICULARLY IN THE VERDE VALLEY AREA.
WE'LL CONTINUE THAT WORK AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH SENATOR KERR. THANK YOU FOR THAT, BERRY.
>> THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? NO, I DON'T SEE ANY.
MOVING RIGHT ALONG. THANK YOU.
MOVING ON TO OUR HEARINGS, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
[1. Development Services - Approve a Zoning Map Change from the R1L-12 (Residential; Single Family Limited to site-built structures only – min. 12,000 sq. ft. lot size) zoning district to the R1-12 (Residential; Single Family; site-built, multisectional and manufactured – minimum 12,000 sq. ft. lot size) zoning district, subject to the conditions of approval. Project Name: Hudson Zoning Map Change; Owner(s): Deborah Hudson & Dusty Hudson; Applicant/Agent: Deborah Hudson; APN: 500-21-004C; PLA23-000135. The property is approximately 5.25 acres and located at 10350 S. Jefferson St. in the community of Mayer, Arizona. Section 27, Township 12N, Range 01E. G&SRB&M. Staff: Becca Sirakis (District 2 - Supervisor Gregory)]
ARE YOU READY? PROVE A ZONING MAP CHANGED FROM R1L-12,[00:45:06]
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY LIMITED TO SITE BUILT STRUCTURES ONLY MINIMUM 12,000 SQUARE FEET, MULTI-SECTIONAL AND MANUFACTURED MINIMUM, 12,000 SQUARE FOOT, LOT SIZE ZONING DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.PROJECT NAME IS HUDSON ZONING MAP CHANGE, OWNERS, DEBORAH HUDSON AND DUSTY HUDSON.
APPLICANT AND AGENT IS DEBORAH HUDSON.
APN NUMBER 500-21-004, CHARLIE PLA 23-00135.
THE PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 5.25 ACRES AND LOCATED AT 10350 SOUTH JEFFERSON STREET IN THE COMMUNITY OF MAYOR, ARIZONA, SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 12N.
RANGE 01E, AS IN EDWARD, GNSRBNM.
STAFF, BECCA SORACAS, DISTRICT 2 SUPERVISOR GREG.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BECCA SORACAS, PLANNER WITH YAVAPAI COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
THIS IS A ZONING MAP CHANGE FROM R1L12 TO R112.
THE APPLICATION WAS HEARD BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON FEBRUARY 8, AND WAS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY LETTERS OF OPPOSITION FOR THIS APPLICATION AT THIS TIME.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN SUPERVISOR GREGORY'S DISTRICT, DISTRICT NUMBER 2 AND IT'S LOCATED IN THE COMMUNITY OF MAYOR, OFF OF JEFFERSON STREET.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED R1L-12.
THE R1L ZONING DISTRICT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR MANUFACTURED HOUSING.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNER WOULD LIKE TO PLACE A MANUFACTURED HOME ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY.
A MANUFACTURED HOME IS CURRENTLY ON THE PROPERTY AND WAS PERMITTED PRIOR TO WHEN THE ZONING WAS R1L AND THUS THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO R1, WHICH DOES ALLOW FOR MANUFACTURED HOUSING AND THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE ZONING MAP CHANGE.
TO THE EAST AND TO THE SOUTH IS ADJACENT R1 ZONING THAT WOULD MATCH THE REQUEST.
THIS IS AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THE PROPERTY.
AGAIN, THE EXISTING MANUFACTURED HOME TO THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PARCEL.
>> WHERE'S THE SECONDARY ONE GOING TO BE LOCATED?
>> THE SECOND RESIDENCE WOULD BE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
IF WE MOVE FORWARD, WE'LL SEE THE PROPOSED SPLIT OF THIS PARCEL.
THE PARCEL IS PROPOSED TO BE SPLIT AND LEAVING THE NORTHERN PORTION TO HAVE THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AND THE SOUTHERN PORTION TO HAVE THE NEW MANUFACTURED HOME IF THIS ZONING MAP CHANGE WAS APPROVED.
>> SINCE YOU BROUGHT IT UP, LET ME ASK.
THE SPLIT HAS NOT OCCURRED YET, CORRECT?
>> IF THE SPLIT DOES OCCUR THEN YOU GO BACK TO THE ZONING FOR THE TWO PIECES OF PROPERTY, BR1L.
>> BUT RIGHT NOW THAT'S NOT WHAT THE ZONING IS.
>> WHY ARE WE TAKING AND MOVING FORWARD BEFORE THE PROPERTY IS SPLIT?
>> THE PROPERTY OWNER HAD FURNISHED THIS SURVEY BECAUSE THEY ARE LOOKING TO SPLIT THE PROPERTY AND AS PART OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE ZONING MAP CHANGE, THEY NEEDED A SITE PLAN AND SO THEY FURNISHED THE SURVEY FOR THAT.
IN ORDER FOR THEM TO WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SPLITTING THE PROPERTY, THEY'LL WANT IT TO BE R1 SO THAT WAY THEY CAN PLACE THAT MANUFACTURED HOME.
>> EVERYTHING ACROSS THE STREET IS ALREADY R1 AND THEN THERE'S ALREADY A MANUFACTURED HOME ON THE LOT SO IT FITS IN A NEIGHBORHOOD.
KIRK, THE BOARD, DO WE HAVE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS?
>> NO, SIR. THE BOARD DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION OF THIS ITEM.
>> HOW DID THIS PASS THROUGH PNC?
>> IT WAS RECOMMENDED UNANIMOUSLY BY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
>> WITH THAT, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> ONE MORE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS, THOUGH.
HOWEVER, DON'T YOU THINK IT'D BE BETTER IF WE ACTUALLY HAD THEM SPLIT THE LOT FIRST AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE IT BY RIGHT?
[00:50:03]
>> THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PLACE THEIR MANUFACTURED HOME, AND I MIGHT HAVE MISSPOKE EARLIER.
RIGHT NOW THE ZONING IS R1L, THE ENTIRE PARCEL, AND IT'S NOT YET SPLIT.
IN ORDER TO HAVE A MANUFACTURED HOME PLACED ON IT, THEY'RE GOING TO NEED TO GET THE ZONING MAP CHANGED.
>> LET'S SAY THEY MOVED FORWARD AND THEY PUT THAT SECOND HOUSE ON THERE THEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO SPLIT THE LOT.
>> THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO SPLIT THE LOT.
WE WOULDN'T ALLOW THEM TO PUT THAT SECOND HOME ON WITHOUT THE SPLIT.
THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN WHERE I MISSPOKE EARLIER.
>> YES, JUDGE. GOOD QUESTION, THANK YOU.
