Dec 04, 2024 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR SUPPORT.

>> BY THE WAY, JUST AS A LITTLE COMMERCIAL, YOU'RE HAVING AN OPEN HOUSE THERE ON FRIDAY 13TH OF DECEMBER, AND THERE YOU ALSO HAVE OUR NEW VEHICLES THERE, SUPPOSEDLY, I'M TOLD, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES. WE'RE WORKING OUT ALL THE DETAILS, PUTTING IT TOGETHER QUICKLY BUT WE'D LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE OPEN HOUSE EVENT.

WE WILL BRING ONE OF THE MOBILE CLINICS WITH US BECAUSE EVEN OUR LICENSING PROCESS TAKES A FEW MONTHS.

WE'RE LOOKING AT PROBABLY HAVING ACTUAL MEDICAL SERVICES IN THE BUILDING IN THE SPRING, I WOULD SAY AROUND APRIL TIME, BUT WE'D LIKE TO START OFFERING MEDICAL SERVICES THROUGH THE MOBILE VEHICLE TO GET STARTED, EVEN, SO SETTING IT UP THERE AND GETTING GOING.

INTRODUCING PEOPLE TO OUR NEW MEDICAL CLINICS OR OUR MOBILE CLINICS, AS WELL AS LETTING PEOPLE KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BRING TO THE COMMUNITY.

WE ARE GOING TO GET MORE INFORMATION OUT.

ANYONE IS WELCOME TO ATTEND, AND WE'LL BE HAVING A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION PROBABLY BY THIS AFTERNOON.

>> WE'RE READY TO GO FOR THE CERTIFICATION, CORRECT?

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO URGE MS. HORTON TO ALSO MAKE SURE THAT THAT HAPPENS ON THIS SIDE.

[00:50:03]

WE HAVE SO MANY VULNERABLE ADULTS THAT, AS YOU JUST STATED, CANNOT SPEND AN HOUR IN THE CAR TO GET SOME MEDICAL CARE.

I HOPE THAT THAT TRESART MOBILE VAN WILL PROVIDE PART OF A SOLUTION, SO I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING IT OVER HERE SOON.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> FRIDAY THE 12TH WILL BE THE OPEN HOUSE AND THE ALL OF THE VEHICLES THERE AT THAT POINT IN TIME AND THE HOLD UP PRIMARILY ON US, INITIATING SERVICE IS WAITING FOR THE STATE TO DO THEIR CERTIFICATION, WHICH USUALLY TAKES ABOUT FOUR MONTHS.

>> YES. IT'S TAKEN A LITTLE WHILE, BUT WE ARE JUST ABOUT THERE.

>> WELL, KEEP OUR FINGERS CROSSED.

>> IS IT FRIDAY THE 13TH?

>> FRIDAY THE 13TH.

>> I KNOW THAT'S NOT THE GREATEST THING YOU WANT TO SAY, BUT IT'LL BE FINE. DON'T WORRY.

>> IT'LL BE FINE.

>> STUPID DISHES.

>> WHERE YOUR LEG? IT'LL BE FINE.

>> THERE YOU GO.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SUPPORT, AND THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR SERVICE.

>> THAT RECORDED AS A UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU.

>> I APPRECIATE IT.

FACILITIES. DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE ALLOCATION OF $500,000 FOR

[2. Facilities - Discussion and possible action regarding the allocation of $500,000.00 for the design of the Congress Multifunction Building and transfer of capacity from General Fund Contingency. APPROVED BY 3 TO 1 VOTE. SUPERVISOR MALLORY OPPOSED. ]

THE DESIGN OF THE CONGRESS MULTI FUNCTION BUILDING AND TRANSFER CAPACITY FROM GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY.

>> GOOD MORNING. I'M BRANDON SCHULTZ.

I'M THE DIRECTOR OF YOUR FACILITIES DEPARTMENT.

CHAIRMAN BROWN, VICE CHAIR MICHAELS, SUPERVISORS.

FIRST AND FOREMOST, I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE THREE OF YOU THAT WON'T BE WITH US.

IT'S BEEN MY PLEASURE TO WORK WITH YOU GUYS, AND I'VE REALLY ENJOYED WORKING WITH YOU. THANK YOU.

THE ACTION ITEM IN FRONT OF US TODAY IS A DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON ALLOCATING $500,000 FOR THE DESIGN OF CONGRESS.

ON AUGUST 3 OF 22, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIRECTED STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH DEFINING A SCOPE, ESTABLISHING A BUDGET FOR THE CONGRESS MULTI FUNCTION BUILDING.

BUDGET EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS HAVE PREVENTED US FROM REALLY MOVING FORWARD WITH THE FUNDING SOURCE OF IT.

I KNOW IT'S BEEN AN ISSUE FOR US FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

SO THAT HAS REALLY PREVENTED THIS ONE FROM MOVING FORWARD.

BUT AS YOU'VE SEEN IN THE SPACE PLANNING STUDY, IT HAS BEEN THE FIRST PROJECT IN THAT RURAL GROUP OF PROJECTS THAT WE NEED TO DO.

WE HAVE BEEN TRACKING IT. WE HAVE BEEN MOVING IT FORWARD, BUT WE'RE FINALLY AT A POINT WHERE WE FEEL COMFORTABLE TAKING A SIGNIFICANT CHUNK OF CHANGE OUT OF OUR CAPITAL CONTINGENCY IN ORDER TO MOVE THIS FORWARD.

THE BUILDING IS MEANT TO SERVE MULTI FUNCTION, AS WAS MENTIONED.

THE BIGGEST PART WOULD BE A MEDICAL CLINIC.

WE HAVE A PROVIDER IN THE AREA, WICKENBURG HOSPITAL WHO IS VERY INTERESTED IN CONTINUING TO LEASE FROM US AND WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME MORE SPACE.

WE WOULD ALSO LOOK TO MAKE SOME SPACE FOR THE LIBRARY.

THE LIBRARY IS IN A MODULAR DOWN THERE ON THE SAME PROPERTY, AND THEY TOO ARE INTERESTED IN BEING PART OF THIS NEW BUILDING.

WE ARE ALSO CONSIDERING A SHERIFF SUBSTATION IN HERE AS WELL, WHICH IS A NEEDED FACILITY FOR YCSO.

THIS WAS ANOTHER THING THAT'S BEEN IDENTIFIED AS NEEDS IN OUR RURAL COMMUNITIES, AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ANOTHER STUDY TO GET SOME SPECIFICS ABOUT WHAT THE SUBSTATIONS NEED ARE.

CURRENTLY, THE SHERIFF WORK OPERATES OUT OF A A PARK BUILDING IN OUR ENDERFOOT HILL PARK DOWN THERE AND OUT OF THE WAY.

IT'S NOT ON THE BEST ROADWAY, SO IT'S NOT GOT EASY ACCESS.

THIS WOULD BE A HUGE BENEFIT FOR THEM AS WELL.

THEN THE LAST THING WE'RE PROPOSING TO BE A PART OF THIS OVERALL CONCEPT IS A COMMUNITY ROOM, WHICH COULD BE USED AS A MULTI PURPOSE ROOM, NOT ONLY FOR YAVAPAI COUNTY SERVICES TO GO DOWN THERE ON OCCASION.

SHOULD WE DETERMINE ANYBODY NEEDS TO BE DOWN THERE TO PROVIDE SERVICES MAY BE ON A DAILY BASIS, GO DOWN ONE DAY A WEEK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

WE HAVEN'T WORKED OUT THAT MODEL, BUT THE INCLUSION OF A COMMUNITY ROOM ALLOWS FOR THAT FLEXIBILITY WITH YAVAPAI COUNTY TO BE ABLE TO USE IT FOR OUR OWN SERVICES.

BUT THEN IT ALSO ALLOWS US TO MAKE THAT ROOM AVAILABLE FOR THE COMMUNITY DOWN THERE, SO THE COMMUNITY CAN NOW HAVE A GOOD ROOM TO HOST THEIR OWN EVENTS.

THEY HAVE BEEN WITHOUT SINCE WE DEMOED THAT BUILDING, I BELIEVE IT WAS IN 2014 OR SO.

>> LET ME ASK YOU A QUICK QUESTION.

THE $500,000 FOR THE DESIGN, IS THAT MONEY ALREADY AVAILABLE?

>> THERE IS MONEY, AND MORI COULD PROBABLY SPEAK TO THIS A LITTLE BIT BETTER, BUT WE DO HAVE A CAPITAL CONTINGENCY RESERVE, AND THERE IS SUFFICIENT FUNDING IN THERE TO COVER THIS.

IT'S A SIGNIFICANT CHUNK, AND I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW MUCH IT COVERS HOW MUCH OF THAT IT WOULD REDUCE, BUT IT WAS SO MUCH THAT I KNOW THE BUDGET MANAGERS DON'T LIKE TO TAKE THIS BIG OF A DANG UP FRONT ANYWAY.

>> CHAIRMAN, I'D BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS THAT.

THE PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE IS OUR CONTINGENCY.

AS THE BOARD KNOWS, WE HAVE HISTORICALLY, INCLUDING THIS YEAR, BUDGETED FOUR MILLION DOLLARS IN CONTINGENCY FUNDS.

[00:55:02]

STAFF HAVE LOOKED AT THIS REQUEST AND HAVE STATED THAT WE HAVE $500,000.

HOWEVER, I WANT TO CAUTION THE BOARD, WE'RE HALFWAY, AS WE KNOW THROUGH THE FISCAL YEAR.

WE'VE GOT SIX MORE MONTHS TO GO OF UNKNOWNS.

WE HAVE CURRENTLY EARMARKED A LITTLE OVER THREE MILLION DOLLARS OF THAT CONTINGENCY FUND.

AGAIN, THE BOARD IS AWARE WE HAD SOME LITIGATION AROUND THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE THAT WE'RE HOLDING SOME FUNDS FOR THAT.

THEN WE HAD SET ASIDE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF THE CONTINGENCY FUND THIS YEAR FOR FLEET.

AS WE KNOW THROUGH THE PANDEMIC, WE GOT BEHIND BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T GET VEHICLES.

WE'RE TRYING TO GET CAUGHT UP.

WE'VE SET ASIDE ABOUT TWO MILLION DOLLARS FOR THAT PURPOSE.

THEN YOU'VE GOT SOME OTHER MISCELLANEOUS LEGAL EXPENSES.

THE ANSWER IS, DO WE HAVE THE MONEY IN CONTINGENCY TODAY? YES, I JUST WANT TO GO ON RECORD ABOUT WHERE WE STAND HALFWAY THROUGH THE FISCAL YEAR. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

I'M NOT NECESSARILY AGREEING WITH IT.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION.

YOU SAID WE HAVE FOUR MILLION, THREE MILLION YOU HAVE SET ASIDE FOR SOMETHING.

FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND OF THE MILLION THAT'S LEFT AND THAT LEAVES US WITH 500,000 FOR THE REST OF THIS FISCAL YEAR?

>> CORRECT. HOWEVER, LET ME CLARIFY MAYBE TO THE CHAIRMAN'S ISSUE.

WE HAVE EARMARKED THOSE FUNDS.

IF THE BOARD MAKES THIS DECISION, WE'D RUN INTO OTHER UNKNOWNS THROUGHOUT THE LAST SIX YEARS, YOU COULD ALWAYS PULL BACK ON THE FLEET NUMBER.

AGAIN, I WANT TO BE CLEAR.

I'M JUST WANTING TO GET THE FULL PICTURE OUT HERE, BUT THERE WOULD BE OTHER CHOICES THE BOARD COULD MAKE.

AGAIN, TO PULL BACK ON FLEET WOULD PROBABLY BE THE OBVIOUS ONE IN MY OPINION.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WE WERE ALREADY BEHIND TO BEGIN WITH, ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. AGAIN, THAT'S WHY THE TWO MILLION WAS EARMARKED TO TRY TO GET IF THE SUPPLY CHAIN OPENED UP, AND AGAIN, IT IS NOW.

WE'RE SEEING THE SUPPLY CHAIN OPENED UP.

YOU JUST APPROVED THE PURCHASE OF 10 VEHICLES THAT ARE NOW AVAILABLE TO SATISFY PUBLIC WORKS DEMAND.

SO WE'RE SEEING THAT HAPPEN.

>> GO AHEAD, CHAIRMAN.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. DO WE HAVE A WORKING COMMITTEE OUT THERE YET?

>> COMMITTEE FOR.

>> FACILITIES TO PLAN THIS PARTICULAR VENTURE.

>> WE HAVE ALREADY PREPARED A BLOCKING DIAGRAM WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN OUR PACKAGE.

>> THAT'S NOT WHAT I ASKED, BRANDON, NICE TRY.

DO WE HAVE A COMMITTEE? DO WE HAVE A GROUP OF STAKEHOLDERS THAT ARE COMING TOGETHER TO TALK ABOUT THIS PROJECT?

>> THERE WILL BE BUT SINCE HAVE A PROJECT.

>> THE ANSWER IS NO.

>> YOU'RE CORRECT. THE ANSWER IS NO.

SINCE WE DON'T HAVE FUNDING ON THIS, WE NEED TO PUT IT TOGETHER.

BUT WITHOUT DESIGN WORK, I HAVE NO STAKEHOLDERS TO BRING TOGETHER IN A MEETING.

>> WELL, HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT TO PUT IN THE DESIGN UNTIL YOU ASK THE STAKEHOLDERS WHAT IT IS THEY NEED?

>> THAT IS BEST DONE WITH THE BENEFIT OF AN ARCHITECT, AND I CAN'T HIRE AN ARCHITECT WITHOUT THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDING.

>> I SEE THIS GOING IN A CIRCLE, HARRY.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

WE DO HAVE THE CFO OF WICKENBURG HOSPITAL HERE.

I'D LIKE HIM TO COME UP FOR A MOMENT IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND AND TELL US WHAT THEY WANT TO EXPAND TO PROVIDE BETTER SERVICES IN THAT AREA.

THIS IS ONE OF THE STAKEHOLDERS.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, SUPERVISORS.

MY NAME IS PETER STACKWZ, I'M THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER AT WICKENBURG COMMUNITY HOSPITAL.

WE HAVE HAD A MEDICAL CLINIC IN THE CONGRESS AREA FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS NOW.

WE DO HAVE A PROVIDER OUT THERE, AND THE AREA IS A MEDICALLY UNDERSERVED AREA.

IT HAS BEEN FOR QUITE SOME TIME, INCLUDING THE WEAVER MOUNTAIN AREA, WHICH WE ALSO WORK WITH OUT THERE.

WE SEE QUITE A NUMBER OF PATIENTS IN THAT AREA.

IT IS GROWING.

OUR GOAL HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO EXPAND THE SERVICES OUT THERE WITH ADDITIONAL PROVIDERS AND ALSO TO BRING OTHER SERVICES TO THE AREA.

OUR INITIAL CONVERSATIONS REGARDING THE MULTI USE BUILDING, WE WERE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT THAT AND WE'RE INTERESTED IN BRINGING PRIMARY CARE.

CHRONIC CARE MANAGEMENT, WELLNESS, ANNUAL WELLNESS VISITS.

WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT BRINGING ACTUALLY, WE ALREADY HAVE A PHARMACY OUT THERE.

WE'RE LOOKING TO BRING REHAB SERVICES AND IMAGING SERVICES OUT THERE AS WELL.

MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE DO HAVE TRANSPORTATION ISSUES.

THE FOLKS IN THAT AREA, IT'S AN ELDERLY POPULATION.

WE DO HAVE THE HOSPITALS, THAT IS A LEVEL 4 TRAUMA CENTER, BUT THAT IS ABOUT 20 MILES AWAY.

IT DOES TAKE SOME TIME FOR A LOT OF THOSE FOLKS TO TRAVEL THERE.

[01:00:02]

WE ARE COMMITTED TO BEING PART OF THAT MULTI USE BUILDING.

IT'S BEEN IN DISCUSSION WITH OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

WE'RE VERY EAGER TO EXPAND SERVICES.

THERE IS A NEED OUT THERE, BUT WE ARE GOING TO BE ONE OF THE STAKEHOLDERS OUT THERE AND TO OCCUPY SOME OF THAT SPACE WITH ADDITIONAL SERVICES THAT THE COMMUNITY NEEDS.

>> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.

THIS IS A POINTED QUESTION, OBVIOUSLY, BUT ARE YOU WILLING TO ASSUME SOME OF THE COST TO BUILD THIS FACILITY?

>> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION RIGHT NOW.

>> YOU'RE THE ONLY MAN.

>> I'M THE COO, NOT THE CFO.

BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD TAKE BACK TO OUR SENIOR LEADERSHIP TEAM AND OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

>> DON'T WE THINK THERE SHOULD BE A COMMITTEE THAT'S PUT TOGETHER THAT EXPLORES ALL THESE DIFFERENT POSSIBILITIES SO THAT ONE PRESENTATION CAN BE MADE IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD?

>> WELL, AGAIN, I KNOW WICKENBURG HOSPITAL IS ONE STAKEHOLDER.

SPECTRUM HEALTH HAS INDICATED THAT THEY WANT TO PROVIDE MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES THERE, AND WE HAVE A PERSON HERE TO REPRESENT THEM.

I KNOW I'VE DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE SHERIFF.

RIGHT NOW, UP IN YARNELL, WE GOT A VERY SMALL SUBSTATION THERE AND THAT REALLY NEEDS TO BE ELIMINATED BECAUSE THE COURT THERE NEEDS ADDITIONAL AREA JUST TO BE ABLE TO OPERATE.

AS IT WAS JUST STATED, WE HAVE THAT LITTLE ROOM OUT AT THE PARK AS A SUBSTATION RIGHT NOW FOR THE SHERIFF.

I KNOW IN DISCUSSING THIS WITH THE SHERIFF, HE'S INDICATED THAT IF HE COULD BE IN THAT MULTI FUNCTIONAL BUILDING IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE BEST PLACES FOR HIM TO BE BECAUSE HE CAN MOVE IN MULTIPLE DIRECTIONS AT ONE HAS ISSUES HE HAS TO DEAL WITH.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE SHERIFF WANTS TO COME UP AND SPEAK TO THAT, BUT I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE THIRD STAKEHOLDER.

OBVIOUSLY, WE HAD THE SITUATION WITH THE COMMUNITY CENTER DOWN THERE, WHICH WAS A COUNTY BUILDING AND FINALLY GOT DILAPIDATED TO THE POINT WHERE IT WAS UNSAFE TO BE UTILIZED.

IT WAS DESTROYED.

THEY'VE BEEN WANTING TO TRY AND GET A COMMUNITY CENTER DOWN THERE FOR MEALS ON WHEELS AND OTHER THINGS TO SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY.

I THINK WE'VE GOT THE STAKE HOLDERS ALREADY IDENTIFIED WILLING TO COME IN AND SUPPORT THIS.

I THINK IT'S JUST A MATTER OF MOVING FORWARD WITH GETTING A DESIGN BASED ON THEIR NEEDS.

ALSO, I THINK A LOT OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO THERE IS GOING TO BE APPLICABLE TO MULTI FUNCTIONAL BUILDINGS IN ALL THE OTHER COMMUNITIES, EXCEPT FOR MAYBE THE HEALTH CENTER BECAUSE THE CLINIC THERE IS GOING TO BE PROBABLY LARGER THAN YOU WOULD FIND IN ANY OTHER COMMUNITY IN A COUNTY, A RURAL COMMUNITY.

BUT AGAIN, SPEAKING TO PETER, HE'S ALSO INDICATED THAT IF SOME OF THESE OTHERS HAD WHAT WOULD BE BASICALLY PRIMARY HEALTH, WHICH THE MINIMUM WOULD BE TWO TREATMENT ROOMS, AN ADA BATHROOM, AND A WAITING AREA FOR PEOPLE TO BE EXAMINED, THAT WOULD PROBABLY FIT IN MOST OF THOSE OTHER MULTI FUNCTIONAL AREAS FOR THE COMMUNITY HEALTH TO COME OUT AND PROVIDE SERVICES.

I THINK THERE ARE SOME GREAT OPPORTUNITIES HERE AND SOME GREAT SYNERGY AND I'D MAKE THE MOTION TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THIS EXPENDITURE BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NEEDED, NOT ONLY IN CONGRESS, BUT IN MANY AREAS IN THE COUNTY.

>> THE SECOND, WHO IS THAT, MISS MICHAELS?

>> DR. MICHAELS, YES. THANK YOU.

>> A MOTION IN A SECOND.

SOME MORE DISCUSSION.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MAKING THE ALLOCATION OF THE FUNDING, EXCEPT FOR I HAVEN'T HAD ANYBODY COME UP AND TELL ME THERE'S A COMMITTEE IN OR A COMMITTEE REPORT OF WHAT WE MAY OR MAY NOT NEED.

THEREFORE, I DON'T KNOW IS THE 500 GOING TO BE JUST OUT THERE TO GO AND GET A SPACE GUY OR A BUILDER TO COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT MAY NOT FIT THE NEEDS OF THE STAKEHOLDERS.

I REALLY LIKE TO SEE THE SHERIFF AND THE HOSPITAL AS WELL AS ANY OF THE OTHER STAKEHOLDERS IN THE AREA PARTICIPATING SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE ASKING THAT PERSON, HIS ARCHITECT, BASICALLY TO ADDRESS.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT, BY THE WAY.

STOCK AT MICHAEL'S, I THINK SOMETIMES IT'S HARD TO KNOW WHETHER IT'S A CHICKEN AND EGG KIND OF THING.

I'M SUSPECTING, AND I HOPE BRANDON WILL CONFIRM IT THAT IF THIS MOVES FORWARD, WE WOULD, INDEED, AND HE PROBABLY WOULD LEAD THAT EFFORT TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS THE PROPER COMMITTEE WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS, SEVERAL OF WHOM HAVE BEEN ALREADY MENTIONED THIS MORNING TO COME TOGETHER AND WORK WITH

[01:05:03]

THAT ARCHITECT IN A WAY TO ENSURE THAT THE DESIGN MEETS THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY.

>> WELL, SINCE THE MONEY IS HARD TO COME BY, AND IT'S JUST MY THOUGHT THAT IF WE COULD HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS ON WHAT IT IS THEY NEED, THEN WE CAN BETTER ADDRESS WHETHER 500 IS ENOUGH OR NOT, OR FLS COULD BE USED.

IF THAT BE THE CASE, IF ONE OF THE STAKEHOLDERS COMES IN AND SAYS, I'M GOING TO DONATE $100,000 TO THE PROJECT, WELL, THEN WE DON'T NEED TO GO WITH 500, WE CAN ONLY GO WITH 400.

SO I JUST THINK THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE MORE FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS THAN WE DO JUST THROWING MONEY AT A PROBLEM.

>> CHAIRMAN, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT, THE PROJECT ITSELF, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH AT ALL, BUT I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS AT THIS TIME.

I DON'T WANT TO GO BACKWARDS WITH FLEET, AND I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE US SITTING THERE WITH SUCH A SMALL AMOUNT IN CASE WE HAVE A SITUATION.

I REALIZE THAT, IT'S IN A HOLDING PATTERN, THE THREE MILLION, BUT WE'RE A COUNTY, $3 MILLION IN A HOLDING PATTERN IN THE COUNTY, REALLY NOT A LOT OF MONEY? OF COURSE, ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT THE NEEDS OF THE SHERIFF, BUT I CAN LOOK AT THIS MUCH MORE POSITIVE, MUCH MORE FEELING FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE IN THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.

THAT'S WHERE I'M OUT WITH THAT.

I WOULD HAVE TO VOTE NO AT THIS TIME. I'M SORRY.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD HAVE MAYBE COUNTY MANAGER GIVE US ANOTHER FUNDING SOURCE.

I KNOW WE HAVE LATCF FUNDING.

COUNTY MANAGER, IS THAT A POSSIBLE SOURCE OF FUNDING?

>> WHAT KIND OF FUNDING WAS THAT?

>> L ATCF, LOCAL AREA TRAVEL CONSISTENCY FUND THAT NINE MILLION WE HAVE.

>> [INAUDIBLE] .

>> WE'RE JUST CONFERRING HERE.

YES, WE DO AS THE ANSWER THE QUESTION.

WE WOULD HAVE TO, AS WE KNOW, WITH ALL ARPA RELATED DOLLARS, WHICH I CONSIDER THIS A SUBSET OF, WE'D HAVE TO MAKE SURE IT WAS AN APPROPRIATE USE OF THOSE FUNDS, AND THAT'S NOT BEEN DONE YET. WE COULD LOOK AT THAT.

>> DO WE HAVE TIME TO DO THAT?

>> SURE.

>> THOSE FUNDS HAVE TO BE USED OR ALLOCATED BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR.

>> I'M GOING TO LET THE BOARD COUNSEL COMMENT HERE.

>> YES, CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

JUST TO CLARIFY, LATCF IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT ON THE USE OF THOSE FUNDS OR OBLIGATION OF THOSE FUNDS.

THERE IS FUNDING AVAILABLE, BUT THERE ARE SOME LIMITATIONS ON THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THAT FUNDING CAN BE USED.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY CANNOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION RELATED EXPENSES.

IF THAT EXTENDS, I AM NOT CERTAIN AND HAVE NOT CHECKED TO SEE WHETHER THAT EXTENDS TO DESIGN.

IT MAY THOUGH, SO THAT THE FUNDING MAY NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE, BUT I COULD CERTAINLY LOOK AT THAT ISSUE AND GET BACK TO THE BOARD, BUT I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION TODAY.

>> WELL, THAT WOULD BE ONE THING.

SOME INFORMATION TO COME FORWARD IN THE FUTURE.

MAYBE YOU COULD HAVE A COMMITTEE MEETING TO TELL US WHAT IT IS YOU'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY NEED BEFORE WE ALLOCATE THE FUNDING.

I'M THROWING THAT OUT THERE TO YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN, JUST A QUESTION, MARTY.

DO YOU THINK WE COULD POSSIBLY GET THE ANSWER MAYBE ON THIS BY THE COTTONWOOD MEETING?

>> ABSOLUTELY, YES.

>> WELL, WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.

DO YOU WANT TO PUT THIS OFF UNTIL COTTONWOOD SINCE YOU MADE THE MOTION, HARRY? I SUPPORT IT, BUT I GOT THE SAME ISSUES.

I'M WORRIED ABOUT NOT HAVING ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS IN THE COMMITTEE YET.

>> WELL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR WHAT SPECTRA MAS IS SAYING? BECAUSE THERE ARE ANOTHER STAKEHOLDER IN THIS ISSUE.

>> GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE.

IN THESE RURAL COMMUNITIES, I THINK HEARING DIRECTOR HORTON TALK EARLIER ABOUT ANOTHER RURAL COMMUNITY THAT NEEDS CARE, WHAT WE SEE IS IT IS VERY CHALLENGING TO FIND SPACE TO LEASE AND TO PROVIDE CARE IN THOSE COMMUNITIES.

THE POPULATION THERE IS SMALL ENOUGH THAT IT DOESN'T JUSTIFY A FULL TIME MEDICAL CLINIC OR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CLINIC,

[01:10:04]

AND SO OFTENTIMES PROVIDERS LIKE OURSELVES ARE UNABLE TO MOVE INTO THOSE COMMUNITIES AND INVEST LARGE SUMS OF MONEY IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO STAY THERE, BECAUSE THE NEED DOESN'T JUSTIFY THAT.

>> WELL, I'M INTERESTED IN THAT STATEMENT YOU MADE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE MANY POSSIBLE.

WHAT ABOUT ALL THE PEOPLE IN BAGHDAD AND THOSE THAT LIVE IN THE WICKENBURG, AREA OF YAVAPAI COUNTY?

>> WHAT I'M SAYING IS WHEN WE GO INTO A RURAL COMMUNITY, THE PEOPLE THERE ARE LESS THAN PRESCOTT.

IN PRESCOTT, OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A BIGGER POPULACE HERE AND WE CAN BUILD A FULL ROBUST CLINIC, AND IN THE SMALLER COMMUNITIES, WE START SLOW AND HAVE 1-2 DAYS A WEEK, TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO PEOPLE FOR PHYSICAL AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH.

THAT IS EASIER TO JUSTIFY WHEN WE HAVE A MULTI PURPOSE BUILDING LIKE WHAT'S BEING TALKED ABOUT IN THIS AREA.

THAT MAKES IT EASIER FOR US TO MOVE IN, PROVIDE THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES.

I KNOW THAT THE HOSPITAL IS LOOKING AT PROVIDING PHYSICAL HEALTH SERVICES.

BUT I THINK BETWEEN ALL OF US STAKEHOLDERS, WE HAVE A REALLY ROBUST AMOUNT OF SERVICES THAT CAN BE PROVIDED TO THAT WHOLE COMMUNITY.

I KNOW IN THE PAST, WE'VE WORKED WITH THE WEAVER MOUNTAIN HEALTH INITIATIVE GROUP OUT IN THAT AREA, AND THEY'VE HAD A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF NEED.

THROUGH COVID, WE DID A LOT OF HOME-BASED CARE FOR PEOPLE IN THAT AREA.

>> I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS FROM A DIFFERENT WAY.

THERE'S NOBODY HERE ON THIS BOARD, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THINKS THERE ISN'T A NEED.

THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM, THE PROBLEM IS HOW THEY ALLOCATE THE MONEY AND THE PLANNING THAT WILL GO INTO IT BEFORE WE SPEND THE MONEY.

I DON'T WANT TO BE THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE.

>> SURE. THAT'S GOOD.

>> THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING FROM.

IF WE WANT TO MODIFY THE MOTION, THAT'S UP TO HARRY TO ADD THAT WE'LL HAVE SOME TYPE OF REPORTING DONE FROM THE COMMITTEE, A COMMITTEE OR FROM FACILITIES, I WOULD ACCEPT THAT AND THEN I COULD GO FORWARD WITH VOTING FOR THE YES FOR THIS.

BUT OTHERWISE, I'M SITTING HERE FEELING THE SAME WAY AS MISS MALLORY.

