Nov 19, 2025 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

>> CLERK OF THE BOARD, I HAVE A MOTION TO HAVE A SECOND.

WILL YOU CALL FOR THE VOTE, PLEASE?

>> SUPERVISOR CHECK. YES. VICE CHAIR COMPTON.

>> SUPERVISOR KUKNEO.

>> CONSENT ITEMS ONE THROUGH 38 HAVE BEEN APPROVED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF NUMBER FOUR AND 18.

GOOD MORNING, MR. BURDON.

[4. Board of Supervisors - Approve a professional services agreement with Southwest Decision Resources, Inc. to provide facilitation services to the Water Resources and Open Space Committee. YC Contract 2025-482]

>> CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

CHAIR, VICE CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR.

IT'S TO APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHWEST DECISION RESOURCES, TO PROVIDE FACILITATION SERVICES TO THE WATER RESOURCES AND OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE. I'M HERE.

THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO MENTION IS THAT THIS SCOPE FOR THIS BID OR FOR THIS WORK IS CUT INTO TWO PHASES AND SO THE WATER RESOURCES AND OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE, WE'VE LEFT A LOT OF IT SORT OF UNBAKED WITH THE INTENT TO HAVE OUR MUNICIPAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL PARTNERS REALLY BE A PART OF THE PROCESS OF HOW THAT COMMITTEE GETS SHAPED UP AND ITS SCOPE OF WORK.

>> REVISER CHECK.

>> I PULLED THIS ITEM.

IT SHOULD BE QUICK.

MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO APPROVE THIS CONTRACT WITH THE PHASE 2 SCOPE AND BUDGET COMING BACK TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO 2027.

>> COULD I MAKE A SUGGESTION?

>> YOUR CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, SUPERVISOR CHECK.

AGAIN, I'LL JUST TRY TO ASSIST, AND IF YOU WANT TO GO THAT DIRECTION.

BUT YOUR GOAL IS FOR THE COMMITTEE TO REVIEW AND MAKE SURE THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE SCOPE.

IT COULD BE THAT THE PHASE 2 OF THAT SCOPE, AS I READ IT, IS ACTUALLY JUST A RECOMMENDATION, AND EVEN IN THE SCOPE, IT SAYS THE SECOND PHASE WILL BE CONFIRMED BASED ON PHASE 1 OUTCOMES.

IT COULD BE THAT THE BOARD COULD APPROVE IT AND HAVE THE COUNTY AND THE MEMBERS WORK WITH THE CONSULTANT TO MODIFY THAT SCOPE.

IT COULD STILL WORK THAT WAY, OR YOU COULD HAVE IT COME BACK TO THE FULL BOARD.

IT'S UP TO THE BOARD AND YOU.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN.

I TOTALLY AGREE THAT THAT SCOPE IS IN FLUX FOR THAT SECOND PHASE, AND IT SHOULD BE MODIFIED AND ADJUSTED BASED ON THE NEEDS OF THE COMMITTEE.

BUT YOU COULD DO IT WITH THE COMMITTEE AFTER APPROVAL OF THE BOARD IF YOU WANT, OR YOU COULD BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD.

THE CHOICE IS UP TO YOU.

>> I MEAN, IS IT AM I HEARING THAT WE CAN APPROVE THIS AS IS AND STILL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD IF NEED BE?

>> WELL, IT WOULD BE APPROVED AND THE SCOPE WOULD BE MODIFIED BY THE WATER COMMITTEE BECAUSE IT DOES SAY IN THE SCOPE.

THAT'S WHY I YOU BROUGHT THIS UP TO ME AND I REVIEWED THE SCOPE.

THE CONSULTANT UNDERSTANDS THAT THE SECOND PHASE OF THAT SCOPE WILL BE MODIFIED TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE COMMITTEE.

I THINK YOU COULD WORK WITH THE COMMITTEE AND MODIFY IT AND NOT HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD, BECAUSE YOU'RE STAYING WITHIN THE CONTRACTUAL AMOUNT, AND YOU'RE JUST MODIFYING ACTIVITIES.

BUT IT RECOGNIZES RIGHT IN THE SCOPE WHEN IT DISCUSSES THE TRANSITION FROM PHASE 1 TO PHASE 2, THAT THERE ARE MODIFICATIONS ANTICIPATED AND WE WOULD WORK WITH YOU AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THAT COMMITTEE TO MODIFY IT.

I'M COMFORTABLE IF YOU WANT TO APPROVE IT, IF YOU WANT IT COMING BACK, THAT'S GOOD, TOO.

BUT I'M COMFORTABLE THAT, AS THE BOARD APPOINTS PEOPLE TO THAT COMMITTEE, AND THEY'RE WORKING WITH THEIR MUNICIPAL PARTNERS, THAT YOU ALL COULD WORK ON THAT SECOND PHASE OF SCOPE WITHIN THAT FUNDING SOURCE AND THE FUNDING AMOUNT AND MODIFY IT WITH THE CONSULTANT.

>> YEAH, I CAN GET ON BOARD WITH THAT AND MY APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM DOESN'T PRECLUDE IT COMING BACK TO THE BOARD,

[00:30:06]

BUT I WON'T CHOOSE TO MANDATE IT AT THIS POINT, HAVEN'T THAT?

>> I'M NOT TRYING TO IN ANY WAY, I'M TRYING TO FACILITATE AND MAKE SURE IT'S STREAMLINED FOR YOU, BUT I THINK THE KEY IS IT WAS IN THE SCOPE, THAT IT RECOGNIZED THAT IT WOULD BE MODIFIED.

I THINK IT'S RECOGNIZED BY THE BOARD THAT IT'LL BE DONE BY THAT COMMITTEE TO MEET THE NEEDS AFTER THAT PHASE 1.

I THINK I'M OFFERING SOMETHING THAT WOULD MEET BOTH THE NEEDS AND NOT HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD.

IF THE BOARD WANTS IT TO COME BACK, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT, EITHER.

BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, IT MEETS YOUR NEEDS.

>> WELL, THEN I'D BE HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR?

>> WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND, BUT I JUST HAVE A QUESTION IF THAT'S OKAY.

AS WE TALK ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT WILL BE ON THIS BOARD, THE COMMITTEE, COULD I ASK, ARE WE LOOKING AT THE MUNICIPALITIES? ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE WE WILL REACH OUT TO THEM TO PICK SOMEONE ON THEIR BOARD TO BE ON THIS COMMITTEE.

AM I CORRECT ON THAT?

>> CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, FILBURN ON COUNTY MANAGER, BY THE WAY, I DIDN'T INTRODUCE MYSELF.

I BELIEVE YOU APPROVED LETTERS ALREADY GOING OUT TO MUNICIPALITIES AT YOUR LAST MEETING.

THOSE ARE ALREADY OUT TO MUNICIPALITIES.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE'RE GOING TO PUT ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING THE BOARD, IDENTIFYING MEMBERS FROM THE BOARD TO ATTEND AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS ALSO THAT THE COMMITTEE MIGHT CONVENE AT THAT POINT IN TIME AND DECIDE ON ADDITIONAL MEMBERS, BUT INVOLVED IN MUNICIPALITIES IN THE DISCUSSION. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> GREAT. WE ACTUALLY ALREADY SENT LETTERS OUT TO THE MUNICIPALITIES.

>> I BELIEVE THAT WAS APPROVED AT LAST LAST.

>> MAY I ASK WHO SENT THOSE OUT, AND DID WE SEND THEM TO THE MANAGERS OF THE CITIES AND TOWNS? OR I'M JUST OR TO THE ELECTED MAYBE THE MAYORS?

>> I THINK IT WAS ADDRESSED, SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT I THINK IT WAS ADDRESSED TO THE COUNCILS.

>> TO THE COUNCIL.

>> THEY WERE ASKED TO IDENTIFY A VOTING MEMBER AND AN ALTERNATE, IDEALLY AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, BUT WE DIDN'T BOX THEM IN THAT WAY.

>> WELL, THAT'S VERY GOOD TO KNOW. IT WAS.

>> FOLLOW UP ON THAT, YES.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

IT WAS SENT OUT TO THE COUNCILS, AND IT IDENTIFIED EXACTLY AS SUPERVISOR CHECK JUST IDENTIFIED.

THEY WILL IDENTIFY WHO THEY WANT TO BE THERE, BUT I THINK AT THAT POINT IN TIME, YOU'LL CONVENE A MEETING AND GO FROM THERE ON DISCUSSING MEMBERSHIP BEYOND ELECTED OFFICIALS, IF SO DESIRED BY THE GROUP.

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> MAY I ASK WHO ACTUALLY SENT THESE LETTERS OUT?

>> I BELIEVE IT WENT OUT BY MR. GOODMAN.

>> CHAIR WAS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR OUR LAST MEETING, WHICH WAS A BEHEMOTH.

>> I'M ONLY ASKING BECAUSE I'M GETTING FROM THE MAYOR HERE OF DEWEY THAT THEY DID NOT.

>> I WILL MAKE SURE THEY ARE CONNECTED AND GET IT IF THEY DID.

>> IF WE COULD FOLLOW UP ON THAT, I'D APPRECIATE THAT.

>> BUT THAT IS THE KEY IS THAT THAT WAS SENT OUT.

MR. GOODMAN ISN'T HERE TODAY TO CONFIRM THAT WITH ME, BUT I BELIEVE IT CAME OUT OF HIS OFFICE, AND WE WILL CONFIRM THAT IT WENT OUT TO ALL MUNICIPALITIES.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT.

WE HAVE A MOTION, AND WE HAVE A SECOND.

I DON'T I THINK I'M THE ONLY ONE THAT HAD THE CONVERSATION, SO WE'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE.

>> HI.

>> SUPERVISOR KUKNYO.

>> CONSENT ITEM NUMBER 4 HAS BEEN APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

>> FANTASTIC. THANK YOU.

WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 18, SUPERVISOR CHECK.

[18. Human Resources - Approve an Agreement with Yavapai College for placement of interns in County departments. YC Contract No. 2025-488]

>> THANK YOU. THIS IS REGARDING THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN YAVAPAI COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT AND YAVAPAI COUNTY FOR INTERNSHIPS.

THERE'S JUST ONE ITEM I'D LIKE TO SEE CHANGED IN THIS CONTRACT UNDER NUMBER FOUR, RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COUNTY, SUBSECTION 4.1.

IDENTIFIES THAT THE WORDS HERE, THE COUNTY SHALL DESIGNATE AN INDIVIDUAL WITH THE COUNTY TO APPROVE INDIVIDUAL STUDENT INTERNS PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT AND TO SIGN RELATED AGREEMENTS, PAID INTERNSHIPS FOR WHICH ADDITIONAL BUDGET APPROVAL IS NEEDED ARE SUBJECT TO PRIOR APPROVAL BY YAVAPAI COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

I WOULD PREFER ALL AGREEMENTS AND CONTRACTS COME BEFORE THE BOARD, AND SO I MIGHT RECOMMEND THAT THE LANGUAGE HERE JUST SIMPLY CHANGE THAT ALL INTERNS ARE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL BY YAVAPAI COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

[00:35:02]

>> GOOD MORNING.

>> WENDY ROSS, DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND RISK MANAGEMENT.

ABSOLUTELY. WE CAN DO THAT.

JUST A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY.

WE STARTED WORKING ON THIS AGREEMENT PROBABLY ABOUT FOUR MONTHS AGO AFTER WE HAD A STUDY SESSION RELATED TO INTERNS.

I STARTED WORKING WITH YAVAPAI COLLEGE TO PUT THIS AGREEMENT TOGETHER IN THE INTEREST OF STREAMLINING THE PROCESS.

I BELIEVE IF YOU WANT ALL AGREEMENTS TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD, WE DON'T NEED THIS AGREEMENT, BECAUSE WE WOULD SIMPLY BRING THE INDIVIDUAL INTERNSHIP AGREEMENTS TO THE BOARD.

AGAIN, THE INTENT WAS JUST TO TRY TO STREAMLINE THE PROCESS, BUT I FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

I THINK THERE'S ONE OF TWO THINGS WE CAN DO.

WE CAN EITHER TAKE THIS AGREEMENT BACK TO YAVAPAI COLLEGE, ASK THEM TO CHANGE THAT LANGUAGE, AND BRING THIS AGREEMENT BACK BEFORE THE BOARD, OR WE CAN SCRAP THIS AGREEMENT AND SIMPLY BRING THE INDIVIDUAL INTERNSHIP AGREEMENTS BEFORE THE BOARD EACH TIME A DEPARTMENT WANTS TO BRING ON AN INTERN.

>> I ACTUALLY REALLY LIKE THE SORT OF THE CERTAINTY AND THE PARAMETERS THAT THIS CONTRACT SETS FOR THE PROCESS, SO ME PERSONALLY, I PREFER TO SEE THAT CHANGE MADE AND COME BACK TO US FOR APPROVAL.

JUST SO THE GUIDELINES ARE THERE, AND EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THE PREMISES OF HOW TO DO IT.

>> SURE.

>> CAN I ASK THE QUESTION, MA'AM CHAIR?

>> ABSOLUTELY, SUPERVISOR.

>> EVERY INTERN WOULD HAVE TO COME THROUGH OUR BOARD TO BE APPROVED? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

IT WOULD BE A CONSENT AGENDA ITEM, MOST LIKELY.

BUT TO JUST DIG INTO THE REASON WHY I'VE IDENTIFIED THAT, BROADLY SPEAKING, I DON'T WANT TO SEE AGREEMENTS PARSED OUT INTO WHAT IMPACTS US FINANCIALLY AND WHAT ARE AGREEMENTS.

I BELIEVE THE BOARD SHOULD REALLY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS UNLESS WE GIVE THAT AUTHORITY TO AN INDIVIDUAL, AND POSSIBLY IN THE FUTURE, I'D BE WILLING TO DO THAT, BUT BECAUSE IT'S NEW, I'D PREFER TO KEEP THAT OVERSIGHT FOR NOW.

>> JUST DON'T, BECAUSE WE TRUST STAFF WITH THE EMPLOYEES, WHICH IS AN EVEN GREATER FINANCIAL IMPACT WITH BENEFITS AND EVERYTHING, AND EVERY EMPLOYEE DOESN'T COME THROUGH THE BOARD.

MAYBE WITH THE PAID INTERNSHIPS, I COULD SEE THAT BEING A THING, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S UNBUDGETED.

>> THERE'S ANOTHER ISSUE HERE AND THAT SOME OF THE WORK THAT'S DONE IN ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTS IS SENSITIVE, AND UNDERSTANDING WHO'S WORKING ON POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE ISSUES.

THAT'S JUST WHERE MY COMFORT LEVEL IS.

MAYBE THAT'S PERCEPTION THAT WOULDN'T COME INTO PLAY AS THESE INTERNS COME ALONG, BUT AT THIS POINT, I HAVE THAT QUESTION OF HOW THESE INTERNS.

>> IT CAN GO ON CONSENT AGENDA. IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL.

THAT'S ALL IT IS TO RUN IT THROUGH.

THIS WAY, WE'RE NOT ACQUIESCING OUR AUTHORITY TO SOMEBODY ELSE.

AT THIS TIME, WHEN THESE THINGS ARE NEW AND THIS BOARD'S NOW.

I JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE AT LEAST HAVE A REVIEW OF IT.

THAT'S IT. BECAUSE IT'S A MINOR STAFF CHANGE.

>> IT'S ONLY STAFF, WE ACQUIESCE OUR AUTHORITY FOR THEM TO HIRE PEOPLE IN THEIR DEPARTMENTS.

YOU KNOW WHAT, I JUST DON'T SEE WHAT THE BIG DEAL IS ON THAT BECAUSE IT SLOWS IT DOWN, TOO, DOESN'T IT? BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE TO WAIT AN EXTRA MONTH, MAYBE TWO MONTHS ON TIME SENSITIVE PLACEMENTS.

THEN WHAT IF SOMEBODY DOESN'T GET PLACED, HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THEM? I WOULD TRUST STAFF TO VET THESE PEOPLE JUST LIKE THEY DO EMPLOYEES.

>> SUPERVISOR, WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY IN OUR EDITING OF THE RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, THAT IF THERE IS A TIME SENSITIVE MATTER THAT THE CHAIR DEEMS THE BOARD WOULD BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT SHE MAY ENTER INTO THOSE, SHE CAN SIGN OFF ON THOSE IF THERE'S A TIME ISSUE, AND THE MATTER CAN BE RECTIFIED WITH THE BOARD ON THE NEXT MEETING.

I DON'T SEE THAT THERE'S A CONFLICT HERE.

>> YES, THAT IS TRUE. I HAVE ALREADY DONE THAT PRIOR.

>> THE CHAIR IS ALREADY ON THIS AGREEMENT ANYWAY, SO IN THAT STREAMS LINE THINGS AND MAKE SURE EVERYTHING'S, I'M FINE WITH THAT. IT'S A COMPROMISE.

>> I KNOW. ANY MORE DISCUSSION?

>> JUST A QUESTION, WOULD THE CLERK OR OUR BOARD COUNSEL PREFER TO SEE A MOTION OR IS THAT AMPLE DIRECTION TO HAVE IT BE RETURNED TO US WITH THOSE EDITS MADE?

>> CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

IF THE ITEM IS NOT GOING TO BE VOTED ON TODAY,

[00:40:03]

AND I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT THERE IS A FIRST AND SECOND PENDING, THEN PRESUMABLY, THOSE WOULD BE WITHDRAWN, AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE DIRECTION AT FIRST AND SECOND, SIR.

>> WE HAVEN'T GOT THERE YET.

>> I'M SORRY.

>> NO WORRIES. IT'S FINE.

>> THIS IS A GOOD MOMENT. [LAUGHTER]

>> EXCUSE ME.

>> [LAUGHTER] I'M SORRY.

>> AS LONG AS THERE IS NO MOTION PENDING, THEN YES.

DIRECTION WOULD BE ADEQUATE.

THERE'S NO NEED FOR THE BOARD TO TAKE ACTION IN RELATION TO THIS ITEM IF IT'S NOT GOING TO BE APPROVED.

>> SUPERVISOR CHECK, WHAT IS YOUR DESIRE HERE?

>> SO LONG AS IT'S IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE BOARD OVERALL, THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE, TO SEE THIS CONTRACT COME BACK TO US WITH AN AMENDMENT IN SECTION 4 SAYING THAT ALL INTERNS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO PRIOR APPROVAL BY THE YAVAPAI COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

BUT IF WE WANT TO TAKE A VOTE ON THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION.

>> IF YOU MAKE THAT MOTION, SO WE'RE GOING TO MOTION TO TABLE IT, OR ARE WE GOING TO MOTION TO PUT? I GUESS THAT'S MY QUESTION. CAN YOU HELP ME OUT?

>> YES. THANK YOU, CHAIR.

YES, THE BOARD COULD EITHER NOT TAKE ACTION IN WHICH CASE THE ITEM FAILS FOR TODAY OR TABLE IT AND BRING IT BACK ON A DATE CERTAIN, IF THAT'S THE PREFERENCE OF THE BOARD.

>> JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT OUR CONTRACT.

IT SEEMS SILLY TO MAKE A MOTION WITH SPECIFICS REGARDING A CONTRACT THAT'S NOT OURS, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?

>> WE SHALL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE?

>> YEAH, I'D BE HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION TO-

>> IS THAT RIGHT?

>> TO TABLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 18 UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING WHICH WILL BE DECEMBER 3.

>> OKAY.

>> YES. GO RIGHT AHEAD.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION, AND WE HAVE A SECOND.

YOU CALL FOR THE VOTE, PLEASE.

>> SUPERVISOR KUKNYO.

>> ITEM 18 IT'S BEEN TABLED TO DECEMBER 3, 2025.

>> GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO ACTION ITEMS.

[1. Board of Supervisors - Approve the Budget Preparation Calendar for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-2027, and authorize the Clerk of the Board to make edits or modifications, as required by scheduling conflicts, to the calendar schedule as necessary throughout the year.]

APPROVE THE BUDGET PREPARATION CALENDAR FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026 THROUGH 2027.

AMAZING. TIME IS FLYING.

GOOD MORNING, MR. BURDON.

>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

PHIL BURDON, COUNTY MANAGER.

IN FRONT OF YOU, YOU HAVE A BUDGET PREPARATION CALENDAR FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026, 2027.

JUST IN GENERAL, THIS DELINEATES SOME KEY MILESTONES FOR YOU AND PUTS IT IN A CALENDAR FORMAT FOR YOU SO THAT YOUR EXPECTATIONS FOR NOT ONLY HOW WE'RE INTERACTING WITH YOU AND THE DEPARTMENTS DURING, AND WHEN I SAY WE, THE BUDGET OFFICE AND COUNTY MANAGEMENT IS INTERACTING WITH DEPARTMENTS AND ELECTED OFFICES AND THEN INTERACTING WITH THE BOARD.

IT SETS FORTH THE MILESTONES THAT YOU CAN'T ANTICIPATE SEEING.

I CAN GO OVER THEM, BUT IN GENERAL, YOU HAVE A LOT OF ACTIVITY BETWEEN THE JANUARY 22 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET RETREAT, AND THEN AFTER THAT, YOU HAVE ACTIVITIES BETWEEN THE COUNTY MANAGERS AND OFFICE, AS WELL AS OUR BUDGET OFFICE AND THE DEPARTMENTS AND ELECTED OFFICERS.

THEN PRODUCING A BUDGET FOR YOU TO REVIEW, HAVE STRUCTURED STUDY SESSIONS WITH DEPARTMENTS.

WHAT I'VE SET UP IS SOMETHING SIMILAR TO HAS DONE IN THE PAST, WHICH IS HAVE MORNINGS FOR ONE WEEK, LATE APRIL, WHERE YOU VISIT WITH DEPARTMENTS, WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE ASKING FOR ANYTHING, YOU GET A OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT WITH THEM, DISCUSS THEIR BUDGET, HEAR HOW THINGS ARE GOING THROUGHOUT THE LAST YEAR AND WHAT THEY ANTICIPATE FOR THE NEXT YEAR.

THEN FROM THERE ON, WE HAVE STUDY SESSIONS SCHEDULED RIGHT UP TO A TENTATIVE ADOPTION ON JULY 1.

WE ALWAYS SET FORTH THE ABILITY FOR THE BOARD TO ALSO HAVE THE NECESSARY HEARINGS THAT SHOULD OCCUR OR COULD OCCUR.

WE'VE SET THAT UP FOR JULY 15 IN CASE THERE'S A NECESSARY HEARING ON THAT DATE.

THEN ULTIMATELY THE HEARINGS ON THE TAX LEVIES AND FINAL ADOPTION OF THE BUDGET ON JULY 27.

LET ME SPEAK TO THAT FOR A MINUTE.

SOMETIMES PEOPLE ASK, YOU'RE ONLY DOING TENTATIVE ADOPTION VERSUS FINAL ADOPTION.

TENTATIVE ADOPTION FOR A COUNTY, MAYBE A LITTLE DIFFERENT ADOPTION THAN A CITY SCHEDULE OR A TOWN SCHEDULE.

THE COUNTY, WE KICK BACK, OR AT LEAST I RECOMMEND KICKING BACK THE SCHEDULE TO THIS SCHEDULE TO ALLOW THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE BOARD, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE,

[00:45:01]

YOUR OFFICE TO WORK ON TAX RATES WITH THE SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND CITIES TOWNS.

WE BRING FORWARD TO YOU AS A LAST ACTION BY STATUTE, THE THIRD MONDAY IN AUGUST FOR TAX RATE ADOPTION.

WE SHIFT THIS TO WHERE YOU DO TENTATIVE BUDGET ADOPTION ON JULY 1, BUT THAT TENTATIVE ADOPTION ALLOWS YOUR DEPARTMENTS TO SPEND MONEY.

BETWEEN TENTATIVE AND FINAL ADOPTION, ARE JUST ABLE TO EITHER CONFIRM THE SAME AMOUNT IN THAT BUDGET OR REDUCE IT.

YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO INCREASE IT.

THIS IS A SCHEDULE WE'VE DONE BEFORE.

I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY WHY I TALK ABOUT TENTATIVE ADOPTION HAPPENING 1 JULY.

IT DOESN'T PREVENT US FROM MOVING FORWARD WITH EXPENDITURES.

IT KICKS OFF THE BUDGET YEAR JUST FINE.

BUT YOU DO FINAL ADOPTION IN JULY 27, JUST TO CONFIRM THE BUDGET.

CONFIRM THE TAX RATES THAT YOU'RE SETTING FOR THE COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITY, AND THEN ON AUGUST 17, WILL BRING BACK AND DO ALL THE TAX RATE ADOPTIONS AND ACCEPTANCE OF TAX RATES FOR ALL THE JURISDICTIONS THAT YOU HAVE TO SEND AND FORWARD TO THE TREASURER.

SAYING THAT, OUR OFFICE PREPARED, AND WE'RE PROVIDING A ONE PAGE CALENDAR FOR YOU TO APPROVE, HOPEFULLY, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

THIS WILL GO OUT TO DEPARTMENTS AND ELECTED OFFICERS TO MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTAND THE STRUCTURE OF THE BUDGET, THE BUDGET CALENDAR AND THE PROCESS THAT WE'LL BE GOING THROUGH, AND THEN TENTATIVELY, WE'VE PROVIDED YOU A LIST OF BUDGET STUDY SESSIONS FOR FOUR MORNINGS.

THIS IS FLUID BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS WE TYPICALLY START SETTING THIS UP.

WE AMEND IT BASED ON SCHEDULES THAT MIGHT OCCUR FOR THE SPECIFIC DEPARTMENTS.

BUT MY GOAL WOULD BE TO HAVE MORNINGS SO THAT YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO WORK. YOU'RE VERY BUSY.

WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO WORK IN THE AFTERNOONS, STRUCTURE IT AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE, GET YOU IN, GET YOU TALKING TO THE DEPARTMENTS AND VISITING, BUT THEN GET YOU OUT THE DOOR FOR THOSE MORNINGS.

SAYING THAT, AGAIN, THIS AGENDA ITEM HAS THE ABILITY FOR THE CLERK TO MODIFY IT AS NECESSARY BASED ON SCHEDULES, AND I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. BURDON.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE SUPERVISORS?

>> I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF COMMENT BECAUSE THE LAST BUDGET PROCESS DID NOT GO VERY SMOOTHLY FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, AND I HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND A LOT OF INQUIRIES.

IT WAS MENTIONED THE POTENTIAL FOR PUTTING TOGETHER A BUDGET COMMITTEE SO THAT THE SUPERVISORS HAD AN ABILITY TO ENGAGE MORE IN THE BUDGET PROCESS, AND I JUST WANT TO LET YOU GUYS KNOW THAT I'M COMFORTABLE.

