[00:00:01]
>> MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
[ CALL TO ORDER]
WELCOME TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING.IT'S 9:00 AM. ALL ITEMS LISTED ARE POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE ORDER OF THE ITEMS MAY BE MODIFIED AT THE MEETING.
ONE OR MORE BOARD MEMBERS MAY BE ATTENDING TELEPHONICALLY OR VIRTUALLY.
BOARD MEMBERS WHO ARE ATTENDING TELEPHONICALLY OR VIRTUALLY WILL BE ANNOUNCED AT THE MEETING.
ALL ITEMS LISTED ARE POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS, AND THE ITEMS MAY BE MODIFIED AT THE MEETING.
NOTE, ONE OR MORE BOARD MEMBERS MAY ATTEND TELEPHONIC OR VIRTUALLY. I ALREADY SAID THAT.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MAY VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING LEGAL ADVICE WITH RESPECT TO ANY ITEM LISTED ON THE AGENDA.
CITIZENS ARE ENCOURAGED TO WATCH THE MEETING VIRTUALLY AT WWW.YAVAPAIAZ.GOV/MEETINGS.
PUBLIC WILL HAVE PHYSICAL ACCESS TO THE MEETING LOCATION 15 MINUTES PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM, PLEASE FILL OUT A GREEN SHEET AND TURN IT INTO THE CLERK AT THE END OF THE [INAUDIBLE].
WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO CALL IT TO ORDER.
DON, WOULD YOU DO THE INVOCATION THIS MORNING?
>> MR. OBERG WILL DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
>> GOOD MORNING. DOING THE PRAYER.
OUR HEAVENLY FATHER, WE THANK YOU FOR THIS BEAUTIFUL DAY IN PRESCOTT, ARIZONA.
WE'RE SO GRATEFUL TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE YOUR VALUES, OUR COMMUNITY'S VALUES BY REPRESENTING THEM AT OUR BOARD, TODAY.
WE APPRECIATE AND ARE SO GRATEFUL FOR OUR FIRST RESPONDERS.
PLEASE PROTECT THEM EVERY DAY ALONG THE JOURNEY THAT THEY TAKE.
WE ASK YOU THIS IN YOUR NAME. AMEN.
>> PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO OUR NATION'S FLAG.
>> 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.
ASK THE CLERK TO CALL ROLL, PLEASE?
>> THANK YOU. WE MOVE ON TO PRESENTATIONS.
[ PRESENTATIONS]
PRESENTATION BY CHIEF SCOTT FREITAG FROM CENTRAL ARIZONA FIRE AND MEDICAL AUTHORITY, BEING AWARDED A CERTIFICATE OF NECESSITY, WHICH IN ARIZONA LICENSE TO PROVIDE AMBULANCE TRANSPORT SERVICES IN THE AREA.CHIEF FREITAG, GOOD TO SEE YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU FOR THE INVITATION.
ON, THERE WE GO. CHIEF SCOTT FREITAG, CENTRAL ARIZONA FIRE AND MEDICAL AUTHORITY.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME THIS MORNING.
I JUST WANT TO TAKE A QUICK SECOND TO MENTION THE LEGADO FIRE BECAUSE SO MANY RESOURCES FROM THE COUNTY RESPONDED TO ASSIST CENTRAL ARIZONA FIRE AND PRESCOTT FIRE.
FOR US, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE QUAD CITY AREA, WE CONSIDER CENTRAL ARIZONA FIRE AND PRESCOTT FIRE ONE AGENCY TAKING CARE OF OUR COLLECTIVE COMMUNITY.
THAT NIGHT WHEN I ARRIVED ON SCENE, WE HAD 13 UNITS OUT OF 15 FROM CENTRAL ARIZONA AND PRESCOTT ON THE FIRE SCENE.
I CALLED FOR COUNTYWIDE MUTUAL AID AND THEN EVENTUALLY CALLED FOR STATEWIDE MUTUAL AID ABOUT 20 MINUTES LATER.
THAT BROUGHT RESOURCES FROM AS FAR AWAY AS FLAGSTAFF.
WE USED ONE RESOURCE FROM COTTONWOOD ON THE FIRE ITSELF, BECAUSE THEY HAD ANOTHER AERIAL PLATFORM WE NEEDED FOR ELEVATED MASTER STREAM.
THEN THE OTHER UNITS WERE DISPERSED BETWEEN THE CAFMA AND PRESCOTT STATIONS THAT WERE EMPTIED TO COVER REGULAR 911 CALLS.
DURING THE TIME THAT THEY BACK-FILLED THE STATION, THERE WERE AN ADDITIONAL 38 CALLS TO 911 FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES.
OF COURSE, MY QUESTION WAS, WHY ARE YOU UP SO EARLY? GO BACK TO BED.
BUT THAT FIRE, WE ULTIMATELY WE PULLED THE LAST CAFMA UNIT OFF THAT FIRE SEVEN DAYS LATER.
YCS, THOUGH, WAS THERE ASSISTING PRESCOTT VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND THE INTEGRATION OF ALL RESOURCES BETWEEN EMS FIRE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT WORKED VERY WELL TOGETHER SEAMLESSLY.
OUR CREWS, A LOT OF THEM BRAND NEW OFFICERS, MADE GREAT TACTICAL DECISIONS THAT NIGHT, WHICH KEPT OTHER BUILDINGS FROM BEING BADLY DAMAGED AND PREVENTED INJURY OR DEATH FROM OCCURRING.
I JUST WANT TO TOUCH BASE ON THAT BECAUSE THE COUNTYWIDE MUTUAL AID PLAN THAT'S IN PLACE AND THE STATEWIDE MUTUAL AID PLAN THAT'S IN PLACE WORKED FOR OUR COMMUNITY THAT NIGHT,
[00:05:03]
AND THE RESOURCES AND TRAINING THAT WE HAVE BETWEEN PRESCOTT AND CAFMA, ALL OF THAT CAME INTO PLAY AND WAS ON FULL DISPLAY THAT NIGHT AND THROUGHOUT THE FOLLOWING WEEK.JUST WANT TO THANK THE COUNTY FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN THOSE EFFORTS AND ALL OF THE COUNTY AGENCIES THAT RESPONDED. THANK YOU FOR THAT.
>> DID YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH TIMELINESS OF THEIR RESPONSE?
>> IT TOOK A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE EVERYONE IS SO FAR AWAY.
IT WAS PROBABLY ABOUT 90 MINUTES TO TWO HOURS BEFORE WE GOT RESOURCES TO BACK-FILL.
BUT WE WERE ALSO ABLE TO CALL IN OFF-DUTY PERSONNEL WHO BACK-FILLED SOME OF OUR ENGINES, TO MAINTAIN THE SANCTITY OF THE 911 SYSTEM DURING THE INITIAL PHASES OF THE EVENT, WHICH WAS FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT.
BY THE TIME WE WERE CALLED, THERE WAS NOTHING WE WERE GOING TO DO THAT WAS GOING TO STOP THE FIRE.
WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO WAS CONTAIN IT TO THE BUILDING OF ORIGIN OR BLOCK OF ORIGIN, IN THIS CASE.
>> GOING TO TELL US ABOUT YOUR AMBULANCE SERVICE?
>> AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, CENTRAL ARIZONA FIRE AND MEDICAL AUTHORITY PUT IN A APPLICATION TO OPERATE OUR OWN AMBULANCES FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
WE DID THAT ALMOST THREE YEARS AGO NOW.
IT WOULD BE THREE YEARS OCTOBER.
IN THE INTERVENING TIME BEFORE WE DROPPED OUR APPLICATION, WE WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH PRIORITY AMBULANCE TO BRING ANOTHER PRIVATE PROVIDER UP INTO THE COMMUNITIES AS WELL.
THAT WAY, WE COULD HAVE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES AND SUPPORT NEEDED TO ACTUALLY PROVIDE SERVICES FOR THE 911 SYSTEM, WHICH IN OUR AREA IS GETTING BUSIER AND BUSIER EVERY YEAR AS MORE AND MORE PEOPLE MOVE HERE.
WE RECEIVED THE PAPER COPY OF THE CON ABOUT FOUR WEEKS AGO, AND OUR PLAN IS TO HAVE TWO AMBULANCES UP AND SERVICE AT THE END OF AUGUST.
AGAIN, WE'LL BE WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH OUR PARTNERS AT PRIORITY AMBULANCE WHO ARE THE PRIMARY 911 WITHIN CAFMA'S JURISDICTION ALONGSIDE OF US.
WE'RE ALSO GOING TO HAVE BACKUP AGREEMENTS WITH LIFELINE, AMR AMBULANCE, AND MAYOR AMBULANCE AS WELL ALL AROUND THE SURROUNDING AREA, WHICH WILL PROVIDE AN ENHANCED LEVEL OF 911 TRANSPORT SERVICES TO OUR COMMUNITY.
OUR UNITS WILL BE PARAMEDIC STAFF 24/7.
WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO BACK AND STAFF ADDITIONAL UNITS IF CALL VOLUME DICTATES FOR A DAY.
IF WE HAVE A SPIKE IN SERVICES OR A SPIKE IN NEED, WE CAN PUT ADDITIONAL UNITS UP AS NEEDED.
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT PUTTING THEM UP FULL TIME GOING FROM 2-4 AMBULANCES.
I'M TALKING ABOUT JUST A SPIKE IN NEEDED SERVICES THROUGH THE 911 SYSTEM.
WE APPRECIATE THE COMMUNITY SUPPORT AS WE WORKED THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
IT WAS ALONG OUR JURIS PROCESS, BUT EVENTUALLY WE GOT THERE.
THIS MIRRORS THE SYSTEM THAT THE YAVAPAI COUNTY RESIDENTS RECEIVE ON THE [INAUDIBLE] SIDE OF THE MOUNTAIN, WHERE THEY HAVE A GREAT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A NOT-FOR-PRIVATE AMBULANCE SERVICE AND FIRE-BASED AMBULANCE SERVICES.
WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS IN REGARDS TO THIS?
>> I GOT A COMMENT. I THINK THIS WAS A LONG TIME COMING.
WITH OUR RESPONSE FOR THE AMBULANCE SERVICES, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE VERY BENEFICIAL FOR THE COMMUNITY FOR GETTING AN AMBULANCE HERE IN A TIMELY MANNER.
I KNOW THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL CALLS FOR SERVICE WHERE PEOPLE HAD A LONG WAIT FOR AN AMBULANCE, AND THIS WILL DEVIATE FROM THAT AND BE GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS ON THIS.
>> YES, CHIEF, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU.
I KNOW IT HAS BEEN A LONG PROCESS TO GET THIS DONE, AND I KNOW THAT YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR FIRST RESPONDERS ALONG WITH OUR COMMUNITY.
I KNOW AT TIMES THERE'S A LOT OF PUSH-BACK, BUT THANK YOU FOR KEEPING GOING AND GOING FORWARD, AND GETTING THIS ACCOMPLISHED.
YOUR EFFORTS ARE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED, AND FOREVER GRATEFUL FOR ALL THAT YOU AND YOUR DEPARTMENT DO.
>> JUST ONE QUESTION I WANTED TO ASK YOU, SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOLAR TODAY AND SPRINGING THIS ON YOU.
BUT IS THERE ANYTHING YOU FIND IN A UTILITY-SIZED FIELD OF SOLAR PANELS OR ANYTHING THAT YOU NEED SOMETHING SPECIAL TO FIGHT FIRE ONCE OCCURRED?
>> THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS. A LOT OF THE BATTERY-POWERED PACKS TODAY THAT THEY USE FOR STORAGE FOR SOLAR OR LITHIUM ION BATTERIES, AND WE ABSOLUTELY DO NOT RECOMMEND THAT YOU PUT THOSE BATTERY PACKS INSIDE YOUR HOME.
[00:10:03]
UNDER THERMAL RUNAWAY WITH LITHIUM ION BATTERY PACK SYSTEM IN YOUR GARAGE, IT WILL ACTUALLY BLOW THE GARAGE DOOR 150 FEET AWAY FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, OFF OF THE HOUSE, AND THAT'S WITH NOTHING ELSE IN THE GARAGE TO CATCH ON FIRE.THEY BURN HOT FAST, AND THEY'RE EXPLOSIVE.
WE DO NOT RECOMMEND LITHIUM ION BATTERY PACK, BATTERY WALLS, OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT INSIDE THE HOUSE, ANYWHERE IN IT.
ON THE SOLAR SIDE, ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE THE BATTERY BACKUPS OR JUST SOLAR IN GENERAL.
THEY HAD A HOME IN SCOTTSDALE BURNED DOWN.
THEY HAD AN ATTIC FIRE THE NIGHT BEFORE.
THEY WERE THERE SUPPRESSING THAT FIRE, THAT FIRE WAS OUT. THEY WERE IN OVERHAUL.
AS THE SUN CAME UP, THE SOLAR PANELS WERE RECHARGED, BUT THE WIRES HAD BURNED IN THE ATTIC AND IGNITED ANOTHER FIRE BECAUSE THE POWER WASN'T GOING THROUGH THE CABLING INTO A BATTERY SYSTEM OR ANY OTHER SYSTEM.
>> THERE WAS NO WAY TO TURN IT OFF. NO.
>> WE'RE TALKING ALSO ABOUT LARGE-SCALE ACREAGE.
>> THE ACREAGE, WE DON'T HAVE AS MANY CONCERNS WITH.
APS HAS DONE A LOT TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THEIR SYSTEMS, ESPECIALLY THEIR LITHIUM ION BATTERY BACKUP AND STORAGE SYSTEMS. IN FACT, AFTER AN INCIDENT IN PEORIA, SURPRISE AREA IN THE VALLEY WHERE ONE OF THOSE CONSTRUCTION TYPE OF BUILDING WHERE THEY HAD THOSE STORAGE UNITS.
SOME FIREFIGHTERS OPENED THE DOOR BECAUSE THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE BATTERIES.
IT EXPLODED, AND SOME OF THOSE FIREFIGHTERS WERE NEVER ABLE TO COME BACK TO WORK AGAIN.
TODAY, THEY PUT THOSE IN INDIVIDUALIZED EXPLOSION-RESISTANT, FIRE-RESISTANT BOXES.
IF ONE BATTERY HAS A THERMAL RUNAWAY, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY IMPACT THE OTHER BATTERIES WITHIN THE SYSTEM, SO IT'S EASIER TO MONITOR.
THEN WHEN WE PULL UP ON SCENE TO THE GATED AREAS BEFORE WE ACCESS THAT ACREAGE, THERE'S A MONITOR THAT APS PUTS OUT THERE, SO WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON, WE KNOW WHICH UNIT IS INVOLVED, AND WE SIMPLY CALL APS AND SAY, HEY, YOUR STUFF'S ON FIRE, AND THEN WE LEAVE IT ALONE, BECAUSE WE CAN'T OPEN IT.
IT'S NOT SAFE. BUT APS HAS THEIR WAYS OF ADDRESSING THOSE.
WE'RE VERY COMFORTABLE WITH ALL OF THE SAFETY EFFORTS THAT APS HAS TAKEN IN THOSE SOLAR FARMS.
>> WHAT WOULD WE DO IF IT WAS A PRIVATE COMPANY?
>> PRIVATE COMPANY, WE WOULD WANT TO LOOK AT THEIR PLANS TO BE SURE THAT THE WAY THAT THEIR BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS WERE GOING TO BE DESIGNED MET THE NEW STANDARDS WHERE THEY ARE INDIVIDUALIZED COMPARTMENTS WITH AN APPROPRIATE TYPE OF STORAGE CABINET FOR EACH OF THOSE BATTERIES.
>> THAT WOULD, IN FACT, CHIEF, BE PART OF THE REVIEW PROCESS.
THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE YOUR NOD THAT THE APPROPRIATE PROTECTIONS ARE IN PLACE.
>> YES, MA'AM. IT SHOULD BE, AND I KNOW WITH APS, AT LEAST, THEY'VE BEEN VERY COMMUNICATIVE AND EVERYTHING THAT THEY'VE DONE.
WE HAVEN'T WORKED WITH A PRIVATE COMPANY IN THAT REGARD YET, BUT I WOULD EXPECT THEY WOULD BE EQUALLY AS COMMUNICATIVE AND WILLING TO WORK WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY, AS WELL AS THEIR INVESTMENT.
>> ABSOLUTELY. WELL, WE'RE SURE GO TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT HAPPENS BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE TALKING LARGE SCALE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MANY POTENTIAL HOMES BEING IMPACTED OR OPEN SPACE AREA BEING IMPACTED.
>> IT'S GOING TO TAKE A DIFFERENT STANDARD.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT, CHIEF. THANK YOU.