>> I WOULD SECOND, MR. CHAIRMAN, THE AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION BECAUSE IN ORDER TO KEEP THIS MOVING NOT ONLY FORWARD, BUT ALSO WITH THE BEST POSSIBLE DILIGENCE.

IF HARRY IS OKAY WITH THAT, I WOULD SECOND IT.

>> CHANGING OF THE MOTION HAS TO BE DONE BY MR. OBERG.

IF YOU WANT TO SECOND IT AFTER THAT AGAIN, THAT'S ENTIRELY UP TO YOU.

>> I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT I NEED TO DO TO MAKE THE AMENDMENT.

WE DO HAVE THE STAKEHOLDERS.

I GUESS ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THAT FACILITIES COULD GET WITH THOSE STAKEHOLDERS BETWEEN NOW AND TIME WE GO TO COTTONWOOD MAYBE AND GET A FURTHER OUTLINE OF WHAT IS NEEDED TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THAT AMOUNT IS SUFFICIENT.

ACTUALLY, I THINK IT'S PROBABLY MORE THAN YOU NEED.

>> CHAIRMAN, I WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO SET UP A MEETING FOLLOWING THIS SOMETIME IN THE NEXT WEEK TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR OUT OF THE COMMITTEE.

I HAVE MET WITH EACH ONE OF THE STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING MULTIPLE VISITS, PHONE CONVERSATIONS, AND MEETINGS WITH WICKENBURG HOSPITAL TO ESTABLISH THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR.

THE 6,000 SQUARE FEET THAT WE'RE SHOWING ON THAT BLOCKING DIAGRAM IS BASED ON MEETINGS WITH THOSE STAKEHOLDERS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR NEEDS WERE.

THE SAME WITH THE SHERRIFF'S DEPARTMENT.

I HAVEN'T MET WITH THEM NEARLY AS MUCH, BUT BASED UPON SOME LOOSE CONVERSATIONS, AGAIN, THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE IS FAR GREATER THAN WHAT THEY'VE GOTTEN IN EITHER ONE OF THEIR SUBSTATIONS AND SHOULD PROVIDE A FAIRLY DECENT WORKING MODEL.

IT'S NOT QUITE TO THE LEVEL OF BLACK HANON CITY, WHICH IS MEANT TO BE THE PREFERRED MODEL FOR THE SUBSTATIONS.

THAT'S ABOUT 2,000 SQUARE FEET.

THIS IS ONLY ABOUT 1,500.

I'VE ALSO HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DIRECTOR OF THE LIBRARY DISTRICT.

HE IS ALL ON BOARD. HE LIKES THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE.

HE LIKES THAT FOOTPRINT.

AS FAR AS ESTABLISHING FOOTPRINTS AND GENERAL AREA NEEDS, THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE BY YOUR FACILITIES DEPARTMENT.

IF THERE'S MORE INFORMATION YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE IT.

I JUST WANT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS, SO I CAN PUT TOGETHER THE PROPER MEETING AND THE PROPER PEOPLE IN THERE SO WE CAN GATHER THE INFORMATION YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.

>> I'M SORRY, CHAIRMAN. BRANDON?

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> MY MAIN CONCERN IS THE FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS.

>> I THINK YOU'RE SPOT ON. I THINK WE ALL GENERALLY SUPPORT THE PROJECT.

WE SEE THE NEED IN THE RURAL COMMUNITIES.

IT SEEMS TO BE ABOUT THE FUNDING. DO WE HAVE THE FUNDING? IS THE TIMING RIGHT? THIS IS YOUR GUYS' DECISION ON FUNDING AND WHAT ARE WE SPENDING OUR MONEY ON? IS IT FLEET, OR IS IT THIS PROJECT? I THINK THAT'S THE BIGGEST CONVERSATION.

[01:15:03]

I HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH WICKENBURG HOSPITAL.

THEY HAVE GENERALLY INDICATED THAT THEY MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN DOING SOME UPFRONT FUNDING TO START THE PROJECT.

BUT I WOULD EXPECT THAT TO COME WITH A LOWER MONTHLY LEASE RATE FROM THEM.

WE'LL GET TO MAKE THE DECISION ON HOW DO WE WANT THAT TO LOOK? DO WE WANT THEM TO CONTRIBUTE UP FRONT WITH A LOWER MONTHLY CONTRIBUTION, OR DO WE WANT TO INVEST IN THE BUILDING OURSELVES AND THEN HAVE THEM PAY A HIGHER MONTHLY CONTRIBUTION TO THAT? THE SAME COULD BE ASKED OF THE LIBRARY DISTRICT, AS WELL AS WICKENBURG HOSPITAL TOO.

>> BUT THEY HAVE TO GO BACK TO THEIR PERSONS, THEIR BOSS, WHOEVER THAT MAY BE, TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WOULD THAT CONTRIBUTION BE? HOW MUCH WOULD IT BE? WOULD THEY EVEN DO ANY AT ALL? THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW.

AGAIN, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE PROJECT ITSELF. IT'S THE MONEY.

>> AGREED.

>> THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.

>> ALSO, WHEN WE HAVE ANY ISSUES WHEN IT COMES TO THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT ABOUT THE ELECTRONICS AND THINGS THAT THEY'LL NEED MOVED AND OR REINSTALLED, SHALL WE SAY, AS FAR AS IT?

>> I THINK THAT'S JUST A NORMAL FUNCTION OF ADDING BUILDINGS, ADDING SPACES, AND MOVING DEPARTMENTS.

I'M SURE THERE WILL BE SOME VERY SPECIFIC THINGS THAT WE WILL NEED TO COVER AS FAR AS IT REQUIREMENTS, GETTING THE RIGHT ISP IN THERE SO THAT WE CAN HAVE PROPER SERVICE SO THAT THEY CAN DOWNLOAD THEIR BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE.

ALL OF THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED ONCE WE GET INTO THE DESIGN PROCESS, AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE AN ARCHITECT ON BOARD.

WE WILL THEN ENGAGE NOT ONLY THE STAKEHOLDERS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE DESIGN THAT THEY NEED WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT THAT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED, BUT WE'LL ALSO BRING IN OUR OWN STAKEHOLDERS, FACILITIES DEPARTMENT, IT, AND ANYBODY ELSE WHO NEEDS TO BE ENGAGED IN THAT PROCESS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY'S GOT THEIR SAY IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S GOING INTO THE STRUCTURE TO SERVE THE DEPARTMENTS THERE.

>> ANYTHING MORE?

>> YOU'VE SPOKE WITH THE SHERIFF A LITTLE BIT?

>> A LITTLE BIT. THIS IS NOT NEARLY AS VETTED OUT AS MUCH TIME AS I HAVE SPENT WITH WICKENBURG HOSPITAL.

IT'S BEEN A VERY LOW LEVEL CONVERSATION.

I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE SPOKE TO SHERIFF RHODES DIRECTLY.

I BELIEVE I'VE SPOKE WITH CHIEF DEPUTY, AND MAYBE ONE OF THE OTHER PATROL GENTLEMEN, I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS BOLTZ, OR WHO I SPOKE WITH, BUT HIGH LEVEL CONVERSATIONS, JUST TALKING ABOUT SQUARE FOOTAGE FOOTPRINTS OF WHAT THEY NEED AND THE ADVANTAGES THAT WOULD COME FROM IT.

WE HEARD THAT NOT ONLY DO THEY HAVE A SMALL SUBSTATION IN YARNELL, THEY HAVE A VERY TINY ONE AND IN CONGRESS IN THE PARK.

THE THOUGHT WAS THAT WE COULD COMBINE THOSE IN A MUCH LARGER FACILITY, PROVIDE SO MUCH MORE SPACE FOR THEM, SO MUCH MORE OPERATIONAL SPACE, RESTROOMS WITHIN THE FACILITY, AND THEN ALSO ALLOW FOR SOME SPACE FOR THE COURTS TO GROW IN THE YARNELL AREA BECAUSE WE COULD VACATE THAT SPACE.

AGAIN, JUST HIGH LEVEL CONVERSATIONS, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN INTO THE DEPTHS OF SPECIFICALLY WHAT THEY'LL NEED IN THERE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO JUST VERIFY THAT THAT FOOTPRINT IS GOOD WITH THEM.

>> I WILL SAY, I DID SPEAK WITH THE SHERIFF, AND I DO KNOW THAT THEY COULD USE AN AREA DOWN THERE.

WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE IN SIZE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? WE HAVEN'T EVEN TOUCHED THAT.

WE DO HAVE AN ITEM ON HERE WITH GALEY, AFTER THIS, AND WE'RE STILL DEBATING ON WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

THE CONVERSATIONS DO NEED TO HAPPEN FOR SURE, AND THEY NEED TO BE REAL CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PEOPLE THAT WE ARE TURNING THEIR LIVES UPSIDE DOWN.

BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT HAVE TO.

THE SHERIFF IS OF COURSE, ELECTED, HE'S GOT HIS OWN DEPARTMENT, HE RUNS THAT DEPARTMENT, AND SO IT DOES HAVE TO BE HIS SAY, HIS VOICE FOR SURE.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY, I AGREE WITH SUPERVISOR OBERG.

I THINK WE DO KNOW WHO THE POTENTIAL TENANTS ARE.

WHAT I'VE NOT HEARD SAID IS BACK TO YOUR COMMENT ABOUT BRINGING THE COMMITTEE TOGETHER.

AGAIN, I THINK WE KNOW WHO THOSE PARTICIPANTS, POTENTIAL OCCUPANTS ARE.

THIS ITEM IS ALLOWING FOR DESIGN SERVICES, IS WHERE YOU SIT DOWN AND BEGIN TO HAVE THOSE SPECIFIC CONVERSATIONS ABOUT EXACTLY HOW MANY SQUARE FEET YOU NEED, WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE IN THE FACILITY.

THAT'S THE ASK HERE TODAY TO ALLOCATE THE FUNDS TO BEGIN THAT DESIGN PROCESS IS WHERE YOU BEGIN TO HAVE THESE SPECIFIC CONVERSATIONS WITH THE POTENTIAL OCCUPANTS ABOUT WHAT IT NEEDS TO LOOK LIKE.

>> ANOTHER THING I'LL SAY IS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BACK IN '22 WHEN WE SAID, WE WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.

AT THAT TIME, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT DESIGN BEING ABOUT 300K.

NOW WE'RE TALKING ALMOST TWO YEARS LATER, 500K.

SO WE'VE LOST A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY, AND A LOT OF THAT WAS BECAUSE WE WANTED TO DO A SPACE STUDY.

EVERYBODY WANTED TO HOLD OFF AND SEE WHAT THE SPACE STUDY SAID.

[01:20:05]

AGAIN, I HAVE TALKED TO THE SHERIFF, AND HE HAS INDICATED TO ME THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT HE HAS IN BLACK CANYON CITY.

HE THINKS THAT'S THE MODEL, WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THESE IN MULTI FUNCTIONAL BUILDINGS.

I THINK WE ALREADY KNOW THE SIZE AND THE REQUIREMENTS AND EVERYTHING THAT'S NECESSARY BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE BLACK CANYON CITY, AND IT'S THE MODEL.

TO ME IS A PLUG IN PLAY.

I THINK BASICALLY ALL WE WANT TO DO NOW IS MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS DESIGN STUDY SO THAT WE CAN FLESH OUT THE BUILDING AND FINALIZE THE LAST REQUIREMENTS THAT EVERYBODY NEEDS AS FAR AS SPACE.

UNLESS MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU'VE GOT SOME CONCERNS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO MODIFY MY MOTION, I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO THAT.

>> WELL, IF YOU'RE MORE THAN SATISFIED WITH WHAT BRANDON AND FACILITIES, ALONG WITH THE OTHER STAKEHOLDERS THAT PRODUCED AND BROUGHT FORWARD, BE IN YOUR DISTRICT, I SUPPORT THE PROJECT, IT ALL HAS TO DO WITH THE MONEY.

IF YOU'RE HAPPY WITH YOUR MOTION AND MISS MICHAELS IS STILL WISHING TO SECOND THAT, THEN WE'LL PUT HER TO A VOTE.

>> WELL, I'M HAPPY WITH MY MOTION, BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE WORKED ON THIS FOR TWO YEARS.

>> PLUS.

>> JUST WAITING TO GET THE MONEY, AND IT WAS ONLY HELD UP BECAUSE OF THE SPACE STUDY.

>> YOU'RE SATISFIED, THIS IS THE NATURAL PROGRESSION OF THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

>> YES.

>> MRS. MICHAELS, ARE YOU STILL IN SUPPORT?

>> YES, SIR. I'M LISTENING VERY INTENTLY TO THE CONVERSATION.

I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, MR. CHAIRMAN, BUT I THINK WE GET THAT ALONG WITH THIS APPROVAL TODAY, AND, FRANKLY, A LOT OF IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED, NOT DISSIMILAR FROM SOME OF THE OTHER DILIGENCE THAT HAS GONE ON THIS SIDE OF THE MOUNTAIN.

WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TO GET AND NEED.

FOR THAT REASON, I THINK SUPERVISOR OBERG'S MOTION IS A SOLID ONE.

I WISH THAT WE HAD MORE MONEY [LAUGHTER] AT THE CONTINGENCY.

BUT I THINK IF WE DELAY TOO MUCH LONGER, WE'RE GOING TO REALLY AFFECT PEOPLE'S LIVES IN A NEGATIVE WAY AND DELIVERING SERVICES THAT THEY HAVE LONG STATED THAT THEY NEED.

WE HAVE THE STAKEHOLDERS NOW WHO ARE COMING TOGETHER AS A TEAM TO SAY WE'D LIKE TO WORK SPECIFICALLY ON THIS PROJECT IN WICKENBURG, AND FOR THAT REASON, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD SECOND HIS MOTION.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.

AT THAT. ALL IN FAVOR?

>> MRS. MICHAELS?

>> I'M GOING TO VOTE, AYE.

>> MRS. MALLORY?

>> THERE YOU GO. MARCHING ORDERS.

>> NUMBER 3, APPROVE THE REVISED SPACE ALLOCATIONS FOR

[3. Facilities - Approve revised space allocations for the Gurley Street Remodel to include the addition of the Public Fiduciary. Capital Project CI0091: Gurley Street Remodel, Prescott (All Districts)]

THE GURLEY STREET REMODEL TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OF THE PUBLIC FIDUCIARY.

CAPITAL PROJECT C10091C GURLEY STREET MODEL PRESCOTT. IT'S ALL DISTRICTS.

>. GOOD MORNING AGAIN, CHAIRMAN, VICE CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MAURY THOMPSON COUNTY MANAGER. [NOISE] EXCUSE ME.

THE GURLEY STREET REMODEL, AS WE HAVE REFERRED TO IT AS THAT PROJECT AIMS TO REALLOCATE EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE FOLLOWING THE OPENING OF THE JUSTICE CENTER ON PRESCOTT LAKES PARKWAY.

I WANT TO PAUSE THERE FOR THE FIRST TIME OF PROBABLY MANY DURING THIS PRESENTATION, TO EMPHASIZE REALLOCATE EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE.

NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.

IT'S THE BUILDING WE HAD, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT WE DO WITH THAT FOOTAGE.

SECOND COMMENT I WOULD MAKE, I WANT TO BE STATED PUBLICLY HERE TODAY, AND VERY CLEARLY THAT THESE PROPOSED SPACE ALLOCATIONS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS THE CURRENT, LET ALONE THE FUTURE SPACE NEEDS OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT THAT I'M AWARE OF ON THAT POINT.

NEXT ON OCTOBER 2 OF THIS YEAR, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIRECTED THE RESUMPTION OF PLANNING AND DESIGN FOR RENOVATIONS AT THE GURLEY STREET FACILITY KNOWN AS THE YAVAPAI COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND ADMINISTRATION CENTER.

[01:25:01]

AS THE CHAIRMAN INDICATED, WE ARE HERE TODAY TO ASK FOR APPROVAL OF THE SPACE ALLOCATIONS TO INCLUDE THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THE ADULT PROBATION OFFICE, THE CONSTABLE, AND NOW THE PUBLIC FIDUCIARY AS A PROPOSED NEW TENANT.

I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN SOME MISCOMMUNICATION OR LACK OF, WHICH I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR, THAT WHEN I SAY INCLUDE THE PUBLIC FIDUCIARY IN THAT BUILDING, THERE WAS SOME BELIEF THAT I MEANT NOW.

THAT IS THE FURTHEST THING FROM THE TRUTH.

IN FACT, THOSE OF US WHO HAVE BEEN IN THE BUILDING RECENTLY KNOW THERE IS NO SPACE FOR ANYONE ELSE, LET ALONE USABLE SPACE IN THAT BUILDING.

WE ARE PURSUING SOME LEASE SPACE ON THE INTERIM FOR PUBLIC FIDUCIARY.

AGAIN, TO BE CLEAR, INCLUSION OF PUBLIC FIDUCIARY WOULD ONLY OCCUR UPON THE COMPLETION OF THAT BUILDING.

NEXT, I'D LIKE TO TALK A BIT ABOUT MY COMMENT THAT THESE PROPOSED SPACE ALLOCATIONS OF THE BUILDING BEING INSUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE CURRENT AND FUTURE NEEDS, AND THE SHERIFF IS HERE, OF COURSE, AS WELL AS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, AND HOPEFULLY, WE'LL ADD TO MY COMMENTS.

BUT NOT TO SPEAK FOR THE SHERIFF, BUT IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH HIM, WE HAVE MANY UNMET NEEDS IN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

I'LL MENTION A FEW OF THEM, OUR 911 COMMUNICATION CENTER.

IT'S INADEQUATE NOW.

THE BOARD'S AWARE THAT WE HAVE CONTRACTED FOR A STUDY THAT IS NEAR FINAL FORM, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

WE HAVE BEEN IN CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR PEERS, CITIES, TOWNS, AND FIRE, ABOUT THE IDEA OF A COUNTY WIDE 911 DISPATCH CENTER.

THOSE WILL CONTINUE.

WE'RE ALSO HOPEFUL FOR FEDERAL FUNDING TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE NEEDS.

BUT AGAIN, LET ME BE CLEAR, IF THE FEDERAL FUNDING DOESN'T COME THROUGH, WE STILL HAVE CRITICAL NEEDS IN THAT AREA THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED.

PATROL THAT THE SHERIFF HAS WORKING OUT OF THE GURLEY STREET BUILDING IS IN ADEQUATE SPACE, AND LIKELY, I THINK YOU'LL HEAR FROM HIM, NOT THE IDEAL LOCATION.

THOSE NEEDS HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED, INCLUDING OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE NEEDS THAT ARE NOT ADDRESSED IN THIS ALLOCATION.

AGAIN, ONE MORE TIME, WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT REALLOCATING EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE, NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT OUR TRUE NEEDS ARE.

THE BOARD HAS AUTHORIZED ADDITIONAL STUDY AND RECOMMENDATION TO LOOK AT THE SHERIFF SUBSTATION NEEDS AROUND PATROL AND OTHER RELATED FUNCTIONS.

THAT PIECE IS UNDERWAY, AND WE'LL SEE WHAT THAT YIELDS.

BUT AGAIN, EVEN WITH THAT, WE'VE NOT TALKED ABOUT THE FULL ARRAY OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE NEEDS.

THAT MUST OCCUR IN THE FUTURE.

WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH YOU ON THE SPACE STUDY AND MOVE THAT OUT.

THE BOARD HAS GIVEN DIRECTION ON FOUR INITIAL PIECES, BUT WE KNOW THOSE ARE FOUR INITIAL PIECES.

WE HAVE MUCH MORE WORK TO DO ON THAT.

WITH THAT, BE HAPPY TO YIELD ADDITIONAL TIME TO THE SHERIFF OR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADD, SUBTRACT FROM MY REPORT.

>> ANY COMMENTS FROM THE SHERIFF?

>> YES, MR. CHAIR, DAVID RHODE, YAVAPAI COUNTY SHERIFF.

THANK YOU, MR. THOMPSON.

I AGREE WITH WHAT WAS SAID TODAY.

AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, I HAD A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT SPACE REALLOCATIONS, LACK OF COMMUNICATION, LACK OF DISCUSSION, LACK OF STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS.

I'VE COMMUNICATED THAT TO THE BOARD MEMBERS INDIVIDUALLY, AND TO THE COUNTY MANAGER.

WE'VE MADE A PLEDGE TO DO BETTER GOING FORWARD.

I TRUST IN THAT.

HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN INADEQUATE.

I THINK THAT AND I'M GOING TO TAKE A COUPLE OF MINUTES, IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR, TO TALK ABOUT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AS A WHOLE RELATED TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE IN THE COUNTY.

WE DO NEED A NEW SUBSTATION IN CONGRESS.

MR. OBERG HAS BEEN WORKING FOR FOUR YEARS TO TRY TO GET US ONE.

WE NEED ONE IN ASH FORK, SELIGMAN.

YOU, MR. BROWN, HAVE BEEN WORKING FOR EIGHT YEARS TO TRY TO GET US ONE.

WE NEED SOMETHING ON THAT HIGHWAY 69 CORRIDOR TO DEAL WITH DIAMOND VALLEY, CASTLE CANYON MESA, PRESCOTT COUNTRY CLUB, DEWEY-HUMBOLDT.

MRS. MALLORY HAS BEEN WORKING SINCE THE DAY SHE GOT HERE ON THAT.

THE VERDI VALLEY.

MRS. MICHAELS AND I WORKED FOR FOUR YEARS TO TRY TO GET A ADEQUATE SUBSTATION IN THE VILLAGE OF OAK CREEK.

AT THIS POINT, NOT A SINGLE SHOVEL OF DIRT HAS BEEN TURNED ON ANY OF THOSE PROJECTS.

AND SO WE HAVE GOT TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE THINGS ARE MOVING IN MY OPINION.

[01:30:01]

GURLEY STREET IS LIKELY NEVER GOING TO AMOUNT TO WHAT REALLY THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE NEEDS.

WE NEED SECURED PARKING.

WE HAVEN'T HAD IT FOR 30 YEARS.

WHERE PEOPLE WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, PEOPLE ON PROBATION, DIFFERENT PEOPLE WANDERING IN AND OUT OF THE MARKED PATROL CARS.

IT'S UNACCEPTABLE.

THAT'S OFFICE SPACE DOWN THERE.

WE NEED AN ADEQUATE 911 FACILITY.

AND THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE COUNTY, AND I HEARD IT SAID EARLIER WHEN THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT SUPERVISOR OBERG, ONE OF THE SPEAKERS, ALWAYS DOING WHAT'S BEST FOR THE MAJORITY AND ALL OF THE CITIZENS IN THE AREA, REGARDLESS OF BOUNDARY.

AND DOING WHAT'S BEST WITH THE TAX MONEY.

IN MY OPINION, THIS BOARD, THE YAVAPAI COUNTY GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO BE SERIOUS ABOUT REACHING OUT TO THE OTHER GOVERNMENTS IN THE AREA, INCLUDING THE CITY OF PRESCOTT, ABOUT NOT ONLY A REGIONAL 911 FACILITY, BUT COLLOCATING.

IF YOU'RE FOLLOWING WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IN PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE CITY COUNCIL, THEY NEED FIRE STATIONS.

THEY NEED A POLICE STATION.

THEY NEED SOMEWHERE FOR THEIR PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE.

WE NEED STUFF.

NOW IS THE TIME TO COLLABORATE TOGETHER AND LOOK TO SHARE THOSE RESOURCES, SHARE SPACE, WHERE IT MAKES SENSE.

WE HAVE A FOUR ACRE PAD THAT THE COUNTY BUILT OUT AT COMMERCE RIGHT NEXT TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITY WITH UTILITIES PREPPED, READY TO BUILD, WHICH WOULD SERVE AS A FANTASTIC LOCATION FOR A JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN VARIOUS GOVERNMENTS, PARTICULARLY THE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF PRESCOTT.

IF WE'RE ABLE TO PULL STAKEHOLDERS TOGETHER AND HAVE ACTUAL COMMUNICATIONS AND ALLOCATE ACTUAL FUNDING AND BE SERIOUS ABOUT IT.

WE ARE SO FAR BEHIND, NOT ONLY IN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, AND I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, SHERIFF'S OFFICE EMPLOYEE, SHERIFF'S OFFICE NEEDS, BUT I UNDERSTAND FULLY, IT'S THE COUNTY AS A WHOLE.

WE ARE SO FAR BEHIND WITH THE GROWTH THAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED, WITH THE GROWTH THAT IS COMING.

I FORGOT TO MENTION, SUPERVISOR GREGORY AND I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET A SUBSTATION IN CORTES, MAYOR AREA.

WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO SOMETHING IN THE VERDI VALLEY.

I KNOW THAT THERE WERE REASONS WHY THE GURLEY STREET REMODEL DIDN'T HAPPEN.

I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT THAT TIME IS OVER NOW.

I AM SINCERELY HOPEFUL THAT EVERYBODY THAT'S INVOLVED IN THIS GETS SERIOUS ABOUT COMMUNICATING WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS, PUTTING ONE-FOOT IN FRONT OF THE OTHER AND START MAKING SOME OF THESE PROJECTS HAPPEN.

IT'S TAKING TOO LONG. THANK YOU.

>> CHAIR.

>> THANK YOU, SHERIFF.

>> ANYTHING ELSE, MR. THOMPSON?

>> COUNTY ATTORNEY. [BACKGROUND] HARD PASS.

WHAT'S HIS COMMENT? LET ME JUST ADD TO.

SHERIFF, AGAIN, SINCERELY, THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS.

AGREE COMPLETELY.

I WOULD SUGGEST LET'S STEP BACK EVEN FURTHER FOR A MOMENT AND LOOK.

THIS ORGANIZATIONS HAD THREE PRIMARY ISSUES.

WE HAD AN EXPENDITURE LIMIT ISSUE.

WE'VE NOW ADDRESSED THAT.

THANKFULLY, THE VOTERS RECOGNIZE THAT ISSUE.

WE'VE GOT THAT BEHIND US.

WE HAD HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH COMPENSATION HERE FOR OUR WORKFORCE.

I THINK WE'VE DONE A GREAT JOB.

YOU ALL HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB ADDRESSING THAT.

THE THIRD LEG OF THAT STOOL AS YOU'RE HEARING FROM THE SHERIFF, AND AGAIN, AGREE COMPLETELY THAT HAS GONE UNADDRESSED, FAR TOO LONG IS THE CONDITION OF OUR FACILITIES.

I THINK WHAT WE'RE HEARING FROM HIM, WE'VE GOT TO BE SERIOUS ABOUT THAT AND TURN OUR ATTENTION TO ADDRESSING THOSE NEEDS AS THAT FINAL LEG TO THE STOOL HERE.

WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, AS MY LAST COMMENT, WOULD BE, TO BE CLEAR, WITH APPROVAL OF THIS SPACE ALLOCATION, THEN A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH MICHAEL TAYLOR ARCHITECTURE WOULD BE NEGOTIATED AND PRESENTED BACK TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL.

WITH THAT, HAPPY TO STAND FOR QUESTIONS.

>> CHAIRMAN, I HAVE. I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THE SHERIFF HAS SAID, AND I'VE BEEN WELL AWARE OF IT.

I AGREE THAT NUMBER 1, IT'S A MUST THAT WE FIX GURLEY.

[01:35:01]

THE BUILDING IS IN NEED OF SOME LOVE AND CARE.

THE FRONT STEPS ARE TERRIBLE.

THE RETAINING WALLS COME IN, AND THE SHERIFF DOES NEED HIS OWN FACILITY.

I THINK THE LOCATION OF PRESCOTT WOULD ABSOLUTELY BE A GREAT PLACE AND WE WOULD HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF STAKEHOLDERS.

I DON'T THINK GURLEY IS ADEQUATE ANYMORE FOR THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.

WE ARE GOING INTO A HUGE FUTURE, AND WE CALL OURSELVES A RULE, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE BY THE TIME WE GET THE CENSUS DONE AGAIN, WE WON'T BE A RURAL COMMUNITY ANYMORE.

THEN IF SUPERVISOR OBERG WITH THE CONGRESS, IF THAT ENDS UP HAPPENING, THEN WE HAVE COVERED THAT SPOT.

WE'RE WORKING ON OUR HEALTH DEPARTMENT.

LESLIE IS REACHING OUT TO THE RULE AREAS AND DOING GOOD AT THAT.

I'M HERE TO SAY THAT.

OF COURSE, I SUPPORT DOING THE GURLEY ON THIS AGENDA BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE CLEANED UP AND IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED.

THE SHERIFF DEFINITELY HE NEEDS TO MOVE ON INTO HIS OWN BUILDING.

THE NEEDS ARE VERY LARGE AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CONTINUE TO HIRE MORE DEPUTIES.

I KNOW THAT'S BEEN A TOPIC, DEPUTIES, NOT THEM BEING OUT THERE SO MUCH BY THEMSELVES WITH ONE BEING 30 MINUTES AWAY OR 20 MINUTES AWAY IF THEY NEED BACKUP.

I APPRECIATE ALL THE CONVERSATION.

I WOULD DEFINITELY, GOING FORWARD, ENCOURAGE ALL OF US TO KEEP COMMUNICATION CLEAR, IF WE'RE NOT SURE OF WHAT SOMEBODY SAID, THEN WE NEED TO CHECK IT OUT BEFORE WE TALK ABOUT IT, AND WE ALSO NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE STAY IN CONSTANT CONTACT WITH EACH OTHER TO BUILD A BETTER COMMUNITY.

>> AWESOME.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

I UNDERSTAND RIGHT NOW THAT BOTH THE SHERIFF AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AGREE WITH THE REVISED PLAN THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE APPROVING TODAY, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, SUPERVISOR OBERG, I DO NOT OPPOSE THE CURRENT PLAN TO PUT THE PUBLIC FIDUCIARY IN THE BUILDING.