>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> MOVING ON TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICE TO APPROVE
[2. Development Services - Approve a permanent and transferable Use Permit to allow for a waiver of Section 516; Density District 70, to grant a reduction of the required 50-foot rear setback by 47-feet to allow for a rear setback of 3-feet for an existing attached garage, on approximately 1.27 acres in the R1L-70 (Residential; Single-family limited to site-built structures only; 70,000 square foot minimum parcel size) zoning district, subject to the conditions of approval. Owner/Applicant: Carruthers Family Living Trust, Gary & Nathalie Carruthers Ttees; Agent: Permit Pushers by James Gardner; Project Name: Carruthers Garage Use Permit; APN: 407-17-018B; PLA23-000041. The project is located at 9900 E. Garden Lane, in the community of Cornville, Arizona. Section 10, Township 15N, Range 04E. G&SRB&M. Staff: Stephanie Johnson (District 2 -Supervisor Gregory)]
A PERMANENT TRANSFERABLE USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A WAIVER OF SECTION 516, DENSITY DISTRICT 70, TO GRANT A REDUCTION OF A REQUIRED 50 FOOT REAR SETBACK BY 47 FEET TO ALLOW FOR A REAR SETBACK OF THREE FEET FROM AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE ON APPROXIMATELY 1.27 ACRES AND AN R1L70 RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY LIMITED TO SITE BUILT STRUCTURES, ONLY 70 SQUARE FOOT, MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE ZONING DISTRICT.SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, OWNER APPLICANT CARRUTHERS FAMILY LIVING TRUST, GARY AND NATALIE CARRUTHERS, THE TRUSTEES AGENT PERMIT PUSHER BY JAMES GARDNER.
PROJECT NAME IS CARUTHERS GARAGE USE PERMIT APN 407-17-018B, AS IN BOY, PLA 23-000041.
PROJECT'S LOCATED AT 9900 EAST GARDEN LANE, THE COMMUNITY OF CORNVILLE, ARIZONA.
SECTION 10 TOWNSHIP 15 NORTH RANGE 4 EAST GNS.
>> YOU SHOULD TRY WRITING IT REALLY. I KNOW.
I'M GLAD I'M NOT WRITING THIS BABY.
STEPHANIE JOHNSON AND STEPHANIE ARE HERE AND MR. GREGORY IS YOUR DISTRICT.
>> THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
I'M STEPHANIE JOHNSON, PLANNER FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
IF YOU WILL RECALL, THIS MATTER DID APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SEPTEMBER 20TH OF 2023, AT WHICH TIME THE BOARD DECIDED THAT A SURVEY WOULD BE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO MAKE A DECISION TO MOVE FORWARD.
THAT SURVEY HAS NOW BEEN OBTAINED AND WE ARE BACK TO REPRESENT THIS MATTER WITH THE NEW SURVEY INFORMATION.
QUICKLY, I WILL JUST RUN THROUGH SOME OF THE BASICS HERE.
THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS LOCATED IN DISTRICT 2 SUPERVISOR GREGORY'S DISTRICT.
IT'S LOCATED AT 9,900 GARDEN LANE IN THE COMMUNITY OF CORNVILLE.
THE PARCEL IS ZONED R1L 70 AND IS SURROUNDED BY DEVELOPED R 170 PARCELS.
THE PARCEL IS APPROXIMATELY 1.27 ACRES.
>> STEPHANIE, AS LONG AS YOU'VE GOT THAT UP THERE, IF YOU DON'T MIND MY ASKING THIS.
WHICH PROPERTY LINE ARE WE ON.
>> THE WRONG WAY? THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LINE IS THIS NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE WHICH IS CONSIDERED THEIR REAR.
>> OKAY. BACKING UP TO THIS OTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY THEN, I WOULD ASSUME, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. THERE IS ANOTHER PARCEL HERE.
THE PARCEL IS SUBJECT TO FLOOD CONTROL REGULATIONS.
THE FLOOD CONTROL DEPARTMENT HAS PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS.
THE BUILDING IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT FLOOD CONTROL ELEVATIONS.
FLOOD WOULD HAVE NO ISSUE WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE PROVIDED THERE IS A PERMIT AND THE SISD IS COMPLETED AND IT MEETS THE UNDER 50% RULE, IT MAY REQUIRE ENGINEERING AND A CERTIFICATE OF NO RISE.
IF THE GARAGE IS MORE THAN 50% OF THE STRUCTURE'S VALUE, THEN THE HOME WILL EITHER NEED TO BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE OR THE PERMIT WILL NOT BE APPROVED.
WE DO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT HERE TODAY TO SPEAK TO THIS MATTER IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THEM.
>> HAS THE PERMITS BEEN ACQUIRED FOR THE GARAGE THAT IS MAKING THIS QUESTION?
>> IT HAS NOT BEEN OBTAINED AS OF YET.
THIS GARAGE WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED OR THE CONSTRUCTION BEGAN BY A PRIOR OWNER.
THE CARRUTHERS CAME IN AND PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY AND IMMEDIATELY STARTED PURSUING A USE PERMIT TO RECTIFY WHAT THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAD ALREADY BEGUN.
>> THEY ARE. AT LEAST THAT IS THE ATTEMPT IS TO CLEAN UP WHAT WAS ALREADY STARTED.
>> SORT OF BECAUSE ACTUALLY THESE GARAGES, AND I USED THE WORD PLURAL GARAGES [OVERLAPPING] ARE ALL
[00:55:02]
WITHIN THE 50 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT BY ZONING, CORRECT?>> YES, SIR. ONE THING TO NOTE, TYPICALLY A GARAGE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE PLACED FIVE FOOT FROM A REAR PROPERTY LINE IF IT WAS AN UNATTACHED, IF IT WAS A DETACHED, NON HABITABLE STRUCTURE.
THE PROBLEM WITH THIS IS THAT IT'S ATTACHED TO THE HOME, THEREFORE, IT NEEDS TO MEET THE PRIMARY BUILDING SETBACKS.
>> ALSO, NOT IN THE BACK WHERE THIS ACTUALLY THREE FOOT DOESN'T FIT, IT'S ON THE SIDE?
>> THAT IS THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
THE FRONT IS HERE, THE OPPOSING SIDE IS THE REAR.
THIS TRULY IS THE REAR OF THE PARCEL.
IF THEY HAD HAD IT PLACED FIVE FEET AND IT WAS DETACHED, IT WOULD BE OKAY.
IT IS CURRENTLY BASED ON THE SURVEY, THREE FEET, BUT IT IS ATTACHED TO THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE, THEREFORE MAKING IT SUBJECT TO THE 50 FOOT SETBACK.
>> WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO IS TO BASICALLY ALLOW FOR SOMETHING THAT WAS BUILT WITHOUT PERMITS TO ENCROACH ON ANOTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S ADJACENT TO IT BY NOT ALLOWING NOT HAVING THE 50 FOOT SETBACK, CORRECT?
