Jul 17, 2024 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

[ CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:06]

MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

TODAY IS WEDNESDAY, JULY 17TH, 2024.

IT IS 9 A.M..

I'M CALLING TO ORDER THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING HERE IN COTTONWOOD.

AND ALL ITEMS LISTED ARE POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE ORDER OF ITEMS MAY BE MODIFIED AT THE MEETING.

NOTE ONE OR MORE BOARD MEMBERS MAY ATTEND TELEPHONICALLY OR VIRTUALLY.

BOARD MEMBERS ATTENDING TELEPHONICALLY OR VIRTUALLY WILL BE ANNOUNCED AT THE MEETING AND PURSUANT TO ARS 38-431.03A3, THE 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 OUR MEETINGS.

WRITTEN COMMENTS OR CURRENT AGENDA ITEMS WILL BE RECEIVED BY THE CLERK OF THE BOARD'S OFFICE AT CLERKOFTHEBOARD.WEB@YAVAPAIAZ.GOV 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THE BOARD MEETING.

OR FILL OUT A GREEN SHEET AND GIVE IT TO THE CLERK DOWN HERE AT THE END OF THE DAIS.

OKAY, NOW WE'RE CALLED TO ORDER, INVOCATION BE BY MISS MALLORY AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY ME.

DEAREST LORD, WE COME BEFORE YOU TODAY.

WE ARE THANKFUL FOR THE SAFE TRAVELS THAT WE HAVE ALL HAD, AND WE ASK FOR SAFE TRAVELS ON OUR WAY BACK.

WE APPRECIATE OUR COUNTRY, WE APPRECIATE OUR FREEDOMS, AND WE ASK FOR YOUR BLESSINGS, LORD, OVER THE SAFETY OF OUR COUNTRY AND ON THE SAFETY OF OUR LEADERS.

WE ASK FOR PEACE, LORD, AND WE ASK FOR HUMBLING HEARTS THAT WE WOULD LOOK TOWARD YOU FOR OUR GUIDANCE EVERY DAY AND EVERY MINUTE OF THE DAY THAT YOU GIVE US.

IN JESUS NAME, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN.

PLEASE JOIN ME IN SALUTE TO OUR FLAG.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

THANK YOU. ROLL CALL, MADAM CLERK.

CHAIRMAN BROWN HERE.

VICE CHAIR MICHAELS HERE.

SUPERVISOR OBERG PRESENT.

SUPERVISOR GREGORY.

PRESENT. SUPERVISOR MALLORY.

HERE. YOU HAVE A QUORUM.

THANK YOU. WITH THAT WE'LL HAVE AWARDS AND PROCLAMATIONS.

[ AWARDS AND PROCLAMATIONS ]

AND WHEREAS THIS WEEK RECOGNIZED THE OUTSTANDING WORK THAT COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PROFESSIONALS PERFORM WHILE PROTECTING THE COMMUNITY BY GIVING VOICE TO VICTIMS AND PROVIDING PATHWAYS FOR BEHAVIOR CHANGE TO THOSE ADULTS AND YOUTH YOUTH WILLING TO ALTER THEIR BEHAVIOR TOWARDS A MORE RESPONSIBLE LIFESTYLE.

AND WHEREAS THERE ARE NEARLY 80,000 ADULTS AND NEARLY 3000 YOUTH PLACED ON PROBATION THROUGHOUT ARIZONA.

AND WHEREAS YAVAPAI COUNTY STRIVES TO PROVIDE FOR THE WELFARE AND SECURITY OF ITS CITIZENS THROUGH FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP AND COOPERATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, AND WHEREAS, YAVAPAI COUNTY COMMENDS THE SWORN AND PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBERS THAT PROVIDE COST EFFECTIVE AND RESEARCH SUPPORTED SUPERVISION, SUPPORT, AND HOPE TO OVER 4,000 ADULT AND 500 YOUTH THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE YAVAPAI COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RECOGNIZES JULY 21ST THROUGH 27TH, 2024 AS PRETRIAL PROBATION AND PAROLE SUPERVISION WEEK AND ENCOURAGES ADULT AND JUVENILE PROBATION TO CONTINUE ITS COMMUNITY SAFETY AND LIFE CHANGING WORK.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND ON BEHALF OF THE YAVAPAI COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, SET MY HAND AND CAUSED THE SEAL OF YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA TO BE AFFIXED ON THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2024.

[00:05:02]

MY NAME IS GARY THAGARD, AND I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING THE ASSISTANT CHIEF OF THE ADULT PROBATION DEPARTMENT.

CHIEF BRYAN PRIETO IS OUT OF THE STATE ON OTHER BUSINESS, AND I'LL BE HERE PRESENTING THIS MORNING ON HIS BEHALF.

I WANT TO EXTEND OUR SINCERE APPRECIATION TO THE BOARD FOR NOT ONLY YOUR ONGOING SUPPORT FOR OUR DEPARTMENT AND THE WORK WE DO FOR OUR COURTS AND COMMUNITY, BUT SPECIFICALLY FOR THE RECOGNITION TODAY WITH THIS PROCLAMATION, YOU GUYS ALREADY KNOW AND HAVE HEARD THE BROAD STROKES OF WHAT PROBATION DOES.

AND TODAY, I'D LIKE TO GIVE YOU SOME SPECIFIC NUMBERS THAT WE'RE VERY PROUD OF FROM FISCAL YEAR 24.

FOR COURT ORDERED FINES AND FEES COLLECTED WE COLLECTED $2,989,940.

WITH VICTIM RESTITUTION COLLECTIONS WE WERE AT $1,222,437, ALL GOING TOWARD MAKING VICTIMS OF CRIME WHOLE IN THEIR FINANCIAL LOSS.

GARY, DURING WHAT PERIOD IS THAT? THAT IS PERIOD FROM JULY 1ST 23 THROUGH JUNE 30TH, 24.

YOU ARE ALL AWARE OF OUR COMMUNITY RESTITUTION PROGRAM, AND I'M HAPPY TO SAY THAT OUR WORK CREWS PROVIDED 68,940 HOURS WORTH OF COMMUNITY WORK IN RETRIBUTION AND GIVING BACK TO OUR COMMUNITY.

IN JAIL BED DAYS SAVED THERE WERE 9655 DAYS SAVED FISCAL YEAR 24.

OUR MORAL MORAL RECOGNITION THERAPY PROGRAM IS OUR COGNITIVE BASED PROGRAM, AND OUR STAFF FACILITATE FACILITATED 336 HOURS OF COURSEWORK TO OUR CLIENTS.

AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, ONE OF OUR CORE DUTIES IS TO PROVIDE OUR COURTS WITH REPORTS FOR OUR CLIENTELE.

AND I AM EXTREMELY HAPPY TO SHARE THAT IN FISCAL YEAR 24, WE HAD A 99.4% ON TIME REPORT TO THE COURT RATE.

ALL OF THIS IS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE WORK THAT YOUR PROBATION OFFICERS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFF DO WHILE SERVING THE YAVAPAI COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, AND WE SHOULD BE PROUD OF THEIR EXCEPTIONAL WORK.

I'M HONORED TO BE HERE TODAY TO ACCEPT, ON BEHALF OF ADULT PROBATION, THIS PROCLAMATION PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING OUR EFFORTS.

BUT I'M EQUALLY HONORED TO BE IN THE PRESIDENT'S PRESENCE AND ACCOMPANIED BY OUR THREE DIVISION ADMINISTRATORS.

FIRST IS ANDREW SAWYER IS THE DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR WHO OVERSEES OUR ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT DIVISION.

AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, KRISTY PECK IS THE DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR OVERSEEING OUR STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT DIVISION.

AND I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT BETWEEN THESE THREE INDIVIDUALS, THERE'S A COMBINED 61 YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE TO YAVAPAI COUNTY.

PRETTY AMAZING.

SO BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO MY COLLEAGUE TARA NEWMAN ON BEHALF OF CHIEF PRIETO, ANDREW, CHAD, KRISTY AND ALL OF ADULT PROBATION, I WANT TO AGAIN EXPRESS MY GRATITUDE FOR THE RECOGNITION OF THE WORK WE DO AS PROBATION PROFESSIONALS HERE IN YAVAPAI COUNTY.

THANK YOU. CERTAINLY MUCH APPRECIATED.

TARA, YOU WANT TO COME UP.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. DO YOU WANT TO MOVE TO ACCEPT THIS MOTION? I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE.

GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN BROWN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

TARA NEWMAN, DIRECTOR OF JUVENILE COURT.

AS YOU ARE AWARE, PROBATION OFFICERS TYPICALLY KIND OF WORK BEHIND THE SCENES, AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES DAYS LIKE THIS, MOMENTS LIKE THIS PROCLAMATIONS SO VERY SPECIAL TO THOSE OF US WHO WORK IN THIS FIELD.

EVERY DAY, EVERY NIGHT, WEEKENDS, HOLIDAYS, PROBATION OFFICERS ARE DRIVING THROUGHOUT YAVAPAI COUNTY, SUPERVISING PROBATIONERS, ASSISTING FAMILIES, PROVIDING GUIDANCE, RESOURCES AND ULTIMATELY ENSURING THAT THE ORDERS OF THE COURT ARE BEING ADHERED TO.

[00:10:10]

THEY ARE BOTH FROM THE COTTONWOOD OFFICE.

THEY DID NOT KNOW THAT I WOULD BE DOING THIS TODAY.

BUT ONE IS DAVID LEXINGTON, AND HE HAS 13 YEARS OF SERVICE HERE IN YAVAPAI COUNTY.

AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE AMY HOKE, AND SHE'S BEEN A JUVENILE PROBATION OFFICER FOR 18 YEARS.

BOTH OF THESE PROBATION OFFICERS HAVE DONE A TREMENDOUS JOB IN OUR COMMUNITY.

THEY PROVIDE SUPERVISION, RESOURCES, MENTORSHIP, YOU NAME IT, AND WE ARE VERY GRATEFUL TO HAVE THEM.

ON BEHALF OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE CENTER AND ADULT PROBATION.

THANK YOU GUYS VERY MUCH FOR ACKNOWLEDGING OUR EFFORTS HERE IN YAVAPAI COUNTY AND PROCLAIMING NEXT WEEK AS PROBATION AND PAROLE WEEK. SO THANK YOU.

YOU'RE WELCOME. WHY DON'T WE GO DOWN AND GET A PICTURE? WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED IT.

SO WE'LL GET A PICTURE OF EVERYBODY TOGETHER AND GIVE EACH COPIES OF THE PROCLAMATION.

MIC] IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE RECOGNIZE THAT OUR PROBATION OFFICERS, BOTH JUVENILE AND ADULT, DO A LOT TO KEEP US SAFE IN OUR HOMES AND KEEP AN EYE ON THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE TRYING TO MAKE A NEW LIFE FOR THEMSELVES.

SO WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE ALL THEIR HARD WORK AND THE SUCCESSES.

THANK YOU, GARY AND TARA.

OKAY, MOVING ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS.

[ 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 11 AND 20.]

OKAY. AND NUMBER 11 IS BEING PULLED BY MR. BY SUPERVISOR OBERG AND MYSELF.

AND I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE VINNIE GALLEGOS OVER IN PRESCOTT WHO WILL BE ADDRESSING NUMBER 11 AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT NEEDS TO BE PULLED.

SO MOVED.

I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.

SO APPROVE.

ITEMS. CONSENT ITEMS 1 THROUGH 29 EXCLUDING ITEM 11 AND 20.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? NO. NUMBER 11.

[11. Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization - Approve the establishment of two new fund numbers for management of fares and partnership contributions generated by and for regional transit efforts. The Regional Transit Development Contributions fund shall be “restricted” to contributions made for the purpose of the regional development of transit. The Transit Fares fund shall be “committed” and will manage fare revenue for the regional transit system.]

YES, SIR. GOOD MORNING.

VINNIE GALLEGOS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL YAVAPAI METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION.

CYMPO HAS A CURRENT FISCAL AGREEMENT WITH YAVAPAI COUNTY TO WORK IN PARTNERSHIP FOR OUR OUR FISCAL MANAGEMENT.

[00:15:04]

THESE TWO NEW ACCOUNTS DO NOT HAVE ANY FISCAL IMPACT TO YAVAPAI COUNTY.

THEY WILL BE UTILIZED AS PASS THROUGH ACCOUNTS AS CYMPO HAS TAKEN OVER THE URBAN PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM FROM THE TOWN OF PRESCOTT VALLEY. THESE ARE ACCOUNTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN PLACE IN THE TOWN OF PRESCOTT VALLEY, BUT ARE BEING TRANSFERRED TO CYMPO AND YAVAPAI COUNTY.

SO AGAIN, IN CLOSING, I WOULD SAY THERE IS NO FISCAL IMPACT TO YAVAPAI COUNTY.

THEY WILL BE UTILIZED AS PASS THROUGH ACCOUNTS SO THAT WE MAY CONTINUE TO MANAGE AND MAINTAIN THE YAVAPAI PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU OR SUPERVISOR OBERG HAVE FOR ME.

YES. VINNIE I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE A MANAGER FOR YAVA LINE.

IS THAT BY CONTRACT? HOW DID YOU ASSUME THIS DUTY? IT'S THROUGH AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN OF PRESCOTT VALLEY AND CYMPO.

OKAY. AND HAS YAVA LINE IN THE PAST, YOU KNOW, ARE THEY THE ONES THAT DETERMINE THE FARES AND MANAGE THE THE RECEIPTS AND ACCOUNTED FOR ALL THEIR FARES? YEAH. CHAIRMAN BROWN AND SUPERVISOR OBERG.

YES. YAVA LINE'S BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF.

THEY'VE OPERATED UNDER THE TOWN OF PRESCOTT VALLEY.

THEY ARE ON CONTRACT WITH NEW HORIZONS.

NEW HORIZONS IS THE CONTRACT PROVIDER SUPERVISOR OBERG.

SO THEY'RE REALLY THAT FIRST LINE OF OF RECEIPT OF ALL INTERACTION OF OPERATION OF FARES.

SO NEW HORIZONS, AS THE CONTRACTOR RECEIVES THOSE FARES AND THEN THE TOWN OF PRESCOTT VALLEY DOES OVERSIGHT OF THOSE FARES.

SO THROUGH THAT AGREEMENT CURRENTLY WITH THE TOWN OF PRESCOTT VALLEY AND NEW HORIZONS, THAT'S HOW THE FARES ARE ACCOUNTED FOR AND DOCUMENTED.

OKAY. AND SO IN THE FUTURE SINCE YOU'RE GOING TO BE A MANAGER, ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE TO BRING ON ADDITIONAL PEOPLE TO DO THIS, OR IS THE TOWN OF PRESCOTT VALLEY GOING TO BE HANDLING ALL THE ACCOUNTING? SUPERVISOR OBERG, WE'RE GOING TO TRANSITION TO THE CURRENT STAFF THAT WE HAVE AT THIS TIME THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL STAFF, SO WE'LL BE USING EXISTING CYMPO STAFF AND EXISTING YAVA LINE STAFF AT THIS TIME.