>> WELL, CHIEF FREITAG, THANKS FOR COMING BY AND TELLING US ABOUT THE [OVERLAPPING] AMBULANCE SERVICE.
THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS, I'M SURE, GOT ANSWERED BY YOUR DESCRIPTION OF WHAT'S GOING TO TAKE PLACE.
>> WE'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN THAT KICKS OFF BECAUSE WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING SPECIAL AS THOSE AMBULANCES GO INTO SERVICE FOR THE FIRST TIME.
SOMETHING SIMULTANEOUS IN CHINO AND PRESCOTT VALLEY.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> THANK YOU. MOVING ON FROM PRESENTATION TO CONSENT AGENDA.
[ 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 18 AND 25.]
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING I ONLY HAVE ITEM NUMBER 18 AND 25 BEING PULLED.>> NO? NUMBER 18 AND 25 ARE BEING PULLED.
I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FROM 1-35, EXCLUDING 18 AND-
>> TWENTY-FIVE. SECOND. [OVERLAPPING]
>> MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 18, HUMAN RESOURCES.
[18. Human Resources - Approve revisions to Human Resources Policies and Procedures 1.00, 2.01, 2.02, 2.03, 3.03, 4.01, 5.13, 6.03 and 6.06 effective July 1, 2024, and rescind Board of Supervisors Policies and Procedures 5.0 and 5.1.]
APPROVE REVISIONS OF HUMAN RESOURCES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 1, 2.01, 2.02,[00:15:08]
2.03, 38.03, 4.01, 513, AND 603, AND 606.>> GOOD MORNING. WENDY ROSS, DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND RISK MANAGEMENT.
CORRECT, I'M HERE TODAY REQUESTING APPROVAL OF REVISIONS TO ABOUT NINE OF OUR HUMAN RESOURCES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
PART OF MY ROLE AS YOUR DIRECTOR IS TO ENSURE OUR POLICY IS ACCURATE, UP TO DATE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS, AND BEST BUSINESS PRACTICES.
ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA, THERE IS A SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE SUGGESTING FOR EACH OF THESE POLICIES.
NOT SURE IF YOU WANT ME TO WALK ALL THE WAY THROUGH THAT OR IF YOU HAD ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THE SUGGESTED REVISIONS.
>> ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THOSE REVISIONS? NO? I DO HAVE A GREEN SHEET ON ONE REVISIONS.
I'D LIKE TO CALL UP OUR YAVAPAI COUNTY TREASURER, CHIP DAVIS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, BOARD MEMBERS.
I DO WANT TO ADDRESS AGENDA ITEM 18, SECTION 6.03, PAGE 2 AND 3, LINES 1 THROUGH THREE.
ESSENTIALLY, THIS POLICY SAYS THAT PEOPLE CAN'T BRING PETS INTO YAVAPAI COUNTY BUILDINGS.
THIS HAS BEEN NEAR AND DEAR TO ME FOR ABOUT THE LAST 30 PLUS YEARS THAT I'VE BROUGHT MY DOGS TO WORK AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF ADVANTAGES TO THAT.
RIGHT OUTSIDE THESE WALLS HERE, WE'RE CELEBRATING THE RURAL OLDEST RODEO.
WE CREATED RODEO IN YAVAPAI COUNTY.
WE AND YAVAPAI COUNTY GET PRETTY WESTERN, AS EVIDENCED BY MY FOREHEAD.
WE ARE WESTERN, AND IT'S IN OUR BLOOD.
I WAS ALWAYS RAISED TO HAVE GOOD, WELL TRAINED ANIMALS.
TWO WEEKS AGO, THERE WAS A ROOSTER BEATING UP HENS AND HE WENT AFTER MY MOM.
SHE RETURNED, STEPPED ON HIS NECK, AND WHACKED HIS HEAD OFF WITH A HATCHET.
SHE DIDN'T GET RID OF ALL OF THE CHICKENS.
SHE JUST DEALT WITH THE PROBLEM.
AT THE EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP MEETING, OUR HR DIRECTOR EXPLAINED HOW CITIZENS PETS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN OUR BUILDINGS, EITHER.
IT'S OVER 100 DEGREES OUT THERE.
I DON'T THINK PEOPLE SHOULD BE LEAVING THEIR PETS IN THEIR CARS.
MY ENTIRE STAFF LOVE HER PRESENCE.
WHEN I VISIT OTHER DEPARTMENTS, THEY ASK THAT I BRING THE DOG FOR THEM TO ENJOY.
WHEN I WAS SUPERVISOR, I ALWAYS HAD MY DOGS WITH ME AND THEY WOULD GREET THE VISITING CITIZENS IN THE FRONT OFFICE.
IF THEY WERE THERE TO GRIPE OR COMPLAIN, THE DOGS USUALLY HAD THEM CALM DOWN BY THE TIME THEY GOT BACK TO MY OFFICE.
IF YOU LOOK AT HISTORICAL ROAD OPENINGS, BUILDING DEDICATIONS, THERE'S A DOG IN THE PICTURES.
PLEASE DON'T PENALIZE RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS BECAUSE OF A BAD EXPERIENCE.
WHAT IS THE RECORD OR EXPERIENCE OF BAD DOG ENCOUNTERS IN YAVAPAI COUNTY GOVERNMENT? I DON'T KNOW OF ANY.
LOOK AT TODAY'S SOCIETAL CHANGES, AND YOU'LL SEE THAT RESTAURANTS, BOOKSTORES, BREWERIES, HOTELS, LOCALLY ACE HARDWARE, LOWE'S TRACTOR SUPPLIES, CABELA'S, BASS PRO SHOP, DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, NORDSTROMS, MACY'S, HOME DEPOT, AND EVEN VICTORIA SECRETS ALLOWS DOGS IN THEIR BUSINESSES.
I FOUND A RECENT ARTICLE BY HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW, DATED NOVEMBER 2023, TITLED THE BENEFITS OF PET FRIENDLY WORKPLACES, AND IT STATES, IT INCREASES EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT AND CAREER SATISFACTION, REDUCES TURNOVER INTENTIONS, HELP ATTRACT AND RETAIN EMPLOYEES.
DO YOU LIKE ME TO STOP, SIR? KEEP GOING.
THANK YOU. HELP ATTRACT AND RETAIN EMPLOYEES, POSITIVELY AFFECTS EMPLOYEES THAT DON'T HAVE PETS, CREATE MORE PLEASANT AND SOCIAL WORK ENVIRONMENT, BUFFERS AGAINST STRESS, ENHANCES WORK ENGAGEMENT, IMPROVES WORK LIFE QUALITY, INCREASE EMPLOYEE INTERACTIONS, REDUCE FEELINGS OF ISOLATION.
PETS CAN MAKE THE OFFICE OFTEN MORE SOCIAL AND INCLUSIVE.
[00:20:01]
PET FRIENDLY WORKPLACES AS UNPROFESSIONAL, UNCLEAN, AND UNSAFE.A DIVERSE AND INCREASING NUMBER OF WORKPLACES ARE CONSIDERING WELCOMING COMPANION ANIMALS BECAUSE OF ENHANCED WORKPLACE, CULTURE, AND QUALITY OF LIFE.
AN ADDITIONAL ARTICLE FROM ALL WORK.SPACE.
PETS IN THE WORKPLACE CAN MAKE EMPLOYEES HAPPIER AND INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY, TEAM MORALE, AND EMPLOYEE RETENTION, WHILE DECREASING STRESS AND ABSENCE.
AN ARTICLE BY THE ASC STATES THAT PETS RELIEVE STRESS, IMPROVE COMMUNICATIONS, PROMOTE CREATIVITY, AND PROBLEM SOLVING, AND ENHANCE WORK SLASH LIFE BALANCE.
WHAT I WOULD ASK FOR YOU TO CONSIDER IS, COULD WE PLEASE CREATE A PET POLICY THAT DOGS NEED TO BE WELL TRAINED, LEASHED WHEN IN OPEN AREAS, PASS A WORKPLACE TEST, CREATE ALLOW DOG FREE AREAS, MAKE SURE THEY'RE UPDATED ON VACCINES, MAKE SURE THEY'RE FULLY HOUSEBROKEN, THEY CAN RESPOND TO BASIC COMMANDS, WE CAN DESIGNATE RELIEF AND CLEANUP AREAS AND GET THE OPINION OF FELLOW STAFF MEMBERS IF THEY'RE OKAY WITH IT BUT PLEASE LET'S NOT THROW OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATHWATER.
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. DAVIS? I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTION.
I DON'T THINK WE CAN WITH A CALL TO THE PUBLIC, CAN WE? NO QUESTIONS, AND I SEE.
I HAVE ONE QUESTION, BUT IT'S FOR THE HR DIRECTOR.
WOULD YOU READ THE NEW POLICIES AS YOU'VE WRITTEN IT? IT IS SECTION 6.03, WORKPLACE SAFETY.
IT IS SECTION 3(F), AND IT STARTS WITH.
EMPLOYEES ARE PROHIBITED FROM BRINGING NON SERVICE ANIMALS TO WORK IN ANY COUNTY BUILDING.
NON SERVICE ANIMALS ARE ALSO PROHIBITED IN COUNTY OWNED OR LEASED VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT.
THIS POLICY IS NOT INTENDED TO LIMIT THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES WHO USE BONA FIDE SERVICE ANIMALS.
AN EMPLOYEE SEEKING TO REQUEST THE USE OF A SERVICE ANIMAL AT WORK MUST MAKE A WRITTEN REQUEST TO HUMAN RESOURCES PURSUANT TO POLICY 3.06.
SHORT DURATION VISITS OF LESS THAN ONE HOUR FOR NON SERVICE ANIMALS MAY BE ALLOWED BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY.
PROVIDED THAT THE ANIMAL IS ON A LEASH AND REMAINS UNDER FULL CONTROL OF THE OWNER.
THE OWNER SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGE DONE TO COUNTY PROPERTY BY SUCH ANIMAL AND SHALL IMMEDIATELY CLEAN UP ANY MESS MADE BY THE ANIMAL AND NO INSTANCE, SHALL THIS BE CONSTRUED AS CONSENT TO KEEP AN ANIMAL IN THE WORKPLACE.
THIS POLICY DOES NOT APPLY TO ACTIVE DUTY LAW ENFORCEMENT CANINES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT SERVICE ANIMALS, THERE'S DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SERVICE, SO SOME IS THERAPY, IT'S NOT.
ARE WE CONSIDERING THAT TYPE OF A SERVICE ANIMAL AS WELL? OUR INTENT IS TO COMPLY WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, AND A SERVICE ANIMAL IS DEFINED UNDER THE ACT DOES NOT INCLUDE EMOTIONAL SUPPORT ANIMALS.
THAT'S WHY WE'VE WRITTEN INTO THE POLICY THAT IF SOMEONE WISHED TO HAVE A SERVICE ANIMAL IN THE WORKPLACE, THEY WOULD WORK WITH HUMAN RESOURCES, WE WOULD GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF ENSURING THAT IT WAS A TRUE SERVICE ANIMAL AS DEFINED BY THE ADA.
WE COULD LOOK INTO THAT AND DO THEY HAVE TO GET, SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A CERTIFICATE EVEN FOR THE EMOTIONAL? EMOTIONAL SUPPORT ANIMALS ARE NOT COVERED BY THE ADA.
BUT WE WOULD STILL LOOK AT THAT AND CONSIDER THAT. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? OUR INTENT WITH THE POLICY IS TO ONLY ALLOW SERVICE ANIMALS AS DEFINED BY THE ADA.
I THINK WHAT SHE'S TRYING TO KILL US IS THERE'S NO SUBSTANDARD FOR THAT TYPE OF SERVICE ANIMAL.
UNDER THE ADA, THERE'S DEFINITIONS THAT GO INTO THE DEFINITION OF A DISABILITY OR A QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY.
THERE MAY BE A DISABILITY UNDER THE ADA THAT ACCOMMODATION MIGHT BE AN EMOTIONAL SUPPORT ANIMAL, BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ALL INCLUSIVE AND WE VERIFY THAT INFORMATION BY TALKING TO DOCTORS, THAT TYPE OF THING.
I DON'T THINK THE ANSWER IS, NO, THERE'D NEVER BE AN EMOTIONAL SUPPORT ANIMAL.
IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ONE THAT ALSO QUALIFIED AS A SERVICE ANIMAL UNDER THE ADA FOR A DISABILITY.
[00:25:02]
THANK YOU.JUST I APPRECIATE YOU READING THAT BECAUSE IT'S EASY TO THINK THAT WE'RE JUST DISMISSING OUR CANINE FAMILY MEMBERS.
THOSE OF YOU WHO KNOW ME KNOW THAT I WOULD BE STANDING IN THE FIRE WITH YOU IF THERE WAS A DISMISSAL OF OUR CANINE FAMILY MEMBERS WHO MEET THE CRITERIA.
CERTAINLY, I ALSO HAVE, AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, A SERVICE DOG AND GETTING READY TO TRAVEL WITH ONE, IN FACT, AND IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THEY ARE TRAINED AND WELL TRAINED AND CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT.
I THINK IF THERE'S A CONCERN ON THE PART OF THE BOARD MEMBERS REGARDING THIS POLICY, ONE COULD EXCISE IT FROM THE OVERALL A VOTE HERE TODAY.
BUT HEARING NONE OR IN ABSENCE OF ANY, MR. CHAIRMAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S WIGGLE ROOM, THERE'S INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, THERE'S A REASON, I WORK WITH A GREAT NUMBER OF VETERANS, AND I CERTAINLY AM NOT GOING TO PROHIBIT ONE MISS ROSS FROM COMING INTO MY OFFICE WITH A SERVICE.
THAT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
I WANT US TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO HAVE THOSE VARIATIONS WHEN WE NEED TO.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THE POLICY IS DOING JUST THAT.
IF I COULD JUST CLARIFY ABOUT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC BRINGING SERVICE ANIMALS INTO OUR BUILDINGS.
ACT, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT AT THE MOST RECENT EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP TEAM MEETING BECAUSE THERE ARE ALSO RULES UNDER THE ADA ABOUT THAT.
THERE ARE SOME SEPARATE RULES FOR EMPLOYEES, AND THEN THERE ARE RULES FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
WE SPENT SOME TIME AT THE EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP TEAM MEETING TALKING THROUGH THAT.
WHAT CAN YOU ASK? WHAT CAN YOU NOT ASK? IT'S NOBODY'S INTENTION TO INFRINGE ON ANYBODY'S RIGHTS UNDER THE ADA WHO HAVE NEED OF A SERVICE ANIMAL IN OUR BUILDINGS.
WELL, IT ALSO COMES UNDER HIPA, I WOULD IMAGINE TO SOME DEGREE, AS WELL, CORRECT? THERE'S A LOT OF CONFIDENTIALITY IN THE INFORMATION SURROUNDING ADA.
JUST A QUESTION, FOR WHATEVER REASON, WHAT IF FOR SOME REASON, THE SERVICE DOG BECOMES AGGRESSIVE? HOW WILL WE HANDLE THAT? THE ADA DOES ALLOW FOR AN EMPLOYER OR A PLACE OF BUSINESS TO REMOVE AN AGGRESSIVE DOG FROM THE WORKPLACE.
THAT'S COVERED IN OUR POLICY? I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S SPECIFICALLY LISTED OUT IN THE ADA POLICY, THE POLICY OUTLINES COMPLIANCE WITH THE ADA.
IF THERE'S A QUESTION OF A SPECIFIC SITUATION, WE WOULD LOOK TO THE ADA LAW OR CASE LAW ON THAT.
BUT IS THERE ARE PROVISIONS WITHIN THE ADA WHERE IF A SERVICE ANIMAL IS CAUSING DISRUPTION IN A PLACE OF BUSINESS OR IN THE WORKPLACE THAT THE BUSINESS OWNER OR EMPLOYER CAN ASK FOR THAT DOG TO BE REMOVED.
I BELIEVE IT'S COVERED WITHIN THE ADA, AS YOU JUST DESCRIBED.
IT'S INCUMBENT ON ALL SERVICE DOG OWNERS TO TAKE THAT RESPONSIBILITY AND TO HAVE THE ASSURANCE THAT THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN AND TO ADDRESS IT IF IT DOES IN A WAY THAT'S APPROPRIATE BOTH FOR THE DEGREE OF INCIDENT AND ALSO FOR THE SAFETY AND SERVICE OF THE EMPLOYEE OR WHOMEVER IT IS.
IF YOU BEGIN TO GET MORE DEFINED AND INTO THE WEEDS, I THINK YOU WILL END UP NOT HAVING GOOD PARAMETERS TO APPLY.