>> IT'S NOT ENCROACHING INTO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, BUT IT IS ENCROACHING VERY CLOSE TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
>> THEIR ZONING DOESN'T ALLOW FOR THE SETBACK THEN TO BE MOVED.
THE 47 FEET THEY LOST, DOES THAT ADD ONTO THE PROPERTY OWNER BEHIND THEM, TAKING A 97 FOOT SETBACK?
>> NO, IT'S [OVERLAPPING] FROM THE PROPERTY.
>> THIS PHOTO IS THE UPDATED POSTING.
I KNOW YOU GUYS SAW THE PHOTOS PREVIOUSLY, BUT I DID PUT OUT A NEW POSTING ONCE WE RECEIVED THE SURVEY AND WE HAD A NEW DATE AGENDIZED, WE PUT OUT A NEW LEGAL AD.
WE DID PUT UP NEW POSTINGS AND PROVIDED NOTICE YET AGAIN TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'LL KIND OF QUICKLY MOVE THE PROPERTY PHOTOS.
NO WORK HAS BEEN CONTINUED ON THIS PROJECT UNTIL THEY GET AN OUTCOME OF THIS USE PERMIT PROCESS.
I BELIEVE THEY SAID IT WAS ABOUT 90% FINISHED LAST TIME.
THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK MORE TO THAT.
>> STEPHANIE, DO WE HAVE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS?
>> WE DO HAVE SOME OPPOSITION TO THIS MATTER, SO WE HAVE SOME FOLKS THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK HERE TODAY.
WE ALSO PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED OR HEARD COMMENTS FROM MR. CRICK AT THE PREVIOUS HEARING AND HIS OPPOSITION.
MS. MACKLER, I BELIEVE, ALSO ADDRESSED THE BOARD WITH SOME OF HER OPPOSITION WITH REGARD TO THE SURVEY.
>> WE HAVE ONE THERE FROM CORNVILLE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION.
>> THERE IS A LETTER OF NEUTRALITY FROM CORNVILLE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION.
>> GIVE THIS TO THE CLERK THEN, SO SHE HAS IT.
>> TO ADD ON TO THAT JUST A LITTLE BIT, WE DID NOT RECEIVE SPECIFIC COMMENTS FROM THE VERDE VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS OF THE CORNVILLE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION.
SINCE THEN, MR. GARDNER HAS BEEN ABLE TO REACH OUT TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND THEY PROVIDED COMMENTS THAT THEY DON'T LOOK AT SETBACKS.
THEY HAD NO COMMENTS OR CONCERNS WITH THIS APPLICATION.
>> CORRECT. YOU GOT THE WORD CONCERNED.
>> YOU ARE CORRECT. THEY HAD NO COMMENT TO THIS APPLICATION AS THEY DON'T LOOK AT SIT BACK.
>> IF THIS WAS UNOCCUPIED, IT WOULD BE FIVE FEET.
IT WAS ATTACHED, BUT IT'S ATTACHED. GOT YOU.
>> THAT'S WHAT LENDS THE BOTTOM LINE PROBLEM. IT'S ATTACHED.
>> THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT'S RIGHT NEXT DOOR THAT'S BEING IMPACTED BY THIS IS HE HERE TODAY?
>> WE HAVE RECEIVED ZERO COMMUNICATION FROM THAT PROPERTY OWNER.
>> IT'S TO THE WEST OF THAT CHAIN LINK FENCE IS WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?
>> TO THE NORTH. OKAY. BY THE PICTURE.
>> I SEE THE REST OF THE PROPERTIES AROUND IT ARE ACTUALLY OKAY WITH IT?
>> THERE WAS SUPPORT GAINED DURING THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PROCESS EARLY IN THE APPLICATION PROCESS.
THAT WAS FROM THE DIRECT NEIGHBORS.
THE MOST AFFECTED PARCEL IS THIS PARCEL HERE, AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED COMMUNICATION FROM THAT PARCEL.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. YOU SAID THAT WE HAD DEALT WITH THIS LAST YEAR AND WE WENT AHEAD AND ASKED FOR THE SURVEY.
WAS THAT THE ONLY ISSUE THAT THE BOARD HAD WAS IT IS THAT WE JUST NEEDED THE SURVEY SO WE COULD GET THIS? [OVERLAPPING]
[01:00:01]
THE SURVEY THERE WAS A DISCREPANCY IN THE NUMBERS.
ORIGINALLY, WE HAD ASKED FOR AN EIGHT FOOT SETBACK.
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MODIFIED IT TO A ZERO FOOT SETBACK BECAUSE WE WERE UNSURE THE SURVEY CONFIRMED THAT THERE IS TRULY THREE FOOT.
NOW WE CAN ASK FOR AN ACTUAL NUMBER FOR THAT SETBACK.
>> IT WAS A QUESTION WHERE WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE WAS AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE SQUARED AWAY ON IT.
>> CORRECT. THAT PROPERTY LINE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FENCE.
>> OKAY. WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK.
I'M GOOD WITH WHERE WE'RE AT BECAUSE I KNOW WE TALKED WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER BEFORE.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR FROM FLOOD CONTROL? WAS THAT A CONCERN?
>> IT IS NEW. FLOOD CONTROL HAS DONE AN APPRAISAL ON IT.
LYNN, YOU WANT TO COME UP AND TELL US WHAT YOU FOUND?
>> IT GETS REALLY BRIGHT WHEN YOU TURN THE LIGHTS BACK.
[LAUGHTER] THIS PARCEL WOULD HAVE TO [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M SORRY. I'M LYNN WHITMAN, DIRECTOR OF THE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT.
THIS PARCEL WOULD HAVE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET.
WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THEY HAVE MET THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
THEY'RE VERY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS.
WITH THEIR PERMIT APPLICATION, WE WOULD BE IN A POSITION WHERE WE WOULD NEED TO APPROVE IT.
IT'S A LEGAL NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE.
IF THEY CAME IN TODAY WITH THEIR ORIGINAL STRUCTURE, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BUILD IT THAT WAY.
BUT IT WAS LEGAL PRIOR TO COMING IN, SO WE WOULD ALLOW THIS IMPROVEMENT. THANK YOU.
>> ANYTHING FURTHER, STEPHANIE? THE OWNER WANT TO TALK TO US AGAIN? DO YOU WANT TO HEAR?
>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO HEAR ANY COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY, IF ANYBODY HAS ANYTHING TO SAY. ANY GREEN SHEETS?
>> NO, SIR. I HAVE NOT RECEIVED A GREEN SHEET.
>> LED UP TO THE CLERK, PLEASE.
>> THE ONLY LETTER RECEIVED WAS EARLIER REFERENCED BY MISS JOHNSON WHICH WAS THE CORNVILLE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION LETTER OF NEUTRALITY.