OKAY. SO I UNDERSTAND THEN THAT WHEN YOU'RE THE MANAGER OF THIS ORGANIZATION, THEN YOU'LL BE DETERMINING WHAT THE FARES ARE AND ENSURING THAT THE MAINTENANCE IS DONE AND THAT YOU HAVE SUFFICIENT PERSONNEL ON HAND, AND ALSO THAT YOU'LL DETERMINE IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL ROUTES ARE GOING TO BE ADDED? SUPERVISOR OBERG, THE ANSWER TO ALL THOSE QUESTIONS IS YES.

ULTIMATELY CYMPO WILL BE IN THAT PARTICULAR ROLE.

I WOULD AGAIN HIGHLIGHT THE CONTRACT IN PLACE THAT THE CONTRACT COVERS THE EXTENT OF ALL THOSE THINGS THAT YOU SAID FOR THE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE.

SO AGAIN, NEW HORIZONS IS THEIR OBLIGATION IS TO FULFILL THAT CONTRACT FOR THE NEXT YEAR.

AND THEN AT THAT POINT, WE'LL EVALUATE AS TO GOING OUT TO AN EITHER A NEW CONTRACTOR OR CONTINUING WITH NEW HORIZONS.

BUT THEY ARE THE THE FIRST ONES TO DETERMINE THOSE THINGS AS IT RELATES TO OPERATIONS MAINTENANCE ROUTES, FARES.

BUT WE DO PROVIDE, AGAIN, THE THE OVERARCHING MANAGEMENT.

SO WE DO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE AND DIRECTION TO ALL THOSE POINTS ALSO, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. ALSO YOU TALK ABOUT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PARTNERSHIPS.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS? YES, SIR. SUPERVISOR OBERG.

SO RIGHT NOW, THE URBANIZED AREA OF THE CITY OF PRESCOTT AND TOWN OF PRESCOTT VALLEY RECEIVE ABOUT $1.9 MILLION ANNUALLY, AND THAT IS OUR TAX DOLLARS RETURNING TO THE COMMUNITY SET ASIDE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC TRANSIT.

THERE IS A MATCH ASSOCIATED WITH THAT LIKE MUCH OF THE FEDERAL FUNDS THAT CYMPO AND OTHER GRANTS WORK WITH, THAT THOSE MONIES ARE NOT APPLIED FOR, THEY ARE APPORTIONED AND THEY ARE GIVEN ANNUALLY TO THIS REGION.

NOW THAT THE STRING THAT'S ATTACHED TO THAT IS THE MATCH, THE MATCH CAN RUN ANYWHERE FROM 20 TO 50% ON THE $1.9 MILLION.

SO HISTORICALLY, THE CITY AND THE TOWN AND THE REGION HAS RETURNED THOSE DOLLARS TO THE POT OF FUNDING, AND THAT ENDS UP GOING TO PLACES LIKE FLAGSTAFF, YUMA, AND OTHER PLACES THAT ARE OPERATING TRANSIT.

WHAT THIS SYSTEM IS DOING IS LOOKING FOR THOSE MATCHED PARTNERSHIPS IN THIS PARTICULAR COMMUNITY.

SO CYMPO IS DEVELOPING THE PARTNERSHIPS, AND WE'RE LOOKING AT PLACES LIKE YAVAPAI COLLEGE, EMBRY-RIDDLE, DIGNITY HEALTH HOSPITAL.

[00:20:01]

THAT'S CURRENTLY TAKING PLACE AT THIS TIME.

SO THOSE ARE THE PARTNERSHIPS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

WELL, AGAIN, I'M ALWAYS CONCERNED THAT JUST ABOUT EVERY TRANSIT SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES IS SUBSIDIZED BY GOVERNMENT IN SOME WAY.

SO I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT AS THESE PARTNERS FALL AWAY FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, THEN THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A NEED TO PICK UP ADDITIONAL FUNDING FROM GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES.

SO I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT IN THE NEAR FUTURE, AND I HOPE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN.

OKAY. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.

AND IF I CAN, SUPERVISOR OBERG, BASED ON THAT HISTORY AND THAT CONCERN, WE'RE AWARE OF THAT ALSO.

AND WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO TO MODIFY THE SERVICE.

SO THIS ISN'T USE ALL THE MONEY AND GET INTO THOSE SITUATIONS, BUT WE DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, IF THAT WORST CASE SCENARIO WERE TO HAPPEN, THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO STREAMLINE THE SERVICE TO THE PARTNERS WE HAVE.

SO WE DO HAVE THAT ABILITY TO BE FLEXIBLE IN THAT.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT COMMENT.

THANK YOU. SUPERVISOR MICHAELS.

YEAH, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. SO, VINNIE I'M SURE KNOWING THE WORK THAT YOU DO, YOU'VE DONE SOME TREND ANALYSIS AND HAVE AN IDEA BASED ON THAT OF WHAT YOU CAN EXPECT THE RIDERSHIP TO BE.

IS THAT IS THAT CORRECT? WHERE ARE WE WITH UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE FUTURE LOOKS LIKE? CHAIRMAN BROWN. SUPERVISOR MICHAELS.

YES. AS OUR OUR STRENGTH IS AS A PLANNING ORGANIZATION.

SO TO THE SPIRIT OF YOUR YOUR QUESTION.

WE DO ANALYSIS ON ALL TRANSPORTATION, ROADWAY, HIGHWAY, PUBLIC TRANSIT, BIKE, PEDESTRIAN.

SO YES, WE HAVE WE HAVE A BUSINESS PLAN, WE HAVE A TRAFFIC MODEL.

WE HAVE EVERYTHING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT YOUR QUESTION.

WHAT I WOULD SAY IN THE YEAR AND A HALF OF SERVICE.

THE DEMAND IS GREATER THAN THE SUPPLY.

SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW OF OPERATION IN THE TOWN OF PRESCOTT VALLEY, WHERE AND IT'S JUST COME INTO PRESCOTT THE LAST FEW MONTHS.

BUT WE'RE COMING UP ON 50,000 RIDES FOR THE LAST YEAR.

THAT IS ALMOST TRIPLE, IF NOT QUADRUPLE WHAT WE WERE PROJECTING, WHICH IS GOOD NEWS.

SO RIGHT NOW THE BIGGEST DRAW FOR THIS IS FOR PEOPLE TO GET TO WORK.

IN THE TOWN OF PRESCOTT VALLEY 40% ARE USING IT FOR EMPLOYMENT PURPOSES.

IN THE CITY OF PRESCOTT, 33% ARE USING IT FOR EMPLOYMENT PURPOSES.

RIGHT NOW, IN THE CITY OF PRESCOTT, THE NUMBER ONE DESTINATION IS THE VETERANS AFFAIRS CENTER.

AND HALF OF THAT IS SPLIT BETWEEN EMPLOYEES GETTING TO WORK AND VETERANS GETTING TO MEDICAL CARE.

SO THOSE ARE JUST SOME BRIEF NUMBERS.

BUT WE DO HAVE A TRANSIT PLAN THAT DOES SHOW WHAT YOUR WHAT YOUR QUESTION WAS.

I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT DATA BECAUSE I KNOW YOU WORK TO BE EVIDENCE BASED AND THIS IS GOOD NEWS.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE WAITED A LONG TIME TO BE ABLE TO GET PEOPLE FROM POINT A TO POINT B, AND IN THIS CASE, IT'S PRIMARILY TO WORK, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND I THINK THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES.

I'M ANTICIPATING THE RIDERSHIP TO CONTINUE TO GROW AND TO HEAR THE EVIDENCE BASED REPORTING FROM YOU, SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO FEEL ASSURED THAT WE'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR THE RIGHT REASONS, AND THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO BECOME A A DEBT HOLE FOR THE COUNTY OR OTHER PRINCIPLES.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

CAN YOU BRING IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT OR SOMETHING? YES, SIR. OOPS.

NOW WE LOST THE PICTURE.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? THERE YOU ARE.

YOU HEAR ME NOW? JUST TO THE PUBLIC MAY BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING THIS IS THE FIRST ACCOUNT TO BE OPENED AS A REGIONAL TRANSIT HUB.

AM I CORRECT? YES, SIR. SO, CHAIRMAN BROWN AND TO SUPERVISOR MICHAELS PART OR COMMENT TO CHAIRMAN BROWN HAS BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN HELPING US TO MOVE TOWARDS A MORE REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP.

SO IN THE FUTURE, WE'RE LOOKING TO PARTNER WITH YAVAPAI REGIONAL TRANSIT OUT OF CHINO VALLEY, YAVAPAI APACHE OUT OF THE VERDE VALLEY, AND JUST CONTINUE TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS AS TO HOW WE COULD BE A MORE REGIONAL SYSTEM.

SO YES, SIR, TO YOUR POINT, THESE ARE REGIONAL ACCOUNTS THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED.

AND WE'LL BE CONNECTING ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT REGIONAL LINES TO CENTRALIZED TYPE OF DISPATCH AND TO ACCOMMODATION FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF RIDERSHIP.

CHAIRMAN BROWN THAT THAT'S THE INTENT.

AS YOU KNOW, YOU AND I AND OTHERS ARE HAVING CONVERSATIONS TO WORK OUT THOSE DETAILS.

[00:25:04]

WE'RE MOVING TOWARDS A MORE UNIFIED SYSTEM.

WE ALL KNOW THE DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS, AND WE'RE IN THE MIDST OF WORKING ON THOSE DETAILS.

ULTIMATELY, THE MORE THAT WE WORK TOGETHER.

TO YOUR POINT, WHETHER IT BE DISPATCHING OR SHARED SERVICE, THE BETTER FOR ALL INVOLVED.

BUT WE DO NEED TO STILL CONTINUE TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS.

WELL, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TRY AND DO IS MY UNDERSTANDING IS COORDINATE BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT TRANSIT AGENCIES, NOT TRYING TO TAKE THEM OVER OR DICTATE TO THEM THEIR PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES, BUT TO HAVE THEM PARTNER AS FAR AS COMMUNICATION SO THAT WE CAN INTERLINK THE ROUTES THAT WILL BE USED.

SO THEY'RE NOT DUPLICATING EFFORT AND BE SOMEWHAT SYSTEMATIC.

SO. YES, SIR.

OKAY. WITH THAT I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 11.

SECOND. SECONDED BY MISS MICHAELS.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

HEARINGS. OKAY.

HEARING NUMBER ONE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPROVE A REVISED FINAL PLAT OF THE HIGHLANDS UNIT TWO SUBDIVISION TO ALLOW FOR A SPLIT OF LOT 12 INTO

[1. Development Services - Approve a Revised Final Plat of the Highlands Unit 2 subdivision to allow for the split of Lot 12 into 3 parcels, on an approximate 2.14-acre parcel in a R1-12 zoning district, subject to the Conditions of Approval. Project Name: Highlands Unit 2 Lot 12 Revised Final Plat; Property Owner: Billy Roberts Family Trust; Agent: Tom Liuzzo, RLS, Granite Basin Engineering; APN:500-16-026; PLA24-000001. The property is located in the Mayer area. Staff: Becca Sirakis (District 2 - Supervisor Gregory)]

PROPERTY OWNER IS BILLY ROBERTS FAMILY TRUST, AGENT IS TOM LIUZZO.

I PROBABLY DIDN'T PRONOUNCE THAT RIGHT.

RLS GRANITE BASIN ENGINEERING.

APN 500-16-026 AND PLA 24-000001. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE MAYER AREA, STAFF IS BECCA SIRAKIS. HI, BECCA GOOD MORNING.

GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN BROWN.

AND THIS IS IN MR. GREGORY'S DISTRICT.

YES. THIS IS IN SUPERVISOR GREGORY'S DISTRICT.

THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.

BECCA SIRAKIS, PLANNER WITH YAVAPAI COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

SO WE'LL JUST GET INTO THE APPLICATION.

THE APPLICATION IS WITHIN SUPERVISOR GREGORY'S DISTRICT, DISTRICT NUMBER TWO.

THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED R1-12.

I'M SORRY FOR THE SMALL MAP WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, ONE GUEST HOME AND ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL USES.

SO ON JUST TO GO OVER THE PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDATION.

ON JUNE 20TH, 2024, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REVISED FINAL PLAT PLA 24-00001 TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WITH THE AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

I DO APOLOGIZE.

IT LOOKS LIKE MY PRESENTATION IS NOT THE THE LATEST PRESENTATION.

I WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE CORRECT.

QUICKLY.

OKAY, SO NOW THAT YOU CAN SEE THE SLIDE.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION WITH THE WAIVER OF THE 100% SIGNATURE REQUIREMENT REQUIRED FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE SUBJECT SUBDIVISION PHASE TO BE STRICKEN.

SO ALRIGHTY.

SO THE MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER BOURDON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OSTERMAN.

THE MOTION PASSED 9 TO 1, WITH COMMISSIONER COTHERN OPPOSED.

ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IMAGE IS THE PROPOSED REVISED FINAL PLAT SHOWING LOT 12 IN ITS ENTIRETY AND THE PROPOSED SPLIT OF THE LOT INTO THREE PARCELS.

AS PART OF THE REVISED FINAL PLAT PROCESS, THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN 100% OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS SIGNATURES WITHIN THE PLATTED SUBDIVISION PHASE, GIVING CONSENT TO SPLIT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS PROPOSED.

IF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS UNABLE TO OBTAIN ALL SIGNATURES THEN THEY THE APPLICANT HAS TO APPLY FOR A WAIVER OF

[00:30:01]

SO, STAFF HAS RECEIVED FIVE SIGNATURES OF APPROVAL FOR THIS APPLICATION, BUT THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE 100% SIGNATURE REQUIREMENT FOR FROM ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION PHASE.

STAFF HAS ALSO RECEIVED ONE LETTER OF OPPOSITION OUTSIDE OF THE SUBDIVISION PHASE.

SO WHAT WAS THE STATEMENT IN REGARDS TO THE OPPOSITION? FROM THE COMMISSION MEMBER? OH, THE OPPOSITION, THE THE ONE MEMBER OR THE ONE PROPERTY OWNER IN OPPOSITION DID NOT WANT TO SEE MORE DENSITY.

SO THIS APPLICATION WAS HEARD BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AND THEY TABLED IT TO BE TO GO BACK TO LOOK AT THE REVISED FINAL PLAT PROCESS.

DURING REVIEW AND TOTALITY OF THE APPLICATION A MAJOR CHANGE.

IT WAS DETERMINED THAT A MAJOR CHANGE TO A RECORDED SUBDIVISION PLAT NECESSITATES REPROCESSING OF THE FINAL PLAT THAT MUST BE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

SO SECTION 468 OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS GOES INTO THIS.

I APOLOGIZE.

SO THIS DETERMINATION REGARDING NEEDING TO GO BACK IN FRONT OF THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY SECTION 468.

THE SECTION ALLOWS FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CORRECT MINOR CHANGES LIKE A SCRIVENER'S ERROR.

BUT IT GOES ON TO SAY THAT ANY CHANGE IN LOT LINE OR EASEMENT MUST COME BACK IN FRONT OF THE BOARD FOR A COMPLETE FINAL PLAT.

ALSO, IN SECTION 112 OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS IT DOES SAY THAT SUBDIVISION THAT NO CHANGES, ERASURES, MODIFICATIONS OR REVISIONS SHALL BE MADE TO THE FINAL PLAT AFTER APPROVAL OF PLAT HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE BOARD.

MEANING THAT THE PLAT DOES NEED TO COME BACK IN FRONT OF THE BOARD FOR RE APPROVAL FOR ANY OF THOSE MAJOR CHANGES.