I LIKE THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE HERE.

I'D BE MORE COMFORTABLE IF THE WHOLE BOARD WAS MORE ENGAGED IN THE BUDGET.

I THINK THIS TIMELINE ALLOWS FOR THAT, AND SO I'M HAPPY TO SHIFT FROM OUR ORIGINAL DIRECTION TO ESTABLISH THAT COMMITTEE BECAUSE I THINK THAT THIS CALENDAR IS GOING TO DO A MUCH BETTER JOB THAN WHAT WE HAD LAST YEAR.

>> YES, GO AHEAD, MR. BOURDON.

>> VICE CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

SUPERVISOR, CHECK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. VERY GOOD COMMENT.

LET ME JUST STATE HOW I LOOK AT BUDGET IS, THIS IS THE BOARD'S BUDGET, AND A VERY GOOD COMMENT.

TYPICALLY, WHEN I WORK WITH BOARD MEMBERS ON A BUDGET, I LET THEM KNOW THAT WE ALWAYS WILL TRY TO DO A DISCUSSION AT THE END OF BUDGET AND HAVE A DISCUSSION HOW YOU FELT ABOUT THE PROCESS, THE SCHEDULE, AND MAKE AMENDMENTS BASED ON THE BOARD'S INPUT.

IT'S YOUR BUDGET PROCESS.

I APPRECIATE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, THAT I HOPE THIS WILL MAYBE BRING HOME AND ELIMINATE SOME CONCERNS.

BUT I DO LOOK FORWARD TO IF WE CAN GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS TOGETHER AND LOOK AT HOW YOU WANT TO MAKE IT YOUR BUDGET PROCESS IN THE FUTURE, TOO.

THIS IS YOUR BUDGET.

I HOPE IT ELIMINATE OR ALLEVIATES SOME OF YOUR CONCERN, BUT I ALSO WANTED TO OFFER THAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT, DID THIS WORK FOR YOU AND WHAT ADJUSTMENTS WOULD BE NECESSARY TO CONTINUE TO MAKE IT WORK FOR YOU AS THE BEST IT CAN.

I THANK YOU. BUT THIS IS NOT THE END ALL.

WE WILL TAKE YOUR INPUT DURING THE PROCESS AND AFTER THE PROCESS.

>> WELL, MR. BOURDON, I AM VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET.

I AM EXTREMELY EXCITED, FOR THIS BOARD TO EXPERIENCE THE COMMUNICATION, THE PARTICIPATION, WITH DIRECTORS, WITH OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS.

WHEN YOU HAVE NO COMMUNICATION, YOU JUST HAVE SOMETHING THAT JUST FALLS DOWN.

HONESTLY. IT HAS NOT BEEN A GOOD EXPERIENCE, WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENED.

I'M GLAD WE ARE GOING BACK.

WE ARE ALL GOING TO PARTICIPATE.

[00:50:01]

AT THE END OF THIS, WE WILL DO AND KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IS COMING FORWARD IN THE BUDGET AND UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO FUND, WHAT WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO FUND, BUT HOW WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO PUT THAT IN OUR FUTURE.

BUT ANYWAY, WE APPRECIATE IT.

I'M EXCITED FOR THE BOARD BECAUSE THIS IS THE PROCESS THAT I CAME INTO, AND SO IT'LL BE A GREAT EXPERIENCE FOR EVERYONE.

THANK YOU, EVERYONE. WITH THAT, I CAN SURELY MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THIS PREPARATION CALENDAR.

[OVERLAPPING] FOR GO AHEAD. NO, I'M GOOD.

>> SECOND. [LAUGHTER].

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE SECOND.

CAN WE CALL FOR THE VOTE, PLEASE?

>> ACTION, ITEM NUMBER 1 HAS BEEN APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

>> THANK YOU, MR. BOURDON.

DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO INVESTIGATE ACCEPTANCE OF A DONATION.

[2. Board of Supervisors - Discussion and possible action to direct staff to investigate acceptance of the donation of a privately-owned Verde Village Pond, APN 406-15-439, from the Verde Village Property Owners’ Association (VVPOA).]

EXACTLY, WHO DO I HAVE SPEAKING TO THIS, MR. BOURDON? I'M SORRY.

>> SORRY WE HAVE.

>> MISSED THE MEMO FOR YOU.

>> GOOD MORNING.

I AM SORRY. BRANDON, [OVERLAPPING] THIS MORNING.

>> I BELIEVE IT WAS AGENDAIZED AS SUPERVISOR CHECK BEING THE PRESENTER, BUT I HAVE A PART IN THIS, SO I FIGURED I WOULD STAND UP HERE AND PARTICIPATE AS MUCH AS SHE WOULD LIKE.

GOOD MORNING, CHAIR MALLORY, VICE CHAIR COMPTON, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

I'M BRANDON SCHULTZ. YOU ARE DIRECTOR OF THE FACILITIES DEPARTMENT.

TODAY, BEFORE YOU, WE HAVE AN ACTION ITEM FOR DISCUSSION OF A POSSIBLE DONATION OF A PARCEL LOCATED IN THE VERDE VILLAGE AREA.

SPECIFICALLY, IT'S THEIR POND THAT THEY OWN ON DEL RIO DRIVE.

IT'S ABOUT 4.2 ACRES.

THEY'RE HAVING ISSUES IN KEEPING WATER PROVIDED TO IT.

I BELIEVE THE COTTONWOOD DITCH IS CUTTING OFF WATER SUPPLY TO IT SO THEY'RE POTENTIALLY LOOKING AT HAVING TO PURCHASE WATER TO KEEP THE POND FULL, WHICH IS COST PROHIBITIVE FOR THEM.

THEY'RE GOING DOWN A ROAD WHERE THEY BELIEVE THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE THE WATER IN THE POND, WHICH WILL ULTIMATELY, AS THE AGENDA ITEM SAYS, CREATE A LITTLE BIT OF LIGHT THERE.

THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF ALGAE AND OTHER FUNK, IF YOU WILL, IN THE WATER THAT WOULD NEED TO BE MITIGATED OVER TIME.

THE VERDE VILLAGE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION HAS CONTACTED US AND WOULD LIKE FOR US TO TAKE OVER RESPONSIBILITY OF THAT.

I BELIEVE THAT IS WHERE WE'RE AT IN THE CONVERSATION, RIGHT.

>> YOU' RIGHT BEHIND YOU TOO.

>> THANK YOU. CHAIR. I CAN GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE BACKGROUND ON THE ITEM.

I'VE BEEN MEETING WITH THE VERDE VILLAGES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND AISLINN THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATIONS HERE.

WE ALSO HAVE LYNN WHITMAN.

WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF MEETINGS.

I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT VERDE VILLAGES HAS ABOUT 12,000 PEOPLE LIVING IN [LAUGHTER] 12,610.

THANK YOU. LIVING IN AN UNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT TO COTTONWOOD, AND THEY'RE IN DESPERATE NEED OF A COMMUNITY PARK.

[NOISE] THE PROSPECT THAT THIS POND WOULD BE OUT OF COMMISSION AND CREATING A COMMUNITY BLIGHT IS REALLY A DIFFICULTY.

I BEGAN INVESTIGATING THIS AND DO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A PATHWAY FOR RESPONSIBLE DONATION TO THE COUNTY WITH THE INTENT TO POSSIBLY CREATE DISTRICT THREE'S FIRST YAVAPAI COUNTY PARK, WHICH IS WHY BRANDON WITH FACILITIES IS HERE SINCE HE OVERSEES PARKS.

BUT THERE'S A COUPLE OF MATTERS THAT I THINK WARRANT INVESTIGATION FIRST, AND NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE RESEARCH BEFORE WE CAN REALLY EARNESTLY MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION KNOWING THAT THE MATTER IS GOING TO GO THE WAY WE WANT IT TO GO.

PART OF THAT INCLUDES JUST ANALYZING THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AROUND THE POND.

LUCKILY, THERE'S AN INTERESTING OCCURRENCE WITH A LOT OF DOMESTIC FISH AND DOMESTIC DUCKS THERE, SO IT'S NOT CONSIDERED LIKE A WILDLIFE PRESERVE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

BUT DRAINING THE POND COULD BE ONE OF THE HURDLES TO GET OVER, AND HOW WOULD THE COUNTY GO ABOUT DOING THAT.

THE REASON WHY I ASKED THIS TO BE AGENDAIZED IS SO THAT THE BOARD COULD POSSIBLY GIVE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO SPEND THAT TIME AND RESEARCH ANY KIND OF PURSUE A GREATER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT WOULD MEAN FOR THE COUNTY TO ACCEPT THIS DONATION.

[00:55:04]

I KNOW LYNN WHITMAN'S HERE AS WELL FROM FLOOD CONTROL.

SHE'S BEEN INVOLVED IN ALL THESE CONVERSATIONS AND WHATNOT.

AISLINN, I WONDERED IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD TO THAT CONVERSATION.

>> AISLINN MALDONADO, PRESIDENT OF THE VERDE VILLAGE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION.

I APOLOGIZE. I GET EXCITED.

THE POND, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE, AS AN ORGANIZATION, WE ARE A 501C34, A NON-PROFIT.

ALL THE DONATIONS IN THE WORLD WON'T HELP THE PEOPLE THAT ARE DONATING THAT MONEY.

WE DON'T QUALIFY FOR GRANTS, AND YOU GUYS HAVE RESOURCES I CAN ONLY DREAM OF.

A REGIONAL PARK WOULD BE AN AMAZING ADDITION TO THAT AREA.

IT'S VISITED BY SO MANY RESIDENTS.

THERE WOULD BE SUCH A WAY FORWARD FOR THAT COMMUNITY THAT DOESN'T HAVE A PARK.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE PARK THAT EXISTS.

IT'S A METAL THING THAT I GREW UP ON IN THE '80S.

LIKE, [LAUGHTER] THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN HERE FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS.

IT WOULD BE AN ABSOLUTE AMAZING WAY FORWARD FOR THIS COMMUNITY.

WE'VE TRIED EVERYTHING ELSE.

WE REALLY, REALLY HAVE.

WE'VE RAN THE GAMUT OF EVERYTHING WE CAN THINK OF, SO IT'S TIME TO GIVE IT TO BIGGER HANDS AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO AS A COMMUNITY. THANK YOU.

>> I ALSO WANTED TO NOTE THAT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, JEREMY DYE, I THINK, HAS WORKED WITH YOU GUYS TO START THE APPLICATION PROCESS FOR BROWNSFIELD GRANT POTENTIALLY.

>> WE DID APPLY FOR THAT GRANT AND WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR THE ASSESSMENT.

THERE'S NO FUNDS. IT'S JUST THEY DO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.

>> THE BACKGROUND ON THE POND IS ORIGINALLY, THE COUNTY DID USE IT ACTUALLY FOR DUST CONTROL AND THE FIRE DISTRICT ALSO USED IT FOR WATER RESOURCES AND THAT'S NO LONGER THE CASE, SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH OVER THE PAST, AND I'D REALLY LOVE TO SEE A RESPONSIBLE DIRECTION MADE ON BEHALF OF THAT COMMUNITY.

>> DID YOU WANT TO HAVE LYNN COME AND TALK AT ALL.

>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS LYNN WHITMAN.

I AM THE DIRECTOR OF THE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT.

MY INVOLVEMENT WITH THE POND COMES FROM A FLOOD CONTROL PERSPECTIVE.

I HAVE CONCERNS WITH THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF IT, SO I FULLY SUPPORT THE IDEA OF DRAINING IT AND DOING ANYTHING ELSE WITH IT.

I THINK DOING SOME RESEARCH INTO HOW WE COULD POSSIBLY DO THAT, WHAT WE COULD POSSIBLY USE IT FOR IS A GOOD IDEA.

BUT I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AND MAKING SURE WE HANDLE ALL OF THAT IN THE RIGHT WAY.

BUT ALSO PROTECTING THE PEOPLE THAT ARE DOWNSTREAM FROM THAT POND. THAT'S MY.

>> I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS ACTION ITEM HERE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START THAT INVESTIGATION PROCESS JUST TO ACTUALLY TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS IT THAT WE HAVE GOING ON? HOW WILL IT WORK FOR THE COUNTY? WHAT WILL BE THE COST? CAN WE GET SOME [OVERLAPPING].

>> IF WE CAN FIND A PATH FORWARD THAT ANSWERS FRANK SEE IF WE COULD EVEN GET ALL OF THE QUESTIONS LINED UP AND GET ANSWERS FOR THEM AND FIGURE OUT A SAFE PATH FORWARD.

>> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO RIGHT NOW IS HAVE THIS TALK, INVESTIGATE IT ALL AND UNDERSTAND THE COST, AND HOW MUCH THAT MIGHT BE.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? THEN ANY I'M SORRY.

IS THAT IT? ARE WE GOOD?

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> YES. GO AHEAD PLEASE.

>> I DO, I HAD A FEW. THE BIG THINGS, I THINK, MADAM CHAIRS BROUGHT THEM UP, THE COST TO PROVIDE WATER TO REBUILD A LAKE, A SMALL POND.

HOW MUCH IS IT GOING TO COST US? ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO LINE IT? IS IT LINED ALREADY? HOW MUCH WATER IS LOST THROUGH SOAK IN TO THE GROUND?

>> MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD NOT BE TO FIND A WAY TO KEEP THE POND.

I THINK THE WALL THAT HOLDS IT UP, WE DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THAT, AND I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT KEEPING IT IN PLACE.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT GET DRAINED AND FILLED AND BECOME JUST A PARK.

>> THAT'S MY INTENT, AS WELL.

>> OH, IS IT? [OVERLAPPING]

>> ESSENTIALLY DECOMMISSIONING THE POND AND FIGURING OUT.

>> WE COULD ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS, BUT IT'S NOT THE WAY WE WANT TO GO.

>> JUST THE OTHER QUESTION ABOUT LIABILITY, ARE WE GOING TO BE COVERED BY RECREATIONAL MUNITY, AND WE PROBABLY WOULD, IF WE ACCEPT THIS LAND, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY.

>> THAT I CAN'T ANSWER.

>> THE BIGGEST ONE I GOT, THOUGH, IS,

[01:00:01]

WILL THE PUBLIC BE ABLE TO USE THIS PARK? WILL IT JUST BE THE RESIDENTS OF THIS COMMUNITY, OR CAN I GO THERE? CAN ANYBODY GO TO USE THIS PARK? IF WE DO THAT, ARE WE GOING TO BE DOING BENCHES, BARBECUES, PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT? DO WE HAVE A MAP THAT WE COULD SEE OF THIS AREA?

>> MAYBE. BUT TO EXPLAIN WHERE IT IS, THE 260 CORRIDOR, WHICH IS A VERY BUSY CORRIDOR.

THERE'S AN INTERSECTION CALLED DEL RIO, AND THIS POND IS LOCATED ABOUT A BLOCK OFF OF THAT MAIN CORRIDOR.

YOU'D BASICALLY HAVE PEOPLE FROM COTTONWOOD AVAILABLE TO USE THE PARK, PEOPLE FROM CAMP VERDE [OVERLAPPING].

>> IT WOULD BE PUBLIC.

>> ABSOLUTELY. WELL, THE INTENT WOULD BE FOR IT TO BE A COUNTY PARK, SIMILAR TO WINDMILL PARK IN CORNVILLE AND I THINK THERE'S SEVERAL OTHER COUNTY PARKS.

>> IS THERE PARKING ALREADY LOCATED AT THIS PLACE? THERE IS.

>> WOULD WE BE TAKEN OVER THE PARKING LOT AS WELL, AND [OVERLAPPING] I MEAN, IT'S GOOD, AND I SUPPORT THIS.

I LOVE COMMUNITY PARKS.

I REALLY DO, JUST READING IT, IT LOOKED LIKE WE WERE SUPPORTING AN HOA A LITTLE BIT.

[OVERLAPPING] I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE IT WAS GOING TO GO.

>> I MEAN, THAT'S A GOOD POINT. THEY'RE NOT AN HOA.

IT'S A VOLUNTARY FEE THAT THEY ASK FOR.

IT'S NOT AN ASSESSED FEE SO OUT OF WHAT MORE THAN 4,000 HOMES, THERE'S ONLY ABOUT 100 PEOPLE MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS.

THE FINANCIAL ASPECT OF THIS IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE VVPOA TO MANAGE ON THEIR OWN, SO THEY'RE NOT AN HOA.

[LAUGHTER]

>> THAT'S PARKING ALONG THE NORTH BANK.

>> I MEAN, AND SO THAT'S EXACTLY THE REASON WHY I PREFER TO SEE THIS ITEM COME FIRST TO THE BOARD SO THAT YOU KNEW STAFF WOULD SPEND AN AMOUNT OF TIME GETTING ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS LIKE THAT, WHAT WOULD PARKING LOOK LIKE? WHAT WOULD LIABILITY LOOK LIKE? WHAT ARE THE POSSIBILITIES SO THAT WE COULD MAKE A BETTER INFORMED DECISION AT A LATER DATE.

>> I JUST THIS IS JUST A COMMENT, AND I WOULD EVEN ASK FOR A CONFIRMATION HERE, BUT I AM I NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT WHENEVER WE SPEND PUBLIC DOLLARS ON ANYTHING IN THE COMMUNITY THAT IT IS FOR THE PUBLIC? IT'S NOT A PRIVATE ANY TYPE OF HOA.

I'M PUTTING THAT OUT THERE JUST FOR THAT STATEMENT FOR ALL TO KNOW.

>> TO BE FAIR, I THINK PART OF THE INTENT HERE, I'LL OUTLINE IS THAT I THINK THIS WOULD MAKE AN EXCELLENT APPLICATION FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT BECAUSE IT INVOLVES A BLIGHT AND INVOLVES LOW INCOME COMMUNITY.

I JUST REALLY SEE A LOT OF PUBLIC GOOD POTENTIAL HERE.

BUT YES, EXACTLY RIGHT, FOR THE WHOLE PUBLIC.

>> YES, MR. BOURDON.

>> CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

VICE CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

THE KEY ISSUE, I THINK I WANT TO BRING UP HERE IS YOU'RE GIVING US DIRECTION BECAUSE WE TYPICALLY WANT TO NOT SPEND STAFF TIME WITHOUT BOARD DIRECTION THAT'S EXCESSIVE.

IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME WORK TO PRODUCE SOME INFORMATION NOT ONLY ON WHAT ENVIRONMENTAL MAY NEED TO BE DONE AND BRING THAT BACK TO THE BOARD.

MAYBE SITE PLANS EVENTUALLY BEING DEVELOPED, THAT WOULD BE A DISCUSSION.

BUT IT'S ALL PRELIMINARY.

THIS AGENDA ITEM IS MERELY TO SAY, IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH IT, WE'LL START LOOKING AT IT.

THE REASON I SAY THAT IS, THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN A NORMAL JUST DONATION.

THIS IS VERY COMPLEX, AND WOULD COME BACK TO YOU AS A DONATION AS ONE ELEMENT FOR IT, AND THEN PROBABLY A PROJECT THAT EXISTS OVER MULTI YEARS.

BUT WE WANTED DIRECTION THAT YOU WERE OKAY WITH US SPENDING SOME STAFF TIME.

COMING UP WITH SOME INFORMATION BEFORE YOU ACCEPT IT.

I MEAN LIABILITY.

IF YOU ACCEPTED THIS AND YOU BUILT IT TO STANDARDS, YOU WOULD TAKE LIABILITY, BUT THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT IS YOU WOULD BUILD IT TO SOME STANDARDS SO THAT YOU REDUCE LIABILITY.

THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP.

BUT IT WOULD BE A COUNTY REGIONAL PARK.

THAT WAS THE INTENT, AND I APPRECIATE SUPERVISOR CHECK BRINGING THIS UP, BUT YOU ASKED US TO SEE IF THIS WAS SOMETHING WE COULD BRING TO THE BOARD, AND IT WOULD MOVE FORWARD IN A FASHION.

THIS IS ONE OF THE WAYS WE DO THAT, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE WOULDN'T JUST BRING IT AS A DONATION, BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE MORE COMPLEX THAN JUST DONATING IT.

WE HAVE TO GIVE YOU MORE INFORMATION ON ANY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT WE MAY COME UP AND SOME COST ESTIMATES TO MOVE FORWARD, NOT ONLY ON THAT, DRAINING IT, BUT THEN MAKING IT A PARK, HAVE PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES ON THAT.

THEN WE COULD BRING BACK SOME OF THAT AS WELL AS DONATION AT A FUTURE DATE.

BUT THIS IS MORE BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO SPEND SOME TIME WITH YOUR DEPARTMENTS INVESTIGATING IT, BRINGING UP COST ESTIMATES, DOING PRELIMINARY SITE PLANS.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE BRINGING IT TO YOU TODAY.

IF YOU GIVE US THAT DIRECTION, WE'LL BE COMING BACK TO YOU IN THE FUTURE.

>> YES. GO AHEAD, SUPERVISOR JENKINS.

[01:05:01]

>> THANK YOU. I SUPPORT THIS.

I MEAN, IT'S INEVITABLE THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE WATER TO MAINTAIN THE PARK, AND THAT CREATES A WHOLE SLEW OF ISSUES.

AS PART OF THE MITIGATION PLAN, I'D LIKE TO ALSO KNOW THE FISH AND THE CREATURES THAT ARE USING THE POND, WHAT'S THE PLAN FOR THOSE? I LIKE THAT INCLUDED TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE'RE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THE ANIMALS ONCE THEY HAVE NO HOME.

>> THE CREATURES?

>> THAT WOULD ABSOLUTELY THAT'S COME UP IN DISCUSSION, AND IT WILL BE A PART OF THE REMEDIATION PLANS THAT UNFOLD AND INCLUDED IN THE BOARD PRESENTATION THAT GETS DEVELOPED FOR THIS ITEM IN THE FUTURE.

>> I THINK, AS MR. BOON SAID, VERY COMPLEX, NOT JUST A DONATION, BUT MITIGATION OF THE PROPERTY, DEVELOPMENT OF SITE PLAN.

WHAT THAT LONG-TERM PARK LOOK LIKE? THEN VERY SPECIFIC CONCERNS LIKE YOU'RE ADDRESSING? THERE, SUPERVISOR JENKSONS?

>> IT COULD BE VERY POSITIVE, THOUGH, I THINK THIS WILL COULD BE A VERY GOOD THING.

>> I ABSOLUTELY AGREE, AND AS WE MOVE DOWN THIS ROAD, SUPERVISOR CHECK I ALWAYS SAY, I HAVE ONE PARK, AND I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT SINCE THE DAY.

I'VE BEEN PUT IN THIS OFFICE.

I AM VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE PROGRESS OF THIS PARK, AND WITH THE HELP OF OF COURSE, BRANDON AND HIS DEPARTMENT ALSO RECEIVED GRANTS FROM THE REALTORS ASSOCIATION.

THEY ARE OUT THERE TO HELP WITH ENHANCING OPEN SPACE FOR COMMUNITIES.

YES, IT'S VERY POSSIBLE AS WE START TO MOVE DOWN THIS WAY TO TAKE THAT AND MAYBE TURN IT INTO A BEAUTIFUL PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE PICNICS, FAMILIES, AND WHAT HAVE YOU. WE'RE ALL HERE TO HELP.

>> THEN I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ACTION ITEM NUMBER 2.

>> WE'RE EXCITED. WE GOT MANY SECONDS.

WE HAVE MOTION AND A SECOND.

>> SUPERVISOR KUKNOS.

>> ACTION ITEM NUMBER 2 HAS BEEN APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

>> GREAT. THANK YOU, EVERYONE.

APPRECIATE YOU COMING HERE AND SPEAKING ON THIS.

ITEM NUMBER 2.

[3. Community Health Services - Approve contract for grant funding from the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) in the amount of $390,371.00 (CTR079044) to provide one-time funding for Arizona’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education (SNAP-Ed) for a nine-month grant term. Approve three (3) .90 FTE (72 hours per pay period) temporary Health Educator II positions and three (3) .50 FTE (40 hours per pay period) temporary Health Educator II positions to support the one-time funding for nine months and fulfill the projects under the grant. Authorize the Yavapai County Community Health Services Director to sign all associated documents. Any subsequent amendments that do not lead to a fiscal adjustment or are intended to correct clerical errors may be signed by the Community Health Services Director. YC Contract No. 2025-484]

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES APPROVE A CONTRACT FOR GRANT FUNDING FROM ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES.

GOOD MORNING, LESLIE. GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN.

>> GOOD MORNING AGAIN. CHAIR, VICE CHAIR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

WE ARE HERE TO ASK THE ACCEPTANCE OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR SNAP ED IN THE AMOUNT OF $390,371.

NOW, AS SNAP ED IS ONE OF THE GRANTS THAT WAS RECENTLY ELIMINATED OFF OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET, BUT THE STATE DID HAVE SOME CARRYOVER FUNDS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE US TO USE, AND SO I'VE BROUGHT UP WITH ME HEATHER KLAN PARENS.

SHE'S OUR SECTION MANAGER FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH EDUCATION AND HAS BEEN A LONG TIME LEADER IN OUR SNAP ED EFFORT, SO I'D LIKE HER TO TELL YOU WHAT SHE PLANS ON DOING WITH THESE FUNDS.

>> GOOD MORNING. CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

>> GOOD MORNING.

MY NAME IS HEATHER KLAN PARENS.

I AM THE SECTION MANAGER FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH EDUCATION.

WITH THESE FUNDS, WE'RE GOING TO WORK ON SEVEN PROJECTS IN THE NEXT NINE MONTHS.

THE IDEA IS THESE PROJECTS WILL BE SUSTAINABLE, AND SO TO DO THAT, WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR APPROVAL TO HAVE 3.9 FTE EMPLOYEES THAT WOULD BE TEMPORARY AND 3.5 FTES, EMPLOYEES THAT WOULD ALSO BE TEMPORARY, AND THEY WOULD BE EMPLOYED FOR NINE MONTHS STARTING HOPEFULLY EARLY DECEMBER UNTIL THE GRANT ENDS.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> I DID CATCH YOUR WORD ON THAT THAT THEY WOULD BE THERE UNTIL THE GRANT ENDS, AND THAT'S ALWAYS A BIG CONCERN FOR THE BOARD BECAUSE, OF COURSE WE START OFF WITH GRANTS, AND WE NEED TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT USUALLY WHEN THE GRANT IS OVER, SO IS THAT POSITION, SO THAT'S HOW THAT GOES.

I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU CLARIFYING THAT.