>> PRIOR TO MAKING A MOTION, I'D JUST LIKE TO HEAR ONE OF THE GREEN SHEETS AND GET THEIR INPUT.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU HAVE A CHARLIE CRICK WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
>> CHARLES CRICK. I LIVE AT 1265 SOUTH LOY ROAD.
I'M THE FIRST HOUSE ON THE LEFT ON LOY ROAD.
>> [INAUDIBLE] BRING BACK UP THE MAP SO WE CAN SEE WHERE MISSING.
>> THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL. I KNOW I'M ONLY ALLOWED 2 MINUTES.
I PUT SOME PACKETS TOGETHER, BUT OBVIOUSLY I, DON'T HAVE TIME TO GIVE THEM TO YOU.
THIS IS THE BEFORE STRUCTURE THAT HAD BEEN ORIGINALLY ON SITE.
THE SECOND PAGE IS THE AFTER BUILT, SHOWS THE MAGNITUDE OF CONSTRUCTION THAT WAS DONE ON THE SITE WITHOUT A PERMIT.
ANYWAY, BEHIND THIS PROPERTY IS A BIRD AVIARY OR SANCTUARY.
IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT FOR A LONG TIME.
SO THERE'S NO TAX ON THE PROPERTY.
IT WAS A DONATION AND SO THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE ENCROACHING UP AGAINST THE EDGE OF.
THE NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR, SHE DOESN'T HAVE ANY ISSUES.
HER HOUSE IS WELL ABOVE THE FLOODPLAIN OR ANY OF IT.
ALL OF US DOWN BELOW, WE HAVE THE PROBLEM.
A LOT OF MY NEIGHBORS ARE NERVOUS TO COME HERE AND SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEY LIVE ON THE FLOODPLAIN, AND SO WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF YOUR RULES AND REGULATIONS, WHICH I UNDERSTAND.
YOU HAVE A MAP THERE THAT SHOWS THE FLOODPLAIN.
YOU COULD RETURN IT TO THAT PAGE IF YOU WOULD PLEASE.
YOU CAN SEE THE CHECKERED LINES RIGHT THERE.
THAT'S IN THE FLOOD WAY, THAT'S NOT THE FLOODPLAIN.
THE LINES THAT HASH MARK THROUGH IT LIKE THIS.
ALSO, IN A COPY OF THIS PACKET, I'VE HAD AN ELEVATION, WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY OBTAINED BY THE ORIGINAL OWNER WHO HAD TO OBTAIN FLOOD INSURANCE FOR THIS HOUSE.
THE CURRENT GENTLEMAN, HE PURCHASED THE HOUSE AND OBVIOUSLY HE WASN'T CONCERNED ABOUT THIS.
THEY HAD A CERTIFICATE OF ELEVATION THAT SHOWS THE BASEMENT AND THE HOUSE OF THE STRUCTURE THAT WAS IN THE FLOODPLAIN, SO HE HAD TO OBTAIN FLOOD INSURANCE ON IT.
SO ALL THIS AREA RIGHT HERE, IT AFFECTS ALL OF US.
ANYTHING THAT'S BUILT BEHIND THIS BIRD AVIARY AREA, WHICH IS IN THE CHECKERED LINE, IT MAKES THE RADIUS AROUND THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, BUT ALL THAT FLOOD PUSHES TOWARDS US IF IT'S BACKED UP,
[01:05:01]
AND THAT'S WHAT'S INCURRED NOT ONLY THE HOUSE, THE GARAGE STRUCTURE, BUT HE CONSTRUCTED A RETAINING WALL.NEVER MIND. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I HOPE THAT YOU [NOISE] VOTE THIS DOWN.
THAT'S WHAT WE ELECTED YOU FOR, TO REPRESENT US, AND NOT JUST THE NEIGHBOR. THANK YOU.
>> MS. WHITMAN, CAN YOU COME UP AND ADDRESS THAT ISSUE THAT HE SPOKE OF? I DIDN'T KNOW THIS HOUSE HAD A BASEMENT.
I DON'T WANT ANY SWIMMING POOLS IN THIS AREA.
>> IF THERE IS A BASEMENT, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE, AND AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE A LEGAL NONCONFORMING PART OF THE STRUCTURE.
THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT AT THIS TIME.
AGAIN, IT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TODAY.
THE GARAGE, AS IT'S BUILT, IS IN LINE WITH THE STRUCTURE AND THE FLOOD WAY.
SO AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED PER THE FEMA REGULATIONS.
THE RETAINING WALL WOULD HAVE TO COME IN AS A SEPARATE PERMIT.
TODAY, WE'RE JUST ADDRESSING THIS GARAGE ADDITION.
>> IF I MAY, MR. CHAIRMAN, WITH THAT IN MIND, MY CONCERN IS THE IMPACT.
IF THERE IS A FLOOD, SO HOW DO WE MAKE A WISE DECISION WHEN IT'S PARSED? THAT'S A DIFFICULT WAY TO PROCEED.
WE FIRST HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO ENSURE THAT THE NEIGHBORS AREN'T GOING TO BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED.
>> IF THEY HAD BUILT THE GARAGE IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION SO THAT IT WAS WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER TO THE EAST OR TO THE WEST OF THE STRUCTURE, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN OBSTRUCTION, BUT BECAUSE IT'S IN LINE WITH THE FLOOD WAY, THEY CALL THAT IN THE SHADOW CONVEYANCE, AND SO THE WATER, IT'S CONTINUING TO GO AROUND THE STRUCTURE.
SO FEMA CONSIDERS THAT TO BE NON OBSTRUCTIVE.
I UNDERSTAND THERE WILL BE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, BUT BY FEMA STANDARDS AND BY OUR REGULATIONS, IT IS ALLOWED.
>> I DON'T KNOW. YOU PROBABLY CAN ANSWER THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR.
ALL I WANT TO KNOW IS, SO THE PREVIOUS OWNER BUILT A GARAGE ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE, WAS NOT PERMITTED, CORRECT?
>> THEN SOLD THE PROPERTY, IS THAT WHAT I HEARD? AND THE PERSON THAT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY BOUGHT IT KNOWING THAT IT WAS NOT A PERMITTED SITUATION, THAT'S THE PART.
DID THEY PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY KNOWING ALREADY THAT THIS WAS NOT PERMITTED?
>> I WOULD DEFER THAT TO THE APPLICANT, BUT I DO SEEM TO RECALL FROM THE LAST HEARING THAT HE STATED HE WAS UNAWARE UNTIL HE STARTED INTO.
>> MR. GARDNER OR MR. CARRUTHERS.
I WOULD LIKE TO LET THE APPLICANT FURTHER ANSWER THAT.
>> LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
>> BE SURE TO STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE.
>> GOOD MORNING. I'M GARY CARRUTHERS.
I'M PART OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY, THE SHARED OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY.
WHEN WE ENTERED INTO THE AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY, THERE WAS A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION IN PROCESS.
THAT'S THE STATE OF MY UNDERSTANDING AT THE TIME.
>> DID HE TELL YOU THAT THAT GARAGE WAS NOT PERMITTED?
>> THAT'S WHERE I RECALL THE DISCUSSION BEFORE, IS THAT THEY DID NOT DISCLOSE TO YOU THAT THAT WAS A NON PERMITTED STRUCTURE, CORRECT?
>> GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE STRUCTURE EXISTED AND THERE WAS A PERMIT IN PROCESS, IT WAS CLEARLY NOT PERMITTED, BUT THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF ANY OF THE OTHER ISSUES THAT WERE BEING ADDRESSED.
>> THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED SPDS AND THAT'S SUPPOSED TO HAVE ALL DISCLOSURES [OVERLAPPING] BY THE OWNER.
DID THEY LIVE ON THE PROPERTY?
>> NO, WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY SOON AFTER IT WAS COMPLETED.
>> SO THEY NEVER LIVED ON THE PROPERTY? THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER?
THIS IS A BAD DEAL FOR YOU, AND I APOLOGIZE THAT THERE WAS NOT INFORMATION FORTHCOMING TO YOU WHERE YOU COULD HAVE MADE AN INFORMED DECISION.
I'M GOING TO MAKE A WILD GUESS THAT HAD YOU KNOWN OF THE CHALLENGES OF THIS PERMITTING PROCESS AND FLOODING ISSUES, YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY.
>> WE MIGHT NOT HAVE PURCHASED.
>> IT'S A DARN SHAME WHEN THIS HAPPENS TO OUR CONSTITUENTS.
>> MR. GREGORY, THIS IS YOUR DISTRICT.
>> I GUESS WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH IS YOU PURCHASED THE PROPERTY KNOWING IT WAS IN PERMIT, BUT DIDN'T HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SETBACKS AND ANYTHING ELSE, AND NOW YOU'RE TRYING TO CLEAN UP THE ISSUE.
>> CORRECT. MY UNDERSTANDING, AFTER THIS THEN,
[01:10:02]
WE APPLY FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT, ALL OF THE FEMA DISCUSSIONS OCCUR, AND WE FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET INTO COMPLIANCE.>> I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE OTHER RING SHEET.
>> YES, MR. CHAIRMAN. I HAVE A CAROL MACKLER.
>> THAT'S WHAT I ASKED YOU, IF YOU HAD ANOTHER ONE.
>> I DID SAY, YEAH. [LAUGHTER].
>> MS. MACKLER. I'M SORRY, CAROL.
I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF CORNVILLE FOR OVER 30 YEARS.
I DO LIVE IN THIS SECTION AND I AM ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT IS AFFECTED TOTALLY BY THE FLOODS.
I LOOK AT THIS AS SOMEONE ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS.
HOWEVER, WHEN I MOVED TO CORNVILLE, IT WAS VERY RURAL. I'VE BEEN THERE.
THE ONLY OTHER PERSON LIVING THERE LONGER ON THIS SAME STREET IS ONE NEIGHBOR, AND SHE'S BEEN THERE FOR CLOSE TO 50 YEARS.
HERE'S A CASE WHERE SOMEBODY JUST TOTALLY WENT AGAINST THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
IF MR. CARRUTHERS HAD AN AGENT, THAT'S UP TO HIM TO TAKE IT BACK WITH THE AGENT, BUT YOU'RE CORRECT SPDS MIGHT NEED TO BE DONE, DISCLOSURES NEED TO BE DONE.
ANY AGENT WOULD HAVE HAD A SURVEY DONE, SO THIS DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT TO ME.
MR. GREGORY'S COMMENT OF THE WORD, AND YOU USED THE WORD THREE TIMES TODAY, CLEAN UP.
ONE REASON IS YOU MIGHT IN DIFFERENT INSTANCES IF IT WASN'T RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT THAT BUILDING WILL IMPEDE AS THE WATER COMES DOWN AND BACK FLASHES BACK UP INTO THE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITY.
IF IT WAS UP, IT WOULDN'T REALLY DO THAT.
THE NEIGHBOR RIGHT NOW HAS TO BUILD 15 FEET IN THE AIR, AND THAT'S ONLY 350 FEET FROM HERE.
SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS CLEAN UP MEANS.
THE PROPERTY OWNER SHOULD HAVE DONE HIS HOMEWORK BEFORE, SO I REQUEST THAT YOU TURN THIS DOWN AND THAT THE STRUCTURE BE REMOVED.
>> ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD?
>> YES. IF WE VOTE NO, WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE EFFECT OF THAT?
>> JUST AS WAS STATED, THEY WOULD NEED TO REMOVE THE STRUCTURE.
>> OR BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE IN SOME OTHER MANNER IF THAT WAS TO REDUCE ONE PORTION OF THE GARAGE, SO IT MET THE 50 FOOT OR REMOVE IT ALTOGETHER.
I DID WANT TO NOTE THAT THE PERMIT THAT WAS STARTED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAS SINCE EXPIRED BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T GET APPROVALS DUE TO THE SETBACK.
NOW, MR. CARRUTHERS WOULD NEED TO RESUBMIT FOR AN AS BUILT STRUCTURE SHOULD HE RECEIVE A FAVORABLE OUTCOME.
>> SO WE HAVE TO GO GET ANOTHER PERMIT?
>> CORRECT. IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THE COUNTY REVIEWS WITH FLOOD CONTROL, ENVIRONMENTAL, BUILDING SAFETY, PLANNING AND ZONING.
>> OKAY. ALSO WITH THE PNC, HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS?
>> THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION?
>> NOW, THIS IS PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER. AM I CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HEARD THIS MATTER ON AUGUST 17 AND MADE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
THE VOTE WAS 6 TO1 WITH COMMISSIONER PITCHER OPPOSED TO THE MOTION.
COMMISSIONER PITCHER'S OPPOSITION WAS BASED ON THE LACK OF A SURVEY AND THE ZERO-FOOT SETBACK.
>> ONE MORE QUESTION. YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE PERMITS EXPIRED AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO GET ANOTHER PERMIT.
>> BUT THAT DOES NOT TAKE AWAY THE FACT THAT IT WAS ALL WRONG TO BEGIN WITH.
>> THAT IT WAS DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT, CORRECT.
>> RIGHT. THAT'S REALLY THE ISSUE HERE.
FOR ME IS THAT THEY PUT THE GARAGE ON.