MY OPPOSITION PRIOR TO OUR CLARIFICATION IN OUR CONVERSATION YESTERDAY WAS THAT IF BUILDING SPACE WAS NOW AVAILABLE AT GIRLY STREET, I NEED IT RIGHT NOW TODAY.

MR. THOMPSON IS ASSURING ME THAT THIS IS AT THE END OF THE GIRLY STREET REMODEL.

I WANT TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR ABOUT THAT.

IF THAT BE THE CASE, THEN I DO NOT OPPOSE THAT.

>> WELL, IF I UNDERSTAND THIS THING CORRECTLY, WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT THIS REVISION OF THE ALLOCATIONS, GET THAT CLEARED UP TODAY SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE REMODEL.

RIGHT NOW WE HELD FIRE ON THAT REMODELED FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS.

WE NEED TO MOVE ALONG, AS A SHERIFF SAID, HE NEEDED SPACE YESTERDAY.

I THINK, IF THEY CAN AGREE WITH THE CURRENT AGREEMENT FROM YESTERDAY ON SPACE ALLOCATION, AND I MAKE A MOTION TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THE REVISED SPACE ALLOCATIONS FOR THE GIRLY STREET REMODEL.

>> I'LL SECOND THAT, CHAIRMAN.

>> YES, AND I WOULD AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE HEARD TODAY, MR. CHAIRMAN, BUT SURELY WE CAN IN THESE CONVERSATIONS, AND I KNOW SUPERVISOR GREGORY FEELS THE SAME, THOUGH I DON'T PRETEND TO SPEAK FOR YOU, THAT WE ARE BECOMING INCREASINGLY MORE URBAN LIKE AND CERTAINLY THE CENSUS, AS YOU SAID, SUPERVISOR BALLERI WILL PROVE THAT JUST A MATTER OF TIME.

BUT OUR RURAL AREAS ARE SO IMPORTANT, NOT ONLY IN HEALTH CARE, BUT IN PUBLIC SAFETY, AND SHERIFF RHODS AND I HAVE WORKED, HE WAS RIGHT.

LITERALLY FOUR YEARS ON AN IDEAL SPACE AND IF THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE ONE THAT CAN SERVE HIM FOR WHATEVER REASONS, WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT WE'VE GOT TO FIND ANOTHER ONE OUT HERE, WHERE SAFETY ISSUES CONTINUING TO GROW.

WITH THAT, I JUST WANTED TO ADD BEFORE YOU TAKE THE VOTE, MR. CHAIRMAN, MY COMMENTS ABOUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MOUNTAIN AS IT RELATES TO MR. RHODS AND THE SHERIFFS.

>> MOVING FORWARD, HARRY, THEN MR. OBERG, YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE REVISED BASED ALLOCATIONS FOR GIRLY STREET MODEL TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OF PUBLIC FIDUCIARY?

[01:40:02]

>> THAT'S CORRECT TERM.

>> THAT MOTION HAS BEEN SECONDED BY MS. MALLORY.

ANY OTHER FURTHER DISCUSSION? NO WITH THAT, ALL IN FAVOR?

>> HOWEVER, I WILL SAY THIS.

EVEN WHEN MY DAYS OF RETIREMENT, I WILL BE HERE TO HAUNT YOU TO GET THAT PROJECT DONE.

WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN SPOKEN TO, IT HAS GONE ON TOO LONG AND THE COSTS OF STARTING TO MOUNT UP.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, AND OUR FINAL NOTE WAS STAFF HAVE HEARD CLEAR THAT THAT IS NUMBER 1 PRIORITY.

>> I'M GLAD YOU TALKED WITH THE SHERIFF.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO HEARINGS. PUBLIC WORKS.

[1. Public Works - Approve water service Franchise Agreement with Yarnell Water Improvement Association. YC Contract No. 2024-572 (District 1 - Supervisor Oberg)]

APPROVED WATER SERVICE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH WATER YARNELL IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION.

>> GOOD MORNING.

>> THERE WE GO. GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN BROWN.

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

I'M ROGER MCCORMICK.

I'M YOUR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.

HERE TODAY TO HAVE A HEARING ITEM IN RELATION TO ONE OF OUR WATER IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATIONS WITHIN THE COUNTY.

THIS IS TO APPROVE A WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH YARNELL WATER IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, AND THIS IS IN DISTRICT 1, SUPERVISOR OBERG'S DISTRICT.

THIS IS TO APPROVE THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT THAT THE YARNELL WATER ASSOCIATION WILL WORK UNDERNEATH.

THIS APPROVAL IS FOR USE OF THE COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY IN USE OF THEIR FACILITIES TO OPERATE THEIR WATER IMPROVEMENT FACILITIES AND IT ONLY ALLOWS FOR THE USE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY.

IT'S NOT GOVERNING ANY OF THE OTHER REGULATIONS THAT ARE DONE THROUGH THE ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION.

YOU GUYS, THE BOARD ACTUALLY APPROVED THE APPLICATION BACK ON NOVEMBER 6, THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE YARNELL IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, AND THAT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD ON NOVEMBER 6.

SUBSEQUENTLY, IT WAS ADVERTISED FOR THREE WEEKS FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE THE RENEWAL OF THE AGREEMENT, AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC IN RELATION TO THAT ADVERTISEMENT.

I WOULD NOTE THAT THE UTILITY HAS BEEN OPERATING SINCE 1972, AND THERE ARE A LITTLE OVER 500 USERS THAT UTILIZE THIS WATER SYSTEM.

HERE AT THE END, THIS IS MY LAST SLIDE THAT I HAVE.

THIS IS JUST A MAP THAT OVERVIEWS THE AREA OF THE WATER SERVICE AREA, WHICH ENCOMPASSES YARNELL AND THE PEOPLES VALLEY AREA.

THIS WOULD BE A RENEWAL OF THE EXISTING AGREEMENT.

THEY ARE UNDER FRANCHISE WITH US RIGHT NOW.

THIS WOULD BE AN EXTENSION FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEARS WITH THE FRANCHISE, AND THAT'S WHAT I HAVE.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY SHEETS ON THAT ITEM AT ALL? NOTHING, NO COMMENTS.

ANYTHING OVER IN COTTONWOOD.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYBODY OVER THERE, IS THERE? DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE.

>> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, YES, SIR.

>> ANY MOTIONS FROM MS. MICHAELS?

>> I DIDN'T MIND DOING THIS REMOTELY, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANYBODY OR DREW WOULD HAVE INFORMED ME.

>> SINCE THIS IS IN MR. OBERGS DISTRICT, ANY COMMENTS, MR. OBERG?

>> NO, CHAIRMAN, BUT I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE WATER SERVICE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH YARNELL WATER IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION.

>> I'LL SECOND.

>> SECOND BY MS. MALLORY.

ALL IN FAVOR. AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSE? NONE NOTED.

>> MOVING ON TO NUMBER 2.

[2. Development Services - Approve permanent and non-transferrable Use Permit to allow for a family owned and operated dog breeding and training facility on approximately 85.65 acres, in the R1L-175 zoning district, subject to conditions of approval. Project Name: Diamond Oakes Use Permit; Property Owner: Jerry Oler & Vicki Marjerrison UI & Timothy Thomas & Kathy Kenbo UI; Applicant/Agent: Brandon Carlson for Diamond Oakes Ranch (Linda Watts); PLA24-000098; APN(s): 402-13-134D, 402-13-126T, 402-13-134C. Located off of South Orme Rd., south of East State Route 169. Staff: BJ Ratlief (District 2 - Supervisor Gregory)]

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPROVED PERMANENT AND NON TRANSFERABLE USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A FAMILY OWNED AND OPERATED DOG BREEDING AND TRAINING FACILITY ON APPROXIMATELY 85.65 ACRES IN THE R1L-175 ZONING DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

PROJECT NAME IS DIAMOND OAKS USE PERMIT.

THE PROPERTY OWNER JERRY OLLER AND VICKI, EXCUSE ME FOR THIS PRONUNCIATION AND MARJORSON,

[01:45:05]

UI AND TIMOTHY THOMAS AND KATHY KENBO UI.

APPLICANT AGENT BRANDON CARLSON FOR DIAMOND OAKS RANCH, LINDA WATTS, PLA 24-00098 APN40213 134 DIAZ AND DAVID.

402-13126 T AS IN TOM 40213134 CS IN CRAIG, LOCATED OFF THE SOUTH ORME ROAD SOUTH OF EAST STATE ROUTE 169.

SUPERVISOR GREGORY'S DISTRICT. HI.

>> EXCUSE ME. GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN.

VICE CHAIRMAN J RATLIFF [INAUDIBLE]

>> HOW ARE WE NOW? THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN BROWN, VICE CHAIRMAN BJ RATLIFF, ONE OF THE PLANNERS WITH YAVAPAI COUNTY.

I'M HERE TO PRESENT TODAY THE REQUEST, APPLICATION FOR DIAMOND OAKS RANCH USE PERMIT.

THANK YOU. HERE WE GO.

DIAMOND OAKS WAS HEARD WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER 7, WHERE WE RECEIVED OR THEY RECEIVED A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.

THE MOTION WAS BY COMMISSIONER OSTERMAN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PRITCHARD.

MR. OSTERMAN IS ALSO HERE TODAY.

SHOULD YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT HEARING AND WHAT THEY DISCUSSED? THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN DISTRICT 2, SUPERVISOR GREGORY'S DISTRICT.

IT IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY TWO MILES SOUTH OF STATE ROUTE 169 ON ORME ROAD.

IT IS SURROUNDED ON THREE SIDES BY OTHER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, R1L-175, BOUNDED ON THE EAST BY RCU-2A, WHICH IS ACTUALLY PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST.

THE AREA IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED.

THE SLOT IS ALMOST COMPLETELY UNDEVELOPED.

THERE IS A WELL ON IT. THAT'S ABOUT IT.

WE HAVE A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN, AND I WANT TO SAY PRELIMINARY BECAUSE THEY STILL DON'T HAVE ALL OF THE PLANNING PROJECTS DONE TO KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THEY CAN PLACE BUILDING.

IT IS A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.

BUT GENERALLY AT THE MOMENT, THEY HAVE TWO MAJOR PIECES OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROPOSED, THE BARN FOR THE DOGS, WHICH THEY INTEND TO KEEP AT LEAST 500 LINEAR FEET FROM THE NORTH WEST AND SOUTHERN BOUNDARIES.

THEIR INTENT IS TO KEEP IT AS FAR FROM OTHER RESIDENCES AS THEY CAN LEGITIMATELY WITH THE PROPOSALS.

THEN ALSO WILL HAVE A HOME FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILY.

THIS IS LOCATED AGAIN, AND I'VE GOT SOME PICTURES HERE, SO IT'S LOCATED OFF OF THE ORME ROAD.

THERE ARE TWO SMALLER PARCELS ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

IT'S A TOTAL OF OVER 85 ACRES.

THESE TWO SMALL PARCELS HAVE THE ACCESS EASEMENT ON IT.

I'M STANDING HERE ON THE ORME ROAD. LET ME BACK UP.

I THINK I CAN DO THIS. THERE WE GO.

I'M STANDING RIGHT THERE ON ORME ROAD, LOOKING UP AT THE EASEMENT.

NOW I'M STANDING AT THE TOP OF THAT LITTLE EASEMENT LOOKING DOWN ON THE ROAD.

I'M LOOKING WEST AT OTHER DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA, ALL RESIDENTIAL.

FROM HERE, I'M LOOKING NORTH.

AGAIN, THIS IS AN OVERVIEW, BUT I'M STANDING DOWN HERE IN THE CORNER OF THIS PARCEL, AND WHICH YOU SEE IN THE BACKGROUND HERE IS THIS RESIDENCE UP HERE.

NOW LOOKING EAST, YOU CAN SEE THERE'S NOT MUCH OUT THERE.

THEY DO HAVE A LITTLE HILL AND OUT THERE IN THE MIDDLE SOMEWHERE IS WHERE THEY WANT TO PUT THE BARN FOR THE DOGS.

I WOULD BE THEY'D LIKE TO GET IT AS CLOSE TO THAT HILL OVER THERE AS THEY CAN LEGITIMATELY AND WITH DEVELOPMENT.

NOW LOOKING EAST TOWARDS I-17, THIS IS THE SOUTHERN ACCESS EASEMENT THAT GOES DOWN TO ANOTHER PARCEL THERE.

HERE IS THAT ACCESS EASEMENT, AGAIN, THE SMALLER PARCEL THAT COMES DOWN HERE.

WHAT WE SEE IN THE BACKGROUND THERE AGAIN IS THIS PARCEL.

THEY'RE SPREAD OUT FROM EVERYBODY.

BEAR WITH ME JUST A MOMENT.

I DO HAVE A SHORT VIDEO BECAUSE IT IS OUT THERE.

I THOUGHT I HAD A VIDEO.

IT DOESN'T SEEM TO WANT TO WORK. MY APOLOGIES.

IT WAS AT 360 VIEW OF IT.

BUT AGAIN, THERE'S NOT MUCH OUT THERE.

>> ARE THERE ANY HOMES BORDERING ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY OTHER THAN THE OWNER?

[01:50:05]

>> NO. THERE ARE SOME PARCELS THAT HAVE HOMES ON IT, BUT THEY'RE IN THE DISTANCE.

I CAN BACK UP AND SHOW YOU HERE.

SHE'S GOING TO GET THE VIDEO GOING FOR YOU. GO AHEAD.

>> WHILE WE'RE WAITING, THIS WAS UNANIMOUS AND ON APPROVAL?

>> YES, SIR. IT WAS.

>> PNZ.

>> YES. THERE WE GO. THANK YOU.

>> ANY GREEN SHEETS, MS. CLERK?

>> NO, SIR. NO GREEN SHEETS OR PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED ON THIS ITEM.

>> WE'RE LOOKING SOUTH THERE AT THAT LITTLE EASEMENT THAT RUNS DUE SOUTH.

YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A HOME DOWN THERE, BUT YOU CANNOT SEE IT.

NOW WE'RE LOOKING DUE EAST TOWARDS I-17.

AGAIN, OUT THERE IN THAT LIGHTER COLORED AREAS WHERE THEY ARE PROPOSING TO PUT THE BARN FOR THE DOGS.

YOU DO SEE A WELL OUT THERE, DOESN'T PRODUCE VERY MUCH AT THE MOMENT, BUT THEY DO HAVE ONE SMALL WELL.

THAT IS THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH THAT YOU'RE SEEING THERE.

NOW WE'RE LOOKING NORTHWEST.

THAT'S RIGHT ACROSS, YOU'RE SEEING THE ORME ROAD THERE.

NOW WE WILL BE LOOKING WEST TOWARDS THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OFF TO THE WEST AND ACROSS ORME ROAD, AND THEN IT'S JUST GOING TO DOUBLE BACK AROUND VERY QUICKLY HERE.

>> AGAIN, THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH THAT YOU CAN SEE THE WELL.

THE BARN WOULD BE OUT THERE SOMEWHERE, THE HOME DOWN THERE, DUE EAST TOWARDS I 17.