I'LL REACH OUT TO THE SUPERVISORS WITH ANY QUESTIONS.

>> I JUST WANT TO KNOW, I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH COUNTY MANAGER BOARD DON ON THIS, AND HE SPOKE VERY HIGHLY OF YOUR DEPARTMENT AND BEING RESPONSIVE WHEN GRANT FUNDING GOES AWAY, AND SO I APPRECIATE THAT, AND I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THIS. THANK YOU.

>> TASK. ANYBODY ELSE?

>> NO.

>> HOW DO YOU GET PEOPLE UP TO SPEED? BECAUSE BY THE TIME YOU GET THEM EDUCATED, LEARN THE POSITION, THE GRANT ENDS IT'S GOT TO BE HARD TO GET SOMEBODY BECAUSE TRAINING IS PROBABLY MOST OF THAT TIME.

OR DO THEY COME WITH THAT ALREADY?

[01:10:02]

>> EXCELLENT QUESTION.

IDEALLY, WE ACTUALLY HAVE A FEW PEOPLE THAT WE'RE GOING TO ASK TO APPLY.

I FEEL LIKE THEY'RE EXPERTS IN THEIR FIELD AND CAN JUMP RIGHT INTO SOME OF THESE PROJECTS FAIRLY QUICKLY IF THEY DO APPLY.

HOPEFULLY, THEY DO. OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK THE PROJECTS ARE LAID OUT, AND WHEN WE HAVE STAFF THAT HAVE ALREADY WORKED ON THESE PROJECTS AND CAN PROVIDE ASSISTANCE ALONG THE WAY.

>> IS THERE A CHANCE FOR FUTURE GRANTS TO KEEP IT GOING?

>> OF COURSE, I HOPE SO.

>> I SEE. [LAUGHTER]

>> I WOULD GO AHEAD AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE ACTION ITEM NUMBER 3.

>> I SECOND.

>> WE GOT A MOTION, AND WE HAVE A SECOND.

>> SUPERVISOR KUKNOS.

>> ACTION ITEM NUMBER 3 HAS BEEN APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LESLIE, LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 4,

[4. Community Health Services - Approve adding the following four (4) Clinic positions: Provider, Medical Biller, Medical Assistant II, and Clinical Services Clerk. ]

APPROVE ADDING THE FOLLOWING FOUR CLINIC POSITIONS.

>> YES. THANK YOU AGAIN.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON THAT LAST ITEM.

ON THIS ITEM, WHEN WE REACH A POINT WHERE WE THINK WE NEED OR HAVE REACHED A CAPACITY WITH OUR CURRENT PROVIDERS.

BY PROVIDER IN THE CLINIC, THAT COULD BE A NURSE PRACTITIONER, PHYSICIAN, A PA.

IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, WE ARE SPECIFICALLY LOOKING TO ATTRACT AND HIRE HOPEFULLY A PSYCHIATRIC NURSE PRACTITIONER, SO THAT WOULD BE FOCUSING ON BEHAVIORAL HEALTH.

WE ARE CURRENTLY DOING A VARIETY OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH INTERVENTIONS WHERE SOME ARE IN PERSON, SOME ARE IN TELEHEALTH, WE HAVE BOTH IN STAFF IN PERSON STAFF AS WELL AS CONTRACTED TELEHEALTH PROVIDERS THROUGH A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS.

WE ARE TRYING TO PROVIDE MORE IN PERSON SUPPORT TO OUR PATIENTS.

IN THIS CASE, WHEN WE DO ASK FOR A NEW PROVIDER, WHOEVER THAT MIGHT BE WE CAN ESTIMATE THAT WE'LL BRING IN ABOUT $600,000 IN REVENUE BASED ON THEIR ABILITY TO SEE PATIENTS ON A REGULAR BASIS.

WITHIN THAT FIRST YEAR WHEN WE FILL UP THEIR SCHEDULE, WHICH HAPPENS PRETTY QUICKLY WITH THESE PROVIDERS RECENTLY.

WE ARE ABLE TO PULL IN ABOUT 600,000 IN REVENUE, SO WITH THAT, THOUGH, THERE'S SOME HELP THAT'S NEEDED.

OFTENTIMES WE NEED HELP IN BILLING, SO OUR BILLING DEPARTMENT RIGHT NOW IS AT CAPACITY WITH THE CURRENT PROVIDERS.

IF WE ADD A PROVIDER, WE DO NEED TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL BILLER TO HELP BILL THOSE APPOINTMENTS AND THE INSURANCE CARRIERS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE DEAL WITH THERE TO BRING IN THAT REVENUE.

BUT WE ALSO NEED AN ADDITIONAL CLERK.

AS WELL AS AN ADDITIONAL MA, SO A MEDICAL ASSISTANT, AND SO WE'RE ASKING FOR FOUR POSITIONS THAT WOULD BE SUPPORTED WITH THAT REVENUE THAT COMES IN, THAT ESTIMATED REVENUE.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME ON THIS AGENDA ITEM?

>> QUESTIONS.

> CAN I PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION?

>> ABSOLUTELY. I WAS JUST THINKING.

>> SUPERVISOR CHECK BROUGHT THIS UP EARLIER, AND I WAS ASKED ABOUT THIS ITEM, AND I WANTED TO JUST COMMENT.

THE REASON THIS IS NOT PART OF YOUR BUDGET IS THERE'S A REASON.

NORMALLY, I WOULD TELL YOU WE SHOULDN'T BE HAVING THESE COME TO MID YEAR, THIS DEPARTMENT LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS VERY FLUID PROVIDES A VERY GOOD SERVICE.

I'VE BEEN AN ADVOCATE OVER THE YEARS BECAUSE NOT ONLY FOR THE SERVICE THAT IT PROVIDES, BUT THE LOW IMPACT IT HAS ON YOUR GENERAL FUND.

I JUST LOOKED YESTERDAY JUST TO REMIND MYSELF YOU PROVIDE THIS DEPARTMENT ALONG COMMUNITY HEALTH AS WELL AS THE CLINIC, APPROXIMATELY $1.1 MILLION ANNUALLY.

LAST YEAR, THE OTHER FUNDING THIS DEPARTMENT BROUGHT IN AND USED TO HIT THE GROUND FOR YOUR COMMUNITY WAS ABOUT 22 MILLION.

WHEN I WAS ASKED BY SUPERVISOR CHECK, AND I JUST SHARE THIS IS WHY THIS WAS COMING MID YEARS, BECAUSE THIS IS ONE DEPARTMENT THAT'S NEVER COME AND ASKED TO MOVE EMPLOYEES TO THE GENERAL FUND.

YOU PROVIDE THEM A CONTRIBUTION, A TRANSFER, AND THEY USE THAT FOR THEIR ACTIVITIES.

BUT THEY ARE VERY FLUID IN HOW THEY USE THEIR PEOPLE.

THEY BRING THEM ON, MOVE THEM TO OTHER AREAS WHERE FUNDING OCCURS, AND SO THAT'S WHY I DID NOT HAVE A CONCERN WITH THIS BEING ON AS NOT AS PART OF THE BUDGET.

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO COMMENT ON THAT.

>> YES, ABSOLUTELY.

SO FAR THIS MORNING, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF ACTIVITY IN REGARDS TO THIS DEPARTMENT.

AGAIN, IT IS A DEPARTMENT THAT SERVICES ALL OF YAVAPAI COUNTY,

[01:15:04]

AND LOOKING FORWARD TO REACH OUT TO MORE OF THE RULE SERVICES LIKE WE ARE WORKING WITH IN SUPERVISOR KUKNOS DISTRICT.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HELPS ALL THE PEOPLE IN THIS COMMUNITY.

I DO SIT ON THIS BOARD, AND I WILL TELL YOU, I SEE A LOT OF THE NEEDS IN A MUCH MORE PERSONAL WAY WHEN I'M AT THE BOARD MEETINGS.

I UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON HERE AND I DO APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT YOU'RE DOING ALONG WITH YOUR STAFF.

I UNDERSTAND THE NEEDS FOR SURE.

>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A QUICK COMMENT TO THAT.

THANK YOU, CHAIR MALLORY.

ONE OF THE REASONS TOO THAT WE NEED TO EXPAND OUR PSYCHIATRIC NURSE PRACTITIONER STAFFING IS THAT WE DO ACTUALLY HAVE A PSYCHIATRIC NURSE PRACTITIONER IN THE VERDI VALLEY WHO HAS ASKED TO BECOME TO GO ON THE MOBILE UNIT ALSO ONE DAY A WEEK.

WE'RE GOING TO START DOING THOSE ROTATIONS IN THE VERDI FIRST, ONE DAY A WEEK.

WITH ASHLEY HENNINGTON, OUR CURRENT PSYCH NURSE PROVIDER, AND WITH THESE EXPANSIONS AND THESE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE DO, WE DO HAVE TO EXPAND THE STAFFING, AND GENERALLY, AS PHIL MENTIONED, I LIKE TO COME TO YOU AT BUDGET TIME, BUT THERE'S TIMES WHERE WE NEED TO HIRE SOMEONE SOONER.

IN THIS CASE, WE WILL BRING IN OUR OWN REVENUE AND SUPPORT EVEN THE ADDITIONAL POSITIONS, SO I APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS. THANK YOU.

>> MADAM CHAIR, AS WE MAKE OUR COMMITMENT TO THE RULES, IT'S GOING TO COST TO PUSH OUT INTO THOSE RULES BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING OUT THERE RIGHT NOW.

>> YES, THERE'S A LOT OF NEED IN THE COUNTY, AND OF COURSE, WE CAN'T TAKE CARE OF EVERY NEED, BUT WE ARE TRYING TO DO THE BEST WE CAN WITH WHAT WE HAVE, SO OUR COMMUNITY KNOWS THAT WE CARE.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT ITEM NUMBER 4.

>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION, AND WE HAVE A SECOND. CALL FOR THE VOTE, PLEASE.

>> SUPERVISOR KUKNOS.

>> ACTION ITEM NUMBER 4 HAS BEEN APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

>> YES. THANK YOU, LESLIE.

SURELY, LET YOUR STAFF KNOW HOW MUCH WE APPRECIATE ALL OF THEM.

ITEM NUMBER 5 FLEET MANAGEMENT.

[5. Fleet Management - Approve the sale of (1) Chevrolet Tahoe 4x4 SSV, (1) Chevrolet Silverado Extra Cab 4x2 C2500, (1) Ford F350 Extra Cab with service body, and (1) Chevrolet Tahoe 4x4 SSV in the amount of $1.00 each in accordance with Arizona Revised Statue (A.R.S.)11-251(9), to the Town of Dewey-Humboldt and the Town of Jerome. Unanimous consent of the Board of Supervisors is required pursuant to A.R.S. §11-251(58) to approve this item.]

WE ARE APPROVING SOME SALES OF VEHICLES.

GOOD MORNING, GIL.

>> GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR, VICE CHAIR.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, GIL RIVERA FLEET MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR.

WE COME BEFORE YOU TODAY TO APPROVE THE SALE OF A TOTAL OF FOUR VEHICLES, THREE TO THE TOWN OF DEWEY HUMBOLDT, AND ONE TO THE JEROME FIRE DEPARTMENT.

WE HAVE DAN FIELD, THE TOWN MANAGER, MARTY JOANU, WHO I WORKED WITH WITH.

HE CAME AND LOOKED AT THE VEHICLES.

THEY'RE GOING TO USE THESE VEHICLES FOR MAINTENANCE, ROAD WORK, SNOWPLOWS, BUILDING INSPECTORS.

DAN FIELD COULD ELABORATE A LOT MORE ON THIS THAN I COULD. DAN.

>> WELCOME.

>> GOMA. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.

>> GOOD MORNING. CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, AND BOARD MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS DAN FIELD.

I'M THE TOWN MANAGER FOR DEWEY HUMBOLDT.

WE'RE HERE TODAY, AS GILBERTO JUST MENTIONED, TO SEEK SOME HELP.

IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO US, AND I'LL TELL YOU WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE USING THOSE VEHICLES FOR, BUT I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT WE HAVE HERE TODAY MAYOR FENN, COUNCIL MEMBER MALLETT, AND COUNCIL MEMBER CHISHOLM.

>> AS GIL SAID, WE HAVE MARTY JOANU, AND MARTY'S ARE BUILDING OFFICIAL.

OUR ONLY INSPECTOR AND OUR COMPLIANCE OFFICER, SO EVERYONE WEARS A HAT THERE, AND ACTUALLY, WITH ME AND MARTY RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE 20% OF OUR TOWN'S FULL TIME EMPLOYEES HERE, SO I HOPE SOMEONE OPENED THE DOOR.

>> WHO'S WATCHING? [LAUGHTER] THEY'RE HAVING A FIELD DAY OVER THERE RIGHT NOW.

>> I GET THE PUN. FEEL. ANYWAY, WE'RE A TOWN OF 4,600 PEOPLE, AND 10 FULL TIME STAFF.

60% OF THOSE SIX POSITIONS ARE OUR PUBLIC WORKS.

AS I SAID, MARTY COVERS THREE DIFFERENT AREAS.

WE HAVE ROADWAYS CONSISTING OF 66 MILES OF CHIP SEAL PAVED ROAD, 8 MILES OF DIRT ROAD THAT WE MAINTAIN AND ABOUT 30% MORE

[01:20:05]

THAT ARE PRIVATE ROADWAYS BUT PUBLIC THOROUGHFARES BEEN DEDICATED FOR PUBLIC USE, BUT WE DON'T MAINTAIN THEM.

THE REASON WHY I BRING THAT UP IS MOST OF THOSE PUBLIC PRIVATE ROADS AREN'T MAINTAINED BY THE PEOPLE THAT OWN THEM.

WHAT WE DO HAVE IS WE HAVE MARTY GOING UP THERE WHEN THEY'RE DEVELOPING PUTTING ON A HOUSE.

THINGS WE HAVE TO INSPECT.

ALL WE HAVE WE CALL IT THE [INAUDIBLE].

IT'S NOT EVEN FOUR WHEEL DRIVE.

WE'RE WORKING OUT OF WHAT SHOULD BE A COMMUTER CAR, AND SOME OF THOSE AREAS, YOU CAN'T GET UP.

IT'S VERY DIFFICULT.

WHAT WE WERE PLANNING ON IS THE TAHOE.

WE WOULD ASK, RESPECTFULLY, IF WE COULD HAVE THE TAHOE, THE CONDITION OF YOUR VEHICLES TO US ARE ACTUALLY BROKEN IN FOR THE TYPE THAT WE HAVE.

OUR VEHICLES, THE WHEELS ARE BROKEN WE'LL DRIVE THEM UNTIL THE WHOLE THING FALLS APART.

WE ONLY HAVE TWO TRUCKS THAT ARE USED BY PUBLIC WORKS.

SNOW PLOWS ARE ATTACHED TO THEM DURING THE TIMES WE HAVE SNOW.

ONE OF THEM, IT'S TRANSMISSION IS GOING OUT.

WE'RE GETTING NICKELED AND DIMED ON THEM.

WE HAVE ONE GOOD ONE.

>> THE TWO TRUCKS WOULD BE FOR PUBLIC WORKS, AND THE TAHOE WOULD BE FOR OUR BUILDING INSPECTIONS AND COMPLIANCE.

AMONGST THE ROADWAYS, WE EVEN HAVE A ROADWAY THAT WE MAINTAIN A DIRT ROADWAY THAT GOES TO A COUNTY DEVELOPMENT.

IT DOESN'T EVEN GO TO ANY DEVELOPMENT WE HAVE WITHIN THE AREA.

BUT THAT'S WHAT YOU BITE OFF WHEN YOU INCORPORATE.

YOU CATCH THEM, YOU CLEAN THEM.

WE MAINTAIN THAT AS WELL.

WE'RE JUST ASKING IF WE COULD, IT WOULD HELP US WITH OUR BUDGET.

BY THE WAY, I DO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TOO.

IT MIGHT SOUND LIKE GROVELING, BUT IT'S SINCERE FOR THE HELP THAT SUPERVISOR JENKINS HAS GIVEN US, AS WELL AS YOUR DEPARTMENT HEADS.

THEY HAVE BEEN VERY RESPONSIVE IN HELPING US WITH INFORMATION.

THEY'RE VERY COURTEOUS AND PROFESSIONAL.

I LIKE TO WELCOME PHIL, TOO, BECAUSE I'LL TELL YOU WHAT.

I'VE KNOWN HIM FOR SEVERAL YEARS WHEN I WAS A COUNTY MANAGER.

BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S WHAT I HAVE.

ANY QUESTIONS I CAN TRY TO ANSWER IT.

>> I HAVE NO QUESTIONS, BUT I SURELY WOULD REACH OUT TO SUPERVISOR JENKINS.

>> THANK YOU. I WROTE A FEW NOTES DOWN BECAUSE I REALIZED THIS IS A BIG ASK FOR THREE VEHICLES.

BUT I ASSURE YOU, THESE VEHICLES, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE USED UP THEIR USEFUL LIFE FOR YAVAPAI COUNTY, THEY'RE LIKE CADILLACS FOR THE TOWN OF DEWEY-HUMBOLDT.

I JUST CAN'T STRESS THAT ENOUGH, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE ONE VEHICLE THAT'S A 2002.

I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I SUPPORT THIS.

DEWEY-HUMBOLDT IS NOT IN A FINANCIAL SITUATION TO PURCHASE NEW VEHICLES.

I BELIEVE THAT THESE VEHICLES WILL BENEFIT THE CITIZENS OF YAVAPAI COUNTY PARTICULARLY THE TOWN OF DEWEY-HUMBOLDT.

THE PRICE THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY GET AT AUCTION, THIS FAR EXCEEDS THAT VALUE.

WHAT IT'S GOING TO HELP THE CITIZENS OF DEWEY-HUMBOLDT.

IT'S GOING TO PROVIDE SAFE TRANSPORTATION TO AREAS THAT ARE DIRT.

FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, MANY TIMES THE AREA, THE STREETS THAT ARE DIRT, THEY'RE IN SUCH POOR SHAPE.

THE FOLKS JUST CAN'T GET OUT THERE TILL THEY DRY UP.

THESE VEHICLES WILL LET STAFF CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEIR CITIZENS.

I SUPPORT THIS. I ALSO SUPPORT IN THE FUTURE A POLICY THAT THE COUNTY WOULD PUT TOGETHER.

BUT IN THE MEANTIME, I'M ASKING FOR THESE THREE VEHICLES FOR DEWEY-HUMBOLDT.

IT'S SORELY NEEDED.

LIKE I SAID, THE BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY, PROBABLY,

[01:25:01]

BASED ON THEIR FLEET TODAY IS YEARS, MAYBE DECADES OF CONTINUED USE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. WHY SURELY I APPRECIATE YOU FOLKS COMING OVER HERE, MAYOR, COUNCIL. APPRECIATE THAT.

I WANT TO SAY THAT AS A BOARD, WE DID OUR FIRST STATE OF THE COUNTY.

EVEN THOUGH I DON'T HAVE MY LITTLE TELEPROMPTER IN FRONT OF ME TO KNOW THAT WHOLE SPEECH, THERE WERE THINGS THAT I TRULY REMEMBERED THAT WAS SAID AND ONE SAID THAT WE WOULD BE COLLABORATIVE.

WE WOULD BE PARTNERS.

WE WANTED YOU TO JOIN WITH US. WE NEED YOU.

THOSE WORDS AND THE WORDS THAT ALL OF US SAID CANNOT BE VOID.

THEY WILL NOT BE VOIDED. WE SET THEM.

WE WILL FULFILL WHAT WE MADE A COMMITMENT TO.

WE ALL IN THIS COMMUNITY EITHER RISE OR FALL, BUT WE WILL ALL DO IT TOGETHER.

THERE IS NO DOUBT.

WHEN SOMETHING IS HAPPENING SOMEWHERE ELSE, IT WILL AFFECT THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS, AND WE NEED TO ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT.

BECAUSE WHEN YOU DEAL WITH FIRST RESPONDERS, I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT IS A BROTHERHOOD.

MILITARY FIRE POLICE, THEY KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING TO THEIR BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN OTHER COMMUNITIES, AND THEY STAND UNITED TOGETHER.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO HERE AS ELECTED OFFICIALS REPRESENTING CITIES, TOWNS, AND COUNTIES.

UNITED IS HOW WE ARE FORCEFUL AND GET THINGS DONE.

I AM ABSOLUTELY HONORED THAT WE'RE ABLE TO GET THIS DONE.

I WANT TO REACH OVER TO SUPERVISOR CHECK, BECAUSE WE'RE ALSO TAKING OVER TO DISTRICT 3, WHICH IS EXCITING.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. THE TOWN OF JEROME COULDN'T BE HERE TODAY FOR VARIOUS REASONS, BUT THEY ARE VERY MUCH AWARE OF THIS ITEM AND IN SUPPORT OF IT.

JUST TO NOTE, THE ITEM IS TO MAKE THIS SALE TO THE TOWN OF JEROME, BUT THE INTENT WOULD BE FOR THIS, FOUR BY FOUR CHEVY TAHOE TO GO TO THE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT IN JEROME.

THEY ARE STILL WORKING WITH THEIR 1997 AND 1998, REBUILT CHEVY BLAZERS, AND SO WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF THIS VEHICLE ENDS UP ON THE ROAD FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS, DEPENDING ON HOW ALL THAT GOES.

YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO NOTE JEROME, IT'S A SMALL TOWN, WE HUMBLE, AND IT'S ALWAYS A CREATIVE APPROACH TO TRY TO GET YOUR NEEDS MET.

WE SEE UP TO TWO MILLION VISITORS EVERY YEAR, AND THEY REQUIRE A LOT FROM OUR VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT.

I REALLY APPRECIATE THIS ITEM MAKING IT ONTO THE AGENDA. THANK YOU.

>> I SEE YOUR LIGHT ON SUPERVISOR KUKNEO.

>> I JUST WANT TO SAY YOU KNOW WHAT? YOUR TAXPAYER HAS ALREADY PAID FOR THESE TRUCKS ONCE, BECAUSE YOU GUYS HIT THEM FOR TAXES, SO DO WE.

I'VE BEEN AROUND LONG ENOUGH WHERE I'VE WATCHED WHAT HAPPENED.

YOU GUYS GOT HIT BY ANNEXATION FEBER FROM EVERYBODY AROUND THEM, AND YOUR COMMERCIAL AREAS GOT SOPPED UP.

I CAN'T BELIEVE THOSE BOUNDARIES GO AS FAR AS THEY DO.

I DON'T SEE IT AS GROVELING OR BEGGING. IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE'RE PROVIDING FOR THE PEOPLE OF YAVAPAI COUNTY.

I THINK YOU GUYS ARE CORRECT IN IT.

I SEE OTHER THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN AND DO WE HUMBLED HERE REAL SOON.

JUST ASKED THAT, WHEN YOU GOT THAT SNOWPLOW OUT, DON'T STOP AT YOUR CITY BOUNDARIES.

GO HELP OUR OTHER PEOPLE OUT THERE, YOU KNOW WHAT? MAKE US LOOK GOOD, TOO.

BUT THE BIG QUESTION IS, WHERE IS THE POLICY? BECAUSE WHEN I FIRST BROUGHT THIS UP, I ALMOST DIDN'T EVEN GET A SECOND TO PASS THIS FORWARD WITH THE POLICY.

I WANT TO SEE IT HAPPEN, AND I WANT TO SEE IT HAPPEN BEFORE WE GET INTO THE BUDGET.

I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYBODY ELSE AGREES WITH ME, BECAUSE ONCE WE GET INTO THE BUDGET, THAT'S JUST GOING TO BE ALL WE THINK ABOUT.

I'D LOVE TO SEE A POLICY DEVELOPED.

I'D BE HAPPY TO WORK ON IT AS WELL, BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE CERTAIN CRITERIA.

IN NIKKI'S CASE, JEROME FIRE DISTRICT PROBABLY IS ABOUT THAT BIG JUST LIKE ASHPORT WAS, BUT I KNOW THEY GO RESCUE PEOPLE UP 89A TOWARDS PRESCOTT WHEN THEY DRIVE OFF THE MOUNTAIN, AND THEY GO DOWN FURTHER.

THESE GUYS DON'T ACTUALLY STAY IN THESE LITTLE CORPORATE LIMITS.

THEY GO EVERYWHERE TO HELP AND SERVE.

YOU GUYS DO THAT AS WELL.

BUT THE ONE THING WE HAVE TO DO TO HELP GILA OUT, AND HELP US OUT IS BECAUSE SO FAR WITH THESE VEHICLES AND THE VEHICLES THAT WENT TO ASHPORT, WE'RE MISSING OUT ON ABOUT $42,000 WORTH OF REVENUE.

[01:30:01]

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BUDGET THAT IF WE MOVE FORWARD IN THIS NEXT BUDGET PROCESS.

IT'D BE NICE TO SEE A LINE ITEM FOR THAT.

IT'D BE NICE TO SEE A POLICY WITH CRITERIA.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE REST OF THE BOARD AGREES WITH ME, BUT I'D LIKE TO DIRECT STAFF TO START DEVELOPING A POLICY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

>> GO AHEAD, MR. BRENNAN.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, SUPERVISOR KUKNEO, AND BOARD MEMBERS.

THAT DIRECTION HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY STAFF.

A POLICY HAS ACTUALLY BEEN DRAFTED AND IS READY TO GO.

IT WILL APPEAR ON AN AGENDA BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR, AND IT SHOULD ADDRESS ANY ITEMS AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR ADDITIONAL COMMENTER MODIFICATION BY THE BOARD.

BUT YOU'LL SEE THAT PRIOR TO THE END OF THE YEAR.

>> WELL, YOU GUYS ARE GOOD.

>> TO ANSWER THE SECOND QUESTION IS UNLESS SOMETHING HAS CHANGED, THE REVENUE THAT IS RECEIVED FROM AUCTION GOES RIGHT TO THE GENERAL FUND, AND THEN YOUR FLEET DIRECTOR THEN PUTS IN THE BUDGET THE RECOMMENDATION TO BUY VEHICLES IN THE FUTURE.

IT'S NOT DEPENDENT UPON THE REVENUE THAT YOU RECEIVE FROM AUCTION. DOES THAT ANSWER THAT?

>> BUT THANK YOU FOR ASKING.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> WELL, GILA. WE APPRECIATE.

I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF A TRYING SITUATION.

OF COURSE, WE APPRECIATE THE MOVEMENT.

WE'VE HELPED OUT THREE DISTRICTS.

THAT'S A BIG DEAL THAT WE'VE HELPED IN THREE DIFFERENT DISTRICTS AND HELP THOSE COMMUNITIES.