ADDITIONALLY, SECTION 458A NECESSITATES THE REQUIREMENT OF THE 100% SIGNATURES OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION PHASE TO MAKE MAJOR CHANGES.

SO I'M I'M THROWING A LOT OF THINGS AT YOU.

BUT ALL OF THAT TO SAY STAFF HAS CONSIDERED THE APPLICABILITY OF A WAIVER TO THIS APPLICATION, BEING THAT THE THERE'S A WAIVER REQUEST TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE SIGNATURES TO BE 100%.

IT STATES THAT A CERTIFICATION OR RATIFICATION SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGED BY ALL PARTIES HAVING ANY RECORD TITLE INTEREST IN LAND, SUBDIVIDED, CONSENTING TO THE PREPARATION AND RECREATION OF SAID PLAT CERTAIN RIGHTS OF WAY, EASEMENTS OR OTHER INTERESTS MAY BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY APPROPRIATE ENDORSEMENTS ON THE PLAT.

THIS IS THE SECTION THAT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO MEAN THAT ALL PROPERTY OWNERS DO NEED TO SIGN THAT APPROVAL BEFORE CHANGES ARE MADE.

SO WHEN REVIEWING THE WAIVER REQUEST, THERE ARE THREE GUIDELINES TO REVIEWING THE WAIVER LAID OUT IN THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. THEY'RE IN FRONT OF YOU THAT IT SAYS THAT STRICT APPLICATION OF DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENT REGULATIONS WOULD PRECLUDE REASONABLE SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

NUMBER TWO THAT THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY RELATED TO ITS TOPOGRAPHY, SHAPE, OR LOCATION THAT DICTATE THE NEED FOR THIS WAIVER TO ENSURE GOOD SUBDIVISION DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT.

AND THIRD, THAT THE GRANTING OF THIS WAIVER WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO OTHER PROPERTY IN THE AREA WHICH IS SAID PROPERTY IS SITUATED.

STAFF HAS THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS WITH THE PROPOSED REVISED FINAL PLAT APPLICATION.

A REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE REQUIREMENT TO COMPLETE A NEW PLAT WITHOUT UNANIMOUS CONSENT DOES NOT ADEQUATELY, ADEQUATELY SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A WAIVER LAID OUT IN SECTION 205.

AND STAFF HAS CONCERNS THAT THE WAIVER WOULD IMPAIR THE RIGHTS OF THE EXISTING OWNERS IN THE SUBDIVISION.

I, I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND AVAILABLE AS WELL FOR ALL QUESTIONS.

BECCA, I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

THE PERSON THAT OPPOSED DOES NOT LIVE IN THE SUBDIVISION ITSELF.

NO, HE'S OUTSIDE OF THAT SUBDIVISION PHASE AND THE REST OF THEM DO.

AND THEN THE LOTS JUST WOULD BE NORTH OF THAT LOCATION.

THEY'VE BEEN DIVIDED BY THREE WITH THE.

RIGHT BELOW IT. YES.

[00:35:01]

THERE ARE THERE ARE MANY CASES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY AS WELL AS THROUGHOUT THIS AREA WHERE SPLITS HAVE HAPPENED, BOTH PER PREVIOUS POLICIES OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND WITH WITHOUT GOING THROUGH OUR POLICIES AS WELL.

AND THIS PERSON'S GOING THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS TO GET THIS ACCOMPLISHED? SO YES, THIS APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO SPLIT THIS PROPERTY THROUGH THE REVISED FINAL PLAT PROCESS.

BUT AT THIS TIME YAVAPAI COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DOES NOT SUPPORT THE WAIVER REQUEST OF NOT GETTING THE 100% SIGNATURE REQUIREMENT.

AND IT PASSED 9-1 THROUGH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

YES, IT DID WITH THE REQUEST FOR THE WAIVER STRICKEN.

OKAY. AND SORRY.

GO AHEAD. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD EXCUSE ME.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT HAPPENED AT P&Z BECAUSE IT IS A CONFUSING RECORD AND ACTUALLY CONFUSING ACTION TAKEN BY THEM.

AS STATED PREVIOUSLY, IN ORDER TO MODIFY A PLAT FINAL PLAT THAT'S BEEN APPROVED, YOU NEED 100% OF ALL 100% CONSENT OF ALL PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE SUBDIVISION.

THAT'S BECAUSE EVERYONE BOUGHT INTO THAT SUBDIVISION THINKING THERE WOULD BE RULES IMPOSED AS TO EACH AND EVERY LOT.

AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO DEVIATE FROM THOSE RULES AND FROM WHAT'S INDICATED IN THE PLAT, YOU GENERALLY NEED CONSENT OF EVERY SINGLE PROPERTY OWNER IN THE SUBDIVISION.

IN THIS CASE, THEY WERE UNABLE TO OBTAIN 100% CONSENT.

THEY TOOK THIS TO THE P&Z COMMISSION AND ASKED FOR A WAIVER OF THAT CONSENT REQUIREMENT.

THERE ARE SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT HAVE TO BE MET IN ORDER FOR A WAIVER TO BE GRANTED.

P&Z DID NOT RECOMMEND A WAIVER.

IN FACT, THEY ELIMINATED THE WAIVER CONDITION, WHICH IN EFFECT REIMPOSES THE 100% SIGNATURE REQUIREMENT.

SO WHAT P&Z APPROVED IS THE MODIFICATION SUBJECT TO 100% CONSENT.

AND THEN THEY PASSED IT UP TO THE BOARD TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE BOARD WANTED TO GRANT A WAIVER.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS AND THERE ARE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE TO BE MET IN ORDER FOR THE BOARD TO EVEN CONSIDER A WAIVER.

THOSE REQUIREMENTS, I CAN LIST THEM OUT.

APPLICATION OF THE REGULATIONS.

APPLICATION OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WOULD PRECLUDE REASONABLE SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT.

I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S MET, BUT IF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE ADVICE ON THAT MATTER, WE COULD ADJOURN INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND DISCUSS IT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, THEN COME BACK OUT FOR THE BOARD TO MAKE A DECISION.

IN ADDITION TO THAT REQUIREMENT, SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES REGARDING TOPOGRAPHY, SHAPE, AND LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE TO DICTATE THE NEED FOR A WAIVER TO ENSURE GOOD SUBDIVISION DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT.

AND THE BOARD WOULD HAVE TO FIND THAT GRANTING THE WAIVER WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTY IN THE AREA.

AND SO THOSE SPECIFIC SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS WOULD NEED TO BE MET IN ORDER FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER GRANTING.

AND THEN IF THOSE ARE, IF THE BOARD MAKES A FINDING THAT THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE MET, THEN THE BOARD COULD DECIDE TO GO AHEAD AND WAIVE THE 100% CONSENT REQUIREMENT. IF THE BOARD DOES HAVE ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS.

AGAIN, YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO ADJOURN INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR ADVICE AND CONSULTATION, OR YOU CAN PROCEED WITH THE HEARING.

AND AND AGAIN, THE APPLICANTS HERE.

SO I'M SURE AT SOME POINT YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT.

I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.

WELL, I WAS GOING TO SAY, YOU KNOW, AFTER THAT ADMONITION FROM THE OUR COUNSEL, I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA THAT WE LISTEN TO WHAT THE SUPERVISOR FROM THAT DISTRICT SAYS. SO IF YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR ALL OF US.

CHAIRMAN BROWN FELLOW FELLOW SUPERVISORS, MY NAME IS THOMAS LIUZZO.

I'M THE SURVEYOR ON THE PROJECT FOR THE BILLY BILLY ROBERTS FAMILY TRUST AND ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

SO ON THE ON THE ON THE LOT SPLIT ITSELF, I NOTICED THAT THREE LOTS BELOW IT HAVE BEEN SPLIT.

AND THEN THERE'S OTHER LOTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN SPLIT THROUGHOUT THAT SUBDIVISION, BUT IT DIDN'T GO THROUGH FOR CLARIFICATION, JUST SO WE'RE AWARE OF IT.

BECCA, COULD YOU BRING UP THAT MAP AGAIN, PLEASE? AND JUST FOR US WITH FAILING EYESIGHT, THAT'S HIGHWAY 89 OVER THERE ON THE CENTER OF THE PAGE, BASICALLY, IS IT NOT, BECCA?

[00:40:02]

ALL RIGHT. YES, SIR. OKAY.

THANK YOU. SO, LOOKING AT THOSE LOT SPLITS, IT LOOKS APPARENTLY THERE'S BEEN A NUMBER OF LOT SPLITS.

IS THAT NORMAL? AS WITH YOU BEING A SURVEYOR? YES. HISTORICALLY IN, IN YAVAPAI COUNTY ANY BY DEFINITION FROM THE ARIZONA REVISED STATUTE, ANY SPLIT LESS THAN FIVE LOTS IS CONSIDERED A MINOR LAND DIVISION, WHICH THIS PROCESS BEGAN THAT WAY.

BUT THEN STAFF DIRECTED US BECAUSE IT WAS IN A SUBDIVISION THAT WAS SIGNED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, THAT WE HAD TO GO THROUGH THE FINAL PLAT PROCESS.

HOWEVER, THAT SUBDIVISION WAS APPROVED BEFORE A ZONING ORDINANCE EXISTED IN YAVAPAI COUNTY.

AND WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION? I BELIEVE THERE WAS SOMETHING MENTIONED EARLIER.

WE'RE NOT ABLE TO OBTAIN 100 SIGNATURES.

IS THAT CORRECT? WE WE DID A MAILING TO THE 24 PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE WITHIN THAT PHASE OF THE SUBDIVISION.

WE RECEIVED SIX RESPONSES BACK AND THE OTHER 19, WE DID NOT GET A RESPONSE BACK.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

OUT OF THOSE 6 DID YOU RECEIVE ANY THAT OPPOSED? NO. THE ONLY OPPOSITION WAS FROM SOMEONE OUTSIDE OF THIS, THIS SUBDIVISION.

AND THEN ONE MORE QUESTION.

SO ON THIS WOULD PROBABLY BE FOR REBECCA ON THOSE THREE THAT DID THE SPLITS PREVIOUSLY.

IF THEY OBTAINED A BUILDING PERMIT, WOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO BUILD ON THOSE SPLITS? SO I DO BELIEVE THAT THOSE STRUCTURES ARE ALREADY THERE'S ALREADY STRUCTURES ON THERE ON THOSE THREE, THEY'RE ALREADY EXISTING STRUCTURES.

SO SO IT JUST DEPENDS.

SO I DO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT WE'VE HAD PROCEDURES IN THE PAST THAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED SPLITTING POLICIES I SHOULD SAY, THAT HAVE ALLOWED SPLITTING AND THINGS HAVE OCCURRED IN THE PAST REGARDING SPLITS IN A SUBDIVISION.

BUT WE CAN'T ACCOUNT FOR THAT TODAY.

TODAY'S PROCEDURE IS WE DO HAVE TO REQUIRE THE REVISED FINAL PLAT PROCESS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

AND BOTH FROM THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE ARE OKAY WITH THE THE SPLITS ON ALL CORNERS EXCEPT NO RESPONSE FROM 7, BUT EVERYBODY ELSE AROUND THAT IS OKAY WITH THE SPLIT.

WE HAVE RECEIVED WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY ADDITIONAL OPPOSITION OTHER THAN THE ONE OUTSIDE, AND WE RECEIVED THE 5 LETTERS FROM THOSE SYMBOLIZED WITH THE SMILEY FACES.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM ANYBODY ELSE ON THE BOARD? SO I UNDERSTAND THAT THE THREE THAT HAVE THE SMILING FACES RIGHT NOW, THAT WAS A SPLIT THAT HAPPENED PRIOR TO US HAVING OUR OWN ORDINANCE ON WHAT THE ZONING WOULD BE IN THAT AREA.

IS THAT CORRECT? IT OCCURRED THIS THE SPLITTING HAPPENED WHEN THE THE IN-HOUSE POLICY FOR YAVAPAI COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AT THE TIME WAS TO TO ALLOW IT THAT WAY.

IS WHAT MY MY, THAT'S WHAT I'M BELIEVING.

IT WAS BEFORE MY TIME.

IT WENT THROUGH THE SPLITTING PROCESS AND IT.

IT WENT THROUGH THE SPLITTING PROCESS.

OKAY. SO BASICALLY RIGHT NOW THERE'S A TWO ACRE MINIMUM IN THAT AREA.

IS THAT WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH? NO, IT'S A R1-12 OR 12R OKAY. THANK YOU.

WITH THE LEGAL ISSUES IN FRONT OF US, I'D LIKE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION IF POSSIBLE, JUST TO CONSULT COUNSEL.

YOU WANT TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION IN REGARDS TO.

OKAY, ONE MORE QUESTION BEFORE WE DO THAT.

THE QUESTION WOULD BE IS, IS WHEN WAS THE PLAT APPROVED ORIGINALLY FOR THIS PROPERTY? IT WAS A LET ME BRING UP THE 1967 1967 TO BRING SOME CLARITY.

CLARITY TO THE FOG.

OKAY, I HAVE A MOTION TO MOVE INTO EXECUTIVE.

SECOND, SECOND, SECOND, SECOND.

SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR MICHAELS.

WE WILL MOVE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'LL BE QUICK, I HOPE.

THANK YOU.

OKAY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE BACK IN SESSION, RETURNING FROM FROM THAT DISCUSSION.

AND I THINK WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT WILL SERVE US WELL MOVING FORWARD.

MR. GREGORY. YES, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO REFER IT BACK TO P&Z FOR A MORE THOROUGH LOOK AT IT.

[00:45:07]

BUT JUST FOR YOUR CLARIFICATION FOR YOU, IT REALLY HAS TO DO A LOT WITH THE WAIVER AND THE SITUATION IN CONTACTING THE NEIGHBORS AND GETTING A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF INFORMATION, BUT IT'S UP TO P&Z.

OKAY. OH, AND I DO, I APOLOGIZE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE DO. I SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT COMMISSIONER PITCHER IS HERE AND AVAILABLE AS WELL FROM P&Z.

I'M SURE YOU CAN SEE OUR DILEMMA.

THAT'S WHY WE GAVE IT TO YOU.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ABOUT A FIVE MINUTE, TEN MINUTE BREAK, FIVE AFTER TEN COMING BACK.

AFTER TWO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPROVE A PERMIT AND TRANSFERABLE USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A WAIVER OF SECTION

[2. Development Services - Approve a permanent and transferrable Use Permit to allow for a waiver of Section 516; Density District 2A, to grant a reduction of the required 50-foot front setback by 45 feet to allow for an existing front setback of five feet for the single family residence, a reduction of the required 25-foot east interior side setback by 23 feet to allow for an existing 2-foot setback, for the single family residence, and a request to reduce the required 25-foot setback by 15 feet to allow for a 10-foot interior side setback for the proposed addition to the existing single-family residence, on approximately 2 acres in the RCU-2A zoning district, subject to the conditions of approval. Project Name: Petersen Addition to Existing Cabin Use Permit; Owner(s)/Applicant: Carl F. & Annette Petersen; APN: 205-13-430A; PLA24-000026. The property is located in the community of Walker. Staff: Becca Sirakis. (District 5 - Supervisor Mallory) ]

PROJECT NAME IS PETERSON ADDITION AND TO EXISTING CABIN USE PERMIT.