MR. BRENNER. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT FROM THE LEGAL SIDE OF THINGS? CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
ACTUALLY, I WAS JUST GOING TO ECHO WHAT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR HAD SAID THAT THERE ARE PROVISIONS BUILT INTO THE ADA, THOSE WOULD BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO OUR POLICY, AND THEY DO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTIONS OR PROVISIONS FOR AN EMPLOYER TO REMOVE AN ANIMAL THAT'S NOT BEHAVING APPROPRIATELY IN A NUMBER OF WAYS.
THAT WOULD ALREADY BE COVERED BY THE REVISIONS OF THE POLICY AS PROPOSED.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REVISIONS OF HUMAN RESOURCES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AS ENUMERATED IN OUR AGENDA ITEM IN TOTAL AND TO
[00:30:02]
RESCIND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 5.0 AND 5.1.JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, MR. CHAIRMAN, I NOW WOULD SECOND THAT, BUT THE 5.0 AND 5.1.
I HAVE A MOTION. LET'S GET TO A SECOND. IS THERE A SECOND? I DID INDICATE THAT I WOULD SECOND.
THERE IS A SECOND. NOW WE'RE IN DISCUSSION.
WHAT WAS THAT THAT YOU WERE GOING TO SAY? THANK YOU. THAT THE 5.0 AND 5.1, I THINK OUR PUBLIC NEEDS TO KNOW THAT THAT'S BASED ON THE CHAIN OF REPORTING FOR OUR COUNTY MANAGER.
IT'S JUST REFLECTING WHAT THE NEW ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE IS WITH WHO WOULD REPORT TO.
OUR COUNTY MANAGER RATHER THAN A DIRECTOR, OR IN THIS CASE, EVEN, I THINK, A SUPERVISOR AS WELL.
THOUGH THAT WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE LATITUDE ON THAT, BUT I THINK IT'S PROBABLY IMPORTANT TO DESCRIBE IT, SO PEOPLE KNOW WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON.
THE MOTION IS RIGHT NOW IS TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 18 IN TOTAL, CORRECT, RIGHT.
WITH THAT QUESTION IN FRONT OF US, CAN HAVE A REAL CALL VOTE.
>> THE ITEM PASSES THREE TO TWO.
>> MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 24.
LET ME TAKE THAT BACK. ITEM NUMBER 25. MS. MICHAELS.
[25. Public Works - Award contract to Cactus Asphalt in the total amount of $1,596,539.51, for Chip Seal (Fall, FY 2024/2025) in Yavapai County, AZ - Project #2423656. YC Contract No. 2024-276 (District 1 - Supervisor Oberg; District 2 - Supervisor Gregory; District 4 - Supervisor Brown; District 5 - Supervisor Mallory)]
THERE YOU ARE, ARE SOON TO BE BUT NOT DESIRED BY ANYONE, BUT YOUR WIFE, RETIRED DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS.
DAN I ASK YOU UP HERE BECAUSE I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT.
THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION IN THE MARKETPLACE IN THE TOWN SQUARE, IF YOU WILL, ABOUT THE ROTATION OF HOW WE SPEND OUR MONEY AND WHETHER ONE DISTRICT IS DISADVANTAGED OVER ANOTHER.
I SEE THAT JUST COINCIDENTALLY, IN THIS CASE, THE ROTATION HAS MOVED AWAY FROM DISTRICT 3, WHICH, OF COURSE, I'M SUPERVISOR OF, BUT IT'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT FOR OUR PUBLIC TO KNOW THAT YOU'VE SPENT AT LEAST A YEAR, TWO, PROBABLY TWO, AS I RECALL, WITH A TERRIFIC INVESTMENT IN REPAIRING SOME OF OUR ROADS, ETC.
IF YOU JUST SPEAK TO HOW THIS WORKS, I THINK THE PUBLIC WOULD BE INTERESTED.
>> ABSOLUTELY. I'M DAN CHERRY, YOUR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.
EXCELLENT QUESTION, SUPERVISOR MICHAELS.
IT'S MY PLEASURE TO BE HERE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION AND TRY TO GIVE A LITTLE CLARITY TO HOW WE OPERATE.
THIS IS A CONTRACT BEFORE YOU TODAY FOR SOME CHIPSEAL WORK THAT WE DO.
WE HAD PUBLICLY BID THIS PROJECT OUT.
CACTUS ASPHALT WAS THE LOW BIDDER, AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THAT.
THE SPECIFIC PROJECT HERE IS REALLY FOCUSED ON ROADS IN THE GENERAL QUAD CITY AREA HERE, WHICH ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN TO INCLUDE ROADS IN ALL FOUR DISTRICTS, EXCEPT FOR DISTRICT 3, AND THAT IS NOT BY DESIGN.
THAT'S JUST BY HOW WE TEND TO ROTATE THINGS AROUND THE COUNTY.
OUR CHIPSEAL PROGRAM IS A PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE ONE.
WE TRY TO DO JUST ABOUT EVERY ROAD THAT THE COUNTY HAS RESPONSIBILITY ON ON A 5-7-YEAR ROTATION.
KNOWING THAT YOU WERE ASKING A QUESTION SIMILAR TO THIS, I TOOK A LOOK AT WHAT WE'VE DONE OVER THE PAST FOUR YEARS, AND THERE ARE CERTAINLY MANY CASES IN WHICH WE HAVE PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN FOCUSED NOT ONLY IN THE VERDE VALLEY, BUT ALSO IN DISTRICT 3.
IF I MAY, JUST TO PUT IT OUT THERE FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION, WE HAD A SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IN JUNE OF 2020, THAT WAS FOCUSED REALLY ON THE VILLAGE OF OAK CREEK AREA AND THE BRIDGEPORT AREA, WHICH ARE BOTH IN DISTRICT 3.
IN 2021, WE HAD SOME ROADS IN DISTRICT 3.
GOING DOWN TO AUGUST '21 AND JUNE '22, WE DID THE VERDI VILLAGE AREA, WHICH IS PRIMARILY IN DISTRICT 3.
I WANT TO REASSURE THE BOARD HERE THAT OUR INTENT IS
[00:35:03]
TO TRY TO KEEP THINGS FAIRLY LOCALIZED WHEN WE BID PROJECTS OUT.IF WE SEND A CONTRACTOR OUT TO ALL AREAS OF THE COUNTY, OUR MOBILIZATION COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE CONTRACTS SKY ROCKET, AND WE LOSE OUT ON OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE CAN GAIN BY SOME ECONOMY SCALE BY KEEPING IT MORE FOCUSED ON SUBDIVISIONS OR COMMUNITIES OR WHATNOT.
THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO BE DIFFICULT FOR DISTRICT 3, I THINK THE ROADS IN DISTRICT 3 ARE IN EXCELLENT CONDITION, AND WE HAVE CHIPSEALED THEM MOST RECENTLY WITHIN THAT 3-4-YEAR PERIOD THAT IS NOT REACHING THAT 5-7-YEAR ROTATION PERIOD THAT WE AIM FOR.
BUT IF THERE'S QUESTIONS ON THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO EXPAND ON IT, BUT I PROBABLY SHOULD CLOSE MY MOUTH.
>> BASICALLY, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WE HAVE A ROTATIONAL SCHEDULE FOR ALL OF OUR ROADS.
HOWEVER, IF IT DOESN'T NEED IT, WE DON'T DO IT.
IF WE DO HAVE A NEED BEFORE TURN, IT GETS TO ITS SCHEDULE, THEN WE'LL ADDRESS IT AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
IT'S KIND OF A CATCH 22 SITUATION, BUT WE ALSO GIVES US FLEXIBILITY IN GOING FORWARD THAT IT'S NOT HARD AND FAST.
>> CERTAINLY, SO THE FUNDING IT EBBS AND FLOWS OUT OF DIFFERENT DISTRICTS EVERY YEAR, AS PART OF OUR BUDGET PROPOSAL EVERY YEAR, WE TRY TO LIST WHAT IS ON OUR 3-5-YEAR PLAN SO THAT YOU AS BOARD MEMBERS UNDERSTAND WHAT'S COMING UP, THAT IS SOMETIMES SUBJECT TO SOME ADJUSTMENTS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, AND WE ALWAYS BRING THOSE TO YOU AS THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION WHEN THERE ARE ADJUSTMENTS NECESSARY. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IN THIS ROTATIONAL SCHEDULE, WE HAVE DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS TAKING PLACE BECAUSE SOMETIMES IT'S CHIPSEAL, SOMETIMES IT'S GOING TO BE CRACK SEAL, MAYBE SOME OTHER TYPE OF WORK DONE ALONG THE EDGES OF THE ROAD, THINGS LIKE THAT, MAYBE A FULL OVERLAY.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. SOMETIMES IT'S SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT AS A OVERLAY OR EVEN A FULL RECONSTRUCTION OF A ROAD IF WE DECIDE THAT A SIMPLE CHIPSEAL IS NOT SUFFICIENT.
OF COURSE, OUR INTENT IS TO DO SOME PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE ON A PERIODIC SCHEDULE SO THAT THE ROADS ARE KEPT IN GOOD SHAPE, AND WE DON'T HAVE TO SPEND QUITE A BIT MORE MONEY TO DO SOMETHING MORE INVASIVE WHEN IT COMES TO RECONSTRUCTION OF A ROAD.
>> FOG COATING IS ALSO ONE OF THOSE APPLICATIONS, CORRECT?
>> IT IS. IT'S A FAIRLY SUPERFICIAL THING, BUT SOMETIMES IT'S JUST ENOUGH TO SEAL THINGS UP FOR A FEW YEARS WHILE WE REDISTRIBUTE OUR FUNDING AND MAKE SURE WE CAN GET THINGS LINED UP FOR A MORE APPROPRIATE TREATMENT ON THAT.
FOG SEAL IS A NICE OPTION THAT IS OF LIMITED AMOUNT OF EXPENSE.
>> WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD SAY THAT I'VE CALLED ON DAN MULTIPLE TIMES WHEN A TAXPAYER HAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION AN IMMEDIATE NEED, YOUR DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN EXTRAORDINARILY RESPONSIVE.
YOU'VE GONE OUT THERE AND TAKEN CARE OF IT.
I THINK OF VERDI VILLAGE WHERE THERE WAS ALMOST A DEFICIT FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE IN HAVING THE BASICS DONE THERE, AND IT IS JUST A DIFFERENT COMMUNITY NOW AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT.
THERE'S THE FLEXIBILITY, MR. CHAIRMAN, WHEN A SUPERVISOR GETS THE NEWS THAT SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE, WE'RE RESPONSIVE TO IT, AND THE ROTATIONAL SYSTEM, FOR EXAMPLE, THE SLIDE, AND JEROME, WHEN I FIRST TOOK OFFICE, WAS A HUGE UNDERTAKING, JUST THE ENGINEERING STUDY ALONE, BUT THAT WAS HEALTH AND SAFETY, AND WE ADDRESSED IT QUICKLY.
I THANK YOU FOR THAT VERY MUCH, AND FOR THE EXPLANATION. IT'S VERY USEFUL.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, WITH THAT IN MIND, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE NUMBER 25.
>> I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR?
HERE, WE'LL MOVE ON TO HEARING.
[1. Board of Supervisors - Hearing to approve the proposed Special District Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-2025. ]
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEARING TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED SPECIAL DISTRICT FEE SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025. GOOD MORNING.>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN BROWN, VICE CHAIR MICHAELS, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
JAYME RUSH, CLERK OF THE BOARD.
>> YES, SIR. IT IS. I'M A LITTLE NERVOUS.
I'M USUALLY BEHIND, NOT IN FRONT.
THE ITEM BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A CONTINUATION OF THE COURTESY HEARING THAT WAS HELD ON JUNE 19TH, IN COTTONWOOD, REGARDING THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR SPECIAL DISTRICTS.
EACH YEAR, THE COUNTY IS REQUIRED TO ADOPT THIS SCHEDULE.
THE REIMBURSEMENT SCHEDULE DOES NOT EXCEED THE ACTUAL COSTS OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY, AND IT IS USED WHEN SPECIAL DISTRICTS USE THE SERVICES OF THE COUNTY, AND THESE ARE THE RATES IN WHICH THEY REIMBURSE THE COUNTY FOR SAID SERVICES.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED SPECIAL DISTRICT FEE SCHEDULE
[00:40:01]
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024, 2025.>> WE HAVE A MOTION, SECOND BY SUPERVISOR MALLORY. AM I CORRECT?
>> I'M THE TALL ONE. [LAUGHTER]
>> I HAD MY BACK TURNED TO YOU.
SECONDED BY MS. MICHAELS. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> THANK YOU, JAYME. GOOD JOB.
>> THAT FEE SCHEDULE WILL BE PUBLISHED RIGHT AWAY, WON'T IT?
>> DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO
[2. Development Services - Recommend approval to the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control of series 006 Bar Liquor License Application # 297077 without protest, submitted by Charmaine Mary Booth for PJ's Pub located at 40 West Cortez #10, Sedona, AZ 86351 (District 3 - Supervisor Michaels)]
THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR LICENSE AND CONTROLS FOR A SERIES 006 BAR LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION 297077 WITHOUT PROTESTS, SUBMITTED BY CHARMAINE MARY BOOTH, OF PJ'S PUB, 40 WEST CORTEZ, NUMBER 10, SEDONA, 86351, DISTRICT 3.>> WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN, I CAN INTERRUPT FOR ANY ISSUE UNLESS THERE IS CONTROVERSY.
THE BEST HAMBURGERS, FRIED CHICKEN, SECOND TO NONE, AND IT WOULD BE NICE IF THE IMBIBING PUBLIC COULD ALSO ENJOY THEIR FAVORITE BEVERAGE THERE, SO I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE THIS LIQUOR LICENSE.
>> YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE?
DO WE HAVE ANY OPPOSITION AT ALL NOTED BY THE CLERK?
>> NOTHING ANYBODY HAS RECEIVED THAT I'M AWARE OF. NOTHING, MARK?
>> DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY CLAIMS.
[3. Public Works - Hearing to approve a water service Franchise Agreement with Liberty Utilities (Cordes Lakes Water) Corp. YC Contract No. 2024-260 (District 2 - Supervisor Gregory)]
>> ANOTHER WATERING HOLE IN DISTRICT 3.
WATER FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH LIBERTY UTILITIES OUT OF CORDES LAKES.
CONTRACT NUMBER IS 2024-260, DISTRICT 2, SUPERVISOR GREGORY.
DAN CHERRY, YOUR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.
THIS IS GOING TO BE A FAIRLY SIMPLE HEARING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF RENEWING AN EXISTING FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH LIBERTY UTILITIES.
THAT IS THE OVERARCHING COMPANY THAT OPERATES THE WATER SUPPLY COMPANY IN THE CORDES LAKES, CORDES JUNCTION AREA.
THIS HEARING IS REALLY JUST INTENDED TO GIVE APPROVAL FOR THEM TO OPERATE THEIR FACILITIES WITHIN THE COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY.
THERE ARE MANY OTHER ASPECTS OF THIS UTILITY COMPANY THAT ARE GOVERNED UNDER THE ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION.
WE'RE HERE TO JUST CONSIDER FOR OPERATING WITHIN OUR COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY, PLEASE.
WE DID REVIEW THIS ALONG WITH OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
THIS BOARD DID ACCEPT THE APPLICATION LAST MONTH AND SET THIS HEARING DATE TODAY, THE UTILITY HAS BEEN OPERATING SINCE 1994, UNDER ITS CURRENT REGIME AND DOES SERVE JUST OVER 1,600 CUSTOMERS WITHIN THE CORDES LAKES AREA.
>> THIS IS NOT OUR FIRST AGREEMENT WITH THEM.
>> IT IS NOT. IT IS JUST RENEWING.
WE RENEW THESE ABOUT EVERY FIVE YEARS AT THIS POINT.
>> HAVE WE HAD ANY COMPLAINTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT?
>> NO. IT'S A SMALL WATER UTILITY COMPANY AS IS THE CASE FOR MOST SMALL WATER PROVIDERS, THEY STRUGGLE WITH THEIR FINANCES AT TIMES.
IT'S LIMITED AS TO WHAT THEY CAN CHARGE, WHAT THEIR REVENUES ARE, THAT'S GOVERNED UNDER THE CORPORATION COMMISSION, BUT THEY DO GET THEIR PERMITS WHEN NECESSARY.
THEY KEEP US ADVISED, AND WHEN THEY NEED TO DO PATCHING, THEY WORK WITH OUR STAFF TO DO SO.
>> WITH THAT, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> THANK YOU ALL, AND I WISH YOU ALL A WONDERFUL INDEPENDENCE DAY TOMORROW.