HE DIDN'T LIVE ON THE PROPERTY, BUT HE KNEW WHERE HE WAS AT, WHOEVER SOLD IT.
EVERYTHING KEPT GOING FORWARD KNOWING IT WAS ALL WRONG.
IT'S A SHAME TO HAVE A GARAGE BUILT ONTO THE HOUSE.
IT IS REALLY A SHAME, BUT IT'S EVEN MORE OF A SHAME FOR ALL THE PEOPLE INVOLVED NOT DOING THEIR HOMEWORK.
[01:15:05]
>> IS THERE ANOTHER GARAGE ON THE PROPERTY ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE?
>> THERE WAS A GARAGE THAT WAS CONVERTED INTO AN ADDITION OF THE HOME AT SOME POINT.
I BELIEVE THAT TO BE IN THIS SECTION.
>> WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT AT THE SAME TIME AS THE NON PERMITTED GARAGE STRUCTURE?
>> CORRECT. THE CONVERSION WAS PERMITTED.
WE HAD THAT PERMITTED AT THE TIME THEY DID THAT.
>> WE'RE HAVING A LOT OF THESE CASES COME BEFORE US WITH THESE CONTRACTORS GOING AFTER OUR NON CONTRACTORS, GOING OUT AND DOING THIS UNPERMITTED WORK, AND THEN IT'S COMING BEFORE US AND WE'RE THE ONES HAVE TO MAKE THESE HARD DECISIONS ON NONCOMPLIANCE AND OTHER PEOPLE'S MISTAKES.
>> IT MAKES IT VERY TOUGH FOR US AS WHEN WE GO THROUGH. WHEN I SAY CLEAN IT UP.
I FEEL BAD FOR THE EXISTING BUSINESS OWNER OR THE RESIDENT OWNERS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THEY WERE GETTING THEMSELVES, AND I FEEL THEY'RE A VICTIM ON IT TOO.
THEY'RE IN THERE TRYING TO CLEAN THIS UP.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU GOT TO COMPLY WHEN YOU GO OUT AND GET PERMITS.
THAT'S PART OF IT. IF THERE'S CONSEQUENCES, THOSE ARE THE CONSEQUENCES.
WITH THAT, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE PERMIT.
>> I'LL SECOND IT. BUT I'D LIKE TO COMMENT ALSO THAT, IF THEY WOULD GIVE UP THE GARAGE.
DO YOU SECOND THE MOTION OR NOT?
>> NO, I SECONDED IT. I HAD A COMMENT MR. CHAIRMAN TO THAT.
>> I DID. YES. MY COMMENT WHICH YOU DID NOT HEAR IS THAT THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A WAY HAD THEY TALKED TO YOU ABOUT A SOLOMON DECISION.
IF THEY WOULD GIVE UP THAT GARAGE, THEN IT MIGHT BE ABLE UNDER SOME SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES TO GO FORWARD.
BUT I AGREE WITH SUPERVISOR GREGORY AS IT STANDS NOW.
>> LET'S MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR.
THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE ADDED TO IT.
>> JUST A COMMENT BY SUPERVISOR MICHAELS.
>> WITH THAT, HARRY, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO SAY? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO DENY?
[3. Development Services - Approve a Use Permit without modifications for five (5) years to allow the continued operation of outdoor art and craft sales under portable tents for 15 weekends per year in a C1-2 (Commercial; Neighborhood Sales and Services; 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zoning district on a 2.54-acre parking lot that serves Bell Rock Plaza, with the previously approved conditions of approval; Owner/Applicant: Bell Rock Plaza Association; Agent: Spectrum Management Associates by Dave Norton; Project Name: Bell Rock Plaza Art & Craft Shows, APN: 405-27-326B; PLA23-000141. Located at 57 Bell Rock Plaza in the community of the Village of Oak Creek, Arizona. Section 13, Township 16N, Range 05E. G&SRB&M. Staff: Stephanie Johnson (District 3 - Supervisor Michaels)]
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPROVE A USE PERMIT WITHOUT MODIFICATIONS FOR FIVE YEARS TO ALLOW THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF AN OUTDOOR ART AND CRAFT SALES UNDER PORTABLE TENTS FOR 15 WEEKENDS PER YEAR IN A C1-2.COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD SALES AND SERVICES 7,500 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE ZONING DISTRICT ON A 2.5 ACRE PARKING LOT THAT SERVES BELL ROCK PLAZA.
WITH THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, THE OWNER APPLICANT OF BELL ROCK PLAZA ASSOCIATION AGENT, SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES BY DAVE NORTON.
PROJECT NAMED BELL ROCK PLAZA ART AND CRAFT SHOWS, APN 405-27-326 B AND PLA 23-000-141.
THEY ARE LOCATED IN 57 BELL ROCK PLAZA IN THE COMMUNITY, VILLAGE OF OAK CREEK, ARIZONA, SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 16, AND A SONORA RANGE 05 EAST.
GNS, R, B, AND M. STAFF, STEPHANIE JOHNSON.
>> THANK YOU AND GOOD MORNING AGAIN, CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
STEPHANIE JOHNSON, PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
I'M HERE TODAY TO PRESENT TO YOU THE BELL ROCK PLAZA USE PERMIT RENEWAL WITHOUT MODIFICATIONS APPLICATION.
THAT WITHOUT MODIFICATIONS IS IMPORTANT.
THIS MATTER DID NOT GO THROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BECAUSE THEY ARE REQUESTING A RENEWAL WITHOUT MODIFICATION, AND THE CURRENT STANDARD PROCESS IS FOR THAT TO GO STRAIGHT TO THE BOARD TO BE HEARD.
>> BASICALLY, THEY'RE JUST ASKING FOR A RENEWAL OF THE EXISTING PERMIT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN THERE?
>> THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS LOCATED IN DISTRICT 3, SUPERVISOR MICHAEL'S DISTRICT.
THE BELL ROCK PLAZA IS LOCATED IN THE VILLAGE OF OAK CREEK AT 6125, STATE ROUTE 179, AND 57 BELL ROCK PLAZA.
AS YOU WILL SEE SHORTLY, THERE ARE TWO DRIVEWAYS FOR THIS PLAZA, THEREFORE, THERE ARE TWO ADDRESSES.
[01:20:01]
THE BELL ROCK PLAZA IS ZONED TO C1-2, THAT'S A COMMERCIAL ZONING.THE PARCEL IS APPROXIMATELY 2.54 ACRES.
THE BELL ROCK PLAZA ASSOCIATION HAS BEEN HOSTING THESE OUTDOOR ART AND CRAFT SALES UNDER PORTABLE TENTS SINCE 1999.
HERE'S AN OVERVIEW OF THE PARKING LOT LAYOUT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A RENEWAL OF THEIR USE PERMIT WITHOUT MODIFICATIONS.