WE APPRECIATE YOU AS YOU CONTINUE TO HELP US, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE ALL SITTING UP HERE REPRESENTING DIFFERENT DISTRICTS, WE ARE STILL ONE COUNTY.

THAT IS DEFINITELY HOW WE FEEL.

IF YOU HAVE SOME MORE.

>> EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU, MA'AM.

WE ALL WORK TOGETHER AS A TEAM AND FLEET FROM THE BOTTOM TO THE TOP.

THE TOP JUMPS IN THE BOTTOM, THE BOTTOM JUMPS IN THE TOP. WE'RE YOUR TEAM.

THAT'S THE WAY WE WORK. I CAN'T TAKE THE CREDIT FOR THAT.

MY TEAM'S AMAZING. THEY GET IT DONE.

HOW THEY DO IT, I DON'T KNOW, BUT THEY GET IT DONE.

I JUST WANT TO LET YOU GUYS.

>> YOU BRING INTEGRITY AND KNOWLEDGE, AND THAT'S SO VALUABLE TO US AT THE COUNTY.

>> WELL, I THINK WE ARE PRETTY GOOD TO GO HERE.

ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER 5.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ACTION ITEM NUMBER 5.

>> SECOND, PLEASE.

WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.

YOU CALL FOR THE VOTE, PLEASE.

>> SUPERVISOR JACK?

>> HAPPILY AYE.

>> SUPERVISOR KUKNEO?

>> ACTION ITEM NUMBER 5 HAS BEEN APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

>> FANTASTIC. THANK YOU, EVERYONE.

APPRECIATE YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL AND THE TOWN MANAGER COMING UP.

>> THANK YOU, BOARD.

>> ABSOLUTELY. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 6, PUBLIC WORKS.

[6. Public Works - Approve an Agreement with the City of Cottonwood for an increased contribution of $12,000.00 to the budgeted amount for a total of $57,000.00, for public transportation services known as Cottonwood Area Transit (CAT) during FY 2025-26. YC Contract No. 2025-480 (District 2 - Supervisor Jenkins; District 3 - Supervisor Check)]

APPROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF COTTONWOOD FOR AN INCREASE IN CONTRIBUTION OF $12,000 TO THE BUDGETED AMOUNT.

GOOD MORNING, ROGER.

>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIR MALLORY, VICE CHAIR COMPTON, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

ROGER MCCORMICK, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.

LET ME JUST GET MY PRESENTATION UP HERE FIRST.

BEFORE YOU TODAY FOR ACTION, THE COUNTY HAS PARTICIPATED WITH THE COTTONWOOD AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR QUITE SOME TIME, AND I'VE ACTUALLY GOT A GRAPH LATER THAT CAN SHOW SOME OF THE HISTORY IN RELATION TO HOW THE COUNTY HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE COTTONWOOD AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM.

THE COTTONWOOD AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM DOES SERVE DISTRICT 2, SUPERVISOR JENKINS, AND DISTRICT 3 SUPERVISOR CHECK.

THEY HAVE SEVERAL DIFFERENT SERVICES WHICH THEY OFFER, WHICH THIS NEXT SLIDE GETS INTO THAT.

THEY DO HAVE A FIXED ROUTE BUS SERVICE, AND I'LL SHOW YOU A MAP OF THAT IN JUST A MINUTE AND WHERE THEY OPERATE.

THEY ALSO HAVE WHAT'S CALLED AN ADA OR PARATRANSIT SERVICE, WHICH DEVIATES FROM THE FIXED ROUTE BY A CERTAIN RADIUS TO PICK UP PEOPLE AT THEIR HOMES AND GET THEM TO DESTINATIONS AND WHERE THEY NEED TO GET TO.

THEY ALSO HAVE A SHUTTLE SERVICE THAT COMMUTES IN BETWEEN COTTONWOOD AND SEDONA SO THAT THEY CAN HELP PEOPLE GET FROM ONE PLACE TO THE OTHER.

THIS IS THE MAP THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.

[01:35:03]

THIS MAP HAS ALL OF THE DIFFERENT COLORED ROUTES YOU CAN SEE OVER HERE.

IDENTIFIED OVER HERE ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE, YOU HAVE THE COLORS AND THE ASSOCIATED AREAS IN WHICH THEY GO INTO.

THE COTTONWOOD TO VERDI VILLAGE ROUTE IS THE ONE THAT GOES INTO THE COUNTY.

AS WAS STATED EARLIER, IN OUR MEETING, THE VERDI VILLAGES, THERE'S QUITE A POPULATION IN THERE, ABOUT 12,000 PEOPLE.

THERE IS A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT THEY'RE REACHING WITHIN THE COUNTY BY HAVING THAT BLUE LINE IN OPERATION.

I'LL GET INTO SOME OF THE NUMBERS IN RELATION TO WHAT THOSE LOOK LIKE ON A MONTHLY BASIS.

THE CITY OF COTTONWOOD PROVIDES THOSE TO US, AND I CAN SHARE THOSE WITH YOU HERE IN A MINUTE IN GRAPH FORMAT.

THIS IS A MAP THAT THE THIRD ITEM I WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER THAT THEY OFFER.

THERE'S A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE COTTONWOOD AREA AND THE SEDONA AREA IN RELATION TO SEDONA HAS A TRANSIT SYSTEM OVER THERE.

PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY GET ON THE BUS HERE IN COTTONWOOD, CATCH THE SHUTTLE, GO OVER TO SEDONA, AND GET AROUND SEDONA AND RECREATE AND DO DIFFERENT THINGS OVER IN THAT AREA AS WELL.

THIS IS TAKEN FROM THE CITY OF COTTONWOOD ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCE REPORT.

THESE ARE THEIR ANNUAL NUMBERS IN RELATION TO WHAT THEY ARE SEEING AS RIDERSHIP.

GOING BACK TO 2013, YOU CAN SEE THERE RIGHT AROUND THE TIME OF COVID.

THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A DIP RIGHT HERE, BUT THEY'RE QUICKLY GETTING BACK TO THE PRE-COVID LEVELS IN RELATION TO ANNUAL RIDERSHIP.

THIS IS SPECIFIC TO THE COUNTY WITH SOME EXCEPTION.

SOME OF THESE NUMBERS THAT ARE WITHIN THE ADA, IT'S UNKNOWN HOW MUCH OF THOSE TRIPS VENTURE OUT INTO THE COUNTY AS FAR AS WHAT'S ADA IN RELATION TO A COUNTY PERSON VERSUS A CITY PERSON.

THEY'RE ALL BLUP TOGETHER, BUT THEY DO HAVE QUITE A FEW OF THOSE TRIPS THAT ARE HAPPENING.

YOU CAN SEE THE FIXED LINE ROUTE, STARTING HERE BACK IN JULY OF 2024, PRETTY STEADILY, RIGHT AROUND THE 400 OR 500 TRIPS THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO GET HERE ON A MONTHLY BASIS.

THE ADA PARATRANSIT FAR EXCEEDS THAT.

THEY ARE DOING A LOT OF THE HOUSE TO DIRECT SERVICE TO HOMES WITHIN THEIR TRANSIT SYSTEM.

THIS IS THE SHUTTLE THAT GOES FROM COTTONWOOD TO SEDONA IN RELATION TO THE NUMBERS.

YOU'RE GETTING IN OCTOBER RIGHT HERE, YOU'RE WELL OVER 9,000 TRIPS IN A MONTH FROM PEOPLE TAKING THAT COTTONWOOD TO SEDONA SHUTTLE.

>> IS THAT WORKFORCE? WHO'S USING THAT?

>> I'M NOT SURE. I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS OF THOSE NUMBERS, BUT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ASSUMPTION.

>> FROM MY EXPERIENCE, YES, IT'S WORKFORCE.

I HAVE WORKED IN SEDONA AND EXPERIENCED THOSE 45 MINUTE DELAYS ON OCCASION, AND SO YOU GET TRAPPED IN THAT A TIME OR TWO, AND YOU REALIZE THE BEAUTY OF TRANSIT THERE.

>> THIS IS A HISTORY OF THE COUNTY'S FUNDING TO THE COTTONWOOD AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM.

WE STARTED CONTRIBUTING TO THEIR SYSTEM BACK IN 2000 AND IT'S EBBED AND FLOWED OVER THE YEARS.

IT REACHED ITS PEAK IN AROUND 2008, 2009, AS FAR AS WHAT WE WERE CONTRIBUTING.

THEN IT CAME DOWN HERE AND LEVELED OUT.

THE REASON WHY YOU SEE THAT IT'S LEVELING OUT HERE, AND I WILL POINT OUT THAT THESE FIRST FEW YEARS THROUGH 2000- 2006 WERE PROVIDED BY GENERAL FUND AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE FUNDS THROUGH ADOT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THESE WENT AWAY, AND THEN IT WAS SHIFTED TO THE REGIONAL ROAD BUDGET, SO THE HALF CENT BUDGET IN 2007.

THAT'S REMAINED WITHIN THE HALF CENT BUDGET SINCE THEN.

YOU SEE IT LEVEL OUT HERE.

DURING THIS TIME FRAME, THE COUNTY WAS UTILIZING A FUNDING FORMULA FOR TRANSIT CONTRIBUTIONS TO PUT EVERYTHING ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY.

IT UTILIZED BINS OF POPULATION IN RELATION TO HOW MUCH THE COUNTY WAS SERVING OR THE TRANSIT SYSTEM WAS SERVING COUNTY RESIDENTS IN ADDITION TO THE LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT THEY PROVIDED.

WAS IT A ONE DAY A WEEK, A TWO DAY A WEEK?

[01:40:02]

WAS IT FIVE DAYS, SEVEN DAYS, HOW OFTEN WERE THEY RUNNING THE TRANSIT SYSTEM? BASED ON THAT FORMULA, THE COUNTY WOULD PROVIDE A CONTRIBUTION THAT STAYED RIGHT HERE AND AROUND THE 20,000, $25,000 RANGE FOR THOSE YEARS.

THE BOARD IN 2018 MET TOGETHER AND DECIDED THAT THEY WANTED TO CONTRIBUTE MORE TO THE TRANSIT SYSTEM, AND IT NO LONGER REALLY FIT WITHIN THE FORMULA THAT WAS DEVELOPED BACK HERE IN 2013.

THEY WENT TO MORE OF A FAIR VALUE OR APPROACH TO MAKING A DONATION OR CONTRIBUTING TO THESE TRANSIT SYSTEMS. AS OF LAST YEAR, THE COUNTY WAS CONTRIBUTING 45,000 TO THE COTTONWOOD AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM THROUGH THE REGIONAL ROAD PROGRAM.

WE HAD BUDGETED THAT AMOUNT FOR THIS YEAR.

THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TODAY IS BECAUSE COTTONWOOD AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM BASED UPON THEIR OPERATIONS AND THE AMOUNT OF ADA TRIPS AND THINGS THAT THEY'RE SERVING TO THE COMMUNITY, WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR AN INCREASE OF THIS NUMBER BY 12,000 TO GO UP TO $57,000 FOR THIS YEAR.

A LOT OF THESE BULLETS HERE I'VE ALREADY HIT ON.

THAT'S WHAT WAS BUDGETED.

THEY'RE REQUESTING AN INCREASE TO 57,000.

COTTONWOOD PROVIDED THAT THIS FIGURE REFLECTS THAT THE CURRENT COST OF THE PROVIDING SERVICES AND DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY INCREASES AT THIS TIME, FUTURE ADJUSTMENTS TO ACCOUNT FOR RISING OPERATIONAL COSTS WILL BE PROPOSED IN SUBSEQUENT PHYSICAL YEARS.

THE ADDITION OF THIS CONTRIBUTION WOULD MOSTLY COVER ALL THE PARATRANSIT TRIPS THAT THEY'RE MAKING.

THEN WE WOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE THIS FROM THE REGIONAL ROAD BUDGET.

WE USUALLY HAVE FUNDING WITHIN THERE DEDICATED TO PRESERVATION THAT WE CAN PULL THIS ADDITIONAL REQUEST OUT OF FOR PROVIDING TRANSIT SERVICES.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT INFORMATION.

ON A PERSONAL NOTE, WHENEVER I GO TO SEDONA, MY HUSBAND AND I, WE WILL STAY OVER THERE, AND THEN WE WILL ALWAYS USE THESE TRANSIT BUSES, AND I WILL TELL YOU, IT IS SUCH A AMAZING THING TO HAVE THERE BECAUSE SEDONA DOESN'T MOVE LIKE YOU'RE IN A PARKING LOT, IN A ROUNDABOUT.

WE'RE NOT MOVING. WE'RE JUST IN THIS ROUNDABOUT AND WE'RE STUCK.

THEN YOU CAN'T EVEN MAKE A RIGHT OR LEFT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GET OUT OF THAT.

ANYWAY, I'M TELLING YOU IT IS A NEED, AND I'VE EXPERIENCED IT, AND I DO LOVE IT.

I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THIS.

AS YOU MENTIONED, WE DON'T HAVE IT BUDGETED FOR AND THAT WE KNOW WE'RE TAKING IT OUT OF AN AREA.

I JUST WANT TO BE AWARE THAT WE'RE GOING TO DECREASE IT BY 12,000.

THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM FOR ME, BUT JUST LET US AS A BOARD, NOT FORGET WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY SO THAT GOING FORWARD, IF YOU SAY, MAYBE THIS CAN'T HAPPEN RIGHT NOW, WE DID THIS.

I'M JUST USING THAT OUT THERE.

I WANT US TO REMEMBER THAT WE ARE GOING TO POSSIBLY DO SOMETHING THAT WASN'T BUDGETED FOR, SO WE WILL UNDERSTAND IN CASE WE RUN INTO A PROBLEM LATER ON.

SUPERVISOR JENKINS?

>> THANK YOU. THIS IS MY OPINION THAT THE BUDGET PROCESS WAS LESS DESIRABLE.

I THINK THIS IS A FALLOUT OF NOT BEING AS INFORMED OF THE BUDGET AND THE COSTS COMING FROM THIS PROVIDER.

I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT HAD WE KNOWN WHAT THIS FIGURE WAS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, IT MAY HAVE BEEN BUDGETED.

HAVING SAID THAT AS WELL, THIS IS SIMPLY TO COVER THEIR COSTS.

THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY MORE OTHER THAN TO COVER THE FULL COST OF THE SERVICE THAT THEY'RE PROVIDING TO THE CITIZENS.

THANK YOU. NIKKI, I'M SURE YOU WANT TO CHIME IN AS WELL.

>> YES, I DO. PARATRANSIT, IN PARTICULAR, FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW ARE MEDICAL TRIPS.

THAT'S A SERVICE THAT'S BEING PROVIDED TO UNINCORPORATED CITIZENS WHO LIVE IN UNINCORPORATED YAVAPAI COUNTY.

THE SIMPLEST THING FOR CAT TO DO, IF THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO BE MADE WHOLE ON THEIR COST IS TO STOP THAT SERVICE.

THE MEDICAL WORLD IS AN ECONOMIC DRIVER.

WHEN PEOPLE MAKE IT TO THEIR DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENTS, NOT ONLY ARE THEY MAINTAINING THEIR HEALTH, BUT THEY ARE SPENDING DOLLARS.

[01:45:01]

THERE'S DEFINITELY AN ECONOMIC SIDE OF THIS.

BUT IN GENERAL, THIS IS REALLY A SERVICE TO HELP KEEP PEOPLE HEALTHY.

ALSO, I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE NOTE THAT IT'S A LOT CHEAPER FOR CAT TO DO THIS, TO OFFER THE SERVICE THAN IF YAVAPAI COUNTY WERE TO ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE THIS TYPE OF MEDICAL TRANSIT.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT. AGAIN, I SUPPORT THIS.

I WANT ALL OF YOU TO KNOW I DO SUPPORT IT.

I UNDERSTAND IT, I USE IT.

JUST AS A REMINDER, WHEN WE TAKE AWAY FROM SOMETHING ELSE, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE IT BUDGETED FOR JUST THAT IN OUR BACK.

I DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK THAT WE DON'T UNDERSTAND.

>> UNDERSTOOD.

>> OKAY, THEN. I DON'T KNOW.

IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE ACTION ITEM NUMBER 6.

>> HERE, WE HAVE A MOTION, AND WE HAVE A SECOND. CALL FOR THE VOTE.

>> SUPERVISOR KUKNYO?

>> ACTION ITEM NUMBER 6 HAS BEEN APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

>> CHAIR MALLORY? > YES.

>> THANK YOU, ROGER.

ITEM NUMBER 7 IS TO APPROVE

[7. Treasurer - Approve a new three (3) year Servicing Bank Agreement between Yavapai County and JPMorgan Chase Bank. YC Contract No. 2025-486]

A NEW THREE-YEAR SERVICING BANK AGREEMENT BETWEEN YAVAPAI COUNTY AND JP MORGAN CHASE BANK.

>> CHAIR, I BELIEVE THE TREASURER IS PRESENT IN PRESCOTT.

>> MR. DAVIS?

>> CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS, WE'RE HERE TO CONCLUDE WHAT HAS BEEN A YEAR AND A HALF PROCESS OF TRYING TO APPROVE OUR ANNUAL OR PROVIDING BATE CONTRACT.

THE DOCUMENT IS 550 PAGES.

WE'RE ON THE ACTION ITEM DUE TO A TECHNICALITY BECAUSE WHEN WE BUILT THE CONTRACT, WE HAD TO ESTABLISH WHAT OUR BANKING COST MAY BE IF THE ECONOMY TURNS SUCH THAT IT'S NO LONGER PRODUCING INTEREST ON OUR BANK HELD MONIES.

IF THE ECONOMY WERE TO GO BAD, WE MAY EXPEND UP TO $500,000 ON OUR BANKING CONTRACT, BUT IN THE CURRENT CONDITION AND HAS BEEN IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS, WE DON'T INCUR ANY BANKING COSTS BECAUSE WE OFFSET THAT WITH OUR INTEREST THAT WE KEEP INVESTED IN THE BANK ON A DAILY BASIS.

THE LIKELIHOOD THAT WE'LL EVER HAVE TO INCUR ANY COUNTY EXPENDITURES FOR OUR BANKING COST IS FAIRLY LOW, BUT WE DO HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT IN OUR CONTRACT, IN THE EVENT THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ECONOMY WILL DO IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

IT'S BEEN QUITE AN EXPERIENCE.

OUT OF OUR 550 PAGE CONTRACT, WE HAVE ABOUT 10 PAGES THAT ARE NEEDED, AND ABOUT 540 PAGES THAT ARE LITIGIOUS COVERING YOUR REAR END IN THE EVENT OF SOMETHING THAT WILL HAPPEN THAT LIKE 99.9% WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

ANYWAY, I APPRECIATE THE PERSEVERANCE AND THE PATIENCE OF OUR YAVAPAI COUNTY DEPUTY ATTORNEY MICHAEL CORDREY AND ALSO TO WITH OUR TEAM, WHICH WE'VE GOT MELVIN MURDOCK, OUR CHIEF DEPUTY HERE WITH US, AND STORMY GORMLEY, OUR TAX SUPERVISOR AND DOMINIQUE WORKING ON SOME OF OUR SPECIAL PROJECTS, JUST TO CELEBRATE BECAUSE WE DOG ON, AND FINALLY MADE IT TO THE END OF THIS CONTRACT.

>> MR. DAVIS, WE'RE HERE TO CELEBRATE WITH YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR EMOTION?

>> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ACTION ITEM NUMBER 7.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

CALL FOR THE VOTE, PLEASE.

>> SUPERVISOR KUKNYO?

>> ACTION ITEM NUMBER 7 HAS BEEN APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

>> MR. DAVIS, YOU GUYS ARE ON YOUR WAY.

>> THANK YOU. WITH THAT, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK, 10 MINUTES.

WE'LL BE BACK AT 11.

BACK IN OUR MEETING, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO HEARING ITEMS.

[1. Board of Supervisors - Approve an Ordinance (2025-14) to prohibit the unlawful feeding of wildlife in unincorporated Yavapai County.]

HEARING ITEMS NUMBER 1, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, APPROVE AN ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT THE UNLAWFUL FEEDING OF WILDLIFE.

WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT CREATURES IN THE BEGINNING OF THIS MEETING.

WHAT WILL WE DO ABOUT THESE CREATURES?

>> YES. THANK YOU, CHAIR.

[01:50:02]

VICE CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MARTIN BRENNAN BOARD COUNCIL.

AS INDICATED THIS IS A HEARING ON THE POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE FEEDING OF WILDLIFE IN YAVAPAI COUNTY.

THIS COMES TO THE BOARD FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.

FIRST OF ALL, THE STATE ALREADY HAS A LAW IN PLACE THAT PROHIBITS THE FEEDING OF WILDLIFE.

HOWEVER, THAT ONLY APPLIES IN COUNTIES WITH A POPULATION OVER 280,000.

IN ORDER FOR IT TO APPLY IN YAVAPAI COUNTY, IT'S NECESSARY FOR THE COUNTY TO CONSIDER THIS TYPE OF ORDINANCE.

SECOND, GAME AND FISH MONITORS THE NUMBER OF INTERACTIONS BETWEEN WILD ANIMALS AND HUMANS AND ALSO MONITORS SIGHTINGS OF WILD ANIMALS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

THOSE NUMBERS HAVE BEEN INCREASING, AND WE'VE ALL HEARD OF INCIDENTS INVOLVING INTERACTIONS WITH HUMANS AND ANIMALS THAT HAVE NOT GONE WELL.

THIS REALLY IS A PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY MATTER.

IT'S NOT GOOD FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE WILD ANIMALS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

IT'S ALSO NOT GOOD FOR THE ANIMALS TO BE DRAWN INTO THOSE AREAS.

THEY'RE NOT EATING APPROPRIATE FOOD.

THEY OFTEN NEED TO BE RELOCATED OR EVEN KILLED IF THEY CAN'T BE SUCCESSFULLY RELOCATED, AND IT ALSO LEADS TO THE SPREAD OF DISEASE.

THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE CONTAINS PENALTIES FOR PEOPLE WHO WOULD CONTINUE TO FEED ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE, BUT IT ONLY APPLIES TO REPEAT OFFENDERS.

THE IDEA IS TO GIVE EVERYONE A OPPORTUNITY TO BE AWARE OF THE PASSAGE AND EXISTENCE OF THIS PROHIBITION AND THEN ALSO THE FIRST GO AROUND TO JUST GIVE THEM A WARNING.

BUT FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS, IT PROVIDES FOR PENALTIES BETWEEN $1 AND 300 DEPENDING ON THE SEVERITY OF THE OFFENSE.

IT WOULD APPLY THROUGHOUT UNINCORPORATED YAVAPAI COUNTY BECAUSE THAT'S THE EXTENT OF THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY BY STATUTE, BUT IT COULD ALSO BE ADOPTED BY ANY CITY OR TOWN THAT'S LOOKING TO ADOPT THIS TYPE OF REGULATION.

FINALLY, IT'S BEEN REVIEWED BY THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND GAME AND FISH.

THEY BOTH APPROVE OF THE ORDINANCE.

IT'S ANTICIPATED IT WOULD BE ENFORCED PRIMARILY BY GAME AND FISH.

WITH THAT, I STAND FOR QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT, MR. BRENNAN.

I WOULD REACH OVER TO THE VICE CHAIR.

I THINK HE HAS SOME COMMENTS. MR. BRENNAN.

>> I JUST NOTICED YOUR EXPLANATION MADE MUCH MORE SENSE THAN THIS.

AS I READ THIS, IT SAYS, WE'RE PROHIBITING THE UNLAWFUL FEEDING. IS THERE A LAWFUL?

>> IT WILL BE UNLAWFUL AS SOON AS THE ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED.

>> BUT WE'RE PROHIBITING THE UNLAWFUL.

>> THAT'S RIGHT

>> THAT WAS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU SAID, AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU WERE THE ATTORNEY THAT REVIEWED THE LANGUAGE.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE.

THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.

>> THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS, MADAM CHAIR, WITH THE BIRDS.

>> YOU ARE CORRECT. YES. IN THE ORDINANCE, IT ALLOWS FOR THE FEEDING OF BIRDS AND TREE SQUIRRELS, AS LONG AS THE FOOD IS NOT PLACED IN A LOCATION WHERE IT COULD BE ACCESSED BY OTHER ANIMALS.

>> MADAM CHAIR.

>> I WORKED WITH SUPERVISOR KUKNYO AND MARTY ON THIS ITEM.

I JUST WANT TO SPEAK TO IT.

THERE'S DEFINITELY COUNTY WIDE APPLICATIONS, REASONS WHY THIS NEEDS TO MOVE FORWARD.

BUT I KNOW FROM MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IN MY DISTRICT THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO FEED WILDLIFE IN ORDER TO VIEW WILDLIFE, AND THAT DOES CREATE A DANGEROUS SITUATION.

I APPRECIATE THAT THIS ORDINANCE REALLY HELPS QUALIFY THOSE ACTIONS.

IF YOU HAVE A FRUIT TREE AND THE FRUIT DROPS FROM THE TREE, YOU HAVEN'T PLACED EDIBLE MATERIAL OUT THERE, SO IT'S REALLY CRAFTED IN A WAY THAT, I THINK, CAN HELP SOLVE THE PROBLEM, WHICH IS WHAT WE WANT OUR ORDINANCES TO DO AND NOT BE USED UNFAIRLY.

IT'S REALLY MEANT TO ADDRESS A PROBLEM ONCE IT'S ALREADY OCCURRING AND HAVE A SOLUTION IN MIND.

I'M REALLY HAPPY WITH THE WAY THIS SHAPED UP.

I WILL SAY, ORIGINALLY, I WAS MORE INTERESTED IN SIMPLY PRE-ADOPTING THE STATES LANGUAGE, BUT I THINK THE WORK THAT'S BEEN PUT INTO THIS ORDINANCE REALLY MAKES A WHOLE LOT MORE SENSE.

I APPRECIATE THE TIME THAT YOU'VE SPENT ON IT, MARTY.

I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER COMMENT.

THIS IS A HEARING ITEM.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A PROCESS WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH.

REACHING TO THE VICE CHAIR, DO WE HAVE ANY GREEN SHEETS REGARDING THIS?

>> NO GREEN SHEETS, CHAIR.

>> THE CLERK OF THE BOARD, DO WE HAVE ANY MORE COMMENTS, ANY AT ALL?

>> THE BOARD DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM.

>> FANTASTIC. IN THE AUDIENCE, DO WE HAVE ANYONE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK TO THIS PARTICULAR ITEM?