>> NUMBER 4, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL RESOLVE INTO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
[4. Board of Supervisors - The Board of Supervisors will resolve into the Board of Directors of the following special improvement districts and after consideration of this item, will reconvene as the Board of Supervisors - Hearing on tax levies and budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-2025 and Resolution No. 2137 adopting the budget: 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 FOLLOWING SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS AND AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE SITE AND WILL RECONVENE AS THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.IT'S A HEARING ON TAX LEVY AND BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024, '25, AND RESOLUTION 2137 ADOPTING THOSE BUDGETS.
YAVAPAI COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, YAVAPAI COUNTY FREE LIBRARY DISTRICT, YAVAPAI COUNTY JAIL DISTRICT, ASH FORK STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, SELIGMAN STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, YARNELL STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, SELIGMAN SANITARY DISTRICT, POQUITO VALLEY ROAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. MR. THOMPSON.
>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
MAURY THOMPSON, COUNTY MANAGER.
[00:45:01]
AS THE CHAIRMAN JUST INDICATED, TO RECEIVE, IF ANY, PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE TAX LEVIES AND BUDGET FOR THE 2024, 2025 FISCAL YEAR OF THE ENTITIES THAT THE CHAIRMAN JUST ENUMERATED.AS A REMINDER TO THE BODY IN THE PUBLIC, THE ABOVE REFERENCE BUDGETS WERE CREATED BY THEIR RESPECTIVE GOVERNING BODIES, AND THEY'RE PRESENTED FOR FINAL APPROVAL HERE TODAY.
WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO STAND FOR QUESTIONS OR TURN IT OVER TO THE PUBLIC FOR ANY COMMENT.
>> NO, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2137.
>> MOTION SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR. I'M SORRY.
>> EXCUSE ME, CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, IF WE JUST SEE IF THERE'S ANY COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC. THANK YOU.
>> IS THERE ANY COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC? ANYTHING IN COTTONWOOD? I DON'T SEE ANYBODY OVER THERE.
NONE FROM THE PUBLIC INDICATED, THEREFORE, ALL IN FAVOR?
>> WE'RE NOW BACK TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
[5. Board of Supervisors - Hearing on County tax levies and budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-2025 and Resolution No. 2137 adopting the budget.]
HEARING ON COUNTY TAX LEVIES AND THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024, '25, RESOLUTION 2137 ADOPTING THE BUDGET. MR. THOMPSON.>> [NOISE] EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU AGAIN, CHAIRMAN, VICE CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
MAURY THOMPSON, COUNTY MANAGER.
AGAIN, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE, IF ANY, PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE TAX LEVIES AND BUDGET FOR THE 2024, 2025 FISCAL YEAR.
THE BUDGET, OF COURSE, HAS BEEN CREATED BY THE GOVERNING BODY AND IS PRESENTED FOR FINAL APPROVAL TODAY.
AT THIS TIME, I THOUGHT I MIGHT SHARE AS I DID DURING THE TENTATIVE BUDGET CONSIDERATION, SOME VERY HIGH LEVEL PIECES OF INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC.
THE PROPOSED BUDGET FOR THIS COMING YEAR INCLUDES EXPENDITURES OF ABOUT $155 MILLION IN THE GENERAL FUND, 260 ALMOST 66 MILLION IN SPECIAL REVENUE, AND DEBT SERVICE OF AROUND 6.4 MILLION FOR A TOTAL OF ABOUT $427 MILLION.
>> THE GENERAL PROPERTY TAX RATE IS 1.6443 PER $100 A VALUE OF PROPERTY.
THAT IS DOWN I'M PLEASED TO REPORT BY 0.0705 FROM LAST FISCAL YEAR.
THE LIBRARY DISTRICT IS 0.1674 PER $100 VALUE OF PROPERTY.
THAT IS LIKEWISE DOWN 0.0076 PER $100 FROM LAST FISCAL YEAR.
FINALLY, OUR FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT IS SET UP 0.1346 PER $100 OF VALUE OF PROPERTY DOWN ALSO BY 0.0058 PER $100 FROM LAST FISCAL YEAR.
THE BUDGET AS PROPOSED AND ADOPTED IN TENTATIVE FORM INCLUDES TOTAL FTE COUNT OF 1,811.
IN TOTAL THE BUDGETS UP ABOUT 2.5% FROM LAST YEAR, ABOUT $10.5 MILLION.
WITH THAT, I OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, IF YOU'D LIKE, CHAIR.
>> NO QUESTIONS I WOULD HAVE SEEN.
JUST WANT TO POINT OUT, AGAIN, THIS IS ABOUT THE 10TH OUT OF THE LAST 11 YEARS THAT THE RATE HAS ACTUALLY GONE DOWN IN COUNTY TAX, AND IT'S GOOD TO SEE THAT OUR DISTRICTS ARE ABLE TO STICK WITH IT AS WELL.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLANNING BUDGET. [OVERLAPPING]
>> EXCUSE ME, I'M SORRY, CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
THERE'S A VERY SPECIFIC SEQUENCE OF EVENTS LAID OUT IN STATUTE AS TO HOW THE BUDGET IS ADOPTED.
WE'RE JUST CONDUCTING A HEARING RIGHT NOW.
WE WOULD SEE WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S ANY COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED BUDGET.
THE NEXT STEP IS FOR THE BOARD TO THEN CONVENE INTO A SPECIAL MEETING.
ONCE IN THE SPECIAL MEETING, THEN THE BOARD WOULD TAKE THE ACTION OF ACTUALLY FORMALLY VOTING TO APPROVE THE BUDGET.
>> WHAT'S THE TIME SEPARATION BETWEEN THEN AND NOW? THE SPECIAL MEETING.
>> THE SPECIAL MEETING IS TO OCCUR IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE HEARING CONCLUDES.
>> OKAY. IS THERE ANYBODY OUT THERE WHO WISHES TO COMMENT IN REGARDS TO THE BUDGET? I DON'T SEE ANY HERE LOCALLY, AND HOW ABOUT OVER IN COTTONWOOD? I DON'T SEE ANYBODY OVER THERE.
>> NO, SIR. THE BOARD HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS.
>> THEN WE'LL MOVE TO FINAL APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET.
[1. Board of Supervisors - Final approval of the County budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-2025 and Resolution No. 2137 adopting the budget. ]
[2. Board of Supervisors - The Board of Supervisors will resolve into the Board of Directors of the following special improvement districts and after consideration of this item, will reconvene as the Board of Supervisors - Final approval of the budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-2025 and Resolution No. 2137 adopting the budget: 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]
>> I BELIEVE WE HAVE TO, MR. CHAIRMAN,
[00:50:01]
CONVENE INTO A SPECIAL MEETING FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING OUR PROVEN.>> I THOUGHT I ALREADY TOOK US BACK TO THE SPECIAL MEETING.
>> ARE WE IN THE SPECIAL MEETING?
>> I WENT BACK TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
>> FOR EXCUSE ME, CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, FOR CONVENIENCE AND EFFICIENCY, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE IN THIS SCENARIO, THAT HAS BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE AGENDA.
SO YES, THE BOARD HAS NOW CONVENED INTO A SPECIAL MEETING UPON CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING, AND YOU CAN TAKE ACTION IN RELATION TO BOTH OF THE ACTION ITEMS LISTED IN THE SPECIAL MEETING, THAT WOULD BE VOTE TO ADOPT THE BUDGET OF THE COUNTY, FOLLOWED BY A VOTE TO ADOPT THE BUDGET OF THE SPECIAL DISTRICTS AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA.
>> WELL, I ALREADY BROUGHT US BACK TO THE REGULAR MEETING.
>> YOU'RE WAITING FOR A MOTION?
>> I'M WAITING FOR A MOTION. DO I HAVE ONE?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD DO THAT FOR BOTH OF THESE MOTIONS THAT WE APPROVE THE BUDGET AS OUTLINED BY AND AS WE REVIEWED IN SEVERAL PREVIOUS MEETINGS AND OUTLINED TODAY BY OUR COUNTY MANAGER, AS WELL AS THE SPECIAL DISTRICTS.
WE'VE CONSIDERED THAT AS WELL IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS, AND I WOULD MOVE THAT WE ADOPT BOTH.
>> A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2137. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSED? NONE NOTED. THANK YOU.
STUDY SESSION, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
[1. Development Services - Study Session and Board update for a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Section 501 Accessory Uses and Structures to add small-scale solar equipment usage standards, and to add a new Section 608 Solar Facilities with requirements, standards, and procedures to establish utility-scale solar facilities. No action is required. Project Name: Solar Facilities – Sections 501 & 608 Zoning Ordinance Amendment; Applicant: Development Services Staff; PLA24-000042; Staff: Development Services. (All Districts)]
STUDY SESSION, BOARD UPDATE FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 501 ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES TO ADD SMALL SCALE SOLAR EQUIPMENT USAGE STANDARDS AND TO ADD A NEW SECTION 606 SOLAR FACILITIES WITH REQUIREMENTS, STANDARDS, AND PROCEDURES TO ESTABLISH UTILITY SCALE SOLAR FACILITIES.PROJECT NAME IS SOLAR FACILITIES, AND WE'RE LOOKING AT SECTIONS 501, 608 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AND THE APPLICANT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF, PLA 24-000042 AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IN ALL DISTRICTS, MATT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN BROWN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
MY NAME IS MATTHEW BLAKE, AND I SERVE AS THE PLANNING MANAGER WITHIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
PLEASED TO BE BEFORE YOU THIS MORNING.
THE PURPOSE OF ME BEING BEFORE YOU TODAY IS REALLY A CONTINUATION FROM THE LAST MEETING, WHICH WAS A COURTESY INFORMATIONAL MEETING TO WALK THE BOARD THROUGH THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS AND OUTLINE OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, SPECIFIC TO ACCESSORY USES AND UTILITY SCALE SOLAR FACILITIES.
AT THAT MEETING, WE WALKED THE BOARD AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THROUGH AN OUTLINE OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE OF THE AMENDMENTS THERE TOO.
WE RECEIVED FEEDBACK AND INPUT AND SOME DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD, DURING WHICH WE RECEIVED SOME QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS.
I'M HERE THIS MORNING TO PROVIDE YOU AN UPDATE ON SOME OF THE RESPONSES TO THOSE QUESTIONS AND THE COMMENTS THAT THE BOARD HAD AT THAT PREVIOUS MEETING.
THIS SLIDE IS JUST SHOWING THE TIMELINE OF MEETINGS AND STEPS IN THIS PROCESS.
AS INITIALLY KICKED OFF, WITH PLANNING UNIT RECEIVED DIRECTION AT THE JOINT SESSION THAT WAS HELD IN MARCH 14.
WE HAD THE INITIAL INFORMATIONAL MEETING ON JUNE 19TH HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY.
ON THE THIRD IS REALLY A CONTINUATION.
MOVING FORWARD, WE'VE GOT THE FIRST HEARING THAT WILL BE BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING.
THAT WILL OCCUR ON JULY 18TH AND THEN AUGUST 8TH AND THEN FINAL CONSIDERATION AND POTENTIAL POSSIBLE ACTION BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WOULD TAKE PLACE AT THE HEARING SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 4TH.
THAT'S THE TIMELINE AS IT'S BEEN ADVERTISED.
THE WORD IS OUT THERE FOR SOME TIME.
AS FAR AS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, WE FOLLOW A COURSE SIMILAR TO THAT WHICH THE PLANNING UNIT DOES FOR ALL PLANNING CASES THAT COME BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND BOARD, WHICH INCLUDES POSTING A SURVEY.
TO DATE, WE'VE REALLY ONLY RECEIVED THREE COMMENTS WHICH WERE NEUTRAL TO DATE.
[00:55:01]
AS AN ADDITIVE, WHAT WE NORMALLY DON'T DO, BUT WE DID THIS TIME AROUND WAS WORKING WITH SOCIAL MEDIA.I MENTIONED AT THE LAST MEETING THAT WE POSTED ON THE COUNTY'S FACEBOOK WEBPAGE.
REALLY, THOSE NUMBERS, POSITIVE LIKES AND DISLIKES, KIND OF HARD TO DISTILL EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS.
REALLY, THE PURPOSE FOR THE FACEBOOK POSTING WAS TO REDIRECT INTERESTED MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO OUR WEBSITE WHERE ALL THE INFORMATION IS AND THE DRAFT ORDINANCES.
IN FACT, THOSE NUMBERS HAVE CHANGED VERY LITTLE, IF AT ALL, SINCE THE LAST TIME I CAME BEFORE YOU.
FOR CITIZEN PARTICIPATION, OF COURSE, WE HAD OUR INTERNAL TECHNICAL REVIEW, AND WE'VE RECEIVED MANY COMMENTS.
SOME ENTITIES WERE STILL LOOKING TO HEAR FROM ONE OF WHICH THE VARIOUS FIRE DISTRICTS.
WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THEM, BUT WE'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY BE PUTTING OUT AN EMAIL, IF NOT TODAY BEFORE THE END OF THE WEEK, TRYING TO SOLICIT COMMENTS FROM THEM BUT WE'VE REACHED OUT TO VARIOUS COUNTY DEPARTMENTS.
WE'VE HEARD FROM MANY PUBLIC ENTITIES, INDUSTRY GROUPS, COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS, SO A PRETTY GOOD REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLING OF EVERYBODY YOU'D WANT TO HEAR ABOUT.
THAT INCLUDES, WE'VE HEARD FROM THE ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT, THE COSANTI FOUNDATION, THE UPPER AQUA FRIA WATERSHED PARTNERSHIP, ARIZONA SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION, ARISEIA, AND ARIZONA PUBLIC WORKS.
I'LL JUST STOP THERE AND NOTE THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP FROM THE BOARD THAT WERE REALLY KIND OF IN THE WHEELHOUSE OR JURISDICTION OF APS AND SO FOLLOWING THIS MEETING, WE REACHED OUT TO APS.
WE'VE HAD SOME GOOD DISCUSSIONS.
WE ACTUALLY RECEIVED SOME TECHNICAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDED CHANGES THAT ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION AS PART OF MOVING FORWARD WITH ROLLING OUT THE SECOND DRAFT.
SECOND DRAFT IS REALLY INTENDED AS TO CAPTURE A LOT OF WHAT WE DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING BASED ON YOUR INPUT AND FEEDBACK FROM WHAT WE HEARD FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, INTERNALLY, TECHNICAL REVIEW AND INDUSTRY GROUPS, AS WELL AS PUBLIC UTILITIES LIKE APS.
WE ALSO HAD SOME QUESTIONS FOR THEM, AND SOME OF THE QUESTIONS WERE YOURS.
THANKFULLY, WE HAVE SOME MEMBERS FROM APS WHO ARE HERE THIS MORNING, AND I THINK THEY WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
PERHAPS AFTER MY PRESENTATION OR AT ANY TIME, I THINK THAT CLAY ALLSOP IS HERE AND HE WOULD BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ANY TIME.
>> LET ME ASK YOU A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FIRST.
WHICH FIRE DEPARTMENTS HAVE WE ACTUALLY ASKED THEIR OPINION OF? HAVE WE GONE OUT TO THE SMALLER DEPARTMENTS, THE ONES THAT ARE LOCAL TO WHERE THE AREAS MAY BE, THAT SOLAR MIGHT BE PLACED?
>> I BELIEVE WE REACHED OUT TO EVERYBODY.
>> I UNDERSTAND THE REACH OUT. HOW MANY RESPONDED?
>> WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM ANY OF THEM AS OF YET, SO WE'RE GOING TO BE FOLLOWING UP WITH THAT.
>> IS THERE SOME WAY TO LIGHT A FIRE UNDER THEM?
>> IT WOULD BE REALLY NECESSARY I THINK BEFORE WE LOOK AT ANYTHING LIKE THIS, IT'LL BE OUT POSSIBLY IN THE HINTERLANDS OF THE COUNTY, IS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE FIRE SUPPRESSION AVAILABLE, OR AT LEAST PEOPLE KNOW THAT THIS IS BEING PUT IN THEIR AREA, AND THEY MAY HAVE AN IMPACT ON THEM.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT, CHAIRMAN BROWN.
AT THE LAST MEETING, CLEARLY, THAT WAS AN UNDERSTANDABLE CONCERN RAISED BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
IT'S BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT WE CERTAINLY WENT BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND DID SOME ADDITIONAL RESEARCH.
FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE READ IS THAT TYPICALLY THE PANELS ARE NOT REALLY FLAMMABLE.