THIS LAYOUT HERE SHOWS YOU THAT THIS RED AREA IS FOR THE ARTISTS THAT ARE SETTING UP AFTER 5:00 PM.
THIS LITTLE BROWN AREA IS THE AREA FOR THE ARTISTS THAT'S SET UP FRIDAY AFTER 9:00 PM.
THIS BLUE AREA IS FOR THE EXPANSION OF UP TO 60 ARTISTS.
THIS GREEN AREA IS FOR PARKING.
I DID VERIFY THAT WITH THE PREVIOUS SITE PLAN FROM 1999.
THIS GIVES YOU A MUCH CLEARER PICTURE THAN OUR OLD IMAGERY LEFT TO BE DESIRED, BUT IT DOES MATCH WITH THAT SITE PLAN.
>> THE OTHER GREEN BLOCK THERE, THAT'S ADDITIONAL PARKING.
>> THIS MORE FOR YOUR SMALL CARS.
THIS WILL HAVE YOUR TRUCK AND TRAILERS OR THE RV HOOKUPS.
HOWEVER, THEY BRING IN THEIR MATERIALS AND THEIR SET UP.
>> THE LARGER VEHICLE PARKING AND SOME SMALLER.
>> YOU'RE WELCOME. HERE IS THE NOTICE THAT WAS POSTED AT STATE ROUTE 179 ENTRANCE.
HERE IS A VIEW OF THE MAIN STAGING AREA FOR THE PARKING LOT FOR THE PORTABLE TENT SET UP.
THIS VIEW IS LOOKING NORTH ALONG STATE ROUTE 179 TOWARD BELL ROCK.
THIS VIEW IS AGAIN SHOWING WEST.
YOU CAN GET A GOOD CLEAR AREA OR GOOD VIEW OF THE AREA THEY USE FOR STAGING THOSE PORTABLE TENTS THROUGHOUT THIS MIDDLE SECTION HERE.
THIS VIEW IS LOOKING SOUTH DOWNSTATE ROUTE 179.
THIS IS THE SECOND POSTING AT THE SMALLER ENTRANCE TO THE BELL ROCK PLAZA AT 57 BELL ROCK PLAZA.
HERE'S A LITTLE CLEARER VIEW LOOKING SOUTH FROM THE BELL ROCK PLAZA ENTRANCE.
THIS IS A BIT OF A WIDE LENS OF VIEW, TRYING TO GET THE WHOLE PARKING LOT FOR YOU GUYS.
A LITTLE BIT CHALLENGING, BUT I THINK IT DOES GIVE YOU A GOOD IDEA OF WHERE THIS LARGER VEHICLE PARKING IS IN THOSE TANDEM SPOTS WITH THE TENT SET UP OVER HERE.
THIS GOOGLE OVERHEAD IMAGERY GIVES YOU A REALLY GOOD VIEW OF THAT PARKING LOT.
HERE'S OUR STATE ROUTE 179 ENTRANCE AND THAT STAGING AREA.
HERE WOULD BE THOSE TANDEM PARKING SPOTS FOR THE LARGER VEHICLES, AND HERE ARE THE SMALLER SINGLE VEHICLE SLOTS AND THAT BELL ROCK PLAZA ENTRANCE.
DURING MY RESEARCH, I NOTED THAT THERE HAVE ONLY BEEN TWO COMPLAINTS MADE ON THIS PARCEL OVER THE YEARS.
ONE OCCURRED BACK IN 2002 AND THE OTHER IN 2021.
IN 2021, THEY FOUND NO VIOLATION THAT WAS UNSUBSTANTIATED.
IN 2002, IT APPEARED THEY WERE USING THAT AS A MONITORING METHOD FOR THE INITIAL ISSUANCE OF THESE USE PERMITS TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE OPERATING BY THEIR SITE PLAN AND THEIR LETTER OF INTENT.
THERE WAS NO VIOLATION FOUND THEN EITHER.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION WAS NOT REQUIRED FOR THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING USE PERMIT.
STAFF DID SENT NOTICE OUT TO ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN 1,000 FEET, POSTED THE PROPERTY WITH NOTICE OF THE HEARING DATE, POSTED A SURVEY ON OUR WEBSITE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
TO DATE, THIS MORNING, WE HAD A BUNCH MORE COMMENTS COME IN.
WE HAVE FORWARDED THOSE TO THE CLERK.
STAFF DID RECEIVE 30 COMMENTS ON OUR SURVEY 1,2,3 ON THE WEBSITE.
THOSE WERE EMAILED OVER DUE TO THEIR LATE NOTICE AND I DO APOLOGIZE.
THAT'S WHEN THEY CAME THROUGH.
THERE WERE 14 COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION AND 16 COMMENTS IN FAVOR.
STAFF DOES NOT HAVE CONCERNS WITH THIS APPLICATION.
>> DOES THE CLERK HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL BESIDES THESE AS SHE'S MENTIONED IN THESE 30?
>> NOT IN ADDITION TO WHAT SHE'S MENTIONING.
I BELIEVE I RECEIVED THE 14 COMMENTS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY PART OF THE SURVEY 1,2,3 THAT WERE DISSEMINATED YESTERDAY.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, I HAD ONE LETTER, SORRY, OF OPPOSITION THAT WAS RECEIVED DIRECTLY BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
>> NO PROBLEM. STAFF BELIEVES THIS REQUEST IS ALIGNED WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN THAT,
[01:25:03]
THE USE PERMIT APPLICATION ENCOURAGES PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN LAND USE DECISIONS.THE APPLICATION IS ALSO ALIGNED WITH GOAL 2 IN PRESERVING THE SMALL TOWN FEELING OF RURAL COMMUNITIES WHILE INCREASING LOCALLY OWNED BUSINESSES.
THE ART AND CRAFT SHOWS ALLOW FOR LOCAL SMALL BUSINESSES TO HAVE AN AVENUE FOR PUBLIC SALES IN AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION ON A CONSISTENT BASIS AND IN AN APPROPRIATE MANNER.
I DO HAVE THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON THE OVERHEAD FOR YOU.
THE ART AND CRAFT SHOWS SHALL CONFORM TO THE OCTOBER 1999 SITE PLAN, BACK TO THESE ORIGINAL CONDITIONS.
THE ART AND CRAFT SHOWS SHALL CONFORM TO THE OPERATION GUIDELINES REPRESENTED IN THE APPLICANT'S LETTER OF INTENT DATED JANUARY 16TH, 1999 REGARDING HEARING APPLICATION 6839, EXCEPT WHERE THE STIPULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIFFER WITH THE OPERATION GUIDELINES, THE STIPULATION SHALL GOVERN.