>> DID YOU FILL OUT A GREEN SHEET?

[01:55:03]

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> YOU CAN COME ON UP, AND THEN WE'LL FILL OUT ONE FOR THAT TOO AFTERWARDS.

JUST PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, AND THANK YOU, SIR.

YOU MIGHT HAVE TO TURN THAT ON.

>> IT'S ON NOW.

>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

DAVE NORTON FROM THE VILLAGE OF OAK CREEK.

JUST CURIOUS IF THIS ORDINANCE IS PASSED, HOW THAT'S GOING TO BE COMMUNICATED TO THE RESIDENTS, BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE BLIND SIDING AND DOING THINGS THAT THEY CLAIM THEY DIDN'T KNOW.

WHAT'S THE PLAN TO GET THAT WORD OUT TO PEOPLE? ARE WE GOING TO PUT THAT IN A MAILING, IN AN EMAIL, IN A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE OR SOMETHING SO THAT IT IT GETS IN FRONT OF THEIR FACE TO SAY, HEY, YOU CAN'T DO THIS ANYMORE.

THAT'S WIDELY HAPPENING ON THE GOLF COURSES IN THE VILLAGE OF OAK CREEK.

PEOPLE ARE FEEDING COYOTES AND THE JAVELINA BECAUSE THEY FEEL SORRY FOR THEM OR THEY WANT TO LOOK AT THEM.

SOMEHOW WE NEED TO GET THE WORD OUT TO PEOPLE.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BRINGING THAT UP, SIR.

SUPERVISOR CHECK.

>> THANK YOU, DAVE. I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO PERSONALLY REACH OUT TO MEDIA OUTLETS.

BUT TO ALSO SPEAK TO SOME OF THIS, I THINK PART OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IS LAW ENFORCEMENT IS BEING CALLED, AND THEY'RE UNABLE TO DO ANYTHING ONCE THEY ARRIVE.

THIS ACTUALLY WILL ENABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT TO TAKE ACTION THAT WILL HOPEFULLY MEANINGFULLY RESOLVE THE SITUATIONS.

BUT IT ESSENTIALLY WILL PROBABLY STILL REMAIN MOST EFFECTIVE AS A COMPLAINT-BASED SYSTEM, AND I CERTAINLY WILL DO WHAT I CAN TO GET THE WORD OUT VIA OUR NEWSLETTER AND MEDIA.

>> THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR CHECK. YES, MR. BRENNAN.

>> I WOULD JUST NOTE ALSO THAT IT WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE PAPER AS IS LEGALLY REQUIRED, AND WE'LL ALSO BE ISSUING A PRESS RELEASE.

WE COULD DO A LINK ON THE COUNTY'S WEBSITE AS WELL. THANK YOU.

>> WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I THINK THAT WILL CONCLUDE OUR HEARING AT THIS TIME, SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS HEARING, AND I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE HEARING ITEM NUMBER 1.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION, AND WE HAVE A SECOND.

WOULD YOU CALL FOR THE VOTE?

>> HEARING ITEM NUMBER 1 HAS BEEN APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

>> FANTASTIC. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 2 HEARING.

[2. Development Services - Approve a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Section 301 (Definitions), Section 410 (R1L District), and to replace the existing Section 537 (Guest Home) with the new Section 537 (Accessory Dwelling Units). Application No. PLA25-000072. SUPERVISOR CHECK MOTIONED TO APPROVE HEARING ITEM NO. 2 WITH THE STIPULATIONS ADDED BY STAFF AND THE INCLUSION OF THE WORD "ADEQUATE" TO DESCRIBE SEWAGE SYSTEMS; SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR COMPTON; PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ]

APPROVE A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 301. WELL, GOOD MORNING.

>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIR MALLORY, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

I'M SUSAN ABER, PLANNER WITH THE YAVAPAI COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THIS APPLICATION DID PASS AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS FOR THAT.

COMMISSIONER GARRISON IS AVAILABLE TO SPEAK TODAY, IF HE WOULD LIKE.

JUST TO COVER SOME OF THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION, THIS WENT THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS THAT WE ALWAYS HAVE FOR ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS.

THESE ARE SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE REVIEWED THIS DRAFT ALREADY.

WE DID HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THIS TO OUR TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP FOR THE UPCOMING ZONING ORDINANCE CODE UPDATE.

THEY DID PROVIDE SOME COMMENTS THAT WERE INCORPORATED INTO THIS AS WELL.

AS FAR AS PUBLIC COMMENTS, WE RECEIVED SEVEN.

SIX WERE IN OPPOSITION, ONE WAS IN SUPPORT.

THE SUMMARY, IN GENERAL, PEOPLE WHO ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE INCREASED DENSITY IN RURAL AREAS, THE STRAIN ON THE RESOURCES, TRAFFIC CONGESTION, AND LACK OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION, WHICH IS UNDERSTANDABLE, BUT THIS WAS BROUGHT TO US BECAUSE OF THE STATE STATUTE THAT WAS PASSED.

THERE WAS SOME PUBLIC PARTICIPATION THAT WAS INVOLVED AT THE STATE LEVEL.

THEN, LIKE I SAID, TYPICAL FOR A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AT THE COUNTY LEVEL AS WELL.

THE ONE IN SUPPORT DID APPRECIATE THAT IT WOULD BE GIVING MORE HOUSING OPTIONS.

JUST AS A OVERVIEW, THE BILL, HB 2928 PASSED THE STATE LEGISLATURE AT THE MAY 23, 2025 MEETING.

THIS YEAR IS WHEN IT PASSED.

PREVIOUSLY, CITIES AND TOWNS WERE UPDATED, I BELIEVE, THE PREVIOUS YEAR.

THE COUNTY STATUTE IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS PASSED FOR THE CITIES AND TOWNS.

[02:00:03]

UNFORTUNATELY, THERE AREN'T TOO MANY THINGS THAT THE COUNTY CAN DECIDE WHEN IMPLEMENTING THIS PACKAGE THAT WAS PUT FORWARD FOR THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, BUT THERE ARE A FEW THINGS.

ONE THING TO MAKE NOTE OF, ARS 11-810.01 STATES THAT COUNTIES DO NEED TO ADOPT ADU STANDARDS BY JANUARY 1, 2026, OR ADUS WOULD BE ALLOWED ON ALL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

NO LIMITS. GOING INTO SOME OF THE UPDATES, WE HAVE A LIST OF DEFINITIONS THAT WE'RE GOING TO INCLUDE AS PART OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.

THIS FIRST ONE COMES FROM THE STATE STATUTE ALMOST DIRECTLY.

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IS A SELF CONTAINED LIVING UNIT THAT IS ON THE SAME LOT OR PARCEL AS A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A GROSS FLOOR AREA GREATER THAN THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.

AND ADU INCLUDES ITS OWN SLEEPING AND SANITATION FACILITIES AND MAY INCLUDE ITS OWN KITCHEN.

IT'S NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A KITCHEN, BUT IT MAY HAVE ONE.

THIS IS BASICALLY SAYING THAT AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WILL BE SMALLER THAN THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.

WE DO HAVE A DEFINITION FOR DWELLING UNIT, BUT WE DID WANT TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO REVISE IT.

IT'S GOING TO MORE CLOSELY MATCH WHAT'S IN BUILDING CODE.

A SINGLE LIVING UNIT PROVIDING COMPLETE INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITIES FOR ONE OR MORE PERSONS, INCLUDING PERMANENT PROVISIONS FOR LIVING, SLEEPING, EATING, COOKING, AND SANITATION.

THIS LAST PART THAT'S IN RED, THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING RECENTLY AFTER THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MADE THE RECOMMENDATION.

WHEN WE SAY THESE PROVISIONS FOR LIVING, SLEEPING, EATING, COOKING, ALL OF THAT, THEY WOULD BE ACCESSIBLE INTERNALLY.

THEY WOULDN'T BE SEPARATED OFF AS WALLED OFF, WHERE IT IS REALLY AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT VERSUS PART OF THE RESIDENCE.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN CONSIDER IF YOU WOULD LIKE.

OTHERWISE, IT WASN'T PART OF THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION. YES.

>> MADAM CHAIR, ON THE VERY END OF THAT, A DWELLING UNIT DOES NOT INCLUDE LODGING AS DEFINED IN THIS ORDINANCE.

CAN THESE BE AIRBNBS?

>> YES. THAT LAST SENTENCE WAS RETAINED FROM OUR ORIGINAL DEFINITION THAT'S ALREADY IN THE ORDINANCE, SO WE DIDN'T EXCLUDE THAT.

BUT YES, AS WE GO THROUGH THIS WE'LL SEE THAT ADUS CAN BE RENTED LONG-TERM OR SHORT-TERM.

>> WELL, I DO HAVE TO SAY THAT'S QUITE INTERESTING BECAUSE I ACTUALLY SPOKE WITH A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE LEGISLATURE, AND THEY SAID, NO.

THAT IT'S STRICTLY NOT LIKE THE AIRBNBS, ELSE WE WOULDN'T HAVE SUPPORTED IT.

ANYWAY, THAT'S FINE. I'LL JUST GO CHECK OUT THAT.

>> I THINK IT'S PART OF A DIFFERENT STATUTE THAT WAS PASSED IN 2017.

THIS DOESN'T NEGATE THAT STATUTE ALREADY IN PLACE THAT WE AS COUNTIES CAN'T INTERFERE WITH THE RENTAL OF THE PROPERTIES.

WHETHER IT'S AIRBNB OR ANY OTHER SHORT-TERM RENTAL, VACATION RENTAL, THAT WOULD STILL BE FOR ANY PROPERTY.

ANY RESIDENCE CAN CURRENTLY BE RENTED THAT WAY.

>> I SEE.

>> FOR GROSS FLOOR AREA, WE DID HAVE A DEFINITION IN OUR PARKING SECTION.

IT'S FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE TO DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES IN CERTAIN PROJECTS.

WE DID GO AHEAD AND INCLUDE THAT AT THE END, SO THAT IS COVERED HERE.

BUT AS FAR AS THE STATE DEFINITION FOR A GROSS FLOOR AREA, THE INTERIOR HABITABLE AREA OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING OR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.

THAT EXTRA PART IS JUST POINTING TO THAT PARKING SECTION AS WELL.

>> TO BE CLEAR, THE STATE TOLD US WE CANNOT LIMIT BECAUSE OF PARKING ON STREET OFFICES.

NOW, YOU GOT YOUR ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT, HOW DOES THIS AFFECT HOAS? GRANVILLE DOES NOT ALLOW ON-STREET PARKING.

NOW YOU HAVE AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT, DOES THAT TRUMP THAT?

>> THIS WOULD BE FOR COUNTY REGULATIONS.

WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO REGULATE THE PARKING, BUT THAT DOESN'T INTERFERE WITH PRIVATE RESTRICTIONS.

>> THANKS.

[02:05:02]

>> JUST TO POINT OUT, THE INTERIOR HABITABLE AREA IS HOW THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS DETERMINED IN THOSE LIMITS.

THE WALLS THEMSELVES DON'T COUNT.

OUR GUEST HOME DEFINITION WILL BE DELETED ENTIRELY.

WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE TERMINOLOGY OVER FROM GUEST HOME TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.

CURRENTLY WE HAVE GUEST HOME ALLOWANCE IN OUR ORDINANCE, BUT THAT WOULD JUST BE FOLDED INTO THIS ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT NOW.

HABITABLE AREA.

AGAIN, JUST A DEFINITION TO HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND.

THIS ONE DOESN'T COME FROM THE STATE, SO IT IS OPEN TO CHANGE, IF YOU'D LIKE.

HABITABLE AREA IS A SPACE THAT IS FULLY ENCLOSED AND USABLE FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS IN A YEAR FOR LIVING PURPOSES, WHICH HAS ACCESS TO HEAT, PLUMBING, AND ELECTRICITY.

HABITABLE AREA DOES NOT INCLUDE BARNS, GARAGES, CARPORTS, OPEN PORCHES OR PATIOS, EXTERIOR STORAGE SPACE, OR UNFINISHED ATTIC SPACE.

ALL OF THAT INTERIOR HABITABLE AREA IS GOING TO BE PART OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE MAXIMUM LIMITS, BUT NONE OF THE ITEMS LISTED WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THAT.

WE DID NOT HAVE A DEFINITION FOR A KITCHEN SO WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND PUT THAT ONE IN NOW.

HABITABLE AREA FOR PREPARATION AND STORAGE OR REFRIGERATION OF FOOD, WHICH CONTAINS A SINK AND PERMANENT PROVISIONS FOR THE HEATING AND COOKING OF FOOD, SUCH AS A STOVE, RANGE, OR OVEN.

ONLY ONE KITCHEN IS ALLOWED PER DWELLING UNIT.

AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE A KITCHEN, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD USE TO DETERMINE WHAT A KITCHEN IS.

THIS IS FROM THE STATE AS WELL, PERMITTED USE.

WE HAVE CERTAIN THINGS THAT ARE ALLOWED.

WE SAY THEY'RE ALLOWED BY RIGHT WHEN THEY'RE LISTED IN THE ORDINANCE AS SOMETHING THAT A PROPERTY OWNER CAN DO ON THEIR PROPERTY BASED ON THE ZONING.

A PERMITTED USE IS ANOTHER WAY OF PUTTING IT, THE ABILITY FOR DEVELOPMENT TO BE APPROVED WITHOUT REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING, VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, OR SPECIAL PERMIT, OTHER THAN A DISCRETIONARY ZONING ACTION TO DETERMINE THE SITE PLAN CONFORMS WITH APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS.

THINGS THAT REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARINGS THAT WE BRING BEFORE YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED USES.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS TO ALLOW THEM ON THE PROPERTY.

BUT THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IS LISTED AS A PERMITTED USE.

WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING CURRENTLY REGARDING RENTALS IN OUR ORDINANCE.

PROBABLY GOING FORWARD AS WE DO THE ZONING CODE UPDATE, WE'LL LOOK AT PUTTING THIS INTO A SEPARATE SECTION.

BUT FOR NOW, THIS WOULD BE THE PLACE THAT LOGICALLY MAKES SENSE TO INCLUDE IT BECAUSE IT DOES COME UP WITH ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND HOW PEOPLE USE THEM.

LONG-TERM RENTAL IS NOT PART OF THE STATE DEFINITION, AND THAT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE, BUT A RENTAL USE IN WHICH THE TENANT HOLDS A LEASE OF 90 DAYS OR LONGER OR ON A MONTH BY MONTH BASIS.

THAT'S JUST ONE VERSION OF WHAT PEOPLE CONSIDER A LONG-TERM RENTAL.

THAT COULD BE CHANGED.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE 90 DAYS, BUT THAT'S A REASONABLE CUTOFF POINT, CORPORATE HOUSING.

A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL COME FOR THREE MONTHS AT A TIME, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

IF IT'S LESS THAN THAT, IT WOULD FALL INTO SHORT-TERM.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION ON LONG-TERM BECAUSE THE STATE A YEAR OR TWO AGO DETERMINED THAT LONG-TERM RENTAL WAS 30 DAYS AND OVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION.

>> THAT'S WHY THIS ISN'T REQUIRED BY THE STATE.

WE'RE GOING TO SEE IN A MOMENT THEIR DEFINITION FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS, WHERE THEY PUT ALL THE EFFORT IN.

THIS IS MORE JUST TO DISTINGUISH IT.

>> MADAM CHAIR, DOES THIS TRUMP CCNRS?

>> NOTHING WILL TRUMP CCNRS, BUT YOU CAN THINK OF THEM AS SEPARATE.

THE COUNTY REGULATIONS NEED TO BE FOLLOWED BY PROPERTY OWNERS, THEIR OWN PRIVATE RESTRICTIONS NEED TO BE FOLLOWED BY PROPERTY OWNERS.

PRIVATE RESTRICTIONS CAN BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE COUNTY, BUT NOT LESS RESTRICTIVE.

IF THEY WERE NOT TO ALLOW LONG-TERM RENTALS AS PART OF A PRIVATE AGREEMENT SOMEONE ENTERED INTO, THEN THAT'S SEPARATE FROM WHAT WE WOULD ALLOW OR NOT ALLOW.

>> BECAUSE A LOT OF CCNRS HAVE THIS LAID OUT IN THERE.

YOU'RE SAYING IF THAT WAS IN PLACE, WHAT IT WOULD TAKE WAS SOMEONE WOULD BUILD IT, THE NEIGHBOR WOULD HAVE TO SUE AND THEN LET THE CARDS FALL WHERE THEY WILL.

>> IT WOULD GO THROUGH THAT [OVERLAPPING]

>> THIS STUFF THAT THE STATE DID, I'M WORRIED ABOUT IT.

I THINK OUR PHONE IS GOING TO RING NON-STOP.

>> IT ALREADY IS.

COMES UP EVERY NOW AND THEN FOR GUEST HOMES.

IT'S A SIMILAR SITUATION.

>> BECAUSE YOU CAN PUT THESE WITHIN FIVE FEET OF A PROPERTY LINE, CORRECT?

>> RIGHT. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE NOT ABLE TO CHANGE.

THAT DOESN'T PREVENT, LIKE I SAID, PRIVATE RESTRICTIONS SAYING THAT THOSE SETBACKS NEED TO BE LARGER THAN FIVE FEET.

[02:10:01]

>> I UNDERSTAND THIS. JUST TO THE BOARD, THE SPIRIT OF THIS WAS TO TRY AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT WORKFORCE HOUSING BUT I'M AFRAID THAT IT IS GOING TO TURN INTO HOTEL IN EVERY BACKYARD.

ESPECIALLY SEDONA WHERE THEY ALREADY HAVE ONE IN FOUR.

>> LOOKING AT THIS DEFINITION, THIS IS BASED ON THE STATE STATUTE THAT SAYS THAT WE AS A COUNTY CAN'T REGULATE THOSE RENTALS FOR SHORT-TERM OR VACATION RENTALS.

A RENTAL USE IN WHICH A SINGLE FAMILY OR 1-4 FAMILY HOUSE OR DWELLING UNIT OR ANY UNIT OR GROUP OF UNITS IN A CONDOMINIUM COOPERATIVE OR TIME SHARE THAT IS ALSO A TRANSIENT PUBLIC LODGING ESTABLISHMENT OR OWNER-OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL HOME OFFERED FOR TRANSIENT USE IF THE ACCOMMODATIONS ARE NOT CLASSIFIED FOR PROPERTY TAXATION UNDER ARS 42-12001.

THAT IS A LOT.

AGAIN, IT'S COMING FROM THE STATE STATUTE, SO THAT'S A WAY TO DESCRIBE IT.

IT'S ALREADY IN PLACE.

IT'S BEEN IN PLACE, BUT WE WOULD INCLUDE THAT AS PART OF THE DEFINITION IN OUR ORDINANCE.

ALSO PART OF THAT IS VACATION OR SHORT-TERM RENTALS.

DO NOT INCLUDE A UNIT THAT IS USED FOR ANY NON-RESIDENTIAL USE, INCLUDING RETAIL, RESTAURANT, BANQUET SPACE, EVENTS CENTER, OR OTHER SIMILAR USE, PURSUANT TO ARS 11-269.17, AND THE STATUTE NUMBER IN RED THERE.

THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS OVERLOOKED PREVIOUSLY, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

JUST FOUND THAT TITLE 9 IS WHAT COVERS CITIES AND TOWNS.

TITLE 11 COVERS COUNTIES, SO WE WOULD WANT TO REFER TO THE COUNTY VERSION.

BUT IT'S THE IDENTICAL DEFINITION.

>> THE LAST DEFINITION HERE IS A WET BAR.

AGAIN, WE DIDN'T HAVE A DEFINITION FOR A KITCHEN OR WET BAR, AND IT DOES COME UP QUITE OFTEN WHEN PEOPLE ARE DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN HOW MANY KITCHENS THEY HAVE AND WHAT'S ALLOWED FOR A SINGLE DWELLING UNIT.

A WET BAR WOULD BE AN AREA FOR THE PREPARATION OF BEVERAGES WITH AN HABITABLE AREA, WHICH MAY INCLUDE A SINK AND REFRIGERATION UNIT, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE PERMANENT PROVISIONS FOR THE HEATING AND COOKING OF FOOD SUCH AS STOVE, RANGER OVEN.

THAT WAS CHANGED DURING THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JUST TO REWORD, REPHRASE IT WITH THAT HABITABLE AREA.

JUST THE PLACEMENT SOUNDED ODD AT THE TIME.

BUT SINCE THEN, IT DIDN'T COME UP IN THE DISCUSSION, BUT WE RETHOUGHT THIS, AND IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE TO GO AHEAD AND JUST LEAVE OUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR A HABITABLE AREA ALTOGETHER ON THIS ONE BECAUSE WE DO SEE OUTDOOR BARS ON PATIO, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THEY'RE ALREADY ALLOWED SO WE DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO EXCLUDE THOSE BY PUTTING THAT IN THE DEFINITION THAT IT HAS TO BE AN HABITABLE AREA. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO.

IT WASN'T PART OF THE ORIGINAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION, THOUGH.

MOVING TO SECTION 410.

THIS IS THE R1L DISTRICT.

JUST AS A REMINDER, THE ZONING THAT WE HAVE IN OUR ORDINANCE IS SET UP AS A HIERARCHY WHERE CERTAIN USES ARE LISTED IN THE R&L DISTRICT, WHICH IS OUR MOST RESTRICTIVE DISTRICT.

THAT'S RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY LIMITED TO SITE-BUILT ONLY.

ALL OF THOSE ALLOWANCES THAT ARE LISTED WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE NEXT LESS RESTRICTIVE ZONING DISTRICT.

IT WOULD CONTINUE FORWARD, CARRY OVER THROUGH ALL THE ZONING DISTRICTS UNLESS IT'S SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED AT SOME POINT.

IF WE CHANGE IT HERE, IT'S CHANGED FOR ALL OF THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW GUEST HOMES.

AGAIN, WE'RE JUST CHANGING FROM GUEST HOME TERMINOLOGY TO ADU TERMINOLOGY.

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 301, SUBJECT TO THE STANDARDS SET OUT IN SECTION 537 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.

WE'RE CHANGING THE ENTIRE SECTION.

>> IF IT'S SITE-BUILT ONLY, DOES THE ADU HAVE TO BE SITE-BUILT, OR CAN IT BE A MANUFACTURED TINY HOME?

>> WE'LL SEE, THAT IS PART OF THE STANDARDS AS AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WOULD NEED TO BE THE SAME CONSTRUCTION TYPE AS WHAT'S ALLOWED IN ITS ZONING DISTRICT.

>> RIGHT NOW, ON X SQUARE FEET OF LOT, WE ONLY ALLOW X SQUARE FEET OF HOUSING.

DOES THIS MAKE THAT MORE DENSE? DO WE HAVE TO ALLOW MORE THAN OUR STANDARDS ALREADY HAVE?

>> NO.

>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IT.

>> NO, THANK YOU. I THINK THIS NEXT PART IS JUST REMOVING ALL OF THE GUEST HOME STANDARDS THERE.

BUT HERE IS WHERE WE GO OVER WHAT BASICALLY IS ALLOWED, JUST A QUICK OVERVIEW OF WHAT IS PART OF THE STATE MANDATE,

[02:15:03]

AND WHAT WE DO OR DO NOT HAVE DISCRETION OVER.

AT LEAST ONE ATTACHED AND ONE DETACHED ADU WOULD BE ALLOWED IN ALL PROPERTIES THAT ALLOW FOR THAT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE.

ONE ADDITIONAL DETACHED ADU FOR LOTS OR PARCELS, ONE ACRE OR MORE IN SIZE.

AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OF THAT, BUT WE DO HAVE THE OPTION TO REQUIRE THAT AT LEAST ONE ADU BE RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT.

WE CHOSE TO LEAVE THAT OUT FOR NOW BECAUSE IT WOULD REQUIRE A LOT MORE TO PROCESS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE OWNERS ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS, RESTRICTED COVENANTS.

IT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLICATED THAN WE'RE MAYBE READY TO DEAL WITH AT THIS TIME, BUT THAT OPTION IS STILL GOING TO BE AVAILABLE AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ZONING CODE UPDATE.

THAT IS ONE THING THE COUNTY HAS DISCRETION OVER THE OTHER.

NUMBER 3. THIS IS WHAT IS IN THE STATUTE.

ADUS MAYBE AT LEAST 75% OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING OR 1,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICHEVER IS LESS.

RIGHT NOW, FOR OUR GUEST HOMES, WE'VE HAD THEM EITHER OR, AS WELL, 750 SQUARE FEET MAXIMUM OR 25% OF THE PRIMARY RESIDENCES LIVABLE AREA.

THAT'S LED TO SOME CONFUSION, A LITTLE BIT OF DIFFICULTY TO EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE.

WE WERE THINKING IT WOULD BE IDEAL TO JUST LEAVE THAT PERCENTAGE OUT.

IT WOULD AFFECT ONLY A SMALL SIZE RANGE BECAUSE IT'S WHICHEVER IS LESS.

IF WE JUST HAD THAT STRAIGHT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET, THEN ONLY, I THINK, UP TO 1,333 SQUARE FEET WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO BE LARGER.

FOR NOW, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COUNTIES CAN CHANGE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ALLOW ANYTHING TO BE LARGER THAN THAT SIZE LIMIT.

WE CAN'T BE SMALLER, BUT WE CAN BE LARGER.

ADUS CAN BE LEASED SEPARATELY AS RENTAL HOUSING.

AGAIN, THAT'S PART OF THE STATE STATUTE.

NO ADDITIONAL PARKING IS REQUIRED FOR ADUS.

RIGHT NOW, WE DO REQUIRE TWO PARKING SPACES FOR RESIDENTS.

RESIDENTIAL PARCEL WOULD ALWAYS HAVE AT LEAST TWO PARKING SPACES, BUT THEY WOULDN'T BE REQUIRED TO ADD ANY ADDITIONAL IF THEY WERE TO HAVE AN ADU.

ADUS DO NOT NEED TO MATCH THE EXTERIOR DESIGN OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY DESIGN STANDARDS IN PLACE RIGHT NOW FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS, AND WE WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THEM FOR ADUS.

THAT'S JUST IN THE STATUTE.

STANDARDS FOR HEIGHT, SETBACKS, LOT SIZE, LOT COVERAGE, OR BUILDING FRONTAGE, MAY NOT BE MORE RESTRICTIVE FOR ADUS THAN FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING.

THAT'S JUST SAYING THEY'RE APPLIED EQUALLY.

BUT LIKE YOU WERE SAYING, THAT'S A NATURAL LIMIT THAT'S PLACED ON WHAT CAN BE ON THE PROPERTY.