OF COURSE, WHEN YOU GET HOT ENOUGH FIRE, ANYTHING'S GOING TO BURN, ANYTHING'S GOING TO MELT BUT THERE'S MANY CASES OUT THERE WHERE THEY'VE EVEN HAD BRUSH OR GRASS FIRES UNDERNEATH PANELS THAT DID NOT IGNITE THE PANELS.
IT'S REALLY THE KIND OF THE COMPONENTS, ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT AND WIRING THAT CAN TEND TO BE FLAMMABLE.
WITH RESPECT TO FIRE DISTRICT RESPONSE, OF COURSE, THE ORDINANCE GETS INTO THE TRAINING, APS PROVIDES TRAINING.
I'M SURE THEY'D BE HAPPY TO SPEAK TO THAT TODAY.
AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT'S NOT SO MUCH AN EQUIPMENT ISSUE AS IT IS THE TRAINING.
REALLY, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS WHEN A FIRE DOES OCCUR, IS THE NEED TO DE-ELECTRIFY THE SITE TO ESSENTIALLY SHUT IT OFF TO SHUT IT DOWN.
THEN ALL THE STANDARD USUAL EQUIPMENT COMES INTO PLAY AND SEEMS TO BE VERY EFFECTIVE.
THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE FOUND FROM OUR RESEARCH, BUT WE'D CERTAINLY LOVE TO HEAR MORE FROM APS AND PERHAPS SOME OF THE INDUSTRY EXPERTS.
OF COURSE, AS PART OF ANY APPLICATION PROCESS, AND THIS WOULD BE A USE PERMIT, IF AN APPLICANT DOES COME FORWARD, YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR A LOT FROM THEIR EXPERTS,
[01:00:03]
WHICH YOU, THE BOARD CAN CROSS EXAMINE.>> WE WILL FOCUS SOMEWHAT ON OUR ORDINANCE.
WE'LL FOCUS ON THE BATTERIES THAT ARE MAINTAINED AT THE SITE, CORRECT?
CORRECT THERE, CHAIRMAN BROWN.
CLEARLY, SUBSTATIONS AND BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE STATIONS, THEY TEND TO BE ACCESSORY TO UTILITY SCALE SOLAR.
>> YES. WE ACTUALLY HAVE SPECIAL STANDARDS FOR.
EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE ACCESSORY, THEY ARE TREATED SOMEWHAT DIFFERENTLY, AND THAT WE WOULDN'T WANT TO PUT A BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE FACILITY APPROXIMATE OR ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL AREA OR SOMEBODY'S HOME.
THERE'S SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR THAT, ALSO SCREENING AS WELL.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS ON HERE? DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE ANY. APS WANT TO GET UP AND TALK WITH US? EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO BE THE ONES INSTALLING THE SOLAR.
>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIR BROWN, SUPERVISORS, CLAY ALLSOP, ARIZONA PUBLIC AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT.
I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK TO YOU AND ADDRESS ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
ALSO, I WANT TO START WITH A BRIEF STATEMENT ON WHERE WE ARE IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA ENERGY-WISE.
I THINK THAT'LL HELP ILLUSTRATE THE NEED FOR SOLAR FACILITIES AND BATTERY FACILITIES.
THEN AFTERWARDS, I'D BE HAPPY TO SPEAK TO ANY QUESTIONS.
I TOOK A FEW NOTES, BUT I'M SURE I DIDN'T GET ALL OF THEM.
AS I'M SURE YOU ALL AWARE, ARIZONA HAS GROWN INCREDIBLY, WHICH INCREASES THE DEMAND FOR ELECTRICITY.
YAVAPAI COUNTY HAS BEEN ONE OF THE LEADERS IN THAT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
WE PROJECT OUT WHAT THE LOAD GROWTH IS GOING TO BE, LOAD GROWTH IS SIMPLY A TERM FOR HOW MUCH ELECTRICITY IS GOING TO BE USED IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS.
OUR PROJECTIONS ARE BY 2031, THAT THERE WILL BE AN INCREASE OF 40%.
JUST TO PUT THAT IN PERSPECTIVE, IT TOOK US OVER 100 YEARS TO GET TO ABOUT 8,000 MEGAWATTS.
WE'LL BE AT ABOUT 12,000 MEGAWATTS IN ABOUT SEVEN YEARS.
THE GROWTH IS INCREDIBLE, AND THAT DEMANDS A LOT OF NEW ENERGY DEVELOPMENT.
MUCH OF THAT NEW ELECTRICITY GENERATION WILL BE DONE BY SOLAR PAIRED WITH BATTERIES.
WE HAD SOME QUESTIONS AND I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK TO BATTERIES AND SOLAR.
WE DO HAVE AN EXISTING FLEET OF GENERATION RESOURCES, BUT OBVIOUSLY, THEY'RE GOING TO NEED TO GROW, BOTH APS-OWNED AND OPERATED FACILITIES, AND THEN PRIVATE FACILITIES, WHERE WE ARE THE PURCHASER OF THE POWER, BUT WE ARE NOT THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF THAT POWER.
THOSE ARE TWO IMPORTANT DISTINCTIONS.
WE DO WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH OUR ENERGY PARTNERS BUT IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND PRACTICES, THEY REALLY ARE THE EXPERTS.
WE WILL DICTATE THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY WE BUY AND MANY SAFETY STANDARDS, BUT WE LEAVE A LOT OF THE DETAILS UP TO THE DEVELOPERS AND THE AGENCIES ON HOW THOSE ARE GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED.
WITH THAT, HAPPY TO SPEAK TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD HAS.
>> I HAVE A COUPLE, BUT DOES ANYBODY ELSE ON THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> YES, GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY, DONNA.
JUST A CONCERN THAT FOR THE MATTER OF RECORD I THINK NEEDS REPEATING, AND THIS IS THIS WHOLE BRAVE NEW WORLD WE'RE ENTERING WITH THE DANGER OF FIRE WITH BATTERY AND LITHIUM.
AND WHAT ARE THE RISKS? HOW HAVE THEY BEEN MITIGATED? WHAT ARE THE BEST PRACTICES FOR MITIGATION? WHERE ARE WE IN THIS STATE WITH RESPECT TO THOSE BEST PRACTICES, AND HOW CAN WE INCORPORATE THEM IN AN EVOLUTIONARY WAY AS OUR TECHNOLOGY IMPROVES, TO ASSURE THAT WE'RE DOING ALL WE CAN DO WHEN WE LOOK AT THESE APPLICATIONS AND PARTNERSHIPS FOR POWER THAT INCLUDE NOT ONLY SOLAR, BUT THE NECESSARY BATTERIES THAT ARE SUCH A HAZARD FOR POTENTIALLY FOR OUR RESIDENTS.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. SO I APPRECIATE CHIEF FREITAG'S COMMENTS EARLIER.
AGREE WITH HIM 100% ON WHAT HE HAS SAID.
WE'VE HAD A LOT OF ENGAGEMENT WITH CHIEF FREITAG AND HIS TEAM, AS WELL AS FIRE DEPARTMENT AND FIRE DISTRICT ACROSS ARIZONA.
SO WHERE ARE WE AT TODAY, CHIEF BROUGHT UP THE INCIDENT.
[01:05:01]
NOT FAR FROM WHERE I LIVE.THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF LESSONS LEARNED SINCE THAT EVENT, AND THE TECHNOLOGY HAS EVOLVED AND WE HAVE CHANGED THE WAY WE IMPLEMENT THOSE.
SO WE'VE REACHED OUT TO VIRTUALLY EVERY FIRE DISTRICT ACROSS THE STATE TO RECEIVE THEIR INPUT ON HOW DO THEY RESPOND TO THESE INCIDENTS? THEY DO HAPPEN.
WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, AND ALSO UPDATING THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS ON THE NEW TECHNOLOGY, AS CHIEF FREITAG EXPLAINED.
A PROPAGATION FIRE FROM ONE BATTERY SPREADING TO ANOTHER IS SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED AS A RISK AS OF TODAY.
OPERATIONALLY, THERE'S NO ABILITY FOR A FIREMAN TO GO INSIDE OF A CONTAINER WHERE THERE COULD BE ACCUMULATED GASES THAT WOULD CAUSE FIRES.
SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS, MONITORING SYSTEMS, WHERE YOU CAN MONITOR THE SITUATION FROM OUTSIDE THE GATE, SO WE DON'T HAVE FIRST RESPONDERS UNNECESSARILY GOING INSIDE OF THE FACILITY.
THOSE ARE JUST A FEW OF THE HIGH LEVEL STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE.
MORE DETAIL WOULD BE HAPPY TO BRING IN SPECIALISTS.
THOSE ARE REALLY CHEMICAL ENGINEER QUESTIONS WHICH I AM NOT.
BUT I HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THE PROCESS, AND THE RESPONSE FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS HAS BEEN POSITIVE.
ONE DETAIL I'D LIKE TO EXPLAIN IS MANY OF THESE BATTERIES ARE SEPARATE USES.
YOU WILL HAVE INCIDENTS WHERE WE HAVE BATTERIES PAIRED WITH SOLAR.
THAT IS BECOMING A NORM, BUT THERE ARE ALSO BATTERIES IN THEIR OWN FACILITY NOT PAIRED WITH SOLAR, AND THAT IS FOR RELIABILITY OF THE LOCAL AREA.
THOSE WILL BE OWNED AND OPERATED BY APS IN SOME CASES, AND THEN IN OTHER CASES THEY WILL BE PRIVATE BATTERY DEVELOPERS, AND WE SIGN A POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT.
AND WHAT WE DO WITH THOSE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENTS IS SAY HERE'S OUR SAFETY STANDARD, YOU SHALL COMPLY WITH OUR SAFETY STANDARD.
AND THEN THERE'S A THIRD TRANCHE OF NON-AFFILIATED WITH APS.
WE WOULD LOVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY FOLLOW OUR SAFETY STANDARDS, BUT WE DO NOT HAVE THE AVAILABILITY TO ENFORCE THOSE STANDARDS.
HOPEFULLY, THOSE ARE VERY FEW.
MOST OF THE TIME, THEY'RE GOING TO BE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENTS WITH APS.
>> SO IF THEY WANT TO BE YOUR CUSTOMER, BASICALLY, OR YOU THEIR CUSTOMER, WHICHEVER YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PERFORM TO YOUR STANDARDS, CORRECT?
>> SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF COMPANIES THAT DO NOT, AM I CORRECT?
>> WITHIN OUR SERVICE TERRITORY, IF WE'RE GOING TO OFFLOAD THE POWER FROM THEM, WE ARE GOING TO ENFORCE OUR STANDARDS.
>> WE DO THAT WITH THE POWER THAT SHIPPED TO US FROM STATE OF CALIFORNIA?
>> DO WE HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THE AMOUNT OF POWER BEING SHIPPED TO US FROM CALIFORNIA FROM THEIR SOLAR FIELDS?
WE PARTICIPATE IN THE WESTERN MARKET.
SO WE DO TRADE POWER BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN CALIFORNIA.
WHERE THAT POWER IS COMING FROM, HOW IT'S PRODUCED, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY ABILITY TO DICTATE THAT.
WE CAN SEE THAT IN TIMES WE NEED EXTRA POWER AND THERE SURPLUS IN CALIFORNIA, AND WE WILL PURCHASE IT.
THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY TIMES WHERE CALIFORNIA HAS TOO MUCH POWER, AND THEY ACTUALLY PAY US TO OFFLOAD THE POWER, AND THAT GETS PASSED ALONG TO OUR CUSTOMERS AS A SAVINGS.
SO THERE IS OPEN TRADE BETWEEN REGIONS, BUT WE CANNOT, DO NOT SAY TO CALIFORNIA WE WANT ENERGY THAT IS PRODUCED FROM THIS FACILITY WITH THIS STANDARD.
>> AND APS OPERATES PALO VERDE POWER STATION, CORRECT?
>> WE ARE PART OWNER BUT OPERATOR.
WE OWN ABOUT A THIRD OF IT, AND THE REMAINING IS OWNED BY SRP LOS ANGELES WATER POWER AND PUBLIC UTILITIES OF NEW MEXICO.
>> AND WHAT CAPACITY IS IT OPERATING?
>> PALO VERDE CONSISTENTLY RUNS ABOUT 99, 98% CAPACITY.
THERE ARE BRIEF OUTAGES EVERY SIX MONTHS FOR REFUELING, BUT IT IS A VERY RELIABLE AND VALUABLE RESOURCE FOR APS.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. COOK. THANK YOU.
>> STEVEN COOK WANTS TO SPEAK TO US IN REGARDS TO THIS ITEM.
>> YES, CHAIRMAN BROWN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
THE CLERK SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED YOU WITH A BACK AND FRONT SHEET OF MORE DETAILED COMMENTS. EVERYBODY GOT THAT?
>> OKAY, I ALSO WRITE A COLUMN FOR THE COURIER, AND I'VE EXCERPT ON THE BACK.
YOU SHOULD SEE SOME COMMENTS FROM THAT ARTICLE ON JULY 7TH, SO EVERYBODY GOT THAT.
BASICALLY, THERE ARE TWO SECTIONS OF THE AMENDMENT.
THE FIRST RELATES TO RESIDENTIAL SOLAR,
[01:10:01]
SMALL SCALE SOLAR AND ALL THAT.AND THERE'S ONLY ONE THING I WANT TO SAY ABOUT THIS SECTION.
THERE'S A BLATANT ERROR IN HOW BATTERY, ELECTRICAL ENERGY STORAGE CAPACITY IS SPECIFIED.
THE WORD HOURS NEEDS TO BE INSERTED.
NO BIG DEAL BUT IT IS A BIG DEAL, IF YOU HAVE IT THE WAY IT IS BECAUSE IT JUST TELLS PEOPLE TECHNICALLY, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS SHOULD BE SPECIFIED.
I HAVE SOME THINGS I LIKE ABOUT THE AMENDMENT THAT I'VE NOTED ON THE SHEET YOU HAVE.
MOST OF MY COMMENTS THIS MORNING WILL BE DEVOTED TO THE 8,000 ACRE LIMIT.
THIS NEEDS TO GO. AND THIS WILL BE SIMPLE TO WIPE OUT.
GET RID OF IT. I'M GOING TO PROVIDE YOU WITH BASICALLY THREE REASONS TO GET RID OF IT, OKAY? ONE IS AN ARIZONA LAW REASON.
I'VE GOT A SECTION HERE IN ARIZONA LAW, 9-461.05 REFERRING TO GENERAL PLANS OF WHICH YAVAPAI COUNTY AS TO THE 2032 PLAN.
AND IN THAT SECTION OF THE ENERGY ELEMENT, "IT'S GOT TO INCLUDE AN ASSESSMENT THAT IDENTIFIES POLICIES AND PRACTICES THAT PROVIDE FOR GREATER USES OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES." THIS 8,000 ACRE LIMIT, IT RESTRICTS OR LIMITS.
IT DOESN'T INCREASE OR GREATER, SO WE GOT A PROBLEM THERE.
FROM ANOTHER VIEWPOINT, THE 8,000 ACRE LIMIT FROM EITHER A STATE OF ARIZONA OR A NATIONAL ENERGY PERSPECTIVE AS TO OUR NEEDS.
CLAY REFERRED TO 8,000 MEGAWATTS RIGHT NOW, ARIZONA, THAT'S EIGHT GIGAWATTS.
THERE'S GOING TO BE A NEED FOR 12 GIGAWATTS BY 2031.
THE 8,000 ACRES IS GOING TO LIMIT THE SOLAR CONTRIBUTION TO ONE GIGAWATT.
NATIONALLY, THAT'S REALLY A PROBLEM ALSO, AS SOME DETAILED ANALYSIS ON THE SHEET YOU HAVE GETS TO.
THE THIRD REASON WHY THE 8,000 ACRE LIMIT NEEDS TO GO IS A PHILOSOPHICAL ONE.
AND I MOSTLY ADDRESS IT ON THE BACK SIDE OF THIS HANDOUT YOU HAVE, AND I'VE GOT A HEADING THERE THAT SAYS WHY THE AMENDMENT IS AN INSULT TO THOSE WHO VALUE SMALL GOVERNMENT, MARKET BASED ECONOMICS BASED ON CLASSICS LIKE NOBEL PRIZE WINNING ECONOMIST MILTON FRIEDMAN'S BOOK FREE TO CHOOSE, WHICH I PULLED OUT OF MY LIBRARY THIS MORNING.
SOME WORDS FROM MY UPCOMING COURIER ARTICLE, THE 8,000 ACRE LIMIT AND KEEP IN MIND OVER HALF OF THAT'S ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED WITH THE CANDELA RENEWABLES PLAN.