THE OWNERS ARE APPLICANT CARL F AND ANNETTE PETERSON.

APN 205-13-430A, PLA 24-000026 PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN WALKER.

STAFF IS BECCA SIRAKIS, BECCA.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

CHAIRMAN BROWN, VICE CHAIR MICHAELS AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

BECCA, SIRAKIS PLANNER WITH YAVAPAI COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN SUPERVISOR DISTRICT FIVE, SUPERVISOR MALLORY'S DISTRICT.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED RCU-2A.

THE SURROUNDING AND IT'S SHOWN IN BLUE.

IT'S QUITE SMALL.

THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ALSO ZONED RCU-2A.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED TO THE WEST OF BIG BUG MESA ROAD OFF.

OFF OF.

I APOLOGIZE. SO LET ME MOVE ON.

SO FIRSTLY, I WOULD LIKE TO COVER THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S VOTE.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VOTED 8 TO 1 TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE USE PERMIT PLA 24-000026 AT THE TIME, A FEW OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS RECOMMENDED THAT THE APPLICANTS WORK WITH THEIR NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST TO SEE IF THEY COULD COME UP WITH A PROPOSAL THAT BOTH PARTIES COULD AGREE ON.

AT THAT TIME, THAT WAS THE ONE PROPERTY OWNER THAT DID HAVE OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST.

SO THIS IS WHAT THE APPLICANTS DID.

THE NEIGHBORS DIRECTLY TO THE EAST THAT WERE ORIGINALLY OPPOSED HAVE SUBMITTED A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THIS APPLICATION FOR TODAY'S CURRENT PROPOSAL.

COMMISSIONER, NO, I APOLOGIZE.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER NOW, THE ACTUAL VOTE WAS 8 TO 1 TO DENY CORRECT? CORRECT. AND THEY HAD RECOMMENDED TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER AND COME UP WITH A BETTER SOLUTION.

SO THE ORIGINAL REQUEST THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WAS FOR THE FIVE FOOT FRONT SETBACK AS WELL.

I APOLOGIZE TO ALLOW FOR THE 50 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO BE REDUCED BY 45FT, AS WELL AS THE MAIN SUBJECT OF THIS USE PERMIT, WHICH IS A REDUCTION OF THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK FOR AN APPROXIMATE 23 FOOT SETBACK REDUCTION TO ALLOW FOR THE TWO FOOT SETBACK TO THE EAST PROPERTY LINE.

SO THAT WAS WHAT WAS PROPOSED IS APPROXIMATELY TWO FEET FOR THE ADDITION.

BUT SINCE THEN, THE APPLICANT HAS WORKED WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE EAST AND AMENDED THE REQUEST SPECIFICALLY THAT PORTION AND THEY HAVE ARE NOW REQUESTING A REDUCTION OF THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT EAST INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK BY 15FT TO ALLOW FOR A TEN FOOT SETBACK INSTEAD OF A TWO FOOT SETBACK.

[00:50:04]

THE ORIGINAL THE ORIGINAL HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1960 AND BEFORE ZONING REQUIREMENTS WERE IN PLACE, AND THE STRUCTURE ITSELF WAS BUILT ENTIRELY WITHIN THE FRONT AND THE SIDES THE FRONT SETBACK.

SO LATER IN 2003, THE PARENT PARCEL THAT THIS PARCEL WAS SPLIT FROM WAS SPLIT AND CREATED THE ENCROACHMENT TO THE EAST PROPERTY LINE.

AND THIS IS MANY, MANY YEARS BEFORE THE EXISTING PROPERTY OWNERS BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY.

SO WE WILL MOVE FORWARD TO THE PROPOSAL.

SO IN YELLOW WE CAN SEE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.

AND THE GREEN IS WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED AS THE ADDITION AS WELL AS THE DECKS.

AND THEN FURTHER IF WE LOOK AT A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE SAME SITE PLAN, WE CAN SEE THAT IN YELLOW IS IT'S DELINEATING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, AND THE GREEN SHOWING IS SHOWING WHAT IS PROPOSED TO BE WITHIN THE SETBACK.

THE ADDITION, THE PORTION A LARGE PORTION OF THE ADDITION IS PROPOSED TO BE OUTSIDE OF THE SETBACK AND WHERE IT COULD BE MET, IT WOULD NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT TO PERMIT THIS FOR A USE PERMIT, I MEAN.

AND THEN THIS IS JUST A QUICK VIEW OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND AERIAL VIEW.

AND YOU CAN SEE HOW IT RELATES.

THE MAIN THE PROPOSED ADDITION IS ALONG THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY AND THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY.

SO WE WILL LOOK AT SOME AERIAL IMAGES.

SO WE ARE LOOKING SOUTH HERE TOWARDS RANDY'S LANE AND THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.

THIS IMAGE WILL HOPEFULLY GIVE YOU A SENSE OF HOW STEEP THE PROPERTY IS.

THE HIGH POINT IS AT THE FRONT.

HERE WE ARE ALSO LOOKING SOUTH.

SUBJECT PROPERTY IS HERE.

NEXT WE ARE LOOKING TO THE NORTH.

THIS IS THE RANDY'S LANE AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

WHAT PROPERTIES WERE THERE TO THE NORTH OF THAT? I APOLOGIZE. WHAT PROPERTIES ARE? BACK. THE THOMPSONS, THE ONES WHO HAVE SUBMITTED THE THE THE OPPOSITION AND NOW THE LETTER OF SUPPORT ARE THAT PROPERTY.

SO HERE WE ARE LOOKING AT THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AGAIN, THE TOP AND THE AND THE FLAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.

THIS IS THE RESIDENCE AS IT EXISTS TODAY.

HERE WE ARE LOOKING TO THE WEST.

I'M STANDING AT THE EAST PROPERTY LINE, THE ONE IN QUESTION, AND LOOKING TO THE WEST JUST A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, LOOKING NORTHWEST.

AND HERE YOU'RE STANDING ON THAT WEST, THAT THAT DECK.

THE REAR DECK LOOKING TO THE NORTH.

HERE WE ARE, LOOKING TO THE REAR.

I MEAN, NOT THE REAR. WE ARE LOOKING TO THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE, SO HERE WE CAN SEE SOME A FOUNDATION WALL THAT IS NO LONGER GOING TO BE UTILIZED WITH THE CHANGES MADE TO HELP CREATE A A PROPOSAL THAT EVERYBODY WOULD AGREE WITH, THEY'RE MOVING MORE TO THE WEST.

HERE WE'RE LOOKING NORTH SEEING THAT WEST PORTION OF THE DECK.

SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION.

WE HAVE RECEIVED FIVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT REPRESENTING SIX PROPERTIES FOR THE USE PERMIT REQUEST.

THERE ARE NO LETTERS OF OPPOSITION CURRENTLY.

SO I GUESS IN SUMMARY, THIS IS A CONSIDERATION OF A PERMANENT AND TRANSFERABLE USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A WAIVER OF SECTION 516 DENSITY DISTRICT2A TO ALLOW FOR A SETBACK OF FIVE FEET FOR THE FRONT FOR THE EXISTING TWO FEET, APPROXIMATELY TWO FEET TO THE EAST PROPERTY LINE FOR THE EXISTING RESIDENTS, AND FOR A TEN FOOT SETBACK TO THE EAST PROPERTY LINE FOR THE PROPOSED ADDITION.

STAFF HAS NO CONCERNS WITH THIS REQUEST, AND THERE HAS AGAIN, THERE'S NO OPPOSITION.

THE TO COVER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THE UNDER SECTION 2.7 LAND USE GOALS.

[00:55:02]

STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE APPLICATION FOR REZONING IS ALIGNED WITH THIS, AND THAT STAFF IS FACILITATING THE PROCESS, AND THE OUTLETS ARE GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS TO PROPOSE LAND USE DECISIONS TO THE PROPER PUBLIC HEARING.

AND HERE ARE THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON THE BOARD FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

THE APPLICANTS WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THEM.

THANK YOU. BECCA, IS THIS PROPERTY IN VIOLATION RIGHT NOW OF BUILDING CODES? NO, IT'S NOT CURRENTLY IN VIOLATION.

THIS ORIGINALLY, THE FOUNDATION THAT WAS BEING BUILT WAS FLAGGED IN 2018.

AS SOON AS THEY WERE NOTIFIED THAT WHAT THEY WERE DOING NEEDED A PERMIT, THEY DID CEASE WORK.

AND THAT HAS SINCE BEEN ABANDONED THAT FOUNDATION.

THIS IS IN YOUR DISTRICT, MISS MALLORY? WELL, THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, AND I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANTS.

MR. PETERSON OR MRS. PETERSON, WHOEVER. OKAY.

HELLO, MR. PETERSON.

HELLO. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME ADDRESS YOU TODAY.

MY NAME IS CARL PETERSON, AS YOU KNOW.

AND THIS IS MY WIFE, ANNETTE PETERSON.

WE BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY IN YAVAPAI COUNTY IN 2016, AND BUT WE HAVE LIVED IN PRESCOTT LAKE SINCE 2019 WHEN WE MOVED FROM PHOENIX.

AND WE HAVE, AS YOU KNOW, APPLIED FOR THIS USE PERMIT.

THE REASON WE REQUESTED THIS USE PERMIT IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS AND SITUATION OF OUR PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA, WHICH IS TWOFOLD.

THE FIRST REASON IS THAT OUR EXISTING STRUCTURE IS 3.3FT, TEN INCHES AWAY FROM OUR PROPERTY LINE WITH OUR NEIGHBORS, AND IT'S VERY SMALL AT 384 SQUARE FOOT.

FOOTPRINT WITH A SMALL LOFT.

IT SHOULD BE MENTIONED OUR STRUCTURE WAS THE FIRST TO BE BUILT ON THE PROPERTY IN 1960, AND THE PROPERTY WAS SPLIT AROUND 2003.

IT WAS ORIGINALLY TEN ACRES.

WE WERE WONDERING HOW YAVAPAI COUNTY HAD APPROVED LOT SPLIT WITH ONLY THREE FEET TEN INCHES TO OUR NEIGHBORS.

BUT WE LEARNED YESTERDAY THAT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DID NOT GET INVOLVED WITH THIS PROCESS UNTIL 2006, AND THERE WERE NO CONTROLS IN PLACE BACK THEN.

TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE, GIVEN THE CURRENT LOT SETBACKS, VIRTUALLY THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE, AS BECCA POINTED OUT TO YOU, IS INSIDE THE 25 FOOT SETBACK AND THE 50 FOOT SETBACK TO THE NATIONAL FOREST, WHICH MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO DO ANYTHING UNLESS WE APPLY FOR A USE PERMIT.

THE SECOND REASON IS THAT OUR PROPERTY, WHICH IS TWO ACRES, HAS AN EXTREME SLOPE AND STARTING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER, THE VERY BACK OF THE PROPERTY THERE, AND THEN IT SLOPES DOWN TOWARDS THE NORTH NORTHWEST SO IT KIND OF GOES LIKE THIS.

AND ESSENTIALLY OUR PROPERTY HAS ITS HIGH POINT WHERE THE CURRENT STRUCTURE IS LOCATED.

AND THEN IT SLOPES DOWN IN A 40 TO 50 DEGREE SLOPE WHERE THE PROPOSED BUILDING WOULD BE LOCATED.

AND IT'S OBVIOUS THIS WILL DROP WHEN A 45 DEGREE WOULD RESULT IN A 25 DROP FOR A 25 FOOT LENGTH EXTENSION.

WITH THESE SERIOUS CONSTRAINTS, OUR ONLY REAL OPTION WAS ADDING AN ADDITION, AND THAT IS, THAT IS TO EXTEND FROM THE STRUCTURE AND FOLLOW THE TERRAIN.

AS BECCA REMINDED YOU.

THEY DENIED OUR RECOMMENDATION ON MAY 2ND AND SUGGEST THAT WE WORK WITH OUR NEIGHBORS.

WE DID THAT BECCA EXPLAINED THAT TOO, THE COMMISSIONERS, HAD SEVERAL SUGGESTIONS.

I'M NOT GOING TO BORE YOU WITH THESE RIGHT NOW.

AND BUT THE THE CRUX OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE SLOPE THAT WE HAVE MAKES IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO BUILD ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE PROPERTY, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING IT.

AND. AND WE BELIEVE THAT WE BELIEVE THAT IF WE DO THIS, IT'LL HELP THE ENTIRE AREA WILL HELP IMPROVE IT, MAKE IT BIGGER.

WE HAVE TWO SMALL CABINS, EXTREMELY SMALL.

BECCA MENTIONED WE WORK WITH THE THOMPSONS WHO WERE OBJECTING.

THEY WERE EXTREMELY COURTEOUS AND HELPED US ACTUALLY DEVELOP WHAT WE HAVE NOW.

AND WE'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED THAT.

THIS WAS DONE IN THAT FOUNDATION.

YOU SEE, THERE WAS DONE IN 2018 AND WE ABANDONED THAT.

AND IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE, I THINK, THAT WE ARE REQUESTING TO NOT BUILD CLOSER THAN WHERE WE ALREADY ARE.

WE'RE ACTUALLY SLIGHTLY OFF FROM THE FROM THE ORIGINAL BUILDING STRUCTURE.

AND THEN IT ALSO HAS BEEN EXPRESSED TO US THAT THE HOMES VERY CLOSE TO EACH OTHER AND THAT'S CAUSING A PROBLEM.

OUR TWO CLOSEST HOME ARE 200FT AWAY, AND THEY ARE 160FT LOWER THAN WE ARE, SO IT'D BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO SEE US.

[01:00:07]

SO THE REQUEST IS THAT WE ARE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING YOU APPROVE OUR USE PERMIT APPLICATION DUE TO THESE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF OUR PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA, WHICH IS CAUSING SEVERE CONSTRAINTS FOR US TO DO THAT.

WE DO BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL NOT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, ITS VERY SMALL POPULATION UP THERE, THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH. IN FACT, WE BELIEVE OUR PROPOSED REMODEL AND ADDITION WOULD BE VISUALLY APPEALING AND IS ACCEPTABLE TO OUR NEIGHBORS.

IS RESPECTING AND HARMONIZING WITH THE MOUNTAINS, IT'S FOLLOWING THE CONTOURS OF THE TERRAIN, IS ADHERING TO THE SAFETY AND FIRE PROTECTION.

IN FACT, SOME OF THE WORK WE HAD TO DO TO PUT IN A SEPTIC, WHICH WE HAD APPROVED, HELPED WITH THE FIRE WISE ISSUES THAT WE OTHERWISE HAD ON IT.

IT'S WORKING WITHIN THE CONFINES OF WHAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO WORK WITH, AND IT'S ENHANCING THE PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.

MY WIFE AND I ARE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS, OBVIOUSLY, AND WE HAVE OUR DESIGNER, KATHLEEN TUNKS, WITH US AS WELL, IN CASE YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

AND WITH THAT, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND YOUR CONSIDERATION.

MISS MALLORY.

THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

I APPRECIATE YOU COMING UP HERE AND GIVING US THE INFORMATION AND THE HISTORY, MR. PETERSON. SO THIS I KNOW THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH SETBACKS.

AND BUT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, IT WAS WELL DONE BEFORE WE STARTED WITH OUR WHOLE PROCESS.