WE DO HAVE LOT COVERAGE.

I THINK THE MAXIMUM FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS WOULD BE 50%.

IT GOES DOWN TO ABOUT 5% ON SOME LOTS, BUT 50% COVERAGE OF ALL BUILDINGS UNDER ROOF.

THAT WOULD BE EVERYTHING FROM THE PRIMARY RESIDENTS, GARAGE, SHED, BARN, ADUS.

THEY COULDN'T GO OVER THAT.

ADUS CAN BE LOCATED FIVE FEET FROM THE REAR AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES.

AGAIN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN'T CHANGE, BUT IT'S FOR THE SIDE AND REAR.

IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE FRONT SETBACKS.

THE FRONT WOULD BE THE SAME AS FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY.

ADUS DO NOT NEED TO CONTAIN A FIRE SPRINKLER OR COMPLY WITH COMMERCIAL BUILDING CODE.

PART OF THE STATE STATUTE, RIGHT NOW, I BELIEVE THE FIRE AUTHORITY APPLIES THOSE FIRE SPRINKLER STANDARDS, BUT I THINK THAT STARTS AT 5,000 SQUARE FEET, SO IT REALLY WOULDN'T AFFECT THE ADUS.

THEN THEY'RE NOT APARTMENTS, SO THEY WOULDN'T BE COMMERCIAL PERMITS.

GOING INTO THE CHANGE THIS NEW LABEL ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS FOR SECTION 537.

FOR THE APPLICABILITY, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE PERMITTED USE ON ANY LOT OR PARCEL IN ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING IS ALLOWED, SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION, AND ALL APPLICABLE YAVAPAI COUNTY CODES, REGULATIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO BUILDING CODES, ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS, FIRE CODES, STORMWATER REGULATIONS, AND PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS.

ALL OF THAT WOULD STILL BE IN EFFECT.

THE STATE CAN'T CIRCUMVENT THOSE REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE.

PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO JUST CRAM THEM IN WITHOUT HAVING THIS ALSO APPLY TO THEM.

NUMBER 2, PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS SECTION SHALL RETAIN ITS SINGLE-FAMILY USE STATUS, EVEN THOUGH ONE OR MORE ADUS ARE ALLOWED.

[02:20:02]

ADUS PERMITTED UNDER THIS SECTION ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE REGULATIONS FOR MULTIFAMILY USES, SUCH AS THOSE ESTABLISHED IN SECTION 414.

R2 IS OUR MULTIFAMILY ZONING DISTRICT.

THIS SECTION DOES NOT MODIFY ANY MULTIFAMILY USES IN ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY USES.

THEY'RE VERY SEPARATE THINGS.

MULTIFAMILY WOULD BE THINGS LIKE WIND DUPLEXES, TRIPLEXES, FOUR FLEXES, ALL OF THAT.

WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF ZONING THAT'S SET ASIDE FOR THOSE MULTIFAMILY USES.

TO THE EXTENT ANY PROVISION IN THIS SECTION CONFLICTS WITH ARS 11-810.1, THAT STATUTE SHALL CONTROL.

IT'S THE STATE THAT WOULD BE THE CONTROL.

DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

THIS IS WHERE WE ARE PUTTING ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS INTO PLACE, ORGANIZING THEM.

ADUS ARE ALLOWED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS.

DENSITY AND SIZE.

ONE ATTACHED AND ONE DETACHED ADU ARE ALLOWED AS A PERMITTED USE ON A SINGLE LOT OR PARCEL SUBJECT TO THIS SECTION.

THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF EACH ADU SHALL NOT EXCEED 1,000 SQUARE FEET OF INTERIOR HABITABLE AREA.

EVERYONE WHO CAN HAVE A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE COULD HAVE UP TO ONE ATTACHED AND ONE DETACHED ADU WITH THAT 1,000 SQUARE FOOT SIZE LIMIT.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT WILL WORK FOR EVERY LOT, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE GENERAL ALLOWANCE.

ONE ADDITIONAL DETACHED ADU IS ALLOWED AS A PERMITTED USE ON A LOT OR PARCEL THAT IS ONE ACRE OR MORE IN SIZE.

THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF THIS ADU OR ADDITIONAL ADU SHALL NOT EXCEED 1,500 SQUARE FEET OF INTERIOR HABITABLE AREA.

THIS IS WHERE THE COUNTY HAS DISCRETION, AND WE HAVE PRESENTED THIS AS INSTEAD OF A MAXIMUM OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED AT LEAST BY THE STATE MANDATE, THEN WE CAN GO LARGER SO WE PUT OUT 1,500 SQUARE FEET FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS.

BUT TO GIVE SOME CHOICE TO PEOPLE WHO MAY NOT BE LOOKING FOR THIS AS JUST A BUNCH OF STRUCTURES TO RENT OUT, THEY MIGHT NEED THAT FOR THEIR FAMILY.

WE SEE PEOPLE WHO HAVE PROBLEMS RIGHT NOW WITH THE 750 SQUARE FOOT GUEST HOME LIMIT.

IF THEY HAVE MAYBE AGING PARENTS WHO WANT TO COME LIVE WITH THEM, BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO LEAVE ALL THEIR BELONGINGS BEHIND, MAYBE GIVE THEM A LITTLE MORE SPACE.

SAME THING FOR OLDER CHILDREN WHO HAVE CHILDREN OF THEIR OWN, AND NEEDS MORE SPACE, MEDICAL ASSISTANCE, ALL SORTS OF REASONS THAT WE COULD MAYBE UP THE LIMIT A LITTLE BIT.

IT WOULD ALSO ALLOW FOR USE OF OUR HOME OF MY OWN PROGRAM.

MOST OF THE FLOOR PLANS WOULD FALL UNDER THAT 1,500 SQUARE FOOT LIMIT AND MANUFACTURED HOMES.

ALSO, THAT COVERS A LOT OF AVAILABLE MANUFACTURED HOME PLANS.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU DEFINITELY HAVE INPUT ON.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DISCUSSED THAT FOR A WHILE, AND DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION.

DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION, CHAIR.

>> THE WAY I'M INTERPRETING THIS IS IN ORDER TO HAVE THE 1,500 SQUARE FOOT ADDITIONAL DETACHED, YOU HAVE TO FIRST BUILD THE ONE ATTACHED AND ONE DETACH.

THIS WOULD BE THE FOURTH UNIT.

>> THAT WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSION.

I BELIEVE THAT THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, THE ONE ADDITIONAL DETACHED ADU IS ALLOWED, DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE ORIGINAL ONE ATTACHED AND ONE DETACHED FIRST.

YOU COULD, IF YOU ARE ONE ACRE OR MORE, GO STRAIGHT TO THAT 1,500 SQUARE FOOT UNIT AND NOT DO ANY OTHERS.

THAT COULD BE THE SINGLE ADU ON THE PROPERTY.

>> IT JUST WASN'T THAT CLEAR. THANK YOU.

>> SORRY ABOUT THAT.

>> I MIGHT ASK OUR COMMISSIONER RANDY GARRISON HIS OPINION ON THE 1,500 SQUARE FEET AND ELUCIDATE MORE OF THAT CONVERSATION BECAUSE IT SEEMS A LITTLE BIT IN CONFLICT WITH SOME OTHER COMMENTS.

>> GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR, AND VICE CHAIR COMPTON AND BOARD MEMBERS.

RANDY GARRISON, I'M HERE TO SUPPORT DISTRICT 3 ON THE P&Z BOARD.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR GIVING ME THAT OPPORTUNITY.

PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW DIFFICULT THE JOB OF BEING A SUPERVISOR IS AND THE WEIGHT OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES AND THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE WEIGH HEAVILY ON YOUR SHOULDERS AND DOING YOUR JOB, AND THAT YOU ALLOWED ME, NOT ONLY TO BE RECOMMENDED BY MY SUPERVISOR, BUT TO SUPPORT THAT DECISION AND PUTTING ME ON P&C.

I GREATLY APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT IN DOING THAT.

[02:25:01]

TO SPEAK TO THIS SPECIFICALLY, THIS WAS ONE OF THE AREAS WHERE I WAS CONTRARY TO THE LEANING OF THE REST OF MY COMMISSION.

I FELT THAT 1,500 SQUARE FEET WAS A VERY LARGE STRUCTURE.

PART OF THE DISCUSSION WAS WHETHER YOU HAD TO ACTUALLY DO THE OTHER TWO ADUS BEFORE YOU WERE ALLOWED TO BUILD THE BIGGER UNIT, AND THAT WAS NOT THE CASE.

YOU COULD GO STRAIGHT TO THE BIGGER UNIT.

BUT IT GOES BACK TO THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD OVER THE ENTIRE IDEA OF THIS.

IT GOES BACK TO TWO OR THREE SLIDES BACK WHERE IT TALKED ABOUT WHAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS DONE.

RIGHT IN THE LANGUAGE, IT SAYS, COUNTY DISCRETION IS NOT ALLOWED.

THIS IS A LOVE HATE TYPE OF REGULATION THAT WE'RE BEING PASSED DOWN.

WE HATE THAT THE STATE IS CONTINUING TO TAKE AWAY MORE OF OUR ABILITY TO SELF GOVERN AND DECIDE WHAT OUR COMMUNITIES WANT.

ALL FIVE OF YOU SUPPORT DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS, BUT WE ALSO LOVE THE IDEA THAT MAYBE THIS WILL IN SOME WAY HELP WITH THE WORKFORCE HOUSING SHORTAGE THAT WE CURRENTLY ARE SUFFERING THROUGH.

THE 1,500 SQUARE FEET FOR ME WAS JUST, THAT'S A HOUSE.

I THINK THE IDEA WITH THIS WAS REALLY TO CREATE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, NOT PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS.

I THINK WHEN THE STATE CAME UP WITH THESE PLANS, THEY DIDN'T ENVISION A COUNTY LIKE YAVAPAI THAT HAS A TWO ACRE MINIMUM AS PART OF ITS CODE.

REALLY, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS LEGISLATION HAS REMOVED R1.

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS R1 ANYMORE.

IF YOU LIVE ON A TWO ACRE PARCEL, WHICH IS NORMAL FOR YAVAPAI COUNTY, IF YOU'RE OUTSIDE AN INCORPORATED AREA, YOU NOW HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE LIVING IN THE MIDDLE OF A VERY TIGHT SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING TRACT.

THE RESTRICTIONS ARE ALMOST NONE.

NO THOUGHT OF PARKING.

SEPTIC IS REALLY GOING TO BE YOUR BIGGEST LIMITING FACTOR WHEN IT COMES TO HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU CAN PUT ON THAT LOT AND HOW MANY PLACES YOU CAN BUILD, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THEY'VE REALLY TAKEN AWAY YOUR ABILITY TO CONTROL ANYTHING.

THIS IS ONE AREA WHERE YOU DO HAVE THAT AUTHORITY.

THIS IS A CHANGE THAT'S BEING SUGGESTED BY THE COMMISSION AS AN ADDITION BECAUSE OF THE ABILITY TO OFFER MORE SELECTIONS AND WHAT YOU BUILD ON YOUR PROPERTY.

BUT ALSO IN MY MIND, IT JUST MOVES US FURTHER DOWN THAT PATH OF CREATING A SMALL COMMUNITY WHERE YOU EXPECTED TO HAVE A SINGLE NEIGHBOR.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE I CAN ANSWER FOR YOU ABOUT THIS.

>> MADAM CHAIR. IS EACH ADU GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO HAVE ITS OWN SEPTIC, OR ARE THEY GOING TO TIE THEM ALL TOGETHER?

>> NO. WHILE THE SEPTIC WOULD BE ENVIRONMENTAL WOULD HAVE THE CONTROL OVER YOUR SEPTIC, SO THEY WOULD DETERMINE WHETHER THE ORIGINAL UNIT THAT WAS PUT ON THE PROPERTY IS CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING ANY ADDITIONAL FIXTURES, AND IF NOT, THEN HOW MUCH WOULD HAVE TO BE MODIFIED OR ADDITIONAL UNITS WOULD HAVE TO BE.

THIS WAS NOT A CONSIDERATION OF THE LEGISLATURE, EITHER.

SAME THING WITH WATER.

THERE WAS NO CONSIDERATION FOR WATER AVAILABILITY WHEN YOU WERE TO PUT EXTRA HOUSES ON YOUR LOT, LIKE COYOTE SPRINGS WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE, LOT OF LAND, BUT THERE'S NOT A LOT OF WATER.

YOU DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO REALLY REGULATE WHETHER SOMEBODY BUILDS ON THAT WITH ANOTHER ADU NOW THAT YOU'VE ALLOWED ORIGINAL PROPERTY, THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE, AND MAKE WATER A CONDITION JUST LIKE THEY REMOVE FIRE FROM BEING A CONDITION.

>> WELL, BECAUSE I KNOW IN THE WATER PORTFOLIO OF PRESCOTT, THEY'VE ASSIGNED EACH LOT AN AMOUNT OF WATER.

BUT THEY WERE SAYING, WELL, THIS IS THIS ZONING, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE FAMILY THERE.

NOW YOU COULD HAVE FOUR FAMILIES THERE.

>> YOU HAVE NO CHOICE IN IT.

THAT'S I GUESS, THE THING THAT RUBBED THE COMMISSION THE MOST WAS THE FACT THAT THIS IS BEING PUSHED DOWN, AND THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.

THE PUBLIC'S UPSET ABOUT IT, WHICH I UNDERSTAND, YOU ARE GOING TO RECEIVE A LOT OF PHONE CALLS BECAUSE YOU'VE DONE THIS.

BUT IT REALLY WAS PUSHED DOWN TO YOU, AND YOU JUST HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE IT USABLE FOR THE PUBLIC, AND THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS IN THERE YOU CAN MODIFY.

THE 1,500 SQUARE FEET IS ONE OF THOSE,

[02:30:01]

BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT, YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE MUCH CHOICE IN HOW YOU ADD THIS INTO YOUR RULES AND ORDINANCES?

MR GARRISON.

>> SUPERVISOR CHECK. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANTED TO SAY OR? THANK YOU. WELL, YOU KNOW, WE JUST KEEP BOTH.

>> WE CAN COME BACK TO THAT SIZE IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS IT FURTHER AS WE GO THROUGH.

BUILDING HEIGHT, ADUS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME HEIGHT REGULATIONS AS THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT RIGHT NOW THAT IS 30 FEET FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS.

SETBACKS, AGAIN, THAT FRONT YARD SETBACK WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FRONT YARD FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITHIN THAT SAME ZONING DISTRICT.

THE MINIMUM THAT WE HAVE FOR RESIDENTIAL OR FOR LOTS IN GENERAL IS 20 FEET, AND IT GOES UP TO 50 FEET.

IT JUST DEPENDS ON THE ZONING DISTRICT AND DENSITY.

THE REAR INTERIOR SIDE AND EXTERIOR SIDE SETBACKS FOR AN ATTACHED OR DETACHED ADU SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS.

AGAIN, UNUSUAL, FROM OUR CURRENT PERSPECTIVE, WHERE ANY DWELLING IS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN PRIMARY SETBACKS.

NOW THAT COULDN'T BE APPLIED TO ADUS.

ADU MAY NOT BE BUILT ON TOP OF A CURRENT PLANNED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT UNLESS THE PROPERTY OWNER RECEIVES WRITTEN CONSENT FROM ANY UTILITY THAT IS CURRENTLY USING THE EASEMENT OR THAT MAY USE IT IN THE FUTURE.

FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION, AN ADU IS NOT REQUIRED TO MATCH THE EXTERIOR DESIGN, ROOF PITCH, OR FINISHING MATERIALS OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING THAT IS LOCATED ON THE SAME LOT OR PARCEL AS THE ADU.

THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE THROUGH PRIVATE RESTRICTION IF A NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED TO GET TOGETHER AND DO THAT.

DETACHED ADUS MAY BE ANY CONSTRUCTION TYPE THAT IS ALLOWED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING THAT IS LOCATED ON THE SAME LOT OR PARCEL AS THE ADU, AND MUST BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THE COUNTY'S ADOPTED BUILDING CODES.

IF THE PARCEL IS R1L ZONING, IT WOULD NEED TO BE SITE-BUILT.

IF IT WERE R1 ZONING, WHEN MANUFACTURED HOMES ARE ALLOWED, ADU COULD ALSO BE MANUFACTURED HOMES.

IF A NEW ADU WILL NOT BE CONNECTED TO A SEWER SYSTEM, AN EXISTING OR NEW ON-SITE WASTEWATER SYSTEM MUST BE ADEQUATELY SIZED TO SERVE THE NEW ADU BEFORE ITS CONSTRUCTION.

THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP TO US RECENTLY.

THE STATE DOES SAY ANY ADEQUATE CONNECTION TO A SEWER SYSTEM, SO IT'S NOT JUST THAT IT CAN BE CONNECTED TO A SEWER SYSTEM, THE SEWER SYSTEM MUST HAVE THE CAPACITY TO ALLOW THAT.

IT'S NOT PREVENTING THE COUNTY FROM REQUIRING THAT.

IF WE WANT TO BE SAFE, WE CAN ADD SOME A WORD IN HERE, BUT THE REASONING BEHIND LEAVING IT AS EITHER IT'S GOING TO BE CONNECTED TO A SEWER SYSTEM OR THE SEPTIC SYSTEM NEEDS TO BE ADEQUATELY SIZED IS IF YOU ARE A WASTEWATER SERVICE, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY FOR THAT ADU, YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO CONNECT IT.

BUT WE COULD JUST GO AHEAD AND INCLUDE AN ADEQUATE SEWER SYSTEM AS WELL, IF YOU WOULD LIKE.

IS THAT SOMETHING YOU'RE CONCERNED WITH?

>> WE'RE TALKING IF YOU'RE USING THAT SEPTIC, YOU'RE PROBABLY USING A WELL, TOO.

NOW WE GOT THE HUNDRED-FOOT DISTANCE.

>> ALL OF THOSE REGULATIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS WOULD BE IN PLACE.

THAT MIGHT PREVENT A LOT OF ACCESSORY DWELLINGS FROM BEING DEVELOPED ON, ESPECIALLY SMALLER LOTS.

IF THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH SPACE TO HAVE THESE SEPTIC REQUIREMENTS MET AND ALL OF THE LOT COVERAGE, THE FRONT SETBACK, AT LEAST, ALL OF THAT GOES INTO IT.

THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS HOLDING WALL-TO-WALL ADUS BACK.

RIGHT NOW, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD THE WORD ADEQUATE BEFORE SEWER SYSTEM AS WELL AS SEPTIC SYSTEM?

>> MADAM CHAIR, THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME.

SEWER SYSTEMS HAVE CAPACITIES AS WELL AS SEPTIC, SO I THINK THAT'S DEFINITELY WORTH ADDING IN SO THAT THERE'S AN ABILITY NOT TO CREATE A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE ON THE OTHER END.

>> I WOULD THINK IT'D BE A REQUIREMENT.

BUT YES [INAUDIBLE].

>> I'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND QUICKLY ADD IT.

>> YOU DON'T THINK THAT'S A BURDEN ON STAFF THAT NOW HAS

[02:35:03]

TO DECIPHER WHAT AN ADEQUATE SEWER SYSTEM IS, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY.

>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE SEWER CONNECTION PROCESS.

WHEN THEY DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE THE CAPACITY, THEN WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PREVENT THAT FROM MOVING FORWARD UNTIL THAT'S ADDRESSED.

>> WE SOMETIMES DO CONNECT NEIGHBORHOODS TO A MUNICIPAL SEWER SYSTEM, SO I THINK IT'S RELEVANT.

>> FOR PARKING, NO ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY OR VEHICLE PARKING IS REQUIRED FOR AN ADU, BUT AN ADU THAT REMOVES OR MODIFIES ANY EXISTING REQUIRED VEHICLE PARKING SPACES FOR THE MAIN RESIDENTS SHALL REPLACE THE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, AND IT DOES NEED TO BE IN A LOCATION AUTHORIZED BY THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR.

WE JUST MAKE SURE THOSE WERE APPROPRIATE PARKING SPACES.

THIS CHANGE WAS MADE DURING OUR TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE DRAFT, ADDRESSING UNIT WANTED TO REPLACE THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS PRESENTED BECAUSE THIS IS HOW THEY ACTUALLY ASSIGN ADDRESSES.

THE NEW VERSION IS DETERMINATION OF ADDRESSES FOR EACH ADU WILL BE REVIEWED AND ISSUED BY THE YAVAPAI COUNTY ADDRESSING UNIT.

ADDRESSES ARE REQUIRED TO BE POSTED AT THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE AND ON THE INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES, VISIBLE FROM THE PRIMARY DRIVEWAY AT EYE LEVEL, USING AT LEAST 4" REFLECTIVE NUMBERS, CONTRASTING AND COLOR FROM THE BACKGROUND OF THE ADU.

>> YOU'LL PROBABLY WIND UP USING ABCD, RIGHT?

>> NO, NOT NECESSARILY.

I DON'T THINK WE DO THAT CURRENTLY.

EVERYTHING HAS AN INDIVIDUAL NUMBER.

>> BUT NOW, YOU MIGHT HAVE THREE, FOUR TIMES THE AMOUNT OF RESIDENCES WHEN YOU DON'T ACCOUNT FOR THAT, AND YOU'RE GOING DOWN THE STREET.

>> THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COMES UP WITH GUEST HOMES AS WELL, AND THEY'RE ASSIGNED THEIR OWN NUMBER.

IT WOULD BE MAYBE TWO MORE THAN A GUEST HOME, POTENTIALLY, BUT I THINK THAT THEY WOULD STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO ASSIGN A UNIQUE NUMBER.

THAT WOULD HELP WITH THE EMERGENCY SERVICES BEING ABLE TO FIND WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR.

>> USE OF AN ADU. AN ADU ON THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED ON THE SAME LOT OR PARCEL MAY BE USED OR ADVERTISED AS SEPARATELY LEASED LONG-TERM RENTAL HOUSING.

THAT'S WHAT'S IN THE STATE STATUTE AND WHY WE HAVE THAT DEFINITION IN THE ORDINANCE NOW FOR THE LONG-TERM AS WELL.

WE CAN'T PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING.

THIS SECTION DOES NOT EXEMPT AN OWNER OF A RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTY FROM REGISTERING AND MAINTAINING WITH THE YAVAPAI COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE ANY REQUIRED INFORMATION PURSUANT TO A. R. S 33 1902.

CURRENTLY, ALL RENTALS SHOULD BE REGISTERING AT THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE, SO THIS WOULD ALSO APPLY TO ADUS.

AN ADU, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS USED AS A VACATION OR SHORT-TERM RENTAL, MAY NOT HAVE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THOSE USES FOR A SPECIAL EVENT THAT WOULD OTHERWISE REQUIRE A PERMIT OR LICENSE PURSUANT TO YAVAPAI COUNTY RESOLUTION NUMBER 1752.

RIGHT NOW, ANY PROPERTY, WHETHER IT'S A GUEST HOME, RESIDENCE, A PARK, YOU WOULD APPLY FOR A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT FOR THOSE THINGS THAT ARE NON-RESIDENTIAL.

PARADE, A WEDDING, THOSE MIGHT ALL FALL UNDER SPECIAL EVENTS.

THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHERE AN ADU IS USED AS A VACATION OR SHORT-TERM RENTAL MUST RESIDE ON THE PROPERTY IF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR SIMILAR FINAL APPROVAL FOR THE ADU WAS ISSUED BY THE COUNTY ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 14, 2024.

THAT IS AN ALLOWANCE THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE BY THE STATE PREVIOUSLY IN ANOTHER STATUTE.

WE COULD REQUIRE THIS.

WE DON'T HAVE TO, BUT WE WENT AHEAD AND INCLUDED IT HERE BECAUSE IT DOES GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTROL OF THE WAY THAT THOSE RENTALS ARE BEING USED, SAYING THAT AN OWNER NEEDS TO RESIDE ON THE PROPERTY IF THEY ARE HAVING SHORT-TERM RENTALS.

WE CAN ONLY DO THAT PAST THAT DATE, THOUGH.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE THAT IN, THAT WILL BE ALLOWABLE.

IN SUMMARY, THE TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 301, TO ADD AND MODIFY DEFINITIONS RELATED TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN THEIR USE, TO MODIFY SECTION 410 WITH A CHANGE FROM GUEST HOME ALLOWANCE TO ADU ALLOWANCE, AND TO REPLACE THE EXISTING SECTION 537 GUEST HOME WITH THE NEW SECTION 537 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.

AGAIN, THAT WAS RECOMMENDED WITH UNANIMOUS VOTE FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

AS A REMINDER, THESE ARE THE CHANGES THAT PRESENTED TODAY THAT WERE NOT PRESENTED TO

[02:40:01]

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WHEN THEY MADE THAT RECOMMENDATION.

THE INTERNAL ACCESSIBILITY FOR THAT DWELLING UNIT DEFINITION, THE CHANGE OF REFERENCE TO THE STATE STATUTE FOR COUNTIES, AND REMOVING THAT REQUIREMENT FOR A HABITABLE AREA IN A WET BAR.

YOU COULD CHOOSE TO INCLUDE THOSE AS PART OF YOUR MOTION OR NOT, IF YOU CHOOSE.

THEN THIS IS JUST A GRAPHIC, JUST TO GIVE A VISUALIZATION OF HOW THIS IS FROM ANOTHER COUNTY, MARICOPA COUNTY, THAT PUT THIS TOGETHER, WE BORROWED, JUST TO SHOW WHERE THE SETBACKS ARE, HOW AN ATTACHED ADU IS PART OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, AND THAT DETACHED ADU CAN JUST BE FIVE FEET FROM THE SIDE AND REAR.

THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

IF YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL THAT INFORMATION.

I'LL REACH OUT TO THE BOARD IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS AT ALL.

I DON'T SEE ANY. AT THIS TIME, ANY GREEN SHEETS, VICE CHAIR ON TALKING ABOUT THIS HEARING ITEM?

>> NO GREEN SHEETS ON THIS ONE CHAIR.

>> CLERK OF THE BOARD, DO YOU HAVE ANY LETTERS?

>> THE BOARD RECIEVED ONE COMMENT IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM.

>> I'LL REACH OUT TO THE AUDIENCE.

ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS PARTICULAR ITEM THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW? I DON'T SEE ANYTHING GOING THERE.

WELL, THAT WILL CONCLUDE.

I WILL CLOSE THIS HEARING AT THIS TIME.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THE SIZE OF THAT 1,500 SQUARE FOOT ADDITIONAL?