THEN THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH, WHICH AGAIN, FROM WHERE I'M STANDING, YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THE HOME.

>> HAS SUPERVISOR GREGORY MENTIONED WHETHER HE'S FOR OR AGAINST OR?

>> NO, SIR. I'VE HAD NO COMMUNICATIONS WITH HIM.

>> NO COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING TO IT?

>> NO, SIR.

>> IS THE PETITIONER HERE?

>> YES. MS. LINDA AND HER SON, RYAN, ARE BOTH HERE AND AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS, IF YOU HAVE ANY?

>> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT QUESTIONS. IS THERE ANYTHING THEY'D LIKE TO SAY? HOW MANY DOGS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

>> MS. LINDA, RYAN.

>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

>> IF YOU COULD COME HERE AND STATE YOUR NAME. YOU'RE OKAY.

>> SAY WHO YOU ARE, PLEASE.

>> I'M LINDA WATTS AND THIS IS MY SON RYAN GOFFMAN.

>> MORNING, CHAIR AND SUPERVISORS.

>>WE HAVE ABOUT 22 DOGS IN OUR BREEDING PROGRAM.

>> YOU ALREADY ARE USING THIS AS IT?

>> NO. I AM PRESENTLY IN METTA, CALIFORNIA AND I AM THE PROUD NEW GRANDMOTHER OF A BABY HERE IN ARIZONA, AND I'M TRYING TO GET HERE TO BE CLOSE TO HIM.

>> WELCOME. SO APPROXIMATELY 22 DOGS, YOU'RE GOING TO BE MOVING INTO THE FACILITY ONCE YOU HAVE IT UP AND RUNNING?

>> THERE ARE 22 IN OUR BREEDING PROGRAM.

PRESENTLY, I DO HAVE FIVE RETIRED GERMAN SHEPHERDS THAT LIVE IN THE HOUSE WITH US.

>> PRIMARILY, THAT'S THE TYPE OF DOG THAT WILL BE THERE, SHEPHERD?

>> YES.

>> I'VE BEEN BREEDING GERMAN SHEPHERDS FOR OVER 30 YEARS.

THAT'S THE ONLY DOG THAT I'VE EVER PERSONALLY BREED.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTION?

>> CHAIRMAN, I'D BE GLAD TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> I WOULD BE GLAD TO SECOND IT, BUT I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, IF I MAY, MR. CHAIRMAN.

I'M JUST CURIOUS.

APART FROM MY LOVE OF GERMAN SHEPHERDS, WHICH EVERYONE ON THE BOARD KNOWS ABOUT.

WELCOME. THEN ALSO TELL ME, ARE YOU ANYWHERE PROXIMATE TO ORME RANCH? DO YOU KNOW?

>> MA'AM, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE SCHOOL?

>> YES, I AM.

>> THAT WAS ACTUALLY A QUESTION BY ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS, AND WE DETERMINED THE SCHOOL IS ACTUALLY ABOUT 10 MILES SOUTH SO QUITE A DISTANCE AWAY.

>> VERY GOOD TO KNOW. I'M DELIGHTED TO HEAR THAT YOU'VE GOT 85 ACRES.

[01:55:05]

I JUST THINK THAT'S PHENOMENAL, AND IT'S WHAT YOU NEED.

AS I SAID, I SECOND SUPERVISOR VALERIE'S MOTION.

>> IS THIS ANYWHERE CLOSE TO THE PROPOSED SOLAR FIELD?

>> I'M SEEING SHAKING HEADS FROM OTHER STAFF MEMBERS.

I CANNOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

THE MANAGER MATT BLAKE IS SAYING, NO, HE DOES NOT THINK SO.

>> YOU FOLKS ARE AWARE THAT THERE IS A PROPOSAL POSSIBLY OUT THERE FOR A SOLAR FIELD, SIGNIFICANT. ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT?

>> HOW DOES THAT AFFECT US?

>> HE'S JUST WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF IT.

I BELIEVE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A UTILITY GRADE SOLAR FACILITY?

>> IT MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN. IT'S JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS.

>> WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH SOLAR PANELS.

>> WE'RE HOPING TO RUN MAJORITY OF OURS ON SOLAR AS WELL.

>> DO I HAVE A MOTION?

>> YES, CHAIRMAN. I MADE A MOTION AND SUPERVISOR MICHAELS MADE THE SECOND.

>> I WASN'T SURE ABOUT THE SECOND THAT WAS WHY I ASKED.

>> NO WORRIES.

>> WITH EVERY MOTION MADE AND SECONDED, ALL IN FAVOR.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, APPROVE A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REMOVE

[3. Development Services - Approve text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to remove the Planning fees and the Refund Policy from the Yavapai County Planning and Zoning Ordinance document. Project Name: Fee Schedule and Refund Policy Zoning Ordinance Amendment; PLA24-000086. (All Districts) ]

THE PLANNING FEES AND REFUND POLICY OF THE YAVAPAI COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING ORDINANCE DOCUMENT.

PROJECT NAME IS FEE SCHEDULE AND REFUND POLICY ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, PLA 24-000086. MR. LUSSON.

>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIR. LET ME GET MY POWERPOINT SET UP FOR THIS ONE.

JUST A FRONT LOAD, WE HAVE FOUR DIFFERENT ITEMS THAT WE'LL BE DISCUSSING.

HOWEVER, THOSE ARE FOUR SEPARATE ITEMS SO I WANTED TO ALLOW PLENTY OF TIME FOR AMPLE DISCUSSION IF NEEDED ON EACH ONE OF THOSE ITEMS. FOR THE RECORD, I AM MARK LUSSON, YAVAPAI COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ASSISTANT DIRECTOR.

I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.

CURRENTLY, OUR PLANNING UNIT FEES AND REFUND POLICY ARE WITHIN THE YAVAPAI COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING ORDINANCE.

MAKING CHANGES TO THE CURRENT FEE SCHEDULE OR REFUND POLICY HAS TO GO THROUGH TWO PROCESSES AT ONCE, PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER TO COMPLETE, TO MAKE ANY CHANGE OR THAT UPDATE.

WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PROCESS COINCIDINGLY WITH THE PROPOSED FEE ADOPTION.

WHAT THIS ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT IS ASKING THE BOARD TO CONSIDER IS REMOVE THE FEE SCHEDULE AND REFUND POLICY FROM THE YAVAPAI COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR A MORE STREAMLINED PROCESS FOR ANY FUTURE CHANGES OR ADOPTIONS.

IN THE FUTURE, IF THIS IS APPROVED BY THE BOARD RIGHT NOW, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO THIS ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, WE WOULD JUST BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH THE PLANNING AND ZONING FEE ADOPTION PROCESS.

>> LET ME ASK A QUESTION.

DOES ANYBODY ON THE BOARD HAVE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS SPECIFIC ACTION?

>> NO, SIR.

IS THERE ANY QUESTION YOU'D LIKE TO ADD, MR. MARTIN?

>> DOESN'T APPEAR SO.

>> CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, JUST WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE ITEM, BUT THAT WOULD BE IT.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS OR THOUGHTS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE IN REGARDS TO IT?

>> THIS PROPOSAL WAS SUPPORTED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

THE FEE SCHEDULE DOES NOT NEED TO BE IN THE ORDINANCE, AND IT MAKES IT UNNECESSARILY CUMBERSOME TO HAVE IT IN THE ORDINANCE.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS, SO WE APPROVE THE TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REMOVE THE PLANNING FEES AND REFUND POLICY FROM THE YAVAPAI COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING ORDINANCE DOCUMENT, THE FEE SCHEDULE REFUND POLICY ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PLA 24-00086.

>> SECOND.

>> I HOPE THAT YOU GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.

>> FOR ME?

>> I HOPE THAT YOU GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND [INAUDIBLE]

>> I JUST MADE IT.

>> BOTH OF THEM?

>> MADE IT AND SECONDED BY MR. OBERG, ALL IN FAVOR.

>> DEVELOPMENT SERVICE APPROVE ADOPTION OF

[4. Development Services - Approve adoption of proposed Development Services Planning and Zoning Hearing Review Fee Schedules and Development Services Refund policy pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes §11-251.05, §11-251.08, and §11-251.13. Project Name: Zoning Fees and Refund Policy; PLA24-000110. (All Districts) APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM NO. 13 OF THE ZONING CLEARANCE FEE SCHEDULE.]

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING AND ZONING HEARING REVIEW FEE SCHEDULE, AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REFUND POLICY TO ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, 11-251.05, 11-25108,

[02:00:02]

AND 11,25.13 PROJECT NAMED ZONING FEES AND REFUND POLICY.

THIS GOES HAND IN HAND WITH NUMBER 3, DOES IT NOT?

>> CORRECT, SIR BECAUSE THE MOTION WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD TO REMOVE THESE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, WE ARE NOW ABLE TO GO FORWARD WITH THE UPDATED ADOPTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING FEES AND REFUND POLICY.

>> WHAT'S THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE?

>> REMOVING IT FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.

THIS IS THAT CUMBERSOME PROCESS THAT WAS JUST APPROVED BY THE BOARD TO REMOVE IT FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE MEMBER.

SO IN THE FUTURE, WE WILL NOT HAVE TO DO A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO GET TO THESE FIELDS.

>> THERE'S A STREAMLINING OUR OPERATIONS MORE OR LESS, CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT, SIR.

>> THEN I'LL MAKE A MOVEMENT TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 4.

>> SECOND.

>> IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT OR ANY GREEN SHEETS? I'M LOOKING HERE AT ITEM NUMBER 3 FROM ONE OF MY FRIENDS OUT THERE.

MS. SANDY GRIFFITH WANTS TO MAKE A COMMENT.

MS. GRIFFITH, I HAVE YOU DOWN FOR ITEM 3, 04, AND 5.

THEY'RE ALL SEMI RELATED, AND ONE OF OUR LONG TERM MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE. WHAT IS YOUR FUTURE?

>> MR. CHAIR, GOOD MORNING, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

ON ITEM NUMBER 3, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE BOARD AND THE COMMISSION TO KNOW THAT THE INDUSTRY WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORTED THE REMOVAL OF THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DID INVOLVE US IN ALL OF THESE ITEMS AND I HAVE SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO SPEAK ON ALL OF THEM SEPARATELY BUT NUMBER 3, WE DID UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORT AND DO APPLAUD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR MAKING THAT CHANGE.

>> ITEM NUMBER 4?

>> THERE IS A PROBLEM.

ITEM 4, THERE IS A NEW FEE THAT WAS ADDED TO THIS, AND IT'S ITEM NUMBER 13 FOR $300.

>> NUMBER 13.

>> IT'S CALLED PRELIMINARY CODE REVIEW $300.

WE ARE ADAMANTLY AGAINST THE PROPOSED FEE.

THIS IS A BUSINESS FEE THAT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES NOW WANTS TO CHARGE FOR BUSINESSES WANTING TO COME INTO THE COUNTY.

OUR OTHER JURISDICTIONS DON'T CHARGE TO MEET WITH OUR POTENTIAL BUSINESSES AND I'M SURE THAT THERE WILL NOT BE ANY PROFIT EROSION FROM ALL OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FEES BY REMOVING THIS.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IS HERE TO PERFORM A SERVICE FOR OUR POTENTIAL BUSINESSES THAT WANT TO COME TO YAVAPAI COUNTY, AND WE ARE ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO THIS $300 FEE.

IT'S NEW. IT'S NEVER BEEN ASSESSED BEFORE, AND IT SHOULD NOT BE ASSESSED AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

>> YOU'RE MAKING THIS STATEMENT AND COMMENT AS A?

>> COMMISSIONER OR THE OTHERS?

>> INDISCREET PARTNER.

NOT A COMMISSIONER.

I VOICED MY CONCERNS AT THE COMMISSION, BUT I'M HERE AS THE INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVE, AND I'M QUITE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS FEE BEING CHARGED TO BUSINESSES THAT WANT TO MOVE INTO YAVAPAI COUNTY.

>> YOU HAD ME CONFLICTED BECAUSE YOU VOTED YES FOR IT, THOUGH.

>> I VOTED YES, WITH THE CAVEAT THAT I WAS OPPOSED TO THIS PARTICULAR FEE.

I SUPPORTED THIS FEE, ALL OF THEIR FEE ITEMS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF NUMBER 13.

>> THAT PARTICULAR PORTION OF THE CHANGE?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> I MADE THAT VERY CLEAR.

>> PRIMARILY, THAT SURROUNDS THE FEE WHICH IS BEING INTRODUCED AS BEING $300, CORRECT?

[02:05:04]

>> YES, SIR.

>> MR. MARK.

>> HI, CHAIR.

>> WHAT'S THE REASON FOR THE INCREASE IN FEES SINCE MS. GRIFFITH BROUGHT IT OUT?

>> TO START FROM THE BEGINNING.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IS A GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENT.

HOWEVER, WE HAVE THE OPTION THROUGH STATE STATUTE TO RECOVER A PORTION OF THOSE GENERAL FUND THROUGH OUR FEES.

AS WE DID AN ANALYSIS, WE LOOKED AT A FEW OPERATIONAL SERVICES THAT WE PROVIDE AND WHEN WE STARTED DOING THE ANALYSIS ON IT, WE RECOGNIZED THIS PRELIMINARY CODE REVIEW FOR COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES.

WHAT THAT SPECIFIC REVIEW ENTAILS IS MEMBERS FROM EACH ONE OF OUR UNITS WILL HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL THERE, A FEW PEOPLE FROM PERMITTING THERE, ONE OR TWO PEOPLE FROM PLAN REVIEW THERE, AND ALSO BUILDING SAFETY.

WE HAVE ABOUT 6-7 REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE DEPARTMENT AT THIS MEETING.

A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON IT IS IT'S A GUIDE FOR THIS BUSINESS, ALMOST LIKE A CHECKLIST OF WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO COMPLETE THEIR PROJECT.

THERE IS SOME PRELIMINARY RESEARCH THAT EACH ONE OF THOSE STAFF MEMBERS DO.

IT'S ABOUT 1-2 HOURS.

THE MEETING ITSELF IS ABOUT AN HOUR, HOUR AND A HALF, AND THEN POST MEETING TO PROVIDE A SUMMARY TO THAT APPLICANT IS ABOUT ANOTHER HOUR.

CUMULATIVELY WITH THAT SIX OR SEVEN STAFF MEMBERS, IT'S ABOUT 20-25 HOURS WORTH OF STAFF WORK SO WE'RE LOOKING TO RECAPTURE A PORTION OF THAT STAFF TIME THROUGH THE $300 FEE.

>> BASICALLY TO RECAPTURE THOSE FUNDS THAT ARE SPENT BY THE COUNTY TAXPAYERS FOR DOING THIS PROCESS, CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT, SIR.

>> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.

IS THIS THE SAME FEE FOR BOTH LARGE AND SMALL?

>> AT THIS TIME, THE WAY IT IS PROPOSED, YES, IT IS.

>> MS. MALLORY?

>> YES.

>> WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT BUSINESSES COMING INTO THE UNINCORPORATED AREA, IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? THE UNINCORPORATED AREA, RIGHT?