THIS IS QUITE A DEPARTURE IN TERMS OF REGULATORY ZEAL FROM THE 2032 PLAN.
THAT PLAN TRUMPETED REMOVING REGULATORY IMPEDIMENTS FOR SOLAR DEVELOPMENTS AND BOASTED SINCE 2018, NO BUILDING PERMITS HAVE BEEN REQUIRED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SOLAR PANELS.
THIS AMENDMENT PROVIDES AN ABOUT FACE TO THAT.
SOLAR IS THE MOST ECONOMICAL SOURCE OF ELECTRICITY RIGHT NOW IN ARIZONA AT THE WHOLESALE LEVEL.
YOU CAN READ SOME FIGURES THERE FROM A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.
AT THE WHOLESALE LEVEL, POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENTS CAME IN AT ABOUT A THIRD OF THE COST OF NATURAL GAS.
I'M GOING TO END WITH A QUOTE FROM THIS LADY WHO WORKS FOR THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION.
"ALLOW PEOPLE TO CHOOSE THE LEAST EXPENSIVE ELECTRICITY OPTION." AND THAT IS SOLAR.
THE LATEST EDITION OF THE ECONOMIST MAGAZINE, ALL ABOUT SOLAR.
THERE'S A QUOTE THERE IN MY ARTICLE.
THIS IS GOING TO BE THE LARGEST SOURCE OF ELECTRIC POWER ON THE PLANET BY THE MID 2030S AND LESS THAN HALF AS EXPENSIVE AS THE CHEAPEST ELECTRICITY AVAILABLE TODAY BASED ON TRENDS.
YAVAPAI COUNTY SHOULD NOT RESTRICT ITSELF.
WE WANT TO BE PART OF THIS ECONOMIC BOOM.
AND BASICALLY BY ADOPTING THIS AMENDMENT, THE WAY IT IS WITH THE 8,000 ACRE LIMIT AND RESTRICTING SOLAR, YAVAPAI COUNTY WON'T BE PART OF THIS ECONOMIC BOOM ONE THAT COULD BRING MORE TAX REVENUES, MORE JOBS, DECREASED POLLUTION.
AND THIS NODDING MY BACK YARD STANCE WILL COST CONSUMERS MONEY.
>> MR. COOK WE'RE BASICALLY YOU PAST YOUR TIME LIMIT ANYWAY.
>> BESIDES THAT, I WANTED YOU TO GO AHEAD AND GO FORWARD.
NEXT QUESTION IS, HAS THIS INFORMATION BEEN GIVEN TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES? HAVE THEY LOOKED AT ANY OF THIS INFORMATION? HAVE YOU FORWARDED IT TO THEN OR BEEN IN CONTACT?
>> I'VE PROVIDED A COPY OF THIS TO THE CLERK.
THIS IS STILL IN THE PROCESS OF BEING DEVELOPED, SO? HOW ABOUT WE GIVE THIS TO THEM SO THEY CAN PERUSE IT AND GO INTO THE DETAILS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK ANY OF US ARE EXPERTS IN ELECTRICITY AND IT'S GENERATION.
[01:15:05]
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR AS GUIDANCE HERE, SO LET THEM TAKE A LOOK AT THIS, MAYBE REAP SOME OF THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE FROM THERE AND MIGHT APPLY OR NOT AND WE'LL SEE.>> I'M AVAILABLE FOR FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS.
>> I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.
>> ANYWAY, THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK.
>> MATT, I HAVE A COPY OF THE LETTER FOR YOU. CLERK CAN HAVE IT.
>> AND SOME OF THESE THINGS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP, AND DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT IN REGARDS TO THEM?
>> YES. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN BROWN.
I MEAN, THIS IS EXACTLY WHY WE'RE HAVING THESE MEETINGS IS TO GET THE PUBLIC INPUT THAT WE REALLY WANT TO HEAR.
AND I SHOULD JUST CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD THAT AS OF NOW, WE HAVE NO APPLICATION BEFORE THE COUNTY FOR A UTILITY SCALE SOLAR.
WE CERTAINLY HEAR THINGS, BUT NOTHING'S REAL.
APPLICANTS HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS DEPENDING ON THE FEEDBACK THAT THEY RECEIVE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND CONCERNS THAT MIGHT BE RAISED.
SOMETIMES APPLICANTS WALK AWAY.
SO REALLY THERE'S NOTHING REAL UNTIL THEY'VE GONE THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND AN APPLICATION'S BEEN RECEIVED.
>> WELL, IT'S MORE APPLICABLE FOR US TO HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT THEY CAN COMPLY WITH THAN HAVING ONE AND TRY AND BRING IT IN WHILE THEY'RE PROCESSING THEIR APPLICATION, SO WE WANT TO NOT OPEN THAT DOOR.
>> YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, I ABSOLUTELY CONCUR WITH THAT, AND I THINK THAT'S THE WORK THAT WE SEE MATT DOING, BUT JUST AN OVERARCHING STATEMENT ABOUT THIS COGNITIVE TENSION WE HAVE ON THE ONE HAND, AND IT'S AN APPROPRIATE STATEMENT TO SAY, WE NEED TO REDUCE OUR ENERGY COST WITHOUT A DOUBT.
THE CHALLENGE IS, WHERE DO WE PUT THESE HUNDREDS OF ACRES OF OPEN SPACE THAT WILL THEN PROVIDE THE SOLAR POWER FOR ENERGY, AND AT WHAT PRICE THAT BABY IS NOT WEIGHED IN DOLLARS AND CENTS, BUT IS RATHER WEIGHED IN OPEN SPACE, WILDLIFE CORRIDORS, QUALITY OF LIFE.
SO THIS IS THE COMPETING INTEREST THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD WE HAVE TO BE VERY COGNIZANT OF.
AND WHAT ARE WE GIVING AWAY TO REDUCE COST IN PERPETUITY, IN SOME CASES.
AND IT'S GOING TO BE A DIFFICULT NEEDLE, MR. CHAIRMAN TO READ.
>> I AGREE. THERE ALSO, AS FAR AS THE ACREAGE AND THE AMOUNT OF THE SIZE OF THESE DIFFERENT FACILITIES, THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE FEELINGS ABOUT ITS AESTHETIC VALUE IN THOSE CERTAIN AREAS.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MATT, YOU GOT MORE INFORMATION, MORE WORK TO DO.
>> I DO. ACTUALLY, WE DO HAVE A POWERPOINT THIS MORNING AS FOLLOW UP TO THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU, THE BOARD RAISED AT THE LAST MEETING THAT I'M PREPARED TO QUICKLY WALK YOU THROUGH, IF YOU LIKE, IT'S REALLY YOUR PLEASURE IF YOU WANT ME TO CONTINUE.
>> NO, LET 'S GO AHEAD AND GO OVER.
THAT WAY WE'LL ALL BE ON THE SAME PAGE.
SO WE COVERED CITIZEN PARTICIPATION.
SO OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S TWO PARTS TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
THE FIRST DEALS WITH YOUR SMALL SCALE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS GENERATING ENERGY THAT'S PRIMARILY USED ON THE PREMISES, AND SO WE'LL GO INTO THAT FIRST.
SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP, AND THERE WAS A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF BACK AND FORTH WAS, CAN THE PANEL HEIGHT LIMIT BE NO GREATER THAN TYPICAL FENCE HEIGHT? AND SO THE REALITY IS IS THAT CURRENTLY ROOFTOP OR GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR IS ALREADY PERMITTED IN ALL RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
WHAT WE DON'T HAVE YET, WE HAVE A CAP, AND THE CAP RANGES, LET'S SEE.
IT'S NO MORE THAN THE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING BUILDING.
SO YOU CAN DO A PRETTY HIGH GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR UNIT IN YOUR YARD.
BUT THE REALITY IS IS THAT'S NOT WHERE THE MARKET IS.
THE MARKET SHOWS IS THAT BASICALLY TODAY THEY'RE BUILDING THESE THINGS ANYWHERE FROM 10-30 FT. AND SO WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO IS SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS A 15-FOOT HEIGHT FOR THE GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR.
THE REALITY IS THAT DO WE WANT TO BREAK THAT DOWN PER DENSER RESIDENTIAL AREAS, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL? WHAT WE SEE IS THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING LOTS OF CONCERNS AND
[01:20:03]
COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE PUTTING THESE IN THEIR BACK YARD.AND THAT'S BECAUSE THE ZONING IS ALREADY SELF SELECTIVE IN THAT, IF THE PERSON THAT'S GOING TO PROBABLY DO THE GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR ARRAY IS GOING TO HAVE A BIGGER PIECE OF PROPERTY.
MAYBE IT'S AN AGRICULTURAL OR LIVESTOCK OPERATION TO POWER A PUMP OR SOMETHING.
THE FOLKS THAT ARE IN OUR DENSER COMMUNITIES, RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS, THEY'RE GOING FOR THE ROOFTOP SOLAR.
THAT'S REALLY THE MOST ECONOMIC SWEET SPOT WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO BE.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WANT TO SEE THE MOST IMPORTANT PARTS OF THEIR BACK YARD WHEN THEY CAN PUT IT ON THEIR ROOF.
SO IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE DO HAVE A STANDARD IN PLACE.
WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT AESTHETIC VALUE OF PEOPLE'S BACKYARDS AND SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE PROPOSING TO LIMIT GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR PANELS TO NO MORE THAN 15 FEET IN HEIGHT.
SO WE FEEL THAT'S KIND OF A MIDDLE OF THE ROAD.
WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO BE CURTAILING IT OR COMING UP WITH A REGULATION THAT REALLY DOESN'T MEET WHAT THE INDUSTRY STANDARD IS IN HEIGHT.
BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT AS A PLANNING UNIT.
THIS IS JUST SOME VISUAL EXAMPLES.
WE DID GET SOME REQUESTS FOR SOME VISUALS AS FAR AS THIS GOES, SO YOU CAN SEE THESE THINGS OUT IN THE LANDSCAPE.
>> I THINK IN MANY CASES, WHEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS GOES UP, IT'S GOING TO STAND OUT, BUT NOT BEFORE LONG YOU GET PRETTY USED TO IT, AND YOU DON'T REALLY NOTICE IT SO MUCH ANYMORE.
IN FACT, MOVING ON, FENCES AREN'T REALLY REQUIRED IN MOST INSTANCES IN OUR ZONING CODE.
BUT TYPICALLY THE TALLEST ALLOWED SOLID FENCING IS SIX FEET IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING AND EIGHT FEET IN COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL ZONING.
FENCING IS NOT GENERALLY REQUIRED.
REALISTICALLY, PANELS MAY NEED TO BE VISIBLE ABOVE A FENCE TO BE USED PROPERLY AND THAT'S BECAUSE WE DON'T REALLY ALLOW FOR SUPER HIGH FENCES, WHICH IN ITS OWN HAS ITS OWN VISUAL AESTHETIC IMPACT ON NEIGHBORS.
OF COURSE, DEVELOPERS, HOAS, LANDOWNERS, THEY CAN ALL ORGANIZE THEMSELVES AND ESTABLISH PRIVATE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
IF YOU'RE WANTING TO DESIGN A CERTAIN COMMUNITIES, THESE ARE YOUR CNRS THAT WOULD BE RESTRICTIVE OF THAT TYPE OF USE.
BUT GENERALLY, YOU DON'T SEE GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR IN OUR DENSER SUBDIVISIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? AGAIN, I'M HERE TODAY TO RECEIVE YOUR FEEDBACK.
THE BOARD IS IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT WITH RESPECT TO HOW WE CRAFT THIS ORDINANCE.
NOW WE'RE GOING TO TURN TO UTILITY.
>> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION, GOING BACK TO THE SIZE.
NOW WE'VE SAID THE SIZE CAN BE ABOUT TWICE THE SIZE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE, APPROXIMATELY.
>> IF THAT BE THE CASE, HOW FAR SHOULD THAT BE FROM THE NEAREST STRUCTURE?
>> EXISTING SETBACKS WOULD APPLY.
AS WITH THE SHED, YOU'D HAVE TO SET BACK THEN.
YOU CAN'T JUST PARK THAT RIGHT UP TO YOUR NEIGHBOR'S YARD.
THE SAME SETBACKS ARE IN PLACE.
>> THEN THE COUNTY THAT'S GENERALLY 20 FEET, CORRECT?
NOW WE'LL TURN TO UTILITY SCALE SOLAR USE AND SOME OF THE QUESTIONS WE HEARD AT THE LAST MEETING.
QUESTION NUMBER 1, AND YOU CAN SEE THERE'S THE PAGE NUMBER AT THE TOP FOLLOWS WHERE WE ARE IN THE ORDINANCE.
IF YOU WERE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, WISH TO FOLLOW ALONG.
THE QUESTION IS, COULD WE HAVE A CHART SHOWING COMPARISONS TO OTHER COUNTIES, MUNICIPALITIES WITH THE TYPES OF LANDSCAPES THAT HAVE BEEN USED FOR SOLAR.
YOU DON'T TYPICALLY SEE THESE GOING UP INTO FORESTED AREAS.
FARMLAND, DEVELOPMENT IN GREENFIELD IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE THE CHEAPEST PLACE TO DEVELOP.
IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE FOR THE LAND, BUT THAT TENDS TO BE WHERE DEVELOPERS FOCUS.
STAFF LOOKED AT THIS, AND REALLY THERE'S NOT LOTS OF EXAMPLES OF THIS YET.
THIS IS REALLY AN EMERGING INDUSTRY.
OF COURSE, IT'S HAPPENING ALL ACROSS THE NATION.
CERTAINLY, ARIZONA IS ONE OF THEM, BUT THEY'RE NOT COMMON YET.
LANDSCAPES OF SITES THAT HAVE BEEN CHOSEN MAY NOT REFLECT THE BEST USE IS REALLY THE COMMENTS.
WE COULD SHOW ALL THOSE CHARTS, BUT I THINK JUST TO PROVIDE A REASONABILITY TEST.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO WANT TO PUT THESE IN AREAS WITH SIGNIFICANT NATURAL RESOURCES AND VEGETATION FORESTED AREAS, STEEP SLOPES, AND ALL OF THE TYPES OF THINGS CRITERIA THAT WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON TRYING TO GET RIGHT IN THIS ORDINANCE.
JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME VISUAL EXAMPLES,
[01:25:02]
THERE ARE MANY AREAS IN THE SOUTHWEST, AND CERTAINLY HERE IN YAVAPAI COUNTY WHERE YOU HAVE LARGE FLAT AREAS THAT ARE LARGELY DEVOID OF HEAVY VEGETATION THAT MAY BE VERY APPROPRIATE FOR UTILITY SCALE SOLAR.YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S, OBVIOUSLY AESTHETIC FORMATIONS OUT IN THE DISTANCE.
WE WOULDN'T WANT TO PARK SOMETHING LIKE THIS ANYWHERE CLOSE TO THAT, BUT YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS IS PROBABLY MILES AWAY FROM THOSE FORMATIONS.
FROM AN AERIAL VIEW, AND WE HAVE EXAMPLES TO THE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WAS JUST UP OF FACILITIES THAT ARE MUCH LARGER IN SIZE.
OUR LIMIT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED AT 3,000.
WE CAN CERTAINLY CHANGE THAT LIMIT.
WE DID HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FROM ARCA, THE TRADE ORGANIZATION, AND APS HAS SUGGESTED WE MIGHT WANT TO INCREASE THAT NUMBER.
I THINK REALLY THE IDEA OF THE CAP IS BECAUSE THIS IS NEW TO THE COUNTY, AND DEPENDING ON WHAT TYPES OF PROJECTS TO COME TO THE FORE IN THE NEAR FUTURE, YOU CAN ALWAYS READJUST THE NUMBERS.
IT'S ALWAYS REALLY ONE VOTE AWAY AND MAJORITY TO CHANGING IT.
PROJECTS LIKE THIS, YOU COULD PROBABLY SEE FROM OUTER SPACE.
BUT IN TERMS OF APPROPRIATENESS OF AREA, DEVOID OF VEGETATION, NOT REALLY CLOSE TO ANY SENSITIVE RECEPTORS, PROBABLY A BETTER LOCATION THAN SOME.
I THINK EVEN IN THIS CASE, ALTHOUGH IT'S HARD TO SEE, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE SOME PANELS THAT ARE MOUNTED ON ROCKS.
IT'S THE CO BAR RANCH IN COCONINO COUNTY.
THAT'S MORE LIKE A GRASSLAND TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT, HIGH PLAINS PRAIRIE.
THIS IS NARROW VIEW OF THE PROPOSED EAGLE EYE UTILITY SCALE IN LA PAZ COUNTY.
THESE ARE GOING TO BE REALLY ARID AREAS.