>> I THINK THE SUPERVISOR CHECK.

YOU HAD A COUPLE OF THERE WAS A ONE WORD THAT WE WERE CHANGING, AND THEN WOULD LIKE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS?

>> WELL, THAT'S UP TO THE BOARD.

I PERSONALLY LIVE IN A HOME THAT'S SMALLER THAN 1,500 SQUARE FEET, SO I THINK TO WHAT COMMISSIONER GARRISON SPOKE TO, IF THE IDEA IS TRULY AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND NOT A FULL-BLOWN HOME, IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO ME TO HAVE IT BE LIMITED TO 1,000 SQUARE FEET.

BUT I UNDERSTAND THE OTHER, COMMENTS MADE, SO I'D OPEN IT UP FOR COMMENT FROM THE BOARD.

>> I'M FINE WITH CHANGING IT.

WE'RE JUST BEING MANDATED WITH THIS, AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT.

WE ACTUALLY HAVE PROPOSALS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DEAL WITH ON THE VACATION RENTALS.

THAT WAS PART OF OUR COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION SUMMIT, SOMETHING WE'RE TRYING TO DEAL WITH, AND NOW WE HAVE THIS.

ANYWAY, WE COULD CHANGE IT TO THOUSAND SUPERVISOR KUKNA.

>> I JUST LOOK AT THAT 1,500 SQUARE FEET.

YOU CAN DEFINITELY GET THREE, MAYBE EVEN FOUR BEDROOMS IN THERE.

WHAT MAKES THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL LOOK GOOD TO CONSUMERS IS YOU MIGHT HAVE THREE FAMILIES, FOUR FAMILIES SPLITTING THAT RENTAL UP.

NOW I'M THINKING, SIX TO EIGHT PEOPLE IN A HOUSE THAT SHOULD HOLD TWO TO FOUR, AND THE DIFFERENT FOUR MORE CARS THAT ARE NOT ACCOMMODATED FOR PARKING.

I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE EVERYTHING YOU'VE DONE, BUT JUST BEGRUDGINGLY.

I THINK THESE IS GOING TO BE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH IN THE FUTURE.

I THINK UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES TOTALLY HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN SEEN THAT ARE GOING TO COME OUT OF THIS.

BECAUSE YOU LOOK AT THAT GRAPH YOU GOT ON THERE RIGHT NOW.

WE HAVE SETBACKS FOR REASONS, AND NOW THOSE SETBACKS ARE NULL AND VOID.

IT'S JUST CHANGED A LOT.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL I'M TALKING ABOUT, BUT I'M JUST BUMMED OUT THAT THIS GOT PUSHED DOWN OUR THROAT.

>>UNDERSTANDABLE.

>> LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THE THOUSAND.

>> WAS IT 1,000 OR 1,500? AGAIN.

>> I THINK THE LOWER ONE IS, AM I CORRECT ON THAT BOARD, THE LOWER SQUARE FOOTAGE?

>> WHAT DOES STAFF THINK? WHAT DO YOU WANT?

>> WE DEFINITELY PUT THAT IN THERE BECAUSE IT WILL ADDRESS SOME THINGS THAT DO COME UP OFTEN.

IT WILL HELP PEOPLE, IN ADDITION TO HAVING THIS, LIKE YOU SAID, CRAM DOWN OUR THROATS, AT LEAST IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO POTENTIALLY HELP PEOPLE THAT COULD USE THAT SMALL LITTLE BIT OF SPACE EXTRA THAN WHAT WOULD ALREADY BE ALLOWED.

THEY COULD USE SOME OF OUR PLANS, SOME MANUFACTURED HOMES.

RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE NO GOOD MANUFACTURED HOME OPTIONS FOR THE GUEST HOME SIZE THAT WE HAVE. THAT INCREASES IT.

THEY WOULD PROBABLY HAVE SOME MORE OPTIONS AT 100 FEET.

BUT IF THEY WERE CHOOSING TO JUST DO ONE ADU AND JUST HAVE IT A LITTLE BIT LARGER THAN 100 SQUARE FEET, THAT MIGHT SUIT A LOT OF PEOPLE MORE THAN HAVING THREE INDIVIDUAL SMALL ADUS.

IT'S JUST AN OPTION.

JUST TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE, RIGHT NOW, THE WAY THAT OUR GUEST HOME ALLOWANCE IS SET UP WITH THAT 750 OR 25% OF THE PRIMARY.

[02:45:01]

IT'S AN EXTREME EXAMPLE, BUT WE'VE SEEN 10,000 SQUARE FOOT HOMES, AND THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A 2,500 SQUARE FOOT GUEST HOME CURRENTLY, BUT PEOPLE DON'T TEND TO DO THAT.

IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT CAN PROVIDE SOME ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED THAT SPECIFIC OPTION.

>> YOU SUPPORT HAVING IT AT 1,500 STAFF SUPPORTS THAT.

>> P AND Z SUPPORTS US?

>> I WRONG OR COULD WE ALSO KEEP THE PERCENTAGE AS A PART OF THIS?

>> THAT'S AN OPTION. IT'S JUST AN EXTRA LAYER TO GO THROUGH BECAUSE IT'S WHICHEVER IS LESS.

IF 1,000 SQUARE FEET IS LESS, THEN IT WOULD JUST DEFAULT TO THAT.

>> I DO SEE MATT APPROACHING.

MATT, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE MAYBE SOME INPUT HERE.

>>THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, MATT LAKE, PLANNING MANAGER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

I THINK SUSAN HIT IT ON THE HEAD, BUT I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE, WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS, SINCE THERE WAS SUCH DISCUSSION AT JOINT SESSION ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WORKFORCE HOUSING.

A LOT OF IT'S ABOUT CHOICE.

WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE PROMOTING THE HOME OF MY OWN.

MANY OF THE PLANS ARE 1000-1500 SQUARE FEET.

THAT PROMOTES WHAT HAS PROVEN TO BE A VERY SUCCESSFUL, DESIRABLE PROGRAM.

THE OTHER THING THAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT, OF COURSE, IS CHOICE.

ONE THOUSAND FEET MIGHT WORK FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WORKED FOR ME IN COLLEGE, BUT WE'RE ALSO MINDFUL OF DIFFERENT FAMILY SIZES.

THINK OF THE SINGLE MOM WITH THREE KIDS.

IS 1,000 FEET REALLY ADEQUATE? WE TEND TO BE THE ONES ON THE RECEIVING ZONE WHEN WE'RE TALKING TO APPLICANTS ABOUT GUEST HOMES.

THAT 750 SQUARE FEET CERTAINLY DOESN'T WORK.

THERE WAS JUST THE CONCERN ABOUT, WELL, IF ONE OF THOSE HOUSES COULD BE 1,500 SQUARE FEET, MANY PEOPLE MIGHT JUST CHOOSE THE OPTION OF JUST DOING ONE ADU AND SIZING IT CORRECTLY.

IT'S I'M HEARING, LIKE, ALL THE CONCERNS WITH THE ORDINANCE, AND WE AGREE WITH THOSE CONCERNS.

WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THE BEST OUT OF AN OTHERWISE BITTER PILL TO SWALLOW, WHICH IS THE STATE MANDATES. THANK YOU.

>> I APPRECIATE YOU COMING UP HERE AND GIVING THAT INPUT.

SUPERVISOR CHECK, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING?

>> CLEARLY IT OBLITERATES OUR LAND USE PLANNING.

>> IT'S A REAL GOOD QUESTION.

DO WE WANT TO BROADLY SUPPORT HOUSING? THERE'S A POSITIVE SIDE THERE, BUT THAT'S GOING TO COME WITH SOME REAL RAMIFICATIONS AND LAND USE CONFLICTS PROBLEMS. IT'S HARD TO KNOW WHETHER WE WANT TO BE SUPPORTIVE OR LIMITING IN THIS MOMENT BECAUSE WE REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE IT'S NOT BEEN COMPREHENSIVELY PLANNED.

THAT'S JUST EXACTLY THE INTENT OF THE STATE WAS TO REMOVE OUR ABILITY TO COMPREHENSIVELY PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT.

I'M IN A PICKLE, OF COURSE, SUPPORTING HOUSING, BUT ALSO REALIZING THAT THERE REALLY COULD BE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES HERE.

>> I GUESS AT THIS POINT, WE MAYBE JUST GO WITH THE 1,500. GO AHEAD, COUNCILLOR..

>> I WAS JUST WATCHING, ACTUALLY, SOMEBODY BUILDING A TOWN IN TEXAS ON YOUTUBE LAST NIGHT, WHERE THEY WERE DEALING WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SMALL TOWNS.

THERE WAS AN INNOVATIVE PROJECT THAT WERE SILOS.

THEY WERE 1,200 SQUARE FEET.

I'M FINDING A LOT OF THESE THINGS THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH 1000-1500.

THE PRICE BY THAT WAS $100,000 WITHOUT THE LAND.

I WAS GOING TO BRING THAT TO YOU.

I JUST LIKE THE FLEXIBILITY UP TO THE 1,500 PERSONALLY, BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE, OR A DIFFERENT POSITION THAN I AM.

THE FAMILIES MAY NEED TO MOVE.

I KNOW WE CAN BE HURT EITHER WAY, BUT I'M AT THE 1,500 FEET MYSELF.

>> SUPERVISOR COMPTON, IF I MAY, WHEN YOU READ ABOUT HOUSING CHOICE AND PREFERENCE, THAT 1,500 SQUARE FEET TENDS TO BE THE AMERICAN PREFERENCE, AND THE SUPERVISOR'S CHECK IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT THERE'S PROS AND CONS ANYWAY THAT YOU GO.

THE ELEGANCE, I THINK THAT WE'RE IN THE MIDST OF A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE ZONING CODE, IS WE HAVE THE ABILITY, AS WITH DARK SKIES, AND OTHER THINGS THAT WE'VE DONE IS TO ROAD TEST SOME OF THESE MORE EMERGENT ISSUES OR ORDINANCES THAT WE'RE ADOPTING IN THE INTERIM.

WE HAVE MANY MONTHS TO TEST THEM OUT AND WORK OUT THE BUGS, AND WE CAN REVISIT, UPDATE, AND REVISE THEM IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS OVERALL UPDATE.

THERE'S ALWAYS ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT WITH THESE THINGS, SO WE CAN CERTAINLY REVISIT THIS ORDINANCE.

>> WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I DO APPRECIATE THAT.

LET ME SEE. WE'VE ALREADY CHECKED FOR GREEN SHEETS.

>> CORRECT.

>> NO GREEN SHEETS.

>> I HAD ALREADY TALKED TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD, AND THEN WE'RE HERE.

NOW I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE HEARING.

NOW I'LL ACCEPT A MOTION TO ACCEPT THIS ITEM.

>> I'LL TAKE A STAB AT IT.

A MOTION TO APPROVE HEARING ITEM NUMBER 2

[02:50:06]

WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY STAFF THAT DIDN'T MAKE IT TO PLANNING AND ZONING.

ALL THREE OF THOSE. I'D LIKE TO INCLUDE IN MY MOTION, IF THERE WERE THREE.

THEN THE ADDITION BEHIND ADEQUATE SEWER COVERAGE.

DID I DO ALL RIGHT?

>> I THINK YOU DID GREAT.

WE CALL FOR THE VOTE, PLEASE.

>> MOTION AND A SECOND.

>> SUPERVISOR COOKE.

>> BEGRUDGINGLY, YES.

>> YES. HEARING ITEM NUMBER 2 HAS BEEN APPROVED WITH THE ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS AS STATED.

>> I'M GOING TO POUT.

>> NICE PRESENTATION, BY THE WAY.

HEARING ITEM NUMBER 3, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

>> GREAT JOB. THANK YOU.

ITEM NUMBER 3.

[3. Development Services - Approve minor text amendments to Section 10.0 (Administration and Implementation) of the Yavapai County Comprehensive Plan 2032 to clarify procedures and criteria for processing major and minor amendments, as well as technical revisions. Application No. PLA25-000075.]

A MINOR TEXT AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 10.0.

WELL, GOOD AFTERNOON. MATT.

>> WHEN DID YOU FIND OUT?

>> BY JUST TICKING AWAY.

>> RIGHT HERE.

>> THANK YOU. HELLO, AND GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR MALLORY, AND VICE CHAIR COMPTON, AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

MY NAME IS MATT BLAKE. YOU'RE PLANNING MANAGER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

STAFF IS REQUESTING MINOR PROCEDURAL TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE YAVAPAI COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2022, SPECIFICALLY SECTION 10, WHICH DEALS WITH THE ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AMENDMENTS.

VARIOUS PROCEDURAL AMENDMENTS ARE NEEDED TO CLARIFY AND SIMPLIFY OUR PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING MAJOR AND MINOR AMENDMENTS, AS WELL AS ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICAL REVISIONS TO THE YAVAPAI COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

JUST FOR BENEFIT OF A RECAP, BECAUSE THIS ITEM HAS BEEN HERE BEFORE.

WHEN THIS ITEM APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 18TH, AND I WILL NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER GARRISON IS HERE, IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS ITEM AND THE COMMISSION'S PERSPECTIVE, THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

AT THE BOARD MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 1, 2025, THE BOARD VOTED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO BE HEARD ON NOVEMBER 19TH, WHICH BRINGS US TO TODAY'S HEARING.

GIVEN THAT STAFF PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED THIS APPLICATION TO YOU ON OCTOBER 1, I'M WONDERING IF THE BOARD WOULD PERMIT ME TO SKIP AHEAD TO THAT PORTION OF THE PROPOSED PROCEDURAL AMENDMENTS WE HAVEN'T YET ALREADY DISCUSSED.

YOU AT THE LAST TIME YOU HEARD THE PROBLEM STATEMENT, WHY THERE'S THE NEED.

WE SPENT A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME GOING OVER ALL THE PROPOSED DELETIONS.

WHERE WE ARE NOW IN THE PRESENTATION WOULD BE THE PROPOSED ADDITIONS, THE ACTUAL AMENDMENTS.

>> THAT'S FINE, MATT. WHATEVER WOULD MOVE ON.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

I THINK THAT WILL MOVE THINGS ALONG NICELY.

HERE ARE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS SHOWN IN BOLD, SO YOU CAN SEE IN BOLD, SIMILAR TO THE LAST PRESENTATION.

THEY'RE IN BOLD AND UNDERLINED.

OTHERWISE, THE LANGUAGE IS THE EXISTING LANGUAGE. NOW WE'RE IN.

WE'RE DEALING WITH A COUPLE OF SUBSECTIONS WITHIN SUBSECTION 10, AGAIN, ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES.

THESE, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE IN BOLD, WE DON'T NEED TO SPEND MUCH TIME ON THESE, BECAUSE THESE ARE REALLY ABOUT THE INTRODUCTION IN NATURE, MOLY REFLECTING THE PROCESS AS OUTLINED IN THE STATUTE, THAT CITATIONS ARS 11-805 REALLY JUST MEANT FOR CLARITY, SO IT'S NOT A MYSTERY AS FAR AS THE PROCESS AND WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS.

THIS IS REALLY LANGUAGE THAT MOST OF THESE AMENDMENT PROCESSES THAT COUNTY HAVE REQUIREMENTS FOR ALREADY SPECIFY IN THEIR COMP PLAN.

WE'RE JUST BRINGING IT UP TO SPEED FOR GREATER CLARITY AND UNDERSTANDING FOR THE PUBLIC THAT NEEDS TO READ THESE THINGS AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR OPTIONS AND WHAT THE PROCESS IS.

SECTION 10.2 CONTINUED.

REALLY THE SAME IDEA.

I'M HAPPY TO READ IT, MADAM CHAIR, IF YOU LIKE, BUT OTHERWISE, REALLY, THIS IS JUST PROVIDING GREATER CLARITY AS FAR AS COMPLYING WITH THE STATE STATUTE.

THERE'S NOTHING REALLY IMPACTFUL.

THIS LAW ALREADY APPLIES WHETHER WE INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE OR NOT.

IT'S JUST PROCEDURAL IN NATURE.

>> I'M FINE. WE'LL JUST MOVE ON MATT.

>> GREAT. THANK YOU. NOW WE'RE GETTING TO THE MEAT OF IT, THE PROCESS FOR A MAJOR AND MINOR.

JUST TO BACK UP.

THIS IS REALLY WHEN AN APPLICANT'S COMING TO YOU,

[02:55:01]

AND THE BOARD HAS DISCRETION, SIMILAR TO DISCRETION FOR A USE PERMIT OR REZONING.

YOU HAVE FINAL SAY.

TYPICALLY, THAT'S GOING TO BE WHEN A LAND OWNER IS LOOKING TO REZONE THEIR PROPERTY, TO DO THAT NEEDS TO COMPORT AND CONFORM WITH YOUR COMP PLAN, YOUR LAND USE MAPS.

THESE APPLICATIONS ARE TYPICALLY ALWAYS GOING TO BE ABOUT AN APPLICANT FOR A PROPERTY THAT WANTS TO CHANGE THE UNDERLYING LAND USE CATEGORY DESIGNATION.

THEY'LL GET THAT CHANGE, AND THEN MAYBE THEY'LL COME BACK AND REQUEST TO REZONING.

OFTEN A TWO STEP PROCESS.

MANY TIMES THEY'RE DONE IN TANDEM.

YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A LITTLE BIT OF LANGUAGE HERE THAT'S IN ORANGE.

AS YOU KNOW, WHEN THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED, THERE WERE SOME DISCUSSIONS INDIVIDUALLY WITH SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WHO WERE INTERESTED IN THIS ITEM.

THIS LANGUAGE THAT'S IN ORANGE IS REALLY JUST REFLECTING SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT RECEIVED TO MAKE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR.

LIKE, WHEN IN DOUBT, WHO DECIDES WHETHER IT'S A MAJOR OR MINOR? WELL, OF COURSE, THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR ULTIMATELY MAKES THAT CALL, SO WE MAKE THAT CRYSTAL CLEAR.

THERE'S JUST A COUPLE OF WHAT WE WOULD CALL STAFF-RECOMMENDED REVISIONS THAT I'LL BRING UP AGAIN AT THE END, BUT JUST A COUPLE, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT 300 ACRES, WE'RE REALLY TALKING 300 CONTIGUOUS ACRES.

YOU'LL SEE THAT AGAIN. THAT'S JUST ANOTHER ONE THAT WAS REALLY JUST AN OMISSION IN LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE DOING THE CLEAN-UP BASED ON YOUR INPUT.

REALLY, WITH A MAJOR CHANGE, I THINK THE MAIN TAKE-HOME HERE WITH A MAJOR IS THAT THAT HAPPENS ONCE PER YEAR, AND THAT ESSENTIALLY, ANYTHING THAT ISN'T A MINOR MINOR AMENDMENT OR AN ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICAL REVISION IS GOING TO BE A MAJOR.

THESE ARE THINGS LIKE WE'RE CHANGING A CHAPTER, A MAJOR CHANGE TO A MAP OR A LAND AREA, THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

SOMETHING THAT ANY ONE OF US PROBABLY WOULD REASONABLY AGREE AND SAY, THAT'S A MAJOR CHANGE.

LET'S HIT THE BRAKES, AND LET'S DO ALL THOSE TOGETHER ONCE PER YEAR, MAYBE AT THE END OF THE YEAR.

THAT'S THE IDEA WITH THE MAJOR, SECTION.

THIS JUST TALKS ABOUT THE MAJOR HAPPENING ONCE PER YEAR. WE WANT TO GET THOSE.

YOU WANT TO GET THOSE INTO US BEFORE JULY SO WE CAN SCHEDULE AND STACK THOSE TOGETHER SO THEY CAN BE HEARD AT ONCE.

THAT'S JUST A GOOD HOUSEKEEPING CHANGE.

THIS REALLY JUST REFLECTS SIMILAR PROCESS A USE PERMIT.

THE COMMISSION MAKES A RECOMMENDATION, AND THE BOARD HAS FINAL SAY.

FOR ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICAL RESCISSIONS, REALLY NO CHANGES HERE, REALLY JUST TALKING ABOUT THAT WE'RE ALSO INCLUDING NOT JUST CORRECTIONS, BUT PROCEDURAL CHANGES.

THIS WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TODAY IS REALLY ABOUT PROCEDURAL CHANGES, WHERE THE STAFF IS COMING TO YOU AND SAYING, WE DIDN'T GET THAT QUITE RIGHT.

THE LANGUAGE IS CONFUSING EVERYBODY.

MAYBE WE CAN JUST MAKE THIS TWEAK HERE TO CLEAN UP OUR PROCESS.

WE WANTED TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICAL REVISIONS.

NOW WE GET TO THE MEAT OF IT.

I THINK, WHICH IS PROBABLY THE MOST IMPACTFUL.

TYPICALLY, FOR MOST COUNTIES, YOU REALLY DON'T WANT TO HOLD UP.

THIS CAME UP AT JOINT SESSION, LIKE, WE WANT TO STREAMLINE OUR PROCESSES, BE, PROVIDE GOOD CUSTOMER SERVICE.

IT'S REALLY ONLY THOSE RARE OCCASIONS WHEN IT'S SOMETHING REALLY BIG AND IMPACTFUL, WHEN YOU WANT TO HIT THE BRAKES AND LOOK AT THAT ONCE A YEAR.

FOR THE MOST PART, EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO ASK FOR AN AMENDMENT, AND IT'S PROBABLY APPROPRIATE THAT MOST OF THOSE AMENDMENTS CAN COME JUST LIKE A USE PERMIT, ANY TIME OF THE YEAR WHEN AN APPLICATION IS MADE.

MADAM CHAIR, JUST A LITTLE DIRECTION HERE ON HOW YOU'D WANT ME TO GO WITH THIS.

I'M HAPPY TO READ EACH ONE OF THEM.

WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THE ONES THAT REALLY MATTER ARE THE FIRST THREE.

AGAIN, THESE DEAL SPECIFICALLY WITH REQUESTS TO CHANGE THE UNDERLYING LAND USE CATEGORY, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DO A REZONING UNLESS THAT CATEGORY MIRRORS THAT WHICH YOU'RE ASKING FOR AS PART OF A REZONING.

YOU COULD EXPECT TO SEE A LOT.

IF WE'RE GOING TO SEE ANY OF THESE, THESE ARE TYPICALLY GOING TO BE WHAT THOSE REQUESTS ARE FOR.

AS I MENTIONED AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING, WHEN I PRESENTED THIS ITEM IS THAT CURRENTLY THE CURRENT LANGUAGE IS UNWORKABLE.

EVERYBODY GETS LOST IN IT.

IT'S ARBITRARY.

THERE'S LOTS OF NUMBERS ON WHETHER IT'S INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL AND VICE VERSA.

TO US, TO STAFF WHO ACTUALLY HAS TO REVIEW AND APPLY THIS, IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER FROM WHAT LAND USE TO LAND USE, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THE BOARD HAS THAT DISCRETION TO MAKE THAT CALL WHETHER IT'S AN APPROPRIATE USE.

[03:00:01]

WHAT HELPS INFORM THE APPLICANT, THE PUBLIC, AND ULTIMATELY, THE BOARD'S DECISION IS THE REASONABILITY OF THE REQUEST.

THAT REALLY GETS TO WHAT IS THE REQUESTED USE.

WHAT IS THE LOCATION AND THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE LOCATION IN CONTEXT WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE AND LAND COVER, AND SIMILAR OTHER USES? YOU'RE GOING TO WANT TO LOOK TO, IS THIS REQUESTED CHANGE TO YOUR LAND USE MAP? IS THE SAME LAND USE CATEGORY IN THE VICINITY? IS THERE A ZONE THAT MIRRORS THAT LAND USE CATEGORY IN THE VICINITY? HAVE THERE BEEN LOTS OF USE PERMITS AND REZONINGS THAT HAVE BEEN APPLIED OVER THE YEARS BECAUSE THE ZONING MAP AND THE LAND USE MAP ARE SO OUTDATED THAT IF WE WERE JUST TO RELY ON THE LAND USE MAP ALONE, WE MAY MISS THE REALITY OF ALL THE CHANGES.

THESE THREE CRITERIA REALLY JUST GET TO THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THEIR REQUEST.

THE FIRST ONE IS THAT IT ALLOWS, AGAIN, THIS IS FOR MINORS.

FOR MOST OF THESE UP TO 300 CONTIGUOUS ACRES, YOU CAN REQUEST ANY TYPE OF LAND CATEGORY CHANGE? AGAIN, DISCRETION OF THE BOARD WITH ALL OF THESE JA OR NEI, SO THIS IS WHERE YOU WANT THAT REQUESTED USE TO INTERSECT, AND THE FIRST ONE UP TO A QUARTER MILE WITH SIMILARLY ZONED PARCELS, LEGALLY ESTABLISHED USES, OR LAND USE CATEGORIES AS MEASURED FROM THE CLOSEST PROPERTY LINE.

THAT'S THE FIRST CRITERIA CATEGORY.

AGAIN, 300 ACRES.

THE NEXT ONE RATCHETS IT'S UP A LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE THE FIRST ONE COULD BE ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTY.

THE NEXT ONE PROVIDES GREATER ALLOWANCE, WHERE WE BUMP IT UP, AGAIN, 300 CONTIGUOUS ACRES.

NOW WE BUMP IT UP TO A HALF A MILE DISTANCE FROM SIMILARLY ZONED PARCELS, LAND USE CATEGORIES OR USES.

THE REASON BEING HERE IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BEING SEPARATED BY MORE THAN A HALF A MILE, WHERE THE PROPOSED USE, AND THE EXAMPLE YOU'RE WANTING TO POINT TO, TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT'S IN CONTEXT WITH SIMILAR USES ARE LOCATED ALONG A ROADWAY OR FRONTAGE.

THE IDEA HERE IS THAT WE SEE A LOT OF THESE REQUESTS, AND A LOT OF LAND USE CHANGES THAT TYPICALLY MAKE SENSE ARE ONES WHERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A COMMERCIAL USE.

THERE'S CURRENTLY NO ZONING TO SUPPORT, BUT THE REALITY IS IS THAT WE'VE HAD 20 YEARS OF COMMERCIAL USES BEING PERMITTED THROUGH USE PERMITS ALONG A ROADWAY OR A COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR OR HIGHWAY INTERCHANGES, THE TYPICAL PLACES WHERE THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS EITHER IN PLACE OR IT'S COMING, OR IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR DEVELOPMENT TO HAPPEN.

WE WANTED TO RECOGNIZE THAT.