THE USE PERMIT SHALL BE GRANTED FOR AN ADDITIONAL FIVE YEAR PERIOD OR UNTIL FEBRUARY 21ST OF 2029.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I DO HAVE THE APPLICANT, DAVE NORTON, HERE AND AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
>> I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS DIVIDED TO SOME DEGREE AND IT'S MS. MICHAEL'S.
>> YES, IT IS SUPERVISOR MICHAEL'S DISTRICT AND I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO IT.
THERE WAS A REASON THAT I WANTED HER TO GO THROUGH THIS ENTIRE PRESENTATION.
WE'VE WORKED VERY HARD ON THE COUNTY PLAN UPDATE AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, AND THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT CONFORMANCE.
THERE IS CERTAINLY CONVERSATION ALWAYS ABOUT OUR ART SHOWS, OUR TENT SHOWS OR THEY GO BY SEVERAL DIFFERENT NAMES, MR. CHAIRMAN.
BUT FOR BY AND LARGE, MR. NORTON HAS RAN WHAT I CONSIDERED TO BE A MODEL EXAMPLE OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, INVITING LOCALS IN, NOT ONLY TO SELL ITEMS, BUT ALSO TO PARTICIPATE IN A WEEKEND ACTIVITY WHICH IS CLOSE BY AND A LOT OF OUR SENIORS ENJOY IT.
I ONLY HAVE ONE COMPLAINT, EVERYBODY PARKS WHERE I GET MY PEDICURE ON THE WEEKEND.
ANYWAY, IT'S A VERY POSITIVE FOR THE COMMENTS THAT I HAVE RECEIVED, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO IT? BUT IF THERE IS NONE, IT'S MY PLEASURE TO MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS APPLICATION.
>> I APOLOGIZE. I DO HAVE SOME MORE CONDITIONS FROM THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONS UP HERE THAT I DID NOT READ ALL OF.
>> NUMBER 4, NO OFFSITE SIGNAGE SHALL BE ALLOWED.
IF SIGNAGE IS PLACED IN THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY, STAFF MAY REVIEW THE USE AND FIND THE APPLICANT IN NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE STIPULATIONS OF THE USE PERMIT.
VIOLATIONS OF THE TERM OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT SHALL VOID THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
SIGNAGE SHALL BE LIMITED TO 124 SQUARE FOOT SIGN IN THE FACE AREA ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGN, NOT EXTENDING 10 FEET IN HEIGHT AND IT SHALL BE LOCATED ALONG HIGHWAY 179 WITH NO PORTION OF THE SIGN BEING PLACED IN THE ADOT RIGHT OF WAY.
IT SHALL BE REMOVED AT THE CONCLUSION OF EACH EVENT.
NUMBER 5, UNDER ANY USE PERMIT, THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN 15 SHOWS A CALENDAR YEAR, EXCLUDING CANCELLATIONS, THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN TWO SHOWS IN A MONTH.
HOURS OF OPERATION SHALL BE BETWEEN 9:30 AM AND 5:00 PM ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS ONLY.
THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT AN ANNUAL CALENDAR OF EVENTS TO STAFF WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' APPROVAL.
ALTERNATE SANITARY FACILITIES SHALL CONFORM TO THE YAVAPAI COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES STANDARDS AND SHALL BE LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE TENT AREA.
NO MORE THAN FOUR OF THE PARTICIPANTS SELF-CONTAINED RECREATIONAL VEHICLES SHALL PARK OVERNIGHT IN THE BELL ROCK PLAZA PARKING LOT.
PARKING SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE AREA SPECIFIED ON THE OCTOBER 1999 SITE PLAN.
ALL ACTIVITIES SHALL OCCUR ON PAVED SURFACES.
IF ADDITIONAL PROPERTY OWNERS AND/OR TENANTS LOCATED IN THE BELL ROCK PLAZA AND THIS ADDITION REDUCES AVAILABLE PARKING BY MORE THAN 50 SPACES, YAVAPAI COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
NUMBER 12, COMPLIANCE WITH ALL SEDONA FIRE DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS AS SPECIFIED IN THE REVIEW COMMENTS DATED OCTOBER 27TH, 1999.
[01:30:04]
IN THE EVENT THE OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FILES A CLAIM UNDER ARS SECTION 12-1134 REGARDING THIS USE PERMIT, THIS USE PERMIT SHALL BE NULL AND VOID.THAT CONCLUDES THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
>> THEY'RE SIGNIFICANT AND IMPORTANT. I THANK YOU FOR THAT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, MY MOTION STILL STANDS TO APPROVE THIS APPLICATION.
>> YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, SINCE WE HAD ALMOST 50% OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE AGAINST THIS.
WHAT WAS THEIR MAJOR COMPLAINT? WAS IT COMMON OR WAS IT ALL OVER THE PLACE?
>> IT WAS A LITTLE BIT ALL OVER THE PLACE AND HONESTLY, A LOT OF THE COMMENTS WERE NOT TO THIS PROPERTY.
THEY WERE TO THE PROPERTY WHERE THE ELEMENT IS LOCATED AND THE OTHER, I APOLOGIZE, I'M FORGETTING THE WORD WE, SEDONA VISTA VILLAGE ART AND CRAFT SHOWS.
THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF THE OPPOSITION COMMENTS I THINK THEY WERE LOOKING AT, THEY'RE JUST A QUARTER MILE FROM EACH OTHER IF THAT.
>> TWO DIFFERENT EVENTS AND THERE'S THE HISTORY, SUPERVISOR OBERG.
THE ONE THAT STEPHANIE IS REFERRING TO THAT IS NOT BEFORE US TODAY TO HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH THE SIGNAGE AND COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIP WHICH THEY HAVE WORKED, AS I AM TOLD, VERY HARD ON CLEARING UP.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S BEFORE US AND I THINK THE CONFUSION COMES FROM PEOPLE MAKING THAT ASSUMPTION THAT THEY'RE THE SAME.
>> THAT IS SOME OF THE COMMENT, DON'T NEED TWO TENT VENUES AND ONE MILE IN THE VILLAGE, MOVE IT TO UPTOWN.
THEY WERE ALL OVER THE PLACE, BUT SEVERAL OF THEM DID RELATE TO SEDONA VISTA VILLAGE, WHICH IS NOT BEFORE US TODAY.
>> IS THERE ANYBODY HERE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK TO THIS ACTUAL ITEM? I DON'T SEE ANY HANDS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY INDICATIONS OR GREEN SHEETS? NO. WE HAVE A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD AND SECOND BY MR. GREGORY. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> CALL TO THE PUBLIC. DO YOU HAVE ANY FOLKS WHO WANT TO TALK TO US ON ANY PARTICULAR ITEM? WE WON'T BE ABLE TO GET BACK TO YOU FOR A WHILE, BUT DO I SEE ANY GREEN SHEETS AT ALL? NO. THEN WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.