THE MR. AND MRS. PETERSON DID MEET WITH JEREMY.

THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ADJUST WHAT PLANNING AND ZONING HAD TALKED ABOUT, THEY DID MEET WITH THE NEIGHBOR.

PLANNING AND ZONING.

I UNDERSTAND THE VOTE WAS TO DENY, BUT THE MAIN CONCERN THAT I SEEM TO UNDERSTAND WAS ABOUT THE ONE NEIGHBOR. AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO PLANNING AND ZONING, I APPRECIATE ALL THE TIME WHAT THEY SAY AND THEIR INPUT.

BUT WHEN YOU CONSIDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES AT HAND I WOULD MOTION TO GO AHEAD AND ACCEPT THEM FOR THEIR USE PERMIT AND BE ABLE TO PROCESS WHAT IT IS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO CONSIDERING THE LOCATION AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

THEY HAVE BEEN VERY GOOD AT WORKING WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND THE COMMUNITY.

SECOND, DO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

ITEM NUMBER THREE ON THE HEARING AGENDA.

[3. Public Works - Approve Resolution No. 2133 regarding the Abandonment of a portion of the Diamond Sky Drive right-of-way, Sedona Golf Resort, Phase 2 subdivision. (District 3 - Supervisor Michaels)]

PHASE TWO SUBDIVISION IN SUPERVISOR MICHAELS DISTRICT.

AND WE HAVE THREE GREEN SHEETS ON THIS AS WELL.

SO, MR. CHERRY. GOOD MORNING.

CHAIRMAN, VICE CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE TODAY.

I'M DAN CHERRY, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR WITH THE COUNTY.

WE HAVE A HEARING HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY.

CONSIDERING THE ABANDONMENT OF A PIECE OF DIAMOND SKY DRIVE IN THE IN THE VILLAGE OF OAK CREEK.

THIS IS WITHIN THE PHASE TWO OF SEDONA GOLF RESORT SUBDIVISION SQUARELY IN SUPERVISOR MICHAELS DISTRICT. AS PART OF THIS, WE'VE DEVELOPED A RESOLUTION NUMBER 2133 FOR CONSIDERATION TODAY HERE.

SO RESOLUTION 2046 GOVERNS THE PROCESS FOR THIS, ALONG WITH THE ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES 28- 6701, WE WERE PETITIONED BY STEVEN R SMITH AND SUSAN R SHAMBLIN-SMITH TO ABANDON A PORTION OF DIAMOND SKY DRIVE THAT IS A PLATTED PIECE OF RIGHT OF WAY THAT IS NOT CONSTRUCTED.

IT HAS NO ROAD ACROSS IT.

IT BASICALLY IS A STUB OUT FROM THE END OF A CUL DE SAC ON THE SOUTHERN END OF DIAMOND SKY DRIVE.

IT LEADS TO THE COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST AT THIS TIME.

CURRENTLY, THE THE PETITIONERS DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF LANDSCAPING WITHIN THIS PIECE OF RIGHT OF WAY.

THEIR DESIRE HERE IS TO JUST KIND OF CLEAN UP THE PROPERTY.

[01:05:02]

JUST A GENERAL VICINITY MAP.

LOCATION IS HERE ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK CREEK.

THIS IS A ZOOM IN HERE AT THE SOUTHERN END OF DIAMOND SKY DRIVE, SHOWING THE AREA OF RIGHT OF WAY THAT IS UP FOR CONSIDERATION HERE TODAY FOR ABANDONMENT.

THE TOTAL AREA OF THIS IS IS ABOUT 2/10 OF AN ACRE.

THE YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A SMALL STRIP ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THAT RIGHT OF WAY IN THE HATCHING THAT IS OWNED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR SEDONA GOLF RESORT. PER PER STATUTE, OR I SHOULD SAY, PER OUR RESOLUTION THAT WE UTILIZE FOR ABANDONMENT PROCEDURES, THAT PIECE OF RIGHT OF WAY WOULD EVENTUALLY BE SPLIT INTO TWO HALVES.

THE NORTHERN HALF WOULD GO TO THE SMITHS, AND THE SOUTHERN HALF WOULD GO TO THE ADJOINING PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.

FOR CLARITY'S SAKE, THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION HAS NOT PETITIONED THIS BOARD, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE SMITHS AND THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ABOUT POTENTIALLY THE SMITHS ACQUIRING THAT FULL AREA IF THE IF THE TERMS OF THE RESOLUTION BEFORE YOU ARE SATISFIED.

COUNTY DOESN'T OR COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DOESN'T HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THAT IF THEY, YOU KNOW, WORK SOME KIND OF DEAL AFTER THE FACT ON THIS.

SO THIS ONE'S BEEN A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED THAN MOST ABANDONMENTS.

TYPICALLY WHEN WE ARE PETITIONED FOR AN ABANDONMENT OUR STAFF AND PUBLIC WORKS WILL TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THE ASSESSED VALUATION OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTY IS JUST THE JUST THE LAND, NOT THE PROPERTY AS A WHOLE.

IN DOING SO, OUR STAFF CAME UP WITH A VALUATION OF THAT 2/10 OF AN ACRE OF ABOUT $97,000, A SIGNIFICANT SUM.

AND AND I THINK WE ALL FELT THAT MAYBE THAT WAS A LITTLE HIGH COMPARED TO WHAT WE USUALLY SEE.

THE SMITHS ACTUALLY WENT OUT AND AND HIRED AN APPRAISER TO COME UP WITH THEIR OWN VALUATION, WHICH WE HAVE A COPY OF.

WE REVIEWED IT. IT CAME TO A TOTAL RECOMMENDATION OF $5,000, WHICH IS, IN OUR OPINION LOW, AND WE DIDN'T AGREE WITH THE PROCESS FOLLOWED BY THAT APPRAISER EITHER.

SO IN PREPARATION FOR COMING BEFORE YOU TODAY, WE WORKED WITH THE COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE AND AND HAD THEM GIVE US SOME ADVICE IN REGARDS TO THAT APPRAISAL, IN ADDITION TO RUNNING SOME COMPUTER MODELING WITH THEIR OWN SOFTWARE IN THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE, TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT WE FELT WAS MORE BASED IN REALITY AND ON COMPARABLES IN THE IMMEDIATE SUBDIVISION AND GENERAL AREA WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF OAK CREEK.

AND THAT CAME UP WITH A VALUATION OF $30,458 FOR THAT FULL 2/10 OF AN ACRE.

THAT, AS MENTIONED BEFORE, WOULD PRESUMABLY BE SPLIT INTO TWO A NORTHERN AND A SOUTHERN PIECE.

AND SO WE WOULD CUT THAT $30,000 IN HALF IF THE SMITHS WERE JUST TO PURCHASE THE PIECE THAT ADJOINS ON THEIR PROPERTY.

ALL RIGHT. WE ALSO HAVE HAD SOME OBJECTIONS ON THIS.

WE RECEIVED TWO LETTERS YESTERDAY HERE IN OR IN THE PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE, AND WE SHARED THOSE WITH YOUR CLERK WHO FORWARDED THEM ON TO ALL OF FIVE OF YOU FOR CONSIDERATION.

I WILL SUMMARIZE.

THE FIRST ONE HERE CAME FROM THE VERDE VALLEY CYCLIST COALITION.

THEY POINTED OUT THAT THIS DOES PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST.

THEY FEEL THAT IT BY ABANDONING THIS, ALTHOUGH THE COUNTY DOESN'T MAINTAIN IT, IT WOULD LOSE FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES FOR POTENTIAL FUTURE TRAIL ACCESS.

OR MAYBE A TRAILHEAD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT COULD BE USED TO ACCESS THE FOREST.

OF COURSE, THAT BRINGS TRAFFIC AND OTHER MAYBE SOME THINGS THAT ARE NOT DESIRABLE THAT ALL WOULD NEED TO CONSIDER.

THIS IS NOT BEFORE YOU TODAY TO CONSIDER A TRAILHEAD, BUT IF YOU APPROVE THIS, IT DOES LIMIT YOUR ABILITY TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY IN THE FUTURE.

AND I HAVE STATED HERE TO DATE, WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE FOREST SERVICE ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR ADDITIONAL FORMAL TRAILS BEING CREATED HERE.

I WILL SHOW YOU AN OVERVIEW HERE SHORTLY THAT DOES INDICATE THERE ARE SOME SOCIAL TRAILS THERE ALREADY THAT DO NOT USE THIS RIGHT OF WAY, BUT THEY POTENTIALLY COULD BE REROUTED IF THERE NEEDED TO BE SOMETHING FORMALIZED.

THE SECOND OBJECTION LETTER CAME FROM MR. MARK MATTEN, WHO HE OWNS A PIECE OF PROPERTY, FOUR LOTS TO THE NORTH OF THE SMITHS.

[01:10:06]

HE DOES LIVE IN THE VILLAGE OF OAK CREEK OVER IN PINION WOODS AREA.

BUT HIS INTENTION IS TO EVENTUALLY DEVELOP THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY ON DIAMOND SKY DRIVE.

AND AND HE HAS SHARED SIMILAR CONCERNS TO WHAT THE VERDE VALLEY CYCLIST COALITION SHARED, WHICH IS A LOSS OF ACCESS TO THE FOREST SERVICE IN A FORMAL SENSE.

SO IT TAKES AWAY THE POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THAT MAY, YOU KNOW, IMPROVE THE CONDITIONS FOR PUBLIC ACCESS VIA TRAILS OR OTHER USES RELATED TO THE FOREST.

HE DID MENTION IN HIS LETTER THAT SRP HAD APPROACHED THE SEDONA GOLF RESORT COMMUNITY.

I THINK HE MEANT TO SAY APS THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING ON POWER LINE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AREA.

AND, AND IT WAS INITIALLY CONSIDERED WHETHER THIS RIGHT OF WAY COULD BE USED BY APS TO ACCESS THE FOREST FOR THEIR POWERLINE IMPROVEMENTS.

SEDONA GOLF RESORT ACTUALLY DID CONSIDER THAT AND RECOMMENDED NO, SO I DON'T BELIEVE APS ACTUALLY PROCEEDED IN THAT DIRECTION, BUT HE MENTIONED IT IN THE LETTER. SO I BRING IT UP HERE TODAY.

HERE'S AN OVERVIEW.

YOU CAN SEE WITH THE HATCHING OFF HERE WHAT THAT PROPERTY LOOKS LIKE.

IT IS VEGETATED.

YOU CAN SEE THERE IS SOME LANDSCAPING FROM THE SMITH'S PROPERTY ON THE NORTH SIDE THAT DOES EXTEND INTO THAT PIECE OF RIGHT OF WAY A BIT.

THAT HAS NOT BEEN A CONCERN FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, AS THIS IS NOT MAINTAINED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.

THERE IS A DRAINAGE PATH THAT LEAVES THE END OF THAT CUL DE SAC THERE, JUST SOUTH OF THEIR DRIVEWAY ACCESS THAT KIND OF DIAGONALLY CUTS ACROSS THE PIECE OF RIGHT OF WAY. THAT STRIP THAT THE HOA OWNS ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY, THAT SKINNY STRIP IS ACTUALLY DESIGNATED ON THE PLAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DRAINAGE TO GET THE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM IT.

BUT AS IT'S CURRENTLY BUILT, THAT DRAINAGE KIND OF DOES KIND OF DIAGONALLY CUT ACROSS THIS, THIS PROPERTY UP FOR CONSIDERATION TODAY.

AND THIS IS A LITTLE HARD TO SEE, BUT I BROUGHT THIS IN BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE A SMALL SOCIAL TRAIL THAT COMES OFF THE END OF THE CUL DE SAC THAT THAT THAT DOES CUT ACROSS THIS PIECE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY HERE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE CUL DE SAC.

YOU KNOW, FEASIBLY IT COULD BE, YOU KNOW, TIED TO RIGHT HERE AT THE WHERE THE CUL DE SAC RIGHT OF WAY DOES INTERSECT WITH COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST LANDS.

BUT SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS MADE ARE PROPOSING POTENTIAL ACCESS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY ACROSS HERE THAT WOULD ACCESS OUT HERE.

THERE IS A MORE SIGNIFICANT TRAIL DOWN HERE ON THE SOUTHERN PART OF THIS THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, CURRENTLY THAT TRAIL ACCESS IS IN A SOCIAL MANNER.

IT'S NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FOREST SERVICE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.

THEY HAVEN'T CLOSED IT, BUT THEY HAVEN'T YOU KNOW, SAID ENCOURAGE THE PUBLIC TO COME USE THIS LOCATION.

IT'S REALLY USED BY RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE AREA.

SO RECOMMENDATION IF CONSIDERED OR IF APPROVED BY THE BOARD HERE TODAY, IT WOULD ALLOW THE PETITIONERS TO PROCEED WITH THEIR INTENTIONS OF CLEANING UP THE LANDSCAPE.

THEY, OF COURSE, AS WE ALL DO, DEAL WITH PACK RATS AND WHATNOT IN THE AREA.

IT WOULD NOT DENY ACCESS TO OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL PROPERTIES.

IT FEASIBLY COULD BE ARGUED THAT IT IS, YOU KNOW, LIMITING ACCESS TO THE FOREST BY THE FOREST, HOWEVER THEY HAVE ACCESS OTHER LOCATIONS.

I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS REALLY OF MAJOR CONSEQUENCE HERE, BUT I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THAT.

IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS RELATED TO IT AND IT DOES NOT INTERFERE ANY OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS FUTURE PLANS WITH REGARDS TO ROADS, I DON'T THINK THERE'S AN INTENTION OF ANY SUBDIVISIONS BEYOND THE END OF THE STUB OUT IN THE FUTURE, BEING IT'S FEDERAL MANAGED LAND BY THE FOREST SERVICE, BUT IN FACT, I'M HONESTLY NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHY THAT STUB OUT WAS PLACED ON THE ORIGINAL PLAT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

SO I'M NOT SAYING I'M RECOMMENDING THIS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

WE CERTAINLY HAVE SOME OBJECTIONS.

AS THE CHAIRMAN HAS ALREADY MENTIONED, THERE ARE SOME GREEN SHEETS FOR CONSIDERATION BY YOU ALL AS WELL.

BUT, YOU KNOW, IF SO CHOSEN TO PROCEED WITH GRANTING THIS AND APPROVING THE RESOLUTION CERTAINLY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DOESN'T HAVE STAUNCH OPPOSITION TO IT IN ITS OWN DEPARTMENT AT THIS TIME.

LET ME ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS DAN.

YES, REAL QUICK. IS THERE AN HOA INVOLVED IN THIS PROPERTY? NOT THIS PARTICULAR PIECE THAT'S UP FOR CONSIDERATION.

THE LET ME GO BACK ONE MORE AND I'LL POINT OUT HERE AGAIN WITH THE POINTER ON THE SCREEN THE HOA CURRENTLY OWNS AND MANAGES THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY HERE.

[01:15:06]

NO, IT'S ALL PART OF A PAD WITH WITH THE SUBDIVISION FOR SEDONA GOLF RESORT.

OKAY, SO THIS WOULD HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE PAD AS WELL, WOULD IT NOT? CERTAINLY IT WOULD.

YOUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS IN REGARDS TO SEEKING, YOU KNOW, A REPLAT WOULD NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IT IS PLATTED RIGHT OF WAY. THERE IS A PROCESS TO ABANDON THIS OUTSIDE OF A FORMAL REPLAT OF THE SUBDIVISION.

OKAY. SUPERVISOR MICHAELS, THANK YOU.

I AM GOING TO MOVE MR. CHERRY, BASED ON WHAT YOU HAVE SAID AND AND WHAT I KNOW TO BE TRUE ABOUT THAT AREA THAT WE ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THIS ABANDONMENT.

AND I WOULD COMMENT THAT THE LEISURE TRAILS AND I KNOW THIS AREA FAIRLY WELL ARE PRAGMATIC, AND I DON'T THINK PUTTING A POTENTIAL BIKE TRAIL THERE FOR CYCLISTS ADDS TO STEWARDSHIP OF OUR OPEN SPACE. THERE'S PLENTY OF TRAILHEADS, THEY ARE CLEARLY MARKED.

YOU CAN PULL IN AND ENJOY OUR BEAUTIFUL VISTA ON YOUR BIKE, ON YOUR HORSE, ON FOOT AND MANY, MANY, MANY TRAILHEADS.

AND I THINK PROTECTING THIS IS A BRILLIANT MOVE ON THE PART OF THE COUNTY, BECAUSE IT DOES ASSURE THAT THE HOMEOWNERS ARE GOING TO BE INVESTED IN TAKING CARE OF IT IN A WAY THAT WE AS A COUNTY CAN'T DO BY BY MEANS OF LANDSCAPING.

AND FOR THAT REASON, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION.

WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND SO WE CAN GO INTO DISCUSSION? AND A REMINDER, YOU DO HAVE SOME GREEN SHEETS ON THIS IF YOU'D LIKE.

THAT'S WHY I WANT TO GO ON TO DISCUSSION.

I'LL MAKE A SECOND SO WE CAN GO TO DISCUSSION.

OKAY, NOW WE'RE INTO DISCUSSION AGAIN.

OKAY. WE HAVE THREE GREEN SHEETS ON THIS, AND I WANT TO HEAR WHAT THE FOLKS THAT LIVE IN THE AREA HAVE TO SAY.

MR. MARK MATTERN, AM I PRONOUNCING THAT CORRECT? CLOSE. PARDON ME? CLOSE. SUPERVISORS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND HEARING ME ON THIS.

I'M DR. MATTEN.

I ACTUALLY AM A HOMEOWNER, A PROPERTY OWNER ON DIAMOND SKY 4 OR 5 LOTS DOWN.

WE CURRENTLY LIVE IN BIG PARK ON PINON WOODS, AND WE HAVE BEEN VERY.

THE REASON THAT WE CAME HERE WAS TO ENJOY THE FOREST, TO GET OUT ON THE TRAILS AND ACCESS IT.

THAT'S WHY MANY PEOPLE COME HERE.

YES, PARKING CONGESTION IS AN ISSUE, BUT SO IS ACCESS.

AND THE MORE THAT THE AREA GETS BUILT OUT, THE MORE ACCESS IS BEING LOST.

SUPERVISOR MICHAELS, I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE OF PROPERTIES THAT ARE VERY CLOSE TO US OFF OF PEBBLE DRIVE.

THERE WERE A SOCIAL AN ALLOWED SOCIAL ACCESS FOR 20 PLUS YEARS THAT WAS CLOSED DOWN, AND IT HAS GREATLY AFFECTED THE LIFESTYLES OF MANY OF THE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE COMMUNITY, WHO USE THAT FOR A LONG TIME TO GET INTO THE FOREST FOR THEIR DAILY FIX, FOR CYCLING, FOR HIKING, FOR RUNNING, FOR WALKING THEIR DOGS.

THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE COULD HAVE AT THIS AREA AS WE'RE LOSING MORE AND MORE ACCESS.

THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW LOCATIONS IN THAT AREA THAT WE CAN ACCESS THE NATIONAL FOREST.

NOT PRESENT ON THE VIEW THAT HE SHOWED UP HERE OF THE OVERHEAD IMAGES.

THE CAL FOX TRAIL DOES PASS JUST A COUPLE OF HUNDRED YARDS AWAY FROM THIS LOCATION.

TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S ONLY ONE ACCESS POINT TO THE CAL FOX TRAIL.

FROM HERE IT'S APPROXIMATELY TWO MILES, 40 MILES, 40 MINUTES OF WALKING TO GET THERE.

THAT TRAIL ACCESS DOES NOT HAVE ANY PARKING.

IT WOULD BE PARKING ON THE STREET.

SO WHAT THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR IS THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS LIVING IN THE AREA TO ALL ENJOY THAT ACCESS, NOT SOLELY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE UP AGAINST THE FOREST SERVICE ALREADY THEMSELVES.

YES. THE SOCIAL TRAILS, THE SPUR TRAILS ARE AN ISSUE.

THEY'RE AN ISSUE IN A LOT OF PLACES.

MY WIFE AND I USED TO LIVE IN MESA, ARIZONA, AND OUR HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, OUR PROPERTY WAS RIGHT UP AGAINST, USERY MOUNTAIN REGIONAL PARK, ONE OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY PARKS, AND THERE WERE PEOPLE CUTTING THE FENCES, CREATING A

[01:20:04]

WE ACTUALLY WORKED WITH THE COUNTY PARKS.

IT TOOK US ABOUT THREE YEARS.

WE PUT A SANCTIONED ACTUAL TRAIL ACCESS IN THERE FOR THE COMMUNITY, AND IT HAS BECOME A GREAT ASSET THAT EVERYBODY CAN SHARE AND DOES NOT CREATE ANY OF THOSE ISSUES.

NOW WITH THE SPUR TRAILS, WITH THE DESTRUCTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT, WITH ANY VANDALISM OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ABOUT.

SO MY CONCERN IS IF YOU DO APPROVE THIS, IF YOU IF YOU DO NOT APPROVE THIS, IT JUST SITS THERE.

YOU DON'T EVER HAVE TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT.

IF YOU DO APPROVE IT, THEN YOU LOSE THE ABILITY IN THE FUTURE TO EVER DO ANYTHING WITH THE FOREST SERVICES THAT WOULD BENEFIT ALL OF THE MEMBERS LIVING IN THIS AREA WHO CURRENTLY NOW, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE TO DRIVE A COUPLE OF MILES TO GET TO ACCESS TO THAT SAME AREA AND THERE IS NO PARKING, THEN THAT'S A HASSLE.

THERE'S WITH SO MUCH TOURISM IN THE AREA, WE'RE FINDING IT HARDER AND HARDER TO GET PARKING IN THE BIG PARKING LOTS THAT THE FOREST SERVICES HAVE FOR PLACES LIKE BELL ROCK AND CATHEDRAL ROCK AND THE OTHER AREAS.

SO YOU'RE ANTICIPATING THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT THE COUNTY MAY USE THIS FOR A PARKING LOT TYPE AREA IN THE FUTURE.

AM I CORRECT? I'M NOT SAYING A PARKING LOT.

I'M SAYING THAT COULD BE UP TO FUTURE ACCESS POINT.

AN ACCESS POINT, OKAY.

WHICH ALLOWS A PARKING LOT TO OCCUR.

OKAY. MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD SPEAK TO THAT.

THERE ARE SO MANY LEISURE TRAILS.

IT'S A HUGE PROBLEM IN THE VILLAGE OF OAK CREEK.

PEOPLE ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING, DOCTOR.

AND I'VE BEEN THERE NEARLY 19 YEARS NOW, CUTTING HISTORIC FENCE LINES.

THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT TO CREATE THESE LEISURE TRAILS, WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR OUR PUBLIC SPACES AND BE GOOD STEWARDS AND ACCESSING WHERE IT'S MORE CONVENIENT IS NOT A RATIONALE IN MY IN MY THINKING, BECAUSE I'VE SEEN THE DESTRUCTION THAT THAT CREATES THAT SPIDER WEB THAT YOU WERE DESCRIBING IS A HUGE ISSUE.

AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS FIGURE OUT WHAT'S THE OVERALL PLAN FOR GOOD FOR GOOD TRAIL SYSTEM THAT WOULD ALLOW OUR LANDS TO REMAIN HEALTHY AND OUR NEIGHBORHOODS TO REMAIN PROTECTED FROM UNWANTED TRAFFIC AND PEOPLE WALKING ACROSS YOUR YARD BECAUSE THEY'D LIKE CLOSER ACCESS TO THE FOREST SERVICE, WHICH, YOU KNOW, I EXPERIENCE REGULARLY AS WELL.

I HAVE A LITTLE HORSE PROPERTY, AND IT JUST LOOKS LIKE IT OUGHT TO CONTINUE.

AND THEY COME RIGHT IN AND MAKE THEMSELVES COMFORTABLE WITH IT.

AND THERE ARE LOTS OF LIABILITY ISSUES THAT GO WITH THAT.

SO ON THE ONE HAND, YOU KNOW, I HEAR YOU BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO GET RIGHT INTO THE FOREST, BUT I, I URGE US TO DO IT NOT BY CREATING LEISURE TRAILS, BUT BY LOOKING AT WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC LANDS, AND WORKING WITH THE FOREST SERVICE TO THAT END.

OKAY, MR. MARK GLADE, I DO HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING DOCTOR I APPRECIATE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET INTO A DEBATE.

THERE IS A BIG PLAN FOR DEVELOPING TRAILS IN THAT AREA.

THAT IS, WE ARE AWARE OF THE BIG PARK PLAN.

SO, MR. GLADE, WOULD YOU COME UP AND INDICATE WHAT YOUR OPPOSITION IS? THERE IS NO OPPOSITION CHAIRMAN.

I'M MARK GLADE. I AM THE APPRAISER WHO COMPLETED THE APPRAISAL REPORT FOR THE PARCEL.

AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNERS, HOMEOWNERS NEXT DOOR.

SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THAT WEREN'T DISCUSSED IN THE PRESENTATION IS, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS LAND IT'S A VERY SMALL PIECE OF LAND WITH A NATURAL DRAINAGE THROUGH IT.

BASED ON THAT, YOU CANNOT MOVE NATURAL DRAINAGE.

IT HAS TO REMAIN THERE.

SO IT'S NOT A BUILDABLE PARCEL AND THE SIZE LIMITS THAT YOU COULDN'T BUILD ON IT ANYWAY.

SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE VALUE OF THE PARCEL, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE CONTRIBUTORY VALUE TO AN ADJACENT LOT BECAUSE THERE IS A THE SLIVER OF HOA LAND TO THE SOUTH, THE NATURAL NATIONAL FOREST TO THE EAST.

THE ONLY PERSON THAT THIS WOULD BENEFIT VALUE TO WOULD BE THE LANDOWNER TO THE NORTH, THE CURRENT HOMEOWNER.

NOBODY ELSE IN A FAIR MARKET SITUATION WOULD BUY THIS LAND BECAUSE THEY CAN'T IMPROVE IT.

THEY CAN'T BUILD ON IT, THEY CAN'T CHANGE THE DRAINAGE.

AND SO WHAT WE LOOKED AT IN THE VALUE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS RECEIVED A COPY OF THE APPRAISAL, IS WE LOOKED AT THE CONTRIBUTORY VALUE OF THE EXCESS LAND.

SO WE LOOKED AT THREE OTHER LOTS ON THIS ON DIAMOND.

[01:25:01]

THEY ALL BACKED THE NATIONAL FOREST AND THEY VARY IN SITE SIZE.

SO THE FIRST LOT WAS 105 DIAMOND SKY DRIVE.

THAT ONE SOLD FOR 330,000.

IT WAS ON 4000 343,124 SQUARE FOOT LOT.

AND I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT YOUR NUMBERS ARE CORRECT.

YES. WITH THE NEXT QUESTION I HAVE, THOUGH, IS FOR MR. CHERRY. MR. CHERRY, WHAT ADVANTAGE DOES THIS GIVE TO THE COUNTY, IF ANY, FOR US TO TAKE THIS IN ABANDONED PIECE OF PROPERTY? CHAIRMAN, WHAT ADVANTAGES DOES THIS PROVIDE TO THE COUNTY? YOU SAID THERE IS NO PLANS FOR ANY KIND OF A TRAIL OR TRAIL HEAD IN THAT VICINITY AT THE CURRENT TIME.

YEAH, THE COUNTY, THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DOES NOT HAVE ANY DOES NOT SEE ANY VALUE IN THIS FROM THE FROM OUR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PURPOSES.

I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT FACILITIES WOULD SAY A SIMILAR THING.

YOU CAN HAVE THE.

HE'S NOT HERE. WELL I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK FOR HIM SO.

OKAY. WELL THEY'RE NOT THEY DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE PARK BUSINESS.

SO THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM.

SO YEAH. YET THEY ARE CHAIRMAN.

YES THEY ARE. SO OKAY, LET'S HEAR FROM MR. STEVE SMITH.

THANK YOU FOR THE THANK YOU.

AND ONE LAST THING THEY DO CURRENTLY COUNTY DOES HAVE TO MAINTAIN THAT DRAINAGE.

SO IF THERE IS AN ISSUE AND IT COST MONEY TO REPAIR IT, I KNOW IT WAS REPAIRED NOT TOO LONG AGO.

THAT IS A COST TO THE COUNTY AS WELL, CORRECT? YES. FOR THE RECORD, THE COUNTY DOES NOT MAINTAIN THAT THAT DRAINAGE.

AND THERE IS SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ON THE PLAT THAT IDENTIFIES THE HOA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THAT DRAINAGE.

OKAY. MR. SMITH. YES, SIR.

THANK YOU FOR HANGING IN THERE WITH US.

WELL FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU ALL FOR TAKING THE TIME TO LISTEN TO THIS.

I HAD MY LITTLE SPIEL, BUT LET ME FIRST ADDRESS THE GENTLEMAN WITH THE GREEN SLIP.

I'LL WALK OVER HERE SO IT'S EASIER.

IS THE PROPERTY FENCED OFF? THANK YOU.

SUBDIVISION WAS THERE.

SO THERE'S NEVER BEEN ACCESS, AND NOR WOULD YOU EVER HAVE ACCESS, BECAUSE IT'S NOT STEEP LIKE THE LAST PRESENTATION, BUT IT'S STEEP AND IT'S IT'S A MESS FROM A STANDPOINT OF, OH, LET'S PUT A TRAILER, YOU CAN RIDE A BIKE OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.

SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THERE'S NEVER BEEN ACCESS TO THE NATIONAL FOREST THAT SURROUNDS OUR PROPERTY.

THAT DOESN'T SAY THAT PEOPLE DON'T CLIMB OVER FENCES.

AND THAT'S ALWAYS A CONCERN FOR FOR US.

WE'RE FULL TIME RESIDENTS AND SO FORTH.

SO SO THANK YOU FOR THE CONSIDERATION FOR OUR PETITION FOR THE ABANDONMENT.

THE HOME WAS BUILT ABOUT 25 YEARS AGO.

WE PURCHASED IT ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO.

NO VEGETATION OR DRAINAGE MITIGATION WAS EVER DONE WITH THIS PROPERTY.

SO WHEN WE MOVED IN, BASICALLY THE FOREST WENT RIGHT UP TO THE HOUSE.

I'VE BEEN IN LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH FIRE DEPARTMENTS AND ALL THIS TYPE OF STUFF.