>> SUPERVISOR MALLORY, YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

>> OKAY. SO WHERE IS MOST OF OUR BUSINESSES IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA, LIKE WHAT IS SIGMAN OR ASH FORK, OR IS IT COURTS JUNCTION OR WHERE ARE YOU GUYS MOSTLY DEALING WITH THE BUSINESSES?

>> IT IS SPREAD PRETTY EVENLY AROUND THE COUNTY.

IT DOES HAVE BUSINESSES.

WE HAD PRE-CODE MEETINGS, WE AVERAGE ABOUT SIX A MONTH.

THEY RANGE ANYWHERE FROM FROM OURS TO BLACKAN CITY TO CONGRESS, UP IN ASHPORT, IN THE OUTSKIRTS OF PRESCO VALLEY, ANYWHERE THAT HAS COMMERCIAL ZONE PROPERTY TYPICALLY.

>> IS THIS ALSO OVER IN THE VOC THEN AND THAT AREA AS WELL?

>> YES, MA'AM. IT IS COUNTYWIDE.

>> I TRY TO BE USER-FRIENDLY WITH OUR BUSINESSES, AND WE ARE IN DIFFICULT TIMES AS WE'VE ALL DEALT WITH OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS.

SO I MIGHT AS WELL JUST SAY IT NOW.

I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS PARTICULAR FEE.

I SUPPORT YOUR ITEM, BUT THIS NUMBER 13 FOR $300, I CANNOT SUPPORT BECAUSE I REALLY HAVE TO BELIEVE IN THE CUSTOMER SERVICE THAT YAVAPAI COUNTY WANTS TO GIVE.

>> SO, MR. CHAIRMAN, I GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

SO BASICALLY, YOU'RE TRYING TO RECOVER COSTS WITH NUMBER 13?

>> YES, SIR, THAT IS CORRECT.

>> OKAY. A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, HOW MUCH OF YOUR FEES WERE BEING RETURNED TO THE GENERAL FUND COMPARED TO TODAY?

>> SO OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS, WE HAVE SEEN A DECLINE IN THAT COST RECOVERY.

IN 2020, 2021, WE WERE MAINTAINING THAT 95% MARK THAT WE STRIVE FOR THAT ALLOWS US TO REIMBURSE THAT 95% BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND.

OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS THAT HAS STEADILY DECLINED.

WITH ENDING OF LAST FISCAL YEAR, WE'RE CURRENTLY AT 59.25% OF THAT REIMBURSEMENT TO THE GENERAL FUND.

WE KEPT IT AT THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR TO GIVE A HARD NUMBER.

AS WE'VE JUST LOOKED AT THIS CURRENT FISC, WE HAVE DECLINED A LITTLE BIT MORE IN TO ABOUT 56 57% OF THAT COVERAGE.

[02:10:02]

>> WITH THESE FEES THAT YOU INDICATE HERE FOR ALL ITEMS FROM THREE THROUGH SIX, BASICALLY, THAT COULD START MOVING US BACK TOWARD THE 95% RECOVERY FOR THE GENERAL FIRE?

>> YES, SIR. THAT IS CORRECT.

>> I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE DO COVER OUR COST, WHEREVER THEY MAY BE.

I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT OUR TAXPAYERS WOULD EXPECT.

I THINK IF WE CAN DO ANYTHING TO RELIEVE THE GENERAL FUND FROM EXPENDITURES AND FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT, I THINK WE NEED TO DO THAT.

I GUESS MY ONLY QUESTION IS, CAN WE MAKE A MOTION ON THREE, FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX IN ONE MOTION OR DO WE HAVE TO DO EACH ONE SEPARATELY?

>> CAN I ANSWER? WILL YOU ALLOW ME TO ANSWER?

>> YES, CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, IT'S JUST NOT UP TO ME.

IT CERTAINLY MARK IS FREE TO PROVIDE INPUT FOR PURPOSES OF A CLEAR RECORD.

IT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE, AND I KNOW THE PREFERENCE OF THE CLERK OF THE BOARD THAT YOU WOULD DO THEM AS SEPARATE ITEMS IN SEPARATE MOTIONS.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.

>> ALL RIGHT. LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR.

AFTER THESE QUESTIONS, I BASICALLY DON'T WANT TO GO ALONG WITH THE FEE UNTIL THERE'S SOME INDICATION THAT IT'S FOR SIZE AND SCOPE OF THE PROJECT.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK MOM-AND-POP SHOULD BE PAYING THE SAME AS CORPORATE AMERICA.

SO I THINK THAT THERE OUGHT TO BE AN ADJUSTMENT IN THERE SOMEHOW.

AND SO I'D LIKE TO SEE IT GO BACK AND THEN COME BACK TO US IN THE FUTURE WITH THAT MINOR CHANGE.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT WAS GOING TO BE EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE.

I LIVE IN AN AREA WHERE THERE'S NOT BIG INDUSTRY, THERE'S NOT BIG STORES, BUT THERE ARE SMALL STARTS, BOUTIQUE, LIKE, IF YOU WILL.

I THINK THIS FOR THEM, COULD BE AN EGREGIOUS CHARGE.

I WONDER IF THERE IS SOME METRIC, A SLIDING SCALE OF SORTS THAT COULD BE WORKED OUT THAT WE COULD RECONSIDER AT A FUTURE DATE.

I AGREE WITH SUPERVISOR MALLORY.

WE'RE HERE TO SERVE, BUT WE'VE GOT TO ALSO HAVE A BUDGET TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

I'D LIKE TO SEE THE RECOUP LEVEL BACK UP TO 95, AT WHICH TIME WE CAN EXPLORE WHETHER WE WANT TO END THE FEE SCHEDULE BECAUSE WE'RE NOW RUNNING EVEN.

BUT I CERTAINLY THINK MARK THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO LOOK AT HOW WE COULD ORGANIZE THIS ST FEE STRUCTURE, SO THAT IT'S EQUAL TO THE BUSINESS AND THE AFFORDABILITY OF IT BASED ON THAT BUSINESS.

A BIG INDUSTRY IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO EASILY TAKE A $300 HIT.

BUT IF I'M DOING A HOT DOG STAND, MAYBE NOT SO MUCH.

THAT'S JUST GIVE BEING AN EXAMPLE.

I'D LIKE IT TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE DEFINITION TO IT.

I ALSO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER GRIFFITHS, I GET THAT WE DON'T WANT TO BE CHARGING OUR RESIDENTS AND FUTURE BUSINESS OWNERS HERE, YOU KNOW, A PUNITIVE FEE.

BUT I DON'T SEE IT THAT WAY AT THIS MOMENT.

IF WE'RE BANKING THE BUCKS AS A RESULT OF THESE FEES, AND IT'S NOT GOING INTO OUR GENERAL FUND IN A WAY THAT'S ABOUT RECOUPING OUR COSTS.

THEN I THINK WE HAVE A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION.

>> THANK YOU CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS.

IF I'M FOLLOWING ALONG CORRECTLY, IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYONE IS GOOD WITH THE REST OF THE FEES, BUT NOT NUMBER 13 PARTICULARLY.

WOULD THE BOARD BE CONSIDER IT OF MAYBE REMOVING NUMBER 13 BY ITSELF, AND WE CAN REVISIT THAT AT A LATER DATE, BUT STILL CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF THE REMAINING FEES?

>> I COULD AGREE WITH THAT.

>> I'M GOOD WITH THAT.

>> I WOULD SECOND THAT.

>> WELL, THERE HAS TO BE A MOTION FIRST, BUT I'LL MAKE THE MOTION.

WAS MOTION SECONDED BY MISS MICHAELS.

YOU MADE IT. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO GO, MARK, AND ALL IN FAVOR.

> >AYE.

>> IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE OUT THERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR HEARING ITEM? OKAY. MOVING ITEM TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE,

[5. Development Services - Approve revisions to the Development Services Environmental Fee Schedule to Arizona Revised Statutes §11-251.05, §11-251.08, and §11-251.13. Project Name: Development Services Updated Environmental Unit Fee Schedule; PLA24-000137. (All Districts)]

APPROVE REVISIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL FEE SCHEDULE TO ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, 11,251.05 AND 11,251.08 11,251.13 PROJECT NAMED DEVELOPMENT SERVICES UPDATE.

THIS HAS TO DO WITH NUMBER 4, CORRECT?

[02:15:03]

>> SORRY, CHAIR.

THIS IS IN THE SAME ARENA AS NUMBER 4, BUT THIS IS FOR A SEPARATE UNIT.

THIS IS THE PREVIOUS ONE WAS FOR OUR PLANNING AND ZONING AND REFUND POLICY.

THIS IS FOR OUR ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT.

SO THIS IS COVERING OUR ENVIRONMENT THAT DOES THE SEPTIC REVIEWS, INSTALLS, AND INSPECTIONS.

>> SO WHAT IS THE INCREASE IN THIS FEE?

>> SO FOLLOWING THE SAME GUIDELINES OF OUR PREVIOUS, THIS IS STILL PART OF THE DEPARTMENT COST RECOVERY.

SO EACH ONE OF THESE UNIT PLAYS A WEIGHTED FACTOR INTO OUR 95% REIMBURSEMENT TO THE GENERAL FUND.

SO THIS IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL UNITS CONTRIBUTION TO THAT.

SO WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT, I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT THESE ARE FEES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN UPDATED SINCE 1999, AND BECAUSE OF THAT, IT'S NOT THE REASON WHY WE'RE BRINGING THESE TO THE BOARD.

WE'RE LOOKING AT IT FOR THE COST MISMATCH.

SO WITH THE CURRENT LEVELS, WE'RE STILL ONLY RECOVERING ABOUT 59% FOR THIS.

AND OF COURSE, WE WANT TO HISTORICALLY GET BACK TO THAT 90-95% COVERAGE.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT OPERATES UNDER A DELEGATION WITH ADEQ, THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF QUALITY.

SO UNLIKE THE OTHER UNITS, THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT DOESN'T HAVE A QUANTITY JUDICIAL BODY THAT IT HAS TO GO THROUGH.

SO THE PLANNING FEES WENT THROUGH THE PLANNING AND ZONING THROUGH TWO HEARINGS.

THE BUILDING SAFETY FEES WENT THROUGH TWO HEARINGS WITH THE ADVISORY BOARD OF APPEALS.

ADEQ SETS ITS OWN FEE SCHEDULE AND PERMITS THE DELEGATED JURISDICTIONS TO ESTABLISH THEIR FEES, SO LONG AS THEY REMAIN AT EQUAL TO OR LESSER THAN THE FEES THAT ADEQ ALLOWS.

>> THESE FEES HAVEN'T BEEN CHANGED IN 25 YEARS, CORRECT? YES, SIR. THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER INFORMATION OR PERSONS THAT WANT TO SPEAK OTHER THAN THE GREEN SHEETS I ALREADY HAVE? NO. ANYBODY ELSE OUT THERE WANTS TO SPEAK FROM THE PUBLIC, MR. TERRY BARTON. MR. BARTON?

>> GOOD MORNING, BOARD. MY NAME IS TERRY BARTON.

THANK FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND MANY LOCAL RESIDENTS, MANY PROFESSIONALS AND LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS IN THIS INDUSTRY.

I'M HERE TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION IN THESE PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT FEE INCREASES.

SPECIFICALLY, WE, AS A GROUP OF PROFESSIONALS IN THIS INDUSTRY, RECOGNIZE THE COUNTY'S GOAL AND DESIRES TO RECOVER OPERATION COSTS AND GET BACK TO THAT NET ZERO A USE OF A GENERAL FUND.

WE REALLY DO APPRECIATE THAT, AND WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO REASONABLE FEE STRUCTURES.

HOWEVER, FROM MY ANALYSIS, THESE FEES ACROSS THE BOARD ARE INCREASING BY 200% PLUS ON MANY OF THESE FEES, AND THERE'S ADDITIONAL FEES THAT ARE HIGHLY CONTESTED.

THESE INCREASED FEE HIKES WILL PLACE UNDUE FINANCIAL STRAIN ON MANY OF OUR HOMEOWNERS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS AND BUSINESS OWNERS AROUND THE COUNTY.

WE ARE AT RISK OF PRICING OUT MANY OF THE LOWER INCOME PEOPLE FROM DEVELOPING THEIR PROPERTIES AND BUSINESSES AT A TIME WHEN ECONOMIC PRESSURES ARE ALREADY MOUNTING, THIS IS UNREPRESENTED AT THIS TIME.

A GREAT CONCERN IN THE INCREASE OF THESE FEES IS THEY ARE TO FUND NEW POLICIES THAT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HAS IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT OF ANY OF THESE LOCAL PROFESSIONALS MYSELF INCLUDED AND MANY OTHER STAKEHOLDERS THAT I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF.

WE HAVE BIG CONCERNS WITH THE WAYS OF SOME OF THESE NEW POLICIES AND THE FUNDING OF SUCH, AND WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR IS A TRANSPARENT COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO RECREATING THESE POLICIES BEFORE WE FUND THEM AS PEOPLE WHO DO AGREE WITH THAT COST RECOVERY AND ARE VERY EXPERIENCED IN IT.

THESE DECISIONS TO INCREASE THESE FEES AND ADJUST POLICIES, RISK ALIENATING MANY STAKEHOLDERS.

THAT ARE PARAMOUNT IN THE GROWTH AND SUCCESS OF THIS COUNTY.

COLLABORATIVE SOLUTIONS, NOT UNILATERAL DECISIONS OR NEED TO ENSURE THESE POLICIES ARE EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT, AND SUPPORTED.

TO ADDRESS THESE, I RESPECTFULLY URGE THE BOARD TO PAUSE APPROVAL OF THESE FEES, TO ALLOW FURTHER REVIEW AND DISCUSSION, TO ENGAGE THE LOCAL PROFESSIONALS IN AN OPEN DIALOGUE ABOUT THE CONTESTED POLICIES AND POTENTIAL AL ALTERNATIVES TO FUND THESE NECESSARY OPERATIONS.

[02:20:03]

ALSO TO FOSTER TRANSPARENCY, TO PROVIDE CLEAR, DETAILED EXPLANATIONS OF HOW THESE POLICIES WERE DEVELOPED, WHY THE FEE INCREASES ARE NEEDED, AND WHETHER ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS HAVE BEEN EXPLORED.

I'M NOT ASKING YOU GUYS TO NEGLECT ANY FINANCIAL NEEDS.

I'M ASKING FOR THOUGHTFUL COLLABORATIVE APPROACHES THAT BUILDS TRUST AND RESPECTS LOCAL EXPERTISE AND PROFESSIONALS.

LET'S FIND SOLUTIONS TO BALANCE THESE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITIES WITH THE NEED AND SUPPORT OF PEOPLE THAT MAKE YAVAPAI COUNTY GREAT AND STRONG.

>> PLANNING AND ZONING, WHAT WAS THE RESULTS OF PLANNING AND ZONING HEARING?

>> YOU'RE ASKING FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING FOR THE COMMISSION ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING FEES?

>> YEAH. I CAME BEFORE THEM, THEY REVIEWED THE FEES, WHAT DID THEY SAY?