OF COURSE, THE INDUSTRY IS VERY CREATIVE, AND SO WE EVEN SEE THESE POPPING UP ON AQUATIC BODIES AND RESERVOIRS AND WHATNOT.
A FOLLOW UP TO THAT QUESTION, COULD WE IDENTIFY AREAS IN THE COUNTY SUITABLE FOR SOLAR FACILITIES, RATHER THAN HAVING A DEVELOPER APPLY FOR AN RCU ZONE PARCEL? AS PROPOSED, IT WOULD BE A USE PERMIT APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE RCU, THE RURAL DISTRICT WITHIN THE COUNTY.
ANOTHER OPTION COULD HAVE BEEN THAT WHEN THE COUNTY UPDATED OR MAYBE PERHAPS DURING THE NEXT UPDATE.
PERHAPS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, YOU COULD GO THROUGH A MAPPING AND ANALYSIS PROCESS TO DETERMINE WHAT ARE YOUR MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDSCAPES THAT YOU MAY NOT WANT TO FACILITATE OR PERMIT UTILITY SCALE SOLAR OR AREAS THAT MAYBE YOU WANT TO CONSERVE.
WHAT ARE AREAS THAT ARE ACTUALLY APPROPRIATE? WE, THE COUNTY, AND YOU, THE BOARD, ARE ACTUALLY DRIVING THE PROCESS AND PERHAPS PROVIDING SOME PREDICTABILITY TO THE MARKETPLACE, SIGNALING WHERE THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS ARE ACCEPTABLE.
>> CHAIRMAN, I MAY INTERRUPT JUST LONG ENOUGH TO ENGAGE YOU ON THIS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
I'M NOT SURE WITH THE PLANNING PROCESS, WHETHER WE CAN GIVE DIRECTION AT THIS TIME, BUT I THINK THAT MAKES A GREAT DEAL OF SENSE TO HAVE AN OVERLAY SO THAT WE REALLY ARE MAKING SENSE OF WHERE WE HAVE THESE LARGE SCALE FACILITIES LOCATED, BOTH FOR THE PROTECTION OF OUR OPEN SPACE, AS WELL AS FOR SAFETY, HEALTH AND SAFETY.
THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE COULD OR SHOULD LOOK AT AND INCLUDE IN OUR NEXT CONVERSATION EVEN.
>> THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR MICHAELS.
THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE COULD ALSO DO TO THE FUTURE.
THE BOARD MAY DECIDE IT WANTS TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE NOW, AND AT THE NEXT RE EXAM OF THE COMPLAIN.
THAT WOULD BE A PRETTY AMBITIOUS UNDERTAKING.
BUT ALSO KNOW TOO, THAT IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE TURNING THE PAGE NOW.
WE'VE ADOPTED A BUDGET NOW THAT CALLS FOR MONIES TO BE SET ASIDE TO RETAIN QUALIFIED CONSULTANTS TO UNDERTAKE WHAT'S GOING TO BE A REALLY COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING CODE, THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, AND THE ZONING MAP.
THAT ALSO AFFORDS US, AND WE CAN WRITE IT RIGHT INTO THE RFP TO HAVE THAT TEAM ACTUALLY DO THAT WHAT IS IT GOING TO BE A SPATIAL ANALYSIS AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE INVENTORY OF THE COUNTY.
BY THE WAY, THAT ERI, THAT ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE INVENTORY COULD INFORM A LOT OF OTHER PLANNING ENDEAVORS, SUCH AS OPEN SPACE AND OTHER THINGS, IDENTIFYING AREAS APPROPRIATE FOR OTHER TYPES OF LAND USES,
[01:30:01]
WHICH WOULD REALLY HELP INFORM UPDATING THE ACTUAL ZONING CODE AND THE MAP.WE HAVE VERY SMALL AREAS DEDICATED TO INDUSTRIAL USE IN THE COUNTY, AND IT MAY BE THAT WE'RE MISSING AN IMPORTANT ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, ONE OF WHICH COULD BE IDENTIFYING LARGE AREAS FOR SOLARS.
>> I HAD JUST A COMMENT, I GUESS.
I DEFINITELY FEEL THAT THIS TOPIC IS SOMETHING THAT DOES NEED A LOT OF CONVERSATION.
THERE IS A LOT OF THINGS TO THINK ABOUT.
OBVIOUSLY, ORGANIZATIONS TO TALK TO, ALSO TO CHECK IN WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE MAYBE VENTURED DOWN THIS PATH.
I DON'T WANT TO RUSH INTO ANYTHING.
WE GO FORWARD, WE MAKE RULES OR GUIDELINES, HOWEVER IT IS.
IF WE MADE, LET'S SAY, A LIMIT ON THE AMOUNT OF SPACE, THEN YOU HAD MENTIONED EARLIER, THEY COULD ALWAYS COME TO, I GUESS, THE BOARD AND ASK FOR MAYBE SOMETHING MORE.
I WOULD RATHER MAKE IT TO WHERE MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE THESE LIMITS.
MAYBE WE LOOK AT SOMETHING ELSE IN THE FACT.
WE MAKE THESE GUIDELINES, AND I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO COME UP TO THIS BOARD TO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT WHEN WE HAD THIS GUIDELINE.
AM I MAKING ANY GOOD SENSE HERE ON THIS?
>> ACTUALLY CLOSE THIS POWERPOINT PRESENTATION SPECIFIC TO THAT QUESTION OF, WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE SIZE PER PROJECT? WE'VE HEARD THAT 25 ACRES TO 3,000 IS THE LOW AVERAGE.
IT TENDS TO BE WHEN AS YOU SCALE UP, YOU'RE GOING TO INTERSECT WITH MORE IMPACTS.
IF YOU HAVE THREE PROJECTS, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH MAXED YOU OUT IF EACH ONE IS ABOUT 3,000 ACRES IN SIZE OR MORE.
IF YOUR MAX IS 8,000 ACRES AS PROPOSE, THAT'S ONLY THREE PROJECTS TO GET TO THE PREVIOUS COMMENT FROM MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC.
BUT IT'S REALLY AN ARBITRARY NUMBER BECAUSE THIS IS NEW.
WE'RE WAITING FOR YOUR DIRECTION.
WE COULD CERTAINLY INCREASE THE NUMBER TO 10 OR YOU CAN REVISIT IN THE FUTURE, OR WE COULD REVISIT IT ONCE WE GO THROUGH THIS ZONING DATE REWRITE PROCESS TO ACTUALLY SEE WHAT THE DATA TELLS US, WHICH WOULD PROBABLY INCLUDE LOOKING AT THE MARKETPLACE AND GROUND TRUTH THINK SOME OF THE NUMBERS THAT WE HEARD TODAY.
CERTAINLY, YAVAPAI COUNTY IS A SIZE OF MASSACHUSETTS.
I WOULD LIKE TO THINK WE HAVE AMPLE AREAS TO ACCOMMODATE UTILITY SCALE SOLAR, BUT SOME AREAS ARE PROBABLY NOT APPROPRIATE FOR SOLAR CLEARLY.
>> BELIEVE YOU ME, I'M NOT AGAINST ANY OF THIS.
I JUST KNOW THAT IT IS A BIG CONVERSATION.
JUST WANT TO TRY TO MAKE THE BEST CHOICES THAT WE CAN.
>> NEXT QUESTION. SHOULD LAND OWNED BY THE STATE OF ARIZONA BE INCLUDED FOR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS? WE'RE ESSENTIALLY TALKING ABOUT LAND THAT'S THE ARIZONA STAND.
THE ARIZONA LAND DEPARTMENT MANAGES, WHICH JUST TO CLARIFY BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF MISCONCEPTION, THAT'S NOT LAND THAT'S NECESSARILY INTENDED FOR PUBLIC USE.
STATE LANDS ARE HELD IN TRUST TO BE SOLD OR LEASED TO DEVELOPMENT AT ANY TIME, UNLESS OTHERWISE ACQUIRED FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES, SIMILAR TO WHAT THIS COUNTY PROACTIVELY PARTNERED IN WHEN IT WORK WITH THE MUNICIPALITIES AND THE STATE IN PRESERVING A BIG CHUNK OF THE DELLS AND GLASSFORD HILLS.
I THINK THE SENSITIVITY DROVE THAT COMMENT OR QUESTION WAS THAT CLEARLY, 25% OF THE LAND BASE IN THE COUNTY IS STATE OWNED LANDS.
A LOT OF THAT'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPED UNDER THE CURRENT LAWS THAT ARE IN PLACE AS THEY GOVERN THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF STATE LANDS.
SOME OF THOSE LANDS ARE VERY SENSITIVE, LIKE SOME OF THE FORMATIONS AND BUTTES THAT ARE PROXIMATE TO VERDE CANYON.
DO WE REALLY WANT TO BE HAVING AN ORDINANCE IN PLACE THAT'S FACILITATING SOLAR IN THOSE AREAS? WHAT I CAN SAY IS AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED, THERE IS A 500 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE TYPES OF UNDERLYING ZONES LIKE RCU 2 THAT REALLY HARBOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUR STATE LANDS.
BUT IT'S NOT LIMITED TO THAT, AND KEEP IN MIND THAT WE HAVE A HOST OF OTHER CRITERIA, POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IN THE ORDINANCE THAT REALLY GIVE THE BOARD CONTROL AND THE LEVERS TO DICTATE OF REDIRECTING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AWAY FROM VERY SCENIC AREAS, SCENIC VISTAS AND CULTURAL SITES.
IN MANY CASES, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A 500 FOOT BUFFER
[01:35:02]
BECAUSE YOUR ZONING GIVES YOU THE AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT A PROJECT THAT'S GOING TO BE ANYWHERE NEAR A REALLY SENSITIVE SITE, SUCH AS A SCENIC AREA OR A PARK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.I THINK THE AESTHETIC CRITERIA IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THIS ORDINANCE.
BECAUSE IN MANY OTHER REGARDS, IT'S A BENIGN USE.
IT'S GOING TO IMPACT THE HABITAT CERTAINLY.
BUT REALLY, IT'S ABOUT THE EFFECTS THAT IT HAS ON ADJACENT LAND USE, WHICH AGAIN, MOSTLY VISUAL.
NEXT QUESTION. SHOULD WE CONSIDER THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CONTINUING STAFF REVIEWS AND INSPECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE LIFETIME OF THE PROJECT?
>> MAT, LET ME INTERRUPT YOU FOR A SECOND, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
HOW MANY MORE PAGES OF THIS YOU HAVE GOING FORWARD?
>> I THINK IT WAS 25 TOTALS, SO WE'RE PROBABLY ALREADY A QUARTER OF THE WAY IN.
>> WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A QUICK FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
>> WE NEED TO RUN TO THE BATHROOM.
MS. MALLORY IS COMING AND SO IS MR. THOMPSON, SO LET'S FINISH UP, MR. BLACK.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN BROWN. NEXT QUESTION.
SHOULD WE CONSIDER COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CONTINUING STAFF REVIEWS AND INSPECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE LIFETIME OF THE PROJECT? IT'S NOT JUST AT THE APPLICATION STAGE OR THE ALL IMPORTANT DECOMMISSIONING AND RECLAMATION STAGES, AND THE ANSWER IS, OF COURSE, WE SHOULD.
SOME OF THESE ARE LEGAL QUESTIONS, AND SOME OF THAT GETS BAKED INTO THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT'S ENTERED BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND AN APPLICANT.
SOME OF THAT GETS NEGOTIATED, BUT REALLY THE NEXT STEP WOULD ACTUALLY BE FOR THE COUNTY TO DEVISE CERTAIN TEMPLATES FOR THOSE AGREEMENTS.
WE COULD ADD REQUIREMENTS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS OF AN INDEPENDENT LICENSED ENGINEER TO REVIEW APPLICATION MATERIALS, AND THERE'S AN ANNUAL REPORT REQUIREMENT REQUIRED IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE NOW.
BECAUSE THIS IS SO TECHNICAL WHEN YOU DO GET AN APPLICATION, THE BOARD MAY DECIDE THAT IT WANTS ITS OWN INDEPENDENT EXPERT TO REVIEW THE APPLICATION.
DEPENDING ON COUNSEL WEIGHING IN ON THAT ISSUE, IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO ASK THE DEVELOPER TO PAY FOR THAT PROFESSIONAL'S TIME. NEXT QUESTION.
ANNUAL COST CONSIDERATIONS CONTINUED.
THERE'S ALSO PERMIT FEES, AND THIS IS ANOTHER AREA THAT IF THIS ORDINANCE GETS ADOPTED, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO VISIT BECAUSE THIS IS A UNIQUE INDUSTRY THAT'S GOING TO NECESSITATE A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF REVIEWS THAT TOUCH DIFFERENT DIVISIONS WITHIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, AND THERE'S GOING TO BE ASSOCIATED FEES, AND THAT'LL PROBABLY BE ANOTHER ITEM THAT WILL HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE THE BOARD FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
>> WHAT ARE THE CONCERNS WITH MATERIAL LEACHING INTO SOIL? THIS WAS A QUESTION THAT CAME UP.
SO SGAIN, THERE ARE SOME CONTAMINANTS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH SOLAR PANELS, LEAD, CADMIUM, SOME THINGS LIKE THIS, HEAVY METALS.
BUT GENERALLY, ALL OF THAT IS SORT OF BOUND INTO THE ACTUAL MATERIALS, THE PANELS THEMSELVES.
REALLY, THAT DOESN'T BECOME A PROBLEM.
BREAKAGE, THAT STUFF GETS REPLACED.
IT'S REALLY ONLY IF YOU'RE GOING TO REALLY PULVERIZE THE PANELS.
THEN YOU GET RAIN OR A CATASTROPHIC FIRE THAT REALLY PRESENTS THE POTENTIAL FOR SOME OF THESE TOXIC MATERIALS, AND CONTAMINANTS TO LEACH INTO THE SOIL.
OF COURSE, WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS THAT APPLICANTS OR OPERATORS HAVE TO HAVE TO MAINTAIN THEIR EQUIPMENT IN GOOD ORDER, AND WE HAVE RECOURSE IF THEY FAIL TO DO SO.
BUT THEN ALSO WHAT COMES INTO PLAY IS A SETBACK.
THIS IS ANOTHER REASON WHY YOU PROBABLY DON'T WANT TO SITE THIS ANYWHERE NEAR A FLOWING STREAM OR AS ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA JUST TO GUARD AGAINST THAT POTENTIALITY.
OF COURSE, THERE'S ALWAYS RISK, BUT AGAIN, THESE ARE TYPICALLY PANELS ARE NOT TYPICALLY FLAMMABLE BY THEMSELVES.
WHO HAS LIABILITY FOR FIRE FIGHTING COSTS IF A FIRE RESULTS FROM SOLAR FACILITY USAGE? THIS IS ONE OF YOUR QUESTIONS THAT WE DIRECTED TOWARDS APS.
WE RECEIVED A WRITTEN RESPONSE.
THEY'VE ESSENTIALLY SAID THAT IF AFTER A FIRE, INVESTIGATIONS CONFIRM A FIRE ORIGINATED FROM ONE OF THEIR FACILITIES, THEY WOULD WORK WITHIN THE ARIZONA LAW TO DETERMINE POTENTIAL OUTCOMES.
WE WILL NEED TO RESEARCH THIS ISSUE FURTHER TO SEE HOW PREVIOUS INCIDENTS MAY HAVE BEEN HANDLED.
I THINK WE'VE ALL COME A LONG WAY SINCE SOME OF THE INSTANCES THAT HAVE HAPPENED ELSEWHERE.
AS IT APPLIES TO APS, I DON'T BELIEVE THEY HAVE ANY SPECIAL CONSIDERATION AS WOULD, ANY PRIVATE ENTITY WOULD FACE THAT SAME POTENTIAL LIABILITY FOLLOWING,
[01:40:02]
AN APPROPRIATE PROCESS OF INVESTIGATION.ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT, I'LL MOVE THE NEXT SLIDE.
COULD WE REQUIRE UPDATES TO ESTIMATED COSTS FOR DECOMMISSIONING AND RECLAMATION MORE OFTEN THAN EVERY FIVE YEARS.
IT'S ALREADY BAKED INTO THE ORDINANCE AT FIVE YEARS.
WE BELIEVE THAT'S THE INDUSTRY STANDARD OF WHAT WE SEE IN SIMILAR ORDINANCES ELSEWHERE, COUNTY MUNICIPAL.
THIS APPEARS TO BE THE STANDARD REQUIREMENT.
>> IF WE'RE REQUIRING SOMETHING, SO LET'S SAY WE REQUIRE FIVE YEARS, THEY HAVE TO COME BACK AND WHAT IF THEY DON'T? DO THEY LOSE THEIR PERMIT?