SO I'M HYPERSENSITIVE ABOUT WILDFIRE DANGERS.

WE LIVE IN AN AREA WHERE THERE'S A SADDLE IN THE MOUNTAIN.

AND EVERY NIGHT AT 5:00, I CALL IT THE SANTA ANAS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I'M FAMILIAR WITH.

BUT THE WIND COMES RUSHING THROUGH.

SO FROM THE MAP, IT COMES UP FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE MAP AND JUST BLOWS THROUGH.

SO THE THE PROPERTY WAS NEVER MAINTAINED BY THE COUNTY.

THE DRAINAGE AND SO FORTH.

SO WORRIED ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY, ALL HAZARDS WILDFIRE HAZARD.

BECAUSE, OF COURSE, IF OUR HOUSE GOES, THE NEXT HOUSE ABOVE US WOULD ALSO GO.

WE INITIALLY SPENT $12,500 ON WILDFIRE MITIGATION, ROADS MITIGATION AND DRAINAGE MITIGATION, WHICH IS

[01:30:03]

WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION IT WAS OUR PROPERTY.

THE HOA AND THE COUNTY TOLD US THAT IT WAS.

AND THE COUNTY, I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED IS WHEN THE COUNTY CAME OUT, I'M SAYING, WELL, SAYS NO, WE WE DON'T MAINTAIN THAT.

THAT'S YOUR JOB.

SO MY ASSUMPTION WAS, WELL, IF THEY DON'T MAINTAIN IT, IT MUST BE MY PROPERTY.

SO LATER WE FIND OUT FROM BOTH THE HOA AND THE COUNTY.

NO NO NO NO, YOU'RE NOT LISTENING.

IT'S A COUNTY PROPERTY, BUT IT'S NOT COUNTY MAINTAINED.

SO I'M HAVING THE PLEASURE OF MAINTAINING COUNTY PROPERTY, WHICH DIDN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO ME, BUT THANK YOU. OKAY.

RIGHT. ALL I WANT IS A COUNTY SHIRT WITH THE COUNTY.

RIGHT. AND I'M REAL SAFE WITH THE SHARP TOOLS AND SO FORTH.

SO ANYWAYS, THE, THE, THE BEING COUNTY OWNED BUT NOT MAINTAINED CONFIRMED I WORRY ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY REGARDING THE VEGETATION NOT BEING REDUCED UNLESS WE DO IT OURSELVES.

MR. GLADE DID THE APPRAISAL, AND WE'RE VERY APPRECIATIVE OF OF THE WORK THAT HE DID.

YOU DO REALIZE THAT IF WE IF WE ACCEPT THIS ABANDONMENT, WE MAY NOT BE OUT THERE TO SERVICE THAT AREA.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO COME OUT ON A REGULAR BASIS AND TRIM.

WELL, HERE'S WELL, HERE'S THE INTERESTING NEWS.

YET THE COUNTY DOESN'T SERVICE THE AREA.

THE COUNTY DOESN'T MAINTAIN IT AT ALL.

THEY HAVEN'T FOR PROBABLY 30 YEARS, 25 SINCE THE HOUSE WAS BUILT.

AND IF YOU LOOK . SO THE THE COUNTY DOESN'T MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY NUMBER ONE.

NUMBER TWO, FROM A DRAINAGE STANDPOINT, THEY NUMBER ONE, IT'S NOT OUR PROPERTY.

I'M SORRY. THAT AREA IS NOT OUR PROPERTY.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DETERMINE TODAY, IF IT'S GOING TO BE OR NOT, AM I CORRECT? NO, WE'RE ABANDONING IT.

WE'RE ABANDONING IT TO YOU, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.

YES. YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE GOING TO MAINTAIN IT? YES, SIR. AND HE HAS BEEN MAINTAINING IT.

AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, THE DRAINAGE AND I'M FORGIVE ME, I DON'T KNOW THE TECHNICAL TERM, BUT THEY HAVE THE CURVES THAT SLOPE DOWN. SO THE WATER LEAVES THE STREETS.

SO RIGHT HERE IS WHERE IT SLOPES DOWN.

AND THAT WAS NEVER CLEARED OUT.

SO WHEN THE WHEN IT WOULD RAIN BECAUSE THIS IS SLANTED, WHEN IT WOULD RAIN, ALL THE WATER WOULD GO DOWN THE DRIVEWAY INTO THE HOUSE.

SO THE COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT CAME OUT AND SAYS, WELL, TECHNICALLY YES, WE DON'T DO THAT.

HOWEVER, WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS LITTLE PORTION HERE LIKE FOUR FEET IN.

AND THEY WERE KIND ENOUGH TO ACTUALLY CLEAR OUT THAT AREA OF THE DRAINAGE.

SO IT'S 4 OR 5FT DOWN SO THAT NOW WE CAN PROTECT THE WATER.

SO IT'S NOT DAMAGING THE REST OF THE PROPERTY AND SO FORTH.

SO ALTHOUGH THERE IS SOME LEGALITY TO THE COUNTY DOESN'T DO ANYTHING.

THE COUNTY ACTUALLY DID COME OUT AND HELP US.

SO EVERYBODY, EVERYBODY WITHIN THE COUNTY THAT WE'VE DEALT WITH HAVE BEEN VERY GENEROUS, VERY PATIENT WITH US BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN KIND OF A LONG PROCESS. SO SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS, I GUESS WE'RE REQUESTING THE ABANDONMENT SO I CAN MAINTAIN IT.

OKAY. NANCY, GREG, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP AND COMMENT? SORRY ABOUT THE THE WRITING ON MY GREEN SHEET.

I LIVE IN PINYON WOODS.

I SUPPORT THE ABANDONMENT.

IT'S NEVER GOING TO BE ENOUGH TRAILS AND THINGS FOR PEOPLE WITH THE POPULATION AND THE TOURISTS.

SO THERE HAS TO BE SOME BOUNDARIES BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND THEY HAVE PLENTY OF ACCESS.

I MEAN, AND ALSO COMING FROM CALIFORNIA, THE BICYCLE GROUPS SCARE THE HELL OUT OF ME BECAUSE THEY ARE SO POLITICAL.

THEY ARE AGAINST CARS.

THEY ARE AGAINST I MEAN, THEY THEY HAD LANES AND THEY DRIVE ALL THE TRAFFIC AND THE PARKING INTO THE, THE RESIDENCE AREA.

THOSE STREETS ARE NOT MEANT FOR THAT KIND OF TRAFFIC.

THEY'RE TOTALLY THE VISION ON THEM ARE USUALLY VERY POOR BECAUSE THEY'RE VERY NARROW AND THEY'RE NOT THERE'S NOT THE CAPACITY THERE FOR THOSE

[01:35:03]

I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP BOUNDARIES.

WE ALSO NEED TO PROTECT.

I'M A CONSERVATIVE, BUT I THINK WE ALSO HAVE TO REALIZE THAT WE HAVE TO PROTECT OUR LANDS, TOO.

THERE HAS TO BE A BALANCE BETWEEN EVERYTHING, AND WE HAVE TO BE REASONABLE.

AND I THINK THIS MAN IS GIVING US A REASONABLE SOLUTION.

AND THERE'S PLENTY OF TRAILS.

AND LIKE I SAID, THEY'LL NEVER BE ENOUGH ACCESS FOR SOME PEOPLE.

AND IT DOES DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENT, YOU KNOW? AND LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT A GREENIE AT ALL, BUT I THINK I THINK I'M PRACTICAL.

AND I REALIZE WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME BOUNDARIES.

THE CATTLE, THERE'S DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES IN THE AREA THAT THESE AREAS SUPPORT.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS TO EVERY PLACE.

OKAY. THANKS.

THANK YOU, MISS GREGORY.

APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS.

OKAY. THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR AND A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY JUST TO SHED A LITTLE BIT OF LIGHT ON THINGS YOU KNOW, I BROUGHT THIS IMAGE BACK UP HERE, WHICH DOES SHOW THE AREA THAT WOULD BE ABANDONED.

WE, OF COURSE, STILL RETAIN THE THE BULB FOR THE CUL DE SAC.

THE COUNTY DOES MAINTAIN THAT WHERE THE DRAINAGE DOES LEAVE THE EDGE OF THE ROAD.

CORRECT. IS COUNTY MAINTAINED ROAD.

THAT IS CORRECT. THERE DOES REMAIN A STRIP ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THIS PROPOSED ABANDONMENT AS WELL THAT IS OWNED BY THE HOA.

THEY MAINTAIN THAT AS A TRACT THAT'S ON THE PLAT.

THERE'S POTENTIAL THERE FOR ACCESS.

SHOULD THE HOA AND SEDONA GOLF RESORT WANT TO WORK WITH THE FOREST SERVICE ON CREATING SOMETHING THERE THAT WOULD ALLOW LEGAL ACCESS TO THE FOREST WITH THEIR AGREEMENT.

SO BY ABANDONING THIS, YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY TAKING AWAY COMPLETE ACCESS.

THERE ARE OPTIONS.

HOWEVER, IT PROBABLY NEGATES ANY CHANCE OF EVER BEING A TRAILHEAD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO I WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT THERE FOR CONSIDERATION, BECAUSE I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A DESIRE BY SOME TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE FOREST.

AT THIS TIME THERE'S NOTHING OFFICIAL, IT'S ALL SOCIAL TRAILS.

SO MOTION AND A SECOND MADE.

ALL IN FAVOR AYE.

AYE. AYE. AYE.

THAT IS UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU ALL. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A STUDY SESSION DISCUSSION ON LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES FOR SUBMISSION TO THE COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION.

[1. Board of Supervisors - Discussion of legislative priorities for submission to the County Supervisors Association (CSA). ]

GOOD MORNING. VICE CHAIR.

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MAURY THOMPSON, COUNTY MANAGER.

AS YOU MAY RECALL, I DON'T KNOW.

ABOUT A MONTH OR SO AGO, I SENT OUT NOTICE ASKING THAT IF ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD HAD SOMETHING THAT THEY WISHED TO FORWARD TO THE COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION IN PREPARATION FOR THE UPCOMING LEGISLATIVE SUMMIT, TO PLEASE GET THAT TO ME BY 1ST OF JULY, SO THAT WE COULD BE HERE TODAY TO HAVE A DISCUSSION TO SEE WHAT THE WILL OF THIS BODY WAS REGARDING SUBMISSION OF ANY PROPOSALS TO CSA, WHICH ARE DUE, BY THE WAY, ON MONDAY, AUGUST 5TH.

SO TO DATE, I CAN REPORT THAT I RECEIVED ONE PROPOSAL FROM THE VICE CHAIR THAT I WILL WALK US THROUGH AND THEN OPEN UP FOR COMMENT.

UNLIKELY FROM THE VICE CHAIR AND THEN OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD TO SEE WHERE THE WILL OF THE BODY IS.

BUT BEFORE I DO THAT, I ALSO WANT TO NOTE OUR TAC AND THEIR BEACH.

I MADE A NOTE SO I WOULDN'T FORGET, CHAIRMAN, THAT THE CHAIRMAN WAS LIKELY TO REMIND US ALL THAT THE BOARD HAS ALSO TYPICALLY SUPPORTED THE TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES, AS OUTLINED BY OUR RURAL TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL.

SO AS THE CHAIRMAN AND I HAVE DISCUSSED, WE'RE OPERATING UNDER THE PREMISE THAT THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE BOARD'S ANNUAL SUPPORT AS WELL.

SO THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

SO AGAIN, THE ONE PROPOSAL I RECEIVED FROM THE VICE CHAIR DEALS WITH THE RISING COST OF LOT RENTS FOR MOBILE HOME PARKS. LET ME GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THIS TOPIC.

SO INVESTMENT COMPANIES HAVE BEEN PURCHASING MANUFACTURED HOUSING PARKS AND MOBILE HOME PARKS ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

SO NOT SPECIFIC TO ARIZONA, BUT AS I WILL MENTION IN A FEW MOMENTS HAPPENING HERE AS WELL ACROSS THIS COUNTRY IN INCREASING NUMBERS.

REAL CAPITAL ANALYTICS, A FIRM WHO MONITORS AND TRACKS THIS INFORMATION, HAS REPORTED THAT INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR 23% OF MANUFACTURED HOUSING PARK PURCHASES OVER THE PREVIOUS TWO YEARS, UP FROM 13% IN THE TWO YEARS BEFORE THAT.

SO A PRETTY REMARKABLE INCREASE IN THEIR PROCUREMENT OF THESE PARKS AS SOME OF THESE PARKS LOT RENT, I'LL REFER TO IT AS THAT, OR RENT PAID FOR THE LAND ON WHICH THE MOBILE OR MANUFACTURED HOME IS LOCATED HAS INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY, SUBJECT TO THE INDIVIDUAL'S PURCHASE OF THEIR MOBILE HOME AND PLACING IT ON THE LOT. IT'S BEEN INCREASINGLY BROUGHT TO THE FOREFRONT THAT THIS IS CAUSING A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM, IN PARTICULAR FOR

[01:40:09]

SO AS EXCUSE ME, AS A FRAME OF REFERENCE, SOCIAL SECURITY, COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS OR COLAS HAVE ONLY INCREASED BY 20.7% SINCE JANUARY OF 2020. IN COMPARISON AND TO BRING THIS BACK TO US HERE IN YAVAPAI COUNTY, RESIDENTS OF PINE SHADOWS, WHICH IS A PARK LOCATED RIGHT HERE IN COTTONWOOD, ARIZONA, WERE INITIALLY TOLD TO EXPECT THE RENT FOR A STANDARD LOT TO INCREASE BY 66%, SO THEIR COST OF LIVING SOCIAL SECURITY IS RAISED BY 20.7, BUT THEY'RE LOOKING AT A 66% INCREASE IN THEIR LOT RENT.

THAT WAS FROM A PERIOD OF 20 TO 23.

AS WE KNOW, RESIDENTS OF MOBILE HOME PARKS HAVE LITTLE RECOURSE RIGHT NOW.

AND MOST MOBILE HOME PARKS.

I'LL POINT OUT WHAT'S LIKELY THE THE OBVIOUS, DESPITE THE NAME, REALLY CANNOT BE MOVED EASILY OR CHEAPLY.

OWNERS ARE FORCED TO EITHER ACCEPT THEIR UNAFFORDABLE RENT INCREASES SPENDING, OR SPENDING THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO ATTEMPT TO MOVE THEIR HOME SOMEPLACE WHERE THEY CAN, AT LEAST FOR NOW, AFFORD OR ABANDON IT AND LOSE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS THEY INVESTED.

ALSO, ANECDOTALLY, WE'RE TOLD OF MANY SENIORS WHO THIS IS WHERE THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE SAFE TO SPEND THEIR GOLDEN YEARS.

THEY WERE ABLE TO COME UP WITH ENOUGH MONEY TO PURCHASE, YOU KNOW, THEIR THEIR FINAL MOBILE HOME AND PLACE IT ON LOT.

LADIES. THANK YOU.

CAN YOU TAKE IT OUTSIDE, PLEASE? SO PRESENTLY ARIZONA REVISED STATUTE 33-1416A HOWEVER, EXPLICITLY PROHIBITS THE IMPOSITION OF RENT CONTROL ON MOBILE HOME SPACES BY COUNTIES CITIES, INCLUDING CHARTER CITIES AND TOWNS.