>> SO THAT I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THE COMMISSION.

WE DO HAVE KEVIN OLSRUMAN HERE.

BUT IF I CAN SUM IT UP, IF YOU WANT TO GO INTO MORE DETAIL WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING, ALTHOUGH THAT WAS A PREVIOUS HEARING ITEM IF WE'RE ALLOWED TO REVISIT THAT.

BUT THROUGH THOSE HEARINGS, THAT WAS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE BOARD. MISS MALLORY.

>> MARK. WHEN DID WE RAISE THESE FEES LAST?

>> FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT, THEY WERE LAST ADOPTED IN 1999.

>> SO SINCE 1999, WE HAVEN'T TOUCHED ANY OF THAT. IT'S BEEN THE SAME.

>> FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL FEES, YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

>> BUT WE DO HAVE FEES.

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. CHAIRMAN, I GOT A QUESTION.

I SEEM TO RECALL IN THE PAST THAT ENVIRONMENTAL GOT WAY BEHIND ON THEIR INSPECTIONS.

PRIMARILY, I THINK IT WAS SIDE EVALUATIONS, WHERE WE WERE CHARGING $89 WHEN IF YOU WENT TO THE OUTSIDE, THEY WERE THREE $400.

SO EVERYBODY WAS COMING TO US, AND I GOT US ALMOST SIX MONTHS BEHIND ON APPROVING SEPTICS.

SO OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE TAKING A LOT OF WORK AWAY FROM PEOPLE ON THE OUTSIDE IF WE'RE ON UNDERCUTTING THEM SIGNIFICANTLY ON THE COST OF THE SIDE INSPECTION.

SO I FEEL, WE HAVE TO AT LEAST COME UP COMMENSURATE WITH THE OUTSIDE.

SO I PERSONALLY THINK THAT SINCE 1999, WE DEFINITELY NEED TO RECOVER OUR COST, AND THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST EGREGIOUS OF ALL OF THEM.

I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE REVISIONS TO THE DEPARTMENT SERVICE ENVIRONMENTAL FEE SCHEDULE TO THE ARIZONA REVISED STATUTE.

>> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> MR. HACKER AND, I WOULD SECOND THAT.

>> SECONDED BY MISS MICHAEL.

>> GREEN SHEETS ON SIT.

>> WELL, WE HAVE TWO MORE GREEN SHEETS ON TO HERE BEFORE WE VOTE.

SO I'M SORRY, I MISSED THESE DERICK WEAST.

AM I PRONOUNCING THAT CORRECTLY?

>> YES SIR.

>> DERICK. THANK YOU.

>> HI, MY NAME'S DERICK WEAST.

I'M A GENERAL CONTRACTOR IN THE AREA.

I'VE BEEN BUILDING UP HERE FOR OVER 30 YEARS, ESPECIALLY IN THE SEPTIC INDUSTRY.

I AGREE WITH TERRY BARTON, EVERYBODY, THAT THE FEES NEED TO BE INCREASED.

ABSOLUTELY, IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S NEEDED.

I JUST HAD A GOOD CONVERSATION WITH DON.

IT'S NEEDED, IT HASN'T BEEN DONE, COSTS NEED TO BE DONE.

BUT I SEE SOME OF THE STUFF IN HERE THAT I DON'T QUITE AGREE WITH AS FAR AS THE COST.

SO AS DOING A LOT OF REPAIRS OF FAILED SYSTEMS, I'M SEEING THAT NOW WE HAVE A TANK OR ONLY REPAIR PERMIT FEE THAT'S GOING UP TO 320.

DOWN BELOW, THERE'S AN ABANDONMENT OF A SYSTEM, WHICH IS $175 FEE.

IF WE HAVE A FAILED SYSTEM, WE'RE OBVIOUSLY ABANDONING PART OF THAT SYSTEM.

IT'S NOT CLEAR ON HOW THAT FEE SCHEDULE IS GOING TO WORK OUT.

I TALK WITH DON, I THINK SHE OFFERS THE TRUTH.

SHE WANTS TO WORK WITH US, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S CLEAR AT THIS POINT AS TO HOW THIS FEE SCHEDULE WILL WORK OUT.

I THINK THERE'S OVERLAPPING ITEMS. I THINK THAT IT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT AND MAYBE MADE A LITTLE BIT CLEAR TO THE PEOPLE BEFORE IT GETS APPROVED.

>> LET ME ASK YOU A QUICK QUESTION, MR. WEAST, DID YOU AND OR THIS GENTLEMAN HAVE A CHANCE TO COME TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE HEARING ON THIS ITEM?

>> I DID NOT. I'VE BEEN OUT OF THE COUNTRY AND I JUST GOT BACK DECEMBER 1ST.

[02:25:03]

>> WELL, THE REASON I'M ASKING IS BECAUSE MR. WEAST MADE A COMMENT ABOUT COLLABORATION, AND THAT'S USUALLY HOW COLLABORATION TAKES PLACE.

>> RIGHT. I JUST HAD A CHANCE AND I SAW DON OUTSIDE AND I SAT DOWN AND TALKED TO HER, SO WE RESOLVED A LOT OF THE ISSUES ON IT.

BUT I HAD ALREADY FILLED OUT THE GREEN PAGE, SO HERE I AM.

THAT'S ONE ITEM, I DEFINITELY SEE THE ABANDONMENT OF THE SYSTEM, THEY GO HAND IN HAND.

AM I PAYING DOUBLE FEES? A LOT OF THAT STUFF, IT'S GOING TO PEOPLE WHO ARE SELLING THEIR HOMES, IT'S EMERGENCY SITUATIONS.

WE'RE ALREADY, IF WE'RE IN A FAILED SYSTEM, THESE ARE HIGH END HOMES, THEY'RE EXPENSIVE ITEMS. I NEED TO BE CLEAR ON WHAT I'M BIDDING.

MOST OF THE STUFF CAN'T EVEN BE FIXED BY THE TIME THAT THEY CLOSE OF ESCROW OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

>> THEY'RE 25-YEARS-OLD.

>> 25, 30, THEY WERE BUILT LONG BEFORE THE HOUSES WERE BUILT.

>> THERE YOU GO.

>> WE'RE SEEING MORE AND MORE OF THEM.

AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH FEES GOING UP AS LONG AS IT'S USED PROPERLY, AND DON'S BEEN DOING A GREAT JOB OF GETTING STUFF DONE FOR ME.

I DEFINITELY THINK THEIR SERVICES HAVE IMPROVED QUITE A BIT RECENTLY.

I'D LIKE TO CONTINUE ON THAT PATTERN, BUT I'D LIKE TO FIGURE OUT HOW THIS SCHEDULE WORKS BECAUSE IT'S PRETTY UNCLEAR.

>> MISS GRIFFITH, YOU WISH TO SPEAK IN REGARDS TO THIS ITEM, AND YOU'RE ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, SO MAYBE YOU CAN ENLIGHTEN US.

>> THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR.

JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THIS ITEM DID NOT COME BEFORE PLANNING AND ZONING, THE ENVIRONMENTAL FEE SCHEDULE.

ALL OF THE OTHER FEES DID WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FEES.

I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF MEETING WITH MISS DON AND HER TEAM TO GO OVER THESE FEES WHEN MR. LUSON BROUGHT THEM FORWARD TO THE INDUSTRY.

I HAD MULTIPLE QUESTIONS, THEY HAD SOME ANSWERS.

I STILL HAVE QUESTIONS AS TO SOME OF THE FEES, AND I AGREE WITH MR. BARTON AND MR. WEAST.

WE DO NEED THESE FEES, BUT I WOULD PREFER TO SEE A STAKEHOLDER GROUP GETTING THE INPUT FROM THE REAL FOLKS THAT ARE IN THE TRENCHES LOOKING AT THESE.

WHEN I MET WITH DON, WE AGREED THAT SOME OF THE FEES WOULD BE REMOVED, AND SOME OF THEM WOULD BE ADJUSTED.

HOWEVER, I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT NEW FEE SHEET AS OF TODAY.

AGAIN, THESE FEES ARE RELATIVE, WE NEED THEM BUT I FEEL THAT WITH THIS PARTICULAR FEE STRUCTURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL, I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD POSTPONE IT, HAVE A COLLABORATIVE RELOOK, AS MR. BARTON SUGGESTED, AND THEN COME FORWARD WITH SUPPORT AS ONE BIG UNIT.

>> IS THAT POSSIBLE, MARK?

>> CHAIRMAN BROWN, YES, AT THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE ANYTHING THAT IS REQUESTED.

HOWEVER, I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT FEES DID NOT GO BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OR THE BUILDING SAFETY ADVISORY AND APPEALS BOARD, SIMPLY BECAUSE THESE FEES ARE SET BY ADEQ.

THEY DO NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH A QUASI JUDICIAL GOVERNING BOARD FOR APPROVAL.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> SANDY DID MENTION A FEW CHANGES THROUGH OUR DISCUSSION BECAUSE THOSE WERE POSTED THROUGH LEGAL AD.

WE CAN ONLY BRING THOSE CHANGES UP, I HAVE THEM ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW.

THERE'S A FEW FEES THAT WE ARE GETTING RID OF, THE TOP TWO ARE ALTER CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION FOR CONVENTIONAL SYSTEMS.

>> MARK, TO SAVE US SOME TIME.

WERE YOU GENTLEMEN AWARE OF THESE PROPOSED CHANGES IN REDUCTIONS? NO. WHAT WE'RE HEARING HERE IS THAT THERE WAS NO COLLABORATION.

WHAT I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO I'M GOING TO WITHDRAW MY SECOND AND HOPEFULLY THE MOTION WOULD BE TO.

>> I'M WILLING TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION TILL THIS AS A FURTHER WORK WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

> I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A SIT DOWN AND WORK OUT.

DOESN'T MEAN YOU GOT TO ALL AGREE, BUT IT DOES MEAN YOU'VE GOT TO SIT DOWN AND TALK IT OVER.

DOES THAT WORK? I SEE EVERYBODY SHAKING THEIR HEAD.

YES. WE WILL REHEAR THIS IN THE FUTURE. SOUNDS GOOD?

[02:30:04]

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO NUMBER.

THAT WAS NUMBER 5, MOVING ON TO NUMBER 6.

[6. Development Services - Approve revisions to the Development Services Building Safety Fee schedule pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes §11-251.05, §11-251.08, and §11-251.13. Project Name: Development Services Updated Building Safety Fee Schedule; PLA24-000136. (All Districts) ]

DEVELOPMENT SERVICE APPROVED REVISIONS TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING SAFETY FEE SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES 1125-05, 11-25108 AND 11-25113 PROJECT NAME DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OBTAIN BUILDING SAFETY FEE SCHEDULE. MARK.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I WILL PROMISE YOU THIS IS OUR LAST ONE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

THIS PERTAINS TO OUR BUILDING SAFETY UNIT AND THOSE FEES, SO FOR ANYTHING FOR OUR PLAN REVIEW AND ALSO BUILDING INSPECTIONS.

AGAIN, THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS FOR THAT 90-95% COST RECOVERY.

THE BUILDING SAFETY FEES WERE LAST UPDATED IN 2018.

HOW DO THESE NEW FEES AFFECT HOME BUILDS? ON THIS SLIDE, YOU HAVE A COST PER SQUARE FOOT THAT IS AN INDUSTRY STANDARD SET BY THE IBC.

OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS, THAT COST HAS INCREASED, AND THIS IS A NATIONWIDE AVERAGE CALCULATION.

ACROSS THE BOARD FOR A 1,200 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT A A NEW FEE INCREASE OF ABOUT $517 TO GET THE PERMITS AND REVIEW FOR THAT HOUSE, WHICH IS ABOUT A 25% INCREASE.

THAT COST INCREASE DOES GO UP HIGHER, THE BIGGER THE HOUSE GOES.

I HAVE THREE DIFFERENT EXAMPLES, A 1,200 SQUARE FOOT HOME, A 2,500 SQUARE FOOT HOME, AND A 3,500 SQUARE FOOT HOME.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S A 25%, A 32%, A 31% INCREASE IN THE OVERALL COST OF THOSE PERMITS ACROSS RELATIVELY.

THIS FEE PROPOSAL DID GO THROUGH A QUASI JUDICIAL BODY, THE BUILDING SAFETY ADVISORY BOARD OF APPEALS.

THEY HAD TWO HEARINGS ON THAT.

THE FIRST HEARING WAS A CURSEY HEARING BACK IN JUNE 20TH, FOLLOWED BY A SECOND HEARING ON AUGUST 29TH WHERE THAT BOARD UNANIMOUSLY DID VOTE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

THAT BRINGS US HERE TODAY TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR A POSSIBLE ACTION ON THIS HEARING ITEM.

AT THAT POINT, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS REGARDS THE BUILDING SAFETY FEES.

>> I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. HARRY, DO YOU HAVE ANY?

>> NO, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> MISS MALLORY?

>> NO, SIR, I'D MAKE A MOTION.

>> MISS MICHAELS.

>> I HAVE NO QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU.

>> MISS MALLORY?

>> YES, SIR. I'D MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THIS FEE.

>> I'LL SECOND SECOND BY MISS MICHAELS.

HOWEVER, I HAVE ONE.

>> I'M SORRY.

>> I HAVE ONE GREEN SHEET AND MISS GRIFFITH.

I LIKE TO COMMENT IN REGARDS TO THIS ONE AND ANYBODY ELSE OUT THERE WISH TO SPEAK? NOT SEE ANY, SO IT'S UP TO YOU, SANDY.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIR BROWN, VICE CHAIR MICHAELS, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

I FELT IT VERY IMPORTANT TO BE HERE TODAY TO DISCUSS AND SUPPORT AND MAKE COMMENT ON ALL OF THESE FEE INCREASES.

THIS PARTICULAR ONE, THE LAST ONE, THE INDUSTRY WAS VERY INVOLVED WITH IT, AND I DO THANK MR. LUSON FOR HIS HARD WORK WITH BRINGING THIS FORWARD.

WE HAD A COUPLE INDUSTRY MEETINGS, AND WE WENT THROUGH ALL OF THESE ITEMS PRACTICALLY ONE BY ONE.

AGAIN, THE INDUSTRY DID SUPPORT THIS IN ITS ENTIRETY SO I DO APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS FEE INCREASE WITH THESE AS WELL.

I KNOW IT'S DIFFICULT TO LOOK AT COST RECOVERY.

WE WILL PROBABLY NEVER BE AT 100% BECAUSE EVERY YEAR, PRICES ARE GOING UP, SALARIES ARE GOING UP, INSURANCE IS GOING UP.

WE NEED TO DO WHAT WE CAN DO TO KEEP THIS INLINE WHERE COST RECOVERY IS TAKING PLACE, BUT WE'RE STILL SUPPORTING THE FOLKS THAT BUILD YAVAPAI COUNTY.

>> WELL, GRADUAL IS ALWAYS BETTER.

>> GRADUAL IS ALWAYS BETTER.

THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ANY FROM THE PUBLIC OUT THERE? ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE CLERK OF THE BOARD? NO. THEREFORE. ALL IN FAVOR.