>> IF THE APPLICANT, IF THE OPERATOR FAILS TO PERFORM PER WHAT'S THAT SPECIFIED IN THE ORDINANCE, THE COUNTY HAS RECOURSE TO STEP IN.
>> BASICALLY PULL THEIR PERMIT.
>> TO PULL THE PLUG ON THE PROJECT.
THAT'S EVEN THE THREAT OF THAT MAY FORCE OPERATOR TO COME BACK TO THE TABLE AND PERFORM.
>> WELL, WE'VE SEEN THIS HAPPEN WITH CERTAIN PADS AND THINGS THAT HAVE OCCURRED OUT THERE.
THEY DO NOT, THEY SIT OUT THERE FOR 20 YEARS AND NEVER PERFORM.
>> KEEP IN MIND, THIS IS AN ORDINANCE WHERE CLEARLY, HAVING COUNSEL WEIGH IN AND FINANCING IS GOING TO BE REALLY IMPORTANT, AND WE'VE ALREADY RECEIVED SOME FEEDBACK, SO WE FEEL WE'RE ON PRETTY GOOD GROUND, BUT, THERE'S ALWAYS ROOM FOR REVISITING SOME OF THE TEXTS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE REALLY CROSSED OUR TS.
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WOULD PREFER TO HAVE FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE USE PERMIT BASED ON CONTINUING WILDLIFE STUDIES.
SO WE THINK THAT THAT MAY BE PROBLEMATIC, PERHAPS FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT TO REOPEN A USE PERMIT.
I THINK WITH RESPECT TO WILDLIFE, WHAT WE WOULD REALLY WANT TO DO IS TO EXPECT THAT WE GOT IT RIGHT IN TERMS OF ALL OF THE RIGOROUS ANALYSIS THAT THE ORDINANCE ALREADY REQUIRES AN APPLICANT TO UNDERTAKE WITH RESPECT TO CULTURAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, EVEN PALEONTOLOGICAL STUDIES.
IF THINGS ARE FOUND, THEN THE STUDIES GET MORE RIGOROUS, AND THOSE AREAS GET PROTECTED AND BUFFERED.
OF COURSE, WE'RE NOT THE ONLY ONE THAT'S VETTING THIS.
YOU HAVE THE HISTORIC HOUSE OF PRESERVATION, CHIPO.
YOU'VE GOT THE ARIZONA EFFICIENT AND GAME.
ALL OF THOSE ENTITIES ARE GOING TO BE WEIGHING, AND SO I THINK WHAT I WOULD SAY TO THAT IS, WE THINK THE BEST COURSES IS TO MAKE SURE WE GET IT RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING BY CRAFTING THE ORDINANCE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE APPROPRIATELY ASSESSING THOSE AREAS AND THEN ADEQUATELY PROTECTING THEM IF THEY'RE FOUND ON SITE.
ADJUSTMENT BASED ON WILDLIFE STUDIES CONTINUED.
I THINK I ALREADY COVERED THAT.
ANOTHER THING, TOO, IS YOU MAY HAVE AN APPLICANT THAT COMES.
IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE PROJECTS OF THIS SIZE THAT EVERY APPLICANT, GIVEN ALL OF THE RIGOROUS REQUIREMENTS AND SETBACKS IN THE ORDINANCE, THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO SEEK WAIVERS.
AS WITH ANY USE PERMIT, THEY'RE ASKING FOR PERMISSION TO DO SOMETHING, AND SO THE BOARD WILL HAVE A LOT OF LEVERAGE TO ASK FOR CERTAIN THINGS.
PROJECTS LIKE THIS, THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE A GIVEN AND TAKE IN SOME NEGOTIATION.
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET WAIVERS.
IT'S NOT UNTYPICAL TO ASK FOR CERTAIN STIPULATIONS OR CONCESSIONS.
THERE'S STILL GOING TO BE A GIVE AND TAKE ON TOP OF THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO COME TO YOU TO ASK FOR RELIEF FOR CERTAIN THINGS, AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE IT [NOISE] WITH THE NEPA, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT REPORTS BE PROVIDED TO THE BOARD.
OF COURSE, SO THAT GETS TRIGGERED IF THEY'RE USING FEDERAL MONEY, FEDERAL PROPERTY.
IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS INVOLVED IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM, MONEY, OR OTHERWISE, THEN THE NEPA PROCESS GETS TRIGGERED.
CERTAINLY, WE'RE HAPPY TO INTEGRATE INTO THE ORDINANCE OF LANGUAGE THAT ALL OF THAT DOCUMENTATION WOULD BE SHARED AND FURNISHED WITH THE COUNTY IN A TIMELY MANNER SO WE CAN COMMENT ON ANY NEPA PROCESS ASSOCIATED WITH A SOLAR FACILITY PROJECT.
AS FAR AS THE ADEQUACY OF WHAT THEY REQUIRE AND WHAT WE REQUIRE.
I THINK BY AND LARGE, WE STAND BY THE ORDINANCE THAT WE ARE TRYING TO STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN ALLOWING PROJECTS TO MOVE FORWARD AND BE PROFITABLE IN THE MARKETPLACE, BUT ALSO HAVING RIGOROUS SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE THAT REALLY COULD SERVE AS A MODEL FOR THE STATE.
WE'RE HAPPY TO REVISIT ANY OF THOSE STANDARDS, BUT WE FEEL WE'RE ASKING A LOT OF THE APPLICANT.
IN MANY CASES, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE MAYBE AN APPLICANT COMES FORWARD WITH A PROJECT THAT'S 5,000 ACRES IN SIZE.
[01:45:04]
WELL, ONCE YOU ADD ALL THE SETBACKS AND AREAS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PROTECT, THEY MIGHT BE LUCKY TO WALK AWAY WITH 3,000 ACRES OF THAT.WE FEEL WE'RE ASKING A LOT OF THE APPLICANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE AREAS ARE ADEQUATELY ANALYZED AND PROTECTED IF THEY EXIST ON SITE.
MUCH OF WHAT WE ASK FOR IN THE ORDINANCE IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WOULD BE IN AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
I THINK I COVERED THAT ALREADY, SO I'M GOING TO MOVE ON.
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF NEW DISCOVERIES WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS? THIS ISN'T JUST WHAT HAPPENS AT THE BEGINNING BEFORE AN APPLICATION WHERE THEY HAVE TO DO ALL OF THOSE STUDIES.
WHAT HAPPENS IF DURING THE COURSE OF INSTALLING THE PANELS, THEY START DIGGING UP POTS OR THEY RUN INTO DESERT TORTOISE OR HEAL MONSTERS, AND SO ACTUALLY, APS WAS REALLY HELPFUL IN FURNISHING US WITH SOME LANGUAGE THAT THEY'VE USED IN CONTRACTS WITH APPLICATIONS.
DON'T FORGET, THE BOARD IS NOT THE ONLY REVIEWING ENTITY.
APS AND OTHERS HAVE THEIR OWN REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS, SOME OF WHICH ARE GOING TO BE DUPLICATIVE.
THAT SAME PAPERWORK MAY UNDOUBTEDLY BE REQUIRED BY APS, AND SO I'M ALREADY LOOKING TO KIND OF BEEF UP THE ORDINANCE TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE OF WHAT HAPPENS FOR RESOURCES OR ITEMS, CULTURAL RESOURCES, ET CETERA, THAT MAY BE DISCOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION AND HOW THOSE WILL BE TREATED.
THAT WILL ALL BE REFLECTED IN THE SECOND EDITION OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE.
>> JUST TO ADD TO THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY, IT'S NOT ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION.
WE KNOW THAT WILDLIFE CORRIDORS SHIFT FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, AND IT COULD BE A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S PUSHING THEM THAT HAD NOT BEEN ANTICIPATED.
I WANT TO HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY IN THERE TOO FOR THAT LEVEL OF CONSIDERATION, NOT JUST DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE FACILITY, BUT IF THERE'S SOME OTHER IMPENDING EVENT THAT CAUSES A SHIFT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE OBVIOUS ONE IS IN A WILD LIFE CORRIDORS, WHICH HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.
>> ANY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE THAT WOULD TAKE PLACE DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR PERMIT USE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] WE'LL ABSOLUTELY TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
SOME OF THIS STUFF, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO WANT TO CIRCLE BACK WITH COUNCIL TO SEE WHAT IS APPROPRIATE TO REQUIRE DURING THE COURSE OF A PERMIT THAT'S BEEN OF A USE PERMIT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED.
BUT YEAH, MIGRATION PATTERNS CHANGE.
DEVELOPMENT PUSHES THESE THINGS AROUND CLEARLY.
THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO PROVIDE A CERTAIN LEVEL OF PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE TO MAKE SURE THE BUFFERS AREN'T THE BARE MINIMUM BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR CHANGE.
COULD WE ALLOW 12 MONTHS BEFORE OPERATION OF THE SOLAR FACILITY, IF IT'S CONSIDERED ABANDONED RATHER THAN SIX MONTHS? THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HEARD FROM I BELIEVE APS AND ARISEIA.
SO LONG AS WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS IS NECESSARILY AN ISSUE, SO LONG AS IT'S DEFINED PERIOD OF TIME, WE COULD INCLUDE AN ALLOWANCE FOR COUNTY INSPECTION IF THE FACILITY DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE UPHOLDING ANY TERMS OF THE SITE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT.
BUT THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO HIRE APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONALS TO PERFORM NEEDED MAINTENANCE USING SURETY FUNDS.
THESE ARE THE FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT DEVELOPER.
AS DESIGNATED UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
THIS IS A REQUEST THAT WE RECEIVED.
WE DO NOT BELIEVE IT'S NECESSARILY PROBLEMATIC TO MAKE THAT CONCESSION.
OF COURSE, WE WANT TO HEAR FROM THE BOARD IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE WILLING TO MAKE THAT CHANGE IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR THE SECOND DRAFT.
THE BOARD REQUESTED MORE INFORMATION ON TRANSMISSION LINES AND HOW THEY ARE TREATED AFTER DECOMMISSIONING.
THERE WERE ALSO CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF MISTAKES WERE MADE IN CHOOSING THE LINE AND SUBSTATION SITES, HOW COULD THIS BE REMEDIED? WE DID LOOK INTO THIS. WE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH APS ABOUT IT.
BASED ON ALL OF THAT, IT REALLY SEEMS TO US THAT THIS IS REALLY SOMETHING THAT APPROPRIATELY FALLS UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE UTILITY COMPANY TO EVALUATE THIS.
RECALL THAT I SAID EARLIER THAT THEY HAVE THEIR OWN STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS THAT LOOK AT THESE ISSUES, A PATH FOR CONTINUED USE OF THE SUBSTATION AND TRANSMISSION LINES IS ALREADY DESCRIBED IN THE ORDINANCE.
WE DO TOUCH THAT, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A SEPARATE APPLICATION.
[01:50:02]
THE OPERATION GETS DECOMMISSIONED.WELL, IF THE SUBSTATION OR THE BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE FACILITY, IF ALL OF THAT OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE IS STILL VIABLE, AND YOU'VE GOT A COMMUNITY THAT'S GROWN UP AROUND IT, OF COURSE, WE'RE GOING TO WANT TO MAKE USE OF THAT, BUT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THE PRIVATE ENTITY COME BACK FOR A USE PERMIT BECAUSE THE SITUATION ON THE GROUND DOES CHANGE.
HOWEVER, I WOULD QUALIFY THAT WITH THE IDEA THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES, WHICH I THINK WOULD PROBABLY BE EXEMPT ANYWAY.
ALSO UNDER DECOMMISSIONING FOR TRANSMISSION LINES.
THERE'S THE BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE FACILITIES, WHICH ARE GENERALLY LOCATED PROXIMATE TO THE PROJECT BOUNDARY.
JUST FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING, IT'S HELPFUL TO KNOW THAT IT'S TYPICALLY A TWIN SUBSTATION FACILITY, WHEREAS THE APPLICANT DEVELOPER, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE ON THEIR PROJECT AREA.
THEN THERE'S GOING TO BE A SISTER FACILITY JUST BEYOND THE BOUNDARY THAT CONNECTS TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE UTILITIES.
THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR A WORKING SESSION WITH INDUSTRY AND UTILITY COMPANY REPRESENTATIVES AND THE COUNTY THAT HAS BEEN SCHEDULED FOR LATER THIS MONTH THAT WAS SCHEDULED WITH ARISEIA AND SOME OF THE EXPERTS FROM OTHER ENTITIES THAT THEY INTEND TO BRING TO THE MEETING.
OF COURSE, WE WANT TO ACCOMMODATE THE INPUT OF OTHER INTEREST GROUPS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, AND WE'RE DOING THAT.
>> WHEN IS THAT MEETING PLANNED FOR?
>> I THINK IT MIGHT BE THE 25TH.
>> YES. REQUESTED DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD.
I THINK THIS IS JUST ABOUT THE LAST SLIDE, AND OF COURSE, WE COME BACK TO ONE OF THE MAIN QUESTIONS.
WE HEARD ABOUT IT TODAY. I'M ALMOST THERE.
AGAIN, WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING THE FIRST DRAFT SO THAT WE CAN ROLL OUT THE SECOND DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, WHICH IS REFLECTIVE OF YOUR COMMENTS, WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC, AND, INTERNAL TECHNICAL REVIEW, ET CETERA.
LOOK FOR THAT. WE'RE GOING TO BE PUSHING THAT OUT TO YOU AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON THE WEEK OF JULY 15TH.
OF COURSE, WE REQUEST THE BOARD TO PROVIDE US WITH ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, SPECIFIC TO CHANGES.
WE'D LIKE TO GET YOUR COMMENTS BY AUGUST 8TH, BECAUSE WE REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE ULTIMATELY THREE DRAFTS.
BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO GET LOTS OF RESPONSES TO THE SECOND DRAFT.
UNDOUBTEDLY, THERE'S GOING TO BE A THIRD DRAFT.
WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET THOSE COMMENTS, AND WE CAN CONSIDER THEM IN TIME BEFORE WE PUSH THAT OUT BACK BEFORE THE BOARD FOR POTENTIAL FINAL ACTION ON SEPTEMBER 4TH.
>> WITH THAT, THAT'S THE PRESENTATION.
I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
>> ANY QUESTIONS, MISS GREGORY?
>> I HAVE NO QUESTIONS, BUT I HAVE TO COMPLIMENT YOU ON THE CLARITY AND MANNER IN WHICH YOU HAVE PRESENTED THIS INFORMATION.
IT'S IT'S JUST EXCELLENT, MATT. I THANK YOU FOR THAT.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT, SUPERVISOR MICHAELS.
WE DO TAKE YOUR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS SERIOUSLY INTO HEART.
WE WANTED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THOSE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
>> [INAUDIBLE]. GOOD JOB, MATT. I THINK THE TIME SCHEDULE WORKS OUT WELL AS SOON AS YOU CAN GET THE INFORMATION TO US AND WE CAN MAKE OUR FINAL COMMENTS AND WE CAN GET IT TO YOU.
NOW, I HOPE YOU WOULD ALSO TAKE THIS IN AND LET MARTIN BRENNAN ALSO REVIEW IT FROM THE, [OVERLAPPING] SIDE OF THINGS, AND ALSO MR. THOMPSON.
>> WE HAVE AND WE CONTINUE TO DO SO, CHAIRMAN BROWN. THANK YOU.
>> I'M GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
DON'T FORGET TO INCLUDE MR. COOK IN SOME OF YOUR CONVERSATION, ESPECIALLY ON THE ITEMS THAT YOU BOTH MAY OR MIGHT NOT AGREE TO.
>> WE ARE ALREADY CORRESPONDING.
>> GREAT. IS THAT GOOD FOR YOU, MR. COOK?
>> MOVING TO CALL TO THE PUBLIC, INDIVIDUALS MAY ADDRESS THE BOARD FOR UP TO THREE MINUTES ON ANY RELEVANT ISSUE WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION.
PURSUANT TO ARS 38-431.01 H, BOARD MEMBERS SHALL NOT DISCUSS OR TAKE ACTION ON THESE MATTERS THAT RAISED DURING THE CALL TO THE PUBLIC.
BOARD MAY DIRECT STAFF TO STUDY THE MATTER OR DIRECT THAT MATTER BE RESCHEDULED FOR CONSIDERATION AT A LATER DATE.
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY CALL TO THE PUBLIC? DO WE HAVE ANY GREEN SHEETS? I SEE NOTHING OVER THERE IN COTTONWOOD.
[01:55:01]
>> [INAUDIBLE].
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.