SO THE PROPOSAL BEING SUGGESTED, AT LEAST TODAY, IS THAT THAT STATUTE NEEDS TO BE AMENDED OR REPEALED, WHICH PROHIBITS, AGAIN, AS I SAID, LOCAL CONTROLS ON RENT CHARGED BY MOBILE HOME SPACES.

MOBILE HOME PARK RESIDENTS HAVE SUGGESTED A COUPLE OF OPTIONS ONE TO LIMIT YEARLY INCREASES TO ANNUAL INFLATION PLUS 1%, ALLOWING RESIDENTS A GUARANTEE OF AFFORDABILITY WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY ALLOWING PARK OWNERS A PROFIT.

OTHER POTENTIAL REMEDIES CONTEMPLATED BY STAKEHOLDERS INCLUDE ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATION BETWEEN MOBILE PARK HOME OWNERS AND RESIDENTS, INCLUDING JUSTIFICATION OF RENT INCREASES.

IN OTHER WORDS, JUST OPENING UP SOME CONVERSATION WITH FOLKS WHO HAVE HOMES IN THEIR PARKS.

AND THEN SECONDLY, HOUSING VOUCHERS PAID OUT OF EXISTING STATE FUNDS RELATED TO MOBILE HOME RELOCATION AND MORE.

SO ANOTHER OPTION TO TO POTENTIALLY LOOK AT, AS YOU MAY RECALL, CSA HAS A PORTION OF THEIR SUBMISSIONS TO TALK ABOUT FISCAL IMPACTS. WE DON'T SEE ANY ANTICIPATED FISCAL IMPACTS TO COUNTIES OR THE STATE GENERAL FUND IN THIS PROPOSAL.

OBVIOUSLY, THERE WOULD BE A POTENTIAL FOR MOBILE HOME PARK OWNERS TO SEE DECREASED REVENUES AS A RESULT OF ANY STATUTORY CAPS ON INCREASES TO THEIR RENT, AND LIKEWISE, TENANTS OF MOBILE HOME PARKS WOULD SEE A DECREASE IN THEIR COST OF LIVING EXPENSES.

SO FINALLY, I HAVE TO POINT OUT THAT THE LIKELY STAKEHOLDERS ARE THE PARK OWNERS, THE TENANTS AND RENTERS ADVISORY GROUPS.

YOU LIKELY CAN FIGURE OUT WHERE THE MOBILE PARK OWNERS STAND ON THIS, AS WELL AS THE RESIDENTS RENTER ADVOCACY GROUPS.

AND THERE ARE SOME WHO ARE ENGAGING ON THIS TOPIC, INCLUDING CHANGE FOR MANUFACTURED HOME RESIDENTS CMH.

THEY ARE BRINGING ATTENTION TO ISSUES AFFECTING TENANTS AND MOBILE PARK OWNERS, AND THEY WOULD BE AVID SUPPORTERS OF THIS TYPE OF LEGISLATION.

SO I PROVIDED THIS TO YOU THIS MORNING.

YOU'VE GOT IT IN FRONT OF YOU ALSO WITH ANOTHER DOCUMENT, A SINGLE PAGE, FROM CHANGE FOR MOBILE HOME REFORM HAS SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

AND WITH THAT CHAIRMAN, I TURN IT TO THE VICE CHAIR TO ADD AS SHE WISHES.

THANK YOU MAURY, THAT WAS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS JUST SLIPPED BY US, AND IT'S APPALLING.

I HAVE TO SAY THAT FOLKS WHO HAVE WORKED ALL THEIR LIVES, PAID THEIR TAXES AND NOW HAVE REACHED A TIME IN THEIR LIFE WHERE THEY'D LIKE TO KNOW THIS IS THE PLACE THEY'RE GOING TO LIVE OUT THEIR GOLDEN YEARS, ONLY TO DISCOVER THAT BECAUSE OF EXORBITANT INCREASES OF WHICH THERE IS NO CONVERSATION, THEY ARE CAUGHT BY SURPRISE AND HAVE NOWHERE TO GO.

YOU KNOW, I CARE GREATLY ABOUT THE UNHOUSED AND HOMELESS ISSUE THAT WE'RE ALL FACING NATIONALLY AND LOCALLY.

[01:45:01]

IT'S NOT ABOUT CAPPING.

IT'S ABOUT ENSURING THAT OUR NEXT HOMELESS POPULATION, WHICH IS 400,000 WHO RESIDE IN MANUFACTURED HOMES RIGHT NOW, AND THAT NUMBER GROWS EVERY DAY IN OUR STATE HAVE AN ASSURANCE THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO GET IN A VERY LONG LINE FOR RELOCATION DOLLARS, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ALL KNOW UP HERE THERE IS NOWHERE TO RELOCATE.

THEY CAN'T AFFORD THE PROPERTY PRICES HERE.

AND SO I URGE US TO BASED ON WHAT CONSTITUENTS HAVE BROUGHT TO ME.

AND THEY ARE A POWERFUL GROUP.

THEY'VE WRITTEN HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS AND LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF LETTERS ALREADY TO OUR LAWMAKERS.

REPRESENTATIVE BLISS, SENATOR BENNETT WE'VE HAD TERRIFIC RESPONSE FROM OUR LAWMAKERS WHO'VE MET WITH THEM PERSONALLY AND ARE WORKING VERY HARD TO FIND OUT WHAT IS THE RIGHT LEGISLATION.

HOW CAN WE ADDRESS THIS IN A BUSINESS FRIENDLY STATE, WHICH, OF COURSE, WE ARE, AND WE ALL SUPPORT? BUT THIS JUST SIMPLY ALLOWS US TO SAY, AS SUPERVISORS, AS A COUNTY, WE RECOGNIZE WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT POPULATION BASE WHO NEEDS OUR LEADERSHIP AND ADVOCACY IN ASSURING THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BECOME ANOTHER NUMBER.

THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, INTO A POPULATION NOBODY WANTS TO BE CITED AS.

AND THAT'S A HOMELESSNESS.

AND SO WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, I WOULD URGE US TO ENDORSE THIS AND MOVE IT FORWARD SO THE CSA CAN DO THE HARD WORK OF WORKING WITH THE LEGAL AND OTHERS TO SEE IF WE CAN'T DO SOMETHING TO ADDRESS THIS POPULATION.

MR. GREGORY. I AGREE WITH SUPERVISOR MICHAELS.

THIS IS PROTECTING OUR MOST VULNERABLE PART OF OUR COMMUNITY.

A LOT OF THESE PEOPLE ARE SET WITH SOCIAL SECURITY AND THEY HAVE A LIMITED INCOME.

AND WITH THESE INCREASES, IT MAKES THEM HOMELESS AND THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER OPTIONS.

SO THIS IS OUR WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PROTECTING THEM.

AND THEN ALSO ALLOWING THE COST OF LIVING RAISES AND THINGS LIKE THAT TO PROTECT THE SO THEY STILL CAN MAKE MONEY AT THEIR BUSINESS.

SO I THINK THIS I SUPPORT THIS.

SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE MR. OBERG? MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY, AND VICE CHAIR, I SHOULD I FAIL TO POINT OUT, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH PEERS IN YUMA COUNTY ON THIS EFFORT.

ABSOLUTELY. I FAILED TO MENTION THAT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND ALSO AND ALSO CSA STAFF, I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM ON THIS AS WELL.

SO WE HAVE NO LESS THAN THREE SUPERVISORS FROM OTHER COUNTIES WHO ARE DEALING WITH THE SAME PROBLEM.

AND IT'S A IT'S A GROWING PROBLEM BECAUSE OF THE COST OF HOUSING.

SO HERE WE ARE.

AND IF I COULD JUST ADD MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU KNOW, THIS RELOCATION FUND THAT HAS BEEN INCREASED BY OUR GOVERNOR, THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE, AGAIN, ANY PLACE TO RELOCATE TO, AND YOU CAN'T MOVE THESE MOBILE HOMES.

THEY'VE BEEN THERE 20, 25 YEARS.

IN SOME CASES THERE'S A THERE'S JUST NO WAY THAT THAT WILL WORK.

THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THAT BUILDING WILL NOT PROVIDE FOR A MOVE THAT WILL LEAVE THEM WITH ANYTHING THAT'S HABITABLE.

SO THEY'RE REALLY STUCK IN A SITUATION THAT THROUGH, THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN IS SUPERVISOR GREGORY HAS SAID BRINGS IT TO OUR ATTENTION, SO I'M EAGER TO WORK WITH THEM.

WE'VE GOT PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING ON LANGUAGE, AND I THINK WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY GET INVOLVED IN A CONSTITUENT SERVICES ARENA THAT WILL ALLOW YAVAPAI COUNTY TO LEAD.

OKAY, LET ME JUST MAKE A COMMENT IN REGARDS TO MY OWN PERSONAL FEELINGS ON THIS IS THAT I'VE HAD A NUMBER OF PEOPLE CONTACT ME ABOUT THEIR THE RENTS GOING UP ON THEIR TRAILERS AND OR MOBILE HOMES I GUESS YOU WOULD CALL THEM MANUFACTURED HOMES.

AND THE ISSUE IS, IS ONE OF RENT CONTROL.

DO WE WANT TO BE A GOVERNMENT THAT TELLS PEOPLE HOW MUCH THEY CAN CHARGE FOR A PIECE OF DIRT, WHERE SOMEBODY'S PUTTING A TRAILER? AND MY ANSWER TO THAT IS NO, I DO NOT WANT TO BE IN THAT POSITION AS A PART OF GOVERNMENT.

IT'S A FREE MARKET.

HOWEVER, THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH, AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, WITH THE INCOME OF THE ELDERLY AND NOT BEING ABLE TO KEEP WITH KEEP UP WITH THE RATE OF THEIR RENT, THEN, EVEN IF THEY DO MOVE, THEY HAVE THE ISSUE OF TRYING TO MOVE IN MANY CASES A SINGLE

[01:50:04]

AND BECAUSE THEY IT'S NOT PROFITABLE TO THEM, THEY'D RATHER MOVE A DOUBLE WIDE THAN A THAN A SINGLE FOR SURE.

AND I'VE HAD OLDER PEOPLE THAT ARE JUST FRUSTRATED BECAUSE THEY WANT TO COMPLY, YOU KNOW, THEY WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING, BUT AND IN FACT CAN'T BECAUSE OF THE SITUATION.

SO DO I THINK THIS WILL GET VERY MUCH MILEAGE DOWN IN PHOENIX? PROBABLY NOT.

BUT I THINK IT'S NOT A BAD IDEA TO GIVE OUR CONCERNS TO CSA.

SO THAT'S MY THOUGHT.

MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS AND IF I MAY ADD TO THEM AND PUT A FINER POINT, PERHAPS ON THE VICE CHAIRS COMMENTS ABOUT THE RELOCATION FUND, I THINK THE PROPONENTS OF THIS WOULD POINT OUT THAT PERHAPS.

WELL, NOT PERHAPS THERE ARE ALREADY STATE FUNDS ALLOCATED FOR THIS LARGER ISSUE.

PERHAPS THERE'S A BETTER WAY TO USE THOSE ALREADY ALLOCATED AND COMMITTED FUNDS TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.

SO NOT NOT TO GET AHEAD OF THE VICE CHAIR OR THE PROPONENTS HERE.

BUT THERE MAY BE WAYS, IN MY OPINION, TO FRAME THIS OTHER THAN RENT CONTROL OR LOT CONTROL.

THERE MAY BE OTHER AVENUES TO ADDRESS THIS.

ABSOLUTELY. I WOULD SO CONCUR WITH THAT.

AND MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT IS THE NEEDLE THAT NEEDS TO BE THREADED PROPERLY NO ONE'S OPPOSED TO PEOPLE MAKING A PROFIT AND A GOOD LIVING AND HAVING A ROBUST ECONOMY IN THE DOING OF THAT.

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, WE CAN'T BE SILENT ABOUT, FOR EXAMPLE, AT SEDONA SHADOWS, THOSE TRAILERS, MOBILE HOMES RIGHT OUTSIDE OF SEDONA.

GO ANYWHERE ON THAT CEMENT BLOCK THAT THEY PLACE THEIR MOBILE HOME ON ANYWHERE FROM $1,500 TO $1,800 A MONTH, AND THEY ARE BEING LITERALLY PUT IN A POSITION BECAUSE OF THOSE PRICES WHERE THEY END UP SELLING THE REMAINING VALUE OF THAT MANUFACTURED HOME, WHICH IS VERY LITTLE.

THEY MIGHT GET 5 OR $10,000 BECAUSE THEY'RE STUCK JUST TO KEEP PAYING RENT FOR A LITTLE BIT LONGER, AND THEN THEY HAVE NOWHERE TO GO.

AND SO IT IS THE BALANCE BETWEEN THAT KIND OF EXORBITANT FEES THAT DON'T PEG ANY KIND OF STANDARD OR CONTEXT AGAINST HOW DO WE ALLOW FOR BUSINESSES TO THRIVE IN OUR STATE, WHICH, OF COURSE, WE ALL WANT TO SEE HAPPEN.

AND THERE'S A THERE'S A BALANCE AND WE'RE WORKING WITH OUR LAWMAKERS TO ACHIEVE THAT.

WHEN IS THIS ACTUAL PRESENTATION TO CSA GOING TO TAKE PLACE? AT THE LEGISLATIVE SUMMIT IN OCTOBER.

IN OCTOBER. OKAY.

SO WE STILL HAVE TIME IF SOMETHING SHOULD COME TO THOUGHT AND CAN FORWARD THAT ON.

AND YES, ABSOLUTELY TAKE ACTION ON IT IF NECESSARY.

YES. BUT WE DO NEED TO GET AT LEAST A PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY WHAT DID I SAY AUGUST 5TH.

RIGHT. JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS AND UNDERSTANDS, OUR TAX RECOMMENDATIONS ARE GOING TO BE VERY SIMILAR TO LAST YEAR'S.

AND THEY'RE THEY INCORPORATE THOSE THAT WERE MADE BY CYMPO AS WELL.

CORRECT. AND OUR PRIMARY FROM CYMPO ARE THE THREE PIECES OF 89 THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN CARE OF.

SO THANK YOU.

SO ANYTHING ELSE FROM ANYBODY? SO, IF I MAY, MR. CHAIRMAN READING THE ROOM HERE, AS I SAY, I SENSE SUPPORT AT LEAST A MAJORITY HERE TO FORWARD THIS ON TO CSA FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.

I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS A VOTE.

NO, I'M FINE WITH THAT. THANK YOU.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

MOVING INTO CALL TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT.

INDIVIDUALS MAY ADDRESS THE BOARD FOR UP TO THREE MINUTES ON ANY RELEVANT ISSUE WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO ARS 3843101H.

BOARD MEMBERS SHALL NOT DISCUSS OR TAKE ACTION ON MATTERS RAISED DURING THE CALL OF THE PUBLIC.

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

IS THERE ANYBODY HERE FROM WANT TO TALK TO US? GOOD. SO HOW ABOUT FOLKS OVER IN PRESCOTT? DO WE HAVE ANYBODY OVER THERE? DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT.

CLERK INDICATES NO.

OKAY. THEN WE'LL.

[ EXECUTIVE SESSION]

OKAY. HERE WE ARE GOING INTO ADJOURNMENT FROM EXECUTIVE

[01:55:03]

GOOD.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.