THE THIRD ONE, AND THIS IS IN THESE RARE CASES WHERE YOU HAVE AN APPLICANT THAT WANTS TO DO A MAJOR SUBDIVISION, COMING OUT OF JOINT SESSION, READING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF INTEREST IN REALLY BREATHING LIFE AND INCENTIVIZING THIS IDEA OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVER LOT SPLITTING.

THIS IS ONE SMALL WAY THAT WE CAN DO IT.

IF YOU'VE GOT A BIG PROJECT, RIGHT UP TO A SQUARE MILE, 640 ACRES, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO CHANGE YOUR UNDERLYING LAND USE, BECAUSE YOU'RE DOING IT AS PART OF A REZONING REQUEST, AND BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, IT'S PLANNED, NOT JUST PLANNED, BUT PLANNED AS PART OF A PAD OR OR AN OPEN SPACE CLUSTER, WHERE YOU'RE REALLY GETTING AS FAR AS WHAT OUR ORDINANCE PROVIDES, THE BIGGEST BANG FOR THE BUCK IN PUBLIC AMENITIES AND THE PROTECTION OF OPEN SPACE, THE IDEA BEING, LET'S NOT HOLD UP THOSE PROJECTS.

IF WE REALLY ARE TALKING ABOUT PROVIDING DENSITY IN AREAS THAT MAKE SENSE, THE LAST PART OF THAT REQUIREMENT WOULD BE, AND IT HAS TO HAPPEN IN A GROWTH AREA.

YOUR GROWTH AREAS ARE ESTABLISHED IN YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE, THE STAFF CAME UP WITH.

AGAIN, THE COMMISSION VOTED ON THIS ITEM UNANIMOUSLY.

THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT WAYS TO SKIN A CAT ON THIS, BUT WHAT WE THOUGHT MADE THE MOST SENSE WAS JUST REALLY TO LOGICALLY LOOK AT THE CONTEXT.

WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING? IS A SITE APPROPRIATE, THE LOCATION, AND WHAT IS THE CONTEXT WITH SIMILAR USES.

THESE ARE REALLY THE MAIN CHANGES.

>> I'M GOOD WITH THAT.

>> GREAT. I'M GOING TO MOVE ON THEN.

THIS TAKES US TO THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PROCESS.

WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS.

WE DID OUR USUAL PROCESS, SIMILAR TO A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.

WE REACHED OUT TO ALL THE USUAL SUSPECTS, OUR COUNTY DEPARTMENTS, COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION,

[03:05:02]

ETC, PUBLICATION IN THE NEWSPAPERS, WEBSITE, THE ONLINE SURVEY.

AS YOU CAN SEE, WE REALLY DIDN'T GET ANY RESPONSES.

I THINK, REALLY, BECAUSE THIS ISN'T REALLY CONTROVERSIAL.

IT'S JUST ABOUT TIGHTENING UP THE PROCEDURES THAT REALLY BENEFIT ALL MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY.

THAT BRINGS US TO THE SUMMARY.

STAFF IS MAKING A REQUEST FOR PROCEDURAL AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 10, ADMINISTRATION, AND IMPLEMENTATION TO CLARIFY AND SIMPLIFY PROCEDURES FOR MAJOR AND MINOR AMENDMENTS, ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICAL REVISIONS TO THE YAVAPAI COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2032, WITH THE FEW REVISIONS AS PROPOSED BY STAFF, THIS APPLICATION ITEM, AGAIN, PROCEDURES AND AMENDMENTS.

WITH THAT, I CLOSE MY PRESENTATION, AND I STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

>> WELL, THANK YOU, MATT.

I KNOW WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS MAJOR, MINOR TEXT AMENDMENT STUFF FOR A LITTLE WHILE NOW.

I APPRECIATE ALL THE HARD WORK THAT GOES INTO THIS, AND, OF COURSE, COMING UP HERE AND EXPLAINING IT.

AS WE MOVE FORWARD, I DO KNOW THAT IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED.

BEING THAT THIS IS A HEARING ITEM, DOES THIS BOARD HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION? NO.

>> THIS JUST REALLY APPLIES TO BIG PROJECTS.

YOU JUST GOT TO TELL DEVELOPERS THIS, REALLY.

IT'S NOT YOUR AVERAGE GUY, AIN'T GOING TO DO IT.

IT'S SOMEBODY DOING A 300 ACRE PROJECT.

>> THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR KUKNYO.

I WOULD ALSO ENVISION A SCENARIO WHERE YOU'VE GOT AN INTERCHANGE, AND WE'VE SEEN SOME OF THESE BEFORE ON THE HIGHWAY, WHERE THE HIGHEST AND BEST LAND USE IS REALLY CRYING OUT FOR COMMERCIAL AND HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL SERVICE, BUT IT'S STILL IN RESIDENTIAL.

THAT MAY ONLY BE A FIVE ACRE SITE.

THIS PROCESS SUDDENLY BECOMES VERY IMPORTANT FOR THAT PROPERTY OWNER.

THE CURRENT LANGUAGE SAYS YOU HAVE TO BE OVER 10 ACRES.

WELL, THAT'S DIFFICULT.

THAT'S A SOMEWHAT ARBITRARY NUMBER.

AGAIN, THE IDEA IS TO LEAVE IT TO THE LANDOWNERS TO COME UP WITH THEIR IDEAS OF WHAT THEY NEED, WHAT THEIR LAND USE IS, AND WHAT THEY WANT IT TO BE.

IT'S THE BOARD THAT HAS THE ULTIMATE DISCRETION.

YOU'RE THE GATEKEEPER HERE, BUT WE WANT TO GIVE PEOPLE THAT RIGHT TO COME FORWARD.

IT COULD BE A SMALLER ACREAGE.

>> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. I SEE THAT WE RELY, MAYBE TOO HEAVILY, ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS.

HAVING THIS IN PLACE WILL PROBABLY HELP BRING SOME PERMANENCE TO SOME OF THOSE DECISIONS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE PEOPLE WOULD BE PURSUING A CUP BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO WAIT OR GO THROUGH THAT WHOLE PROCESS.

>> I THINK THIS CLEANUP PROCESS ABSOLUTELY STREAMLINES WHAT MORE APPROPRIATELY IS GOING TO BE A REZONING FOR A LOT OF THESE APPLICATIONS. THANK YOU.

>> VICE CHAIR, DO WE HAVE ANY GREEN SHEETS?

>> NO GREEN SHEETS.

>> CLERK OF THE BOARD. ANY COMMUNICATION OUT OF YOUR OFFICE?

>> NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED ON THIS ITEM.

ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM?

>> DON'T SEE ANY ACTION THERE.

I'M GOING TO CLOSE THIS HEARING, AND I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE HEARING ITEM NUMBER 3.

>> HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.

CALL FOR THE VOTE, PLEASE.

>> SUPERVISOR KUKNYO.

>> HEARING ITEM, NUMBER 3, HAS BEEN APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU AGAIN, VERY MUCH.

>> MATT, I APPRECIATE IT. NUMBER 4 IS HEARING ITEM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES,

[4. Development Services - Approve a Major PAD Amendment for APN 405-52-001 to allow for an outdoor event lawn on a 7.42-acre parcel, subject to the conditions of approval. Owner: 90 Ridge Trail Drive Sedona LLC; Applicant/Agent: Cassandra Ayers of Berry Ridell, LLC. Application No. PLA25-000040. (District 3 - Supervisor Check)]

APPROVE A MAJOR PAD AMENDMENT.

WELL, GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> YES, GOOD AFTERNOON.

CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I'M STEPHANIE JOHNSON, PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO PRESENT TO YOU BOTH ITEMS 4 AND 5, THE MAJOR PAD AMENDMENT, ALONG WITH THE REVISED FINAL PLAT, AS THEY DO NEED TO BE HANDLED TOGETHER, AND THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY ONE ITEM.

>> SOUNDS GOOD.

>> THEY WILL REQUIRE TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS. I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT.

>> I THINK I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE.

>> YES. WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED TODAY.

>> THAT SOUNDS WONDERFUL.

>> THIS MATTER WAS PREVIOUSLY HEARD BY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 18TH OF THIS YEAR.

THE COMMISSION DID UNANIMOUSLY APPROVE BOTH APPLICATIONS, AND COMMISSIONER GARRISON IS AVAILABLE SHOULD YOU NEED TO CONSULT WITH HIM.

THIS MATTER WAS ALSO PREVIOUSLY HEARD BY THIS BOARD ON OCTOBER 15TH, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY TABLED UNTIL TODAY,

[03:10:02]

UPON SUPERVISOR CHECK'S REQUEST.

THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS REGARDING RIDGE TRAIL DRIVE THAT WERE NOT ABLE TO BE ANSWERED AT THAT TIME.

SINCE THEN, SOME CONVERSATIONS HAVE BEEN HAD BETWEEN STAKEHOLDERS AND THE APPLICANT.

I CAN ZIP THROUGH SOME PRESENTATION HERE REAL QUICK.

I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT THE TWO DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS, PLA25-00040, IS THE MAJOR PAD AMENDMENT AND THAT WILL MODIFY THE PAD NARRATIVE DOCUMENT TO ALLOW FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF AN OUTDOOR WEDDING AND EVENT LAWN.

THE SECOND APPLICATION, PLA25-00041, IS THE REVISED FINAL PLAT THAT WILL ALLOW THE PLATE TO BE MODIFIED, REMOVING SPECIFIC DELINEATION OF PARKING SPACES AND ALLOWING MORE FLEXIBILITY OF USES WITHIN THE PARKING AREAS WHILE STILL MAINTAINING THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF SPACES.

ONE MORE QUICK LITTLE THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD BEFORE WE BRING THE APPLICANT UP.

I DO THINK THE APPLICANT WOULD BE BEST TO ADDRESS THE CONVERSATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN HAD REGARDING RIDGE TRAIL DRIVE AND WHERE THEY'RE AT WITH THAT.

BUT I DO WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT SHOULD THIS ITEM BE APPROVED AND GO FORWARD WITH BUILDING PERMITS, OUTDOOR LIGHTING CONCERNS HAVE BEEN A MAJOR CONCERN OF THE COMMUNITY, AND THOSE WILL BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS.

AS OUR NEW SECTION 603 REQUIRES THAT A MODIFICATION OF THIS TYPE TRIGGERS THE PROPERTY TO BE BROUGHT UP TO COMPLIANCE WITH THAT NEW LIGHTING ORDINANCE.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, I CAN GO THROUGH SOME PICTURES AND THINGS THAT YOU'VE ALREADY SEEN.

I'D BE HAPPY TO SHOW YOU THOSE.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO BYPASS THAT, WE CAN BRING THE APPLICANT UP AND GET TO THE MATTERS THAT YOU GUYS NEED THE INFORMATION ON.

>> THANK YOU. I WILL DEFER TO SUPERVISOR CHECK.

WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO HERE?

>> WE CAN BYPASS THOSE. THANK YOU.

>> YOU'RE VERY WELCOME. MS. CASSANDRA IS HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.

>> I JUST WANT YOUR PICTURES.

>> I CAN FIND THE MOUSE. THERE IT GOES.

IT GOES RUNNING AWAY FROM YOU.

RUNNING AWAY FROM ME.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. THERE YOU GO.

>>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MY NAME IS CASSANDRA AYRES.

BARRY REDELL, 6750 EAST CAMELBACK ROAD.

IN SCOTTSDALE, IT IS OUR PLEASURE TO BE HERE WITH YOU THIS AFTERNOON.

ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, WE DO ALSO HAVE SOME REPRESENTATIVES FROM OUR TEAM HERE AVAILABLE, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT I AM INCAPABLE OF ANSWERING.

I WILL VERY BRIEFLY, BECAUSE I WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL OF YOUR TIME.

I KNOW YOU HAVE MORE ITEMS AFTER MINE.

BUT I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OF THINGS.

DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE LOCATION OF THE SITE, WHICH I'M SURE YOU'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH.

SKIP THE HISTORY, SKIP THE ABOUT THE RESORT.

I DID WANT TO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT OF WHAT THE INTENT OF THIS REQUEST IS INTENDED TO ACCOMPLISH.

IT'S A VERY SMALL WEDDING AND EVENT VENUE DESIGNED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS STUNNING VISTA, THAT CANDIDLY, I'M HAVING TROUBLE REALIZING WHY IT TOOK SO LONG TO PUT SOMETHING LIKE THIS IN PLACE.

AS WE'VE NOTED, WE HAVE A REQUEST THAT IS INTENDED TO TAKE A PORTION OF THE PARKING LOT AND TURN IT INTO THE EVENT LAWN AREA.

IT WILL BE SHIELDED FROM OTHER AREAS BY THE BUILDING, YOU SEE TO THE WEST.

EVEN THOUGH WE'RE REMOVING PARKING SPACES FOR THE EVENT LAWN, WE ARE STILL PROVIDING IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT THAT IS REQUIRED BY THE COUNTY.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THIS BOARD IS AWARE, WE HAVE HEARD CONCERNS FROM THE COMMUNITY REGARDING NOISE.

WE'VE TAKEN GREAT CARE TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

AS I NOTED, THE BUILDING TO THE WEST WILL BE SHIELDING THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE NOISE.

FOR THOSE RESIDENTS THAT ARE TO THE NORTH, IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO SEE FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE, BUT THAT EVENT ALONE IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE ELEVATED.

THE CURRENT PARKING LOT IS SLANTED, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD.

IT'S SLANTED RIGHT NOW, AND SO IT WILL BE RAISED UP AND ELEVATED, AND SO NOISE IS GOING TO GO OVER THE HOUSES THAT ARE TO THE NORTH.

BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE'VE ALSO PROVIDED SOME SIGNIFICANT NEW LANDSCAPING TO PROVIDE THAT NOISE MITIGATION BARRIER AS WELL. ON MY ARROWS AGAIN.

I ALSO WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THIS REQUEST IS NOT, AND IT IS NOT TO EXPAND THE USES THAT ARE ALREADY TAKING PLACE AT THE RESORT.

IT'S MERELY INTENDED TO ENCOMPASS THINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAKING PLACE AT THE RESORT.

[03:15:04]

BUT BECAUSE THE PD DOCUMENTS AND NARRATIVE WERE DRAFTED SO MANY YEARS AGO, IT JUST DIDN'T ENCOMPASS THE THINGS THAT A MODERN RESORT DOES.

THIS IS INTENDED TO ENCOMPASS THOSE AND MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THOSE ARE, IN FACT, ALLOWED USES IF THERE'S EVER ANY QUESTION.

IT'S CONSISTENT WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

WE DID A LOT OF OUTREACH ON THIS SITE.

WE WENT OUT IN THE COMMUNITY BEFORE THE APPLICATION WAS EVEN FILED.

WE HAD A GIANT MAILING RADIUS.

IT WAS ABOUT 1,300 PEOPLE THAT WE SENT LETTERS TO, LETTING THEM KNOW ABOUT THE APPLICATION IN GENERAL AND INVITING THEM TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING.WE ONLY HAD 12 NEIGHBORS ATTEND, GIVEN THAT MAILING LIST.

WE HAD 12 NEIGHBORS ATTEND.

I NEEDED TO UPDATE THIS. I APOLOGIZE.

I WAS HAVING TROUBLE THIS MORNING WITH THE POWERPOINT.

BUT WE DID ALSO GET 25 LETTERS IN SUPPORT, AND AS OF LAST COUNT, I BELIEVE IT WAS SIX LETTERS IN OPPOSITION.

GIVEN THE SIZE OF OUR MAILING RADIUS, I THINK THAT SUPPORT AND THE FACT THAT THE NEIGHBORS WHO ARE IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH ARE NOT IN OPPOSITION SPEAKS VOLUMES.

THESE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL RENDERINGS SHOWING WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING, AS YOU SAW THE WEDDINGS OVER HERE ON THE LEFT, BUT WE DID ALSO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL PERSPECTIVES TO PROVIDE.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE FOLKS WHO WOULD BE USING THIS EVENT LAWN ARE GOING TO BE OUR HOTEL GUESTS.

OF COURSE, IT WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER COMMUNITY EVENTS AS WELL.

BUT THE VAST MAJORITY IN THE INTENT IS TO PROVIDE THIS AS AN AMENITY TO OUR HOTEL GUESTS FOR THEIR USE.

WITH THAT, I JUST WANT TO CLOSE BY MENTIONING THAT THERE WERE, AS STEPHANIE MENTIONED, CONCERNS ABOUT TWO THINGS.

THE FIRE ACCESS AND RIDGE TRAIL DRIVE DURING OUR LAST MEETING.

THE FIRE ACCESS, AS WE MENTIONED LAST TIME, WILL BE ADDRESSED DURING THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS.

WE HAVE BEEN REVIEWING IT WITH STAFF.

OUR BUILDING PERMITS WILL NOT BE APPROVED UNLESS THERE'S FIRE ACCESS TO THE BUILDING ITSELF.

THAT'S VERY CLEAR AND WILL, OF COURSE, COMPLY WITH ALL THE CODE REGULATIONS.

THE OTHER ISSUE THAT CAME UP WAS RICH TAIL DRIVE.

WE HAVE HAD COMMUNICATIONS WITH STAFF AND SUPERVISOR CHECK'S OFFICE TO ADDRESS THOSE.

THE RESORT CERTAINLY RECOGNIZES THAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE STATUS OF THE ROAD ACTUALLY IS.

THOUGH IT'S A COMMUNITY ROAD THAT REQUIRES A COMMUNITY SOLUTION.

BUT SO THAT EVERYONE HAS AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE PARAMETERS WITH WHICH WE'RE OPERATING, THE RESORT IS GOING TO CONDUCT A TRAFFIC STUDY, AND WE'LL ALSO DO A BORING ANALYSIS, AND I'M SURE I'M NOT USING THE RIGHT TERM, SO ROBERT WILL CORRECT ME LATER.

[LAUGHTER] WHATEVER THE CORRECT TERM IS.

BUT WE WILL ALSO PROVIDE A BORING ANALYSIS OF THE SUBSTRUCTURE OF THE ROAD AND PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO THE COUNTY, SO THAT IT CAN BE COMMUNICATED TO THE PUBLIC, SO THAT WHEN THE TIME COMES OR IF THE TIME COMES AND WE NEED TO REACH A SOLUTION, EVERYONE AT LEAST UNDERSTANDS THE PARAMETERS THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH ON THAT ROAD.

WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANK YOU, CASSANDRA.

YES, THOSE WERE MY TWO CONCERNS, AND I WAS ABLE TO MEET WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL AND HAVE CONFIDENCE AND ACTUALLY HEAR FROM YOUR ENGINEER, SO I DO HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THAT MOVING FORWARD.

I DID MAKE MENTION IN OUR LAST BOARD MEETING THE IDEA THAT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT TO HAVE THE HILTON BRING THE ROAD UP TO COUNTY STANDARDS AND HAVE THE ROAD ACCEPTED BY THE COUNTY.

WE WERE ABLE TO LOCATE NOT AS MANY DOCUMENTS AS WE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO LOCATE, BUT WE AT LEAST WERE ABLE TO LOCATE THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH DOES SAY THAT YES, THE HILTON IS ABLE TO BRING THE ROAD UP TO COUNTY STANDARDS AND BE TRANSFERRED.

BUT THERE'S NO LANGUAGE COMPELLING THAT.

IT WAS REALLY TIME WELL SPENT TO UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION FULLY, AND I COMMEND CASSANDRA AND YOUR PARTNERS IN REALLY DOING AN EXCELLENT JOB IN OUTREACH AND TRYING TO ADDRESS COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND TRYING TO ADDRESS MY CONCERNS IN PARTICULAR.

THANK YOU. I'M VERY EXCITED THAT THE AREA WILL COME TO UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT THE ROAD THAT'S SO IMPORTANT TO THEM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR CHECK FOR FACILITATING ALL THOSE DISCUSSIONS.

>> ABSOLUTELY, MY PLEASURE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD HERE? GREAT. I DO KNOW THAT THE VICE CHAIR HAS A GREEN SHEET.

IT'S ON ITEM NUMBER 5, AND I JUST WANT TO REACH OUT TO LEGAL JUST FOR A MINUTE.

FOUR AND FIVE GO TOGETHER, BUT WE VOTE ON THEM SEPARATELY.

BUT I HAVE A GREEN SHEET ONLY FOR ITEM 5.

[03:20:03]

CAN I GO AHEAD AND HAVE THAT HEARD? FOR SOME REASON, I'M JUST ASKING TO MAKE SURE, OR DO I HAVE TO VOTE ON FOUR AND THEN GO TO FIVE.

>> CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

BOTH ITEMS ARE BEING PRESENTED TOGETHER.

IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW FOR COMMENT AT THIS TIME AS TO EITHER THE TWO ITEMS. THERE WAS JUST A REQUEST THAT THE VOTE ITSELF BE TAKEN SEPARATELY ON BOTH FOUR AND FIVE FOR CLARITY. THANK YOU.

>> FORGIVE ME, BUT I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT EVERYBODY'S VOICE GETS HEARD.

I TRY TO BE VERY DILIGENT HERE ABOUT THE WAY THIS PROCESS GOES.

WHEN IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE, THERE'S NO CONFUSION OR SOMEONE FEELING THAT THEY WERE DISRESPECTED OF SOME WAY.

THANK YOU FOR BEARING WITH ME ON THIS. VICE CHAIR?

>> YES, MR. NORTON. GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.

AGAIN, YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. IS THIS ON?

>> DAVE NORTON, THE VILLAGE OF OAK CREEK, FROM THE BIG PARK COUNCIL, AND IT'S MY ERROR THAT I ONLY PUT NUMBER 5 ON THE GREEN SHEET.

I DIDN'T SEE THAT THEY WERE BOTH THERE, SO THANK YOU FOR FOR ACCEPTING INPUT.

AS THIS PROCESS STARTED, THERE WERE SEVERAL THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT.

ALL OF THOSE HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.

THERE'S BEEN EXCELLENT COMMUNICATION.

THE ONLY THING THAT WE WANT TO ENSURE IS THAT AS THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS, WHICH IS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS HEARING, GOES FORWARD THAT WE BE SURE THAT OUR OUTDOOR LIGHTING AND THOSE KINDS OF ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED IN A TIMELY MANNER AS THE PROCESS GOES FORWARD.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HOPING, AND STEPHANIE JOHNSON HAS ASSURED ME THAT THERE WILL BE A PROCESS FOR THE BUILDING PERMITS.

WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THIS EVENT OR THIS APPLICATION, AND WITH ALL OF THE COMMUNICATION, IT'S BEEN EXCELLENT, AND IT SHOULD GO SMOOTHLY FOR ALL.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS?

>> THAT'S IT, SIR..

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, CLERK OF THE BOARD, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMUNICATION?

>> FOR THE RECORD, THE BOARD RECEIVED ONE LETTER IN FAVOR, SEVEN IN OPPOSITION, ONE NEUTRAL, AND THE ONE COMMENT FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS SIDE? HAVING THAT, WE WILL NOW CLOSE THE HEARING FOR THESE ITEMS, AND I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO GO AHEAD AND ACCEPT HEARING ITEM NUMBER 4.

>> YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

CALL FOR THE VOTE, PLEASE.

>> SUPERVISOR CHAIR.

>> HEARING ITEM NUMBER 4 HAS BEEN APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

>> I'M SO SORRY. SUPERVISOR CHAIR. IT'S YOUR DISTRICT.

I DIDN'T MEAN TO JUMP IN THERE.

YOU WANT TO KEEP THE ORDER. THAT'S YOUR JOB.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION FOR HEARING ITEM NUMBER 5.

[5. Development Services - Approve a Revised Final Plat for APN 405-52-001 to change Tract A and Tract B to Tract C, and change the designated uses of Tract C, on a 7.42-acre parcel, subject to the conditions of approval. Owner: 90 Ridge Trail Drive Sedona LLC; Applicant/Agent: Cassandra Ayers of Berry Ridell, LLC. Application No. PLA25-000041. (District 3 - Supervisor Check)]

>> I'LL SECOND.

>> WAIT TO APPROVE HEARING ITEM NUMBER 5, RIGHT?

>> ABSOLUTELY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

>> SUPERVISOR CHAIR?

>> HEARING ITEM NUMBER 5 HAS BEEN APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

>> WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH, EVERYBODY, FOR YOUR PATIENCE TODAY.

I KNOW OUR MEETINGS TEND TO REALLY START TO GET INTO IT WHEN WE GET INTO THE HEARINGS.

APPRECIATE YOU AND WISH YOU THE BEST.

THANK YOU. NUMBER 6, PUBLIC WORKS.

[6. Public Works - Hearing to approve a water franchise application and agreement with Arizona Water Company, pursuant to A.R.S. §40-283 and Yavapai County Resolution No. 1262. YC Contract No. 2025-369 (District 2 - Supervisor Jenkins; District 3 - Supervisor Check)]

HEARING TO APPROVE A WATER FRANCHISE APPLICATION, AND AGREEMENT.

THIS IS DISTRICT 3. THANK YOU, ROGER.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIR MALLORY, VICE CHAIR COMPTON, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

ROGER MCCORMICK PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.

BEFORE YOU TODAY, WE HAVE A CONTINUATION FROM THE PREVIOUS BOARD MEETING.

WE HAD POSTPONED THIS HEARING TO NOW IN RELATION TO THE ARIZONA WATER COMPANY.

LET ME GET INTO THE ARIZONA WATER SERVICE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH THE ARIZONA WATER COMPANY.

THIS IS IN DISTRICT 2 AND 3.

THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY INCLUDED SOME OF THE LINES THAT ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF SEDONA, AND SO THEY HAVE MODIFIED THAT LEGAL DESCRIPTION, AND EVERYTHING IS ACCURATE AT THIS POINT.

[03:25:01]

THIS WOULD BE ACCEPTANCE OF THE NEW APPLICATION BECAUSE THEY'VE REMOVED THAT FROM THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION, IT'S REAL QUIET IN HERE NOW.

AS WELL AS THE ACTUAL HEARING THAT HAS BEEN ADVERTISED FOR THE PUBLIC TO GIVE COMMENT ON THIS.

JUST A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION ABOUT THIS WATER COMPANY.

THEY SERVE WATER TO ABOUT 7,000 CUSTOMERS, WHICH IS ONE OF THE LARGER WATER COMPANIES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY.

THEY'VE BEEN OPERATING SINCE 1955.

THIS APPROVAL IS FOR USE OF THE COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY ONLY.

ALL THE REGULATIONS IN REGARDS TO THIS UTILITY ARE GOVERNED BY THE ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION.

I TALKED ABOUT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION ALREADY.

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS REVIEWED THIS AND IS IN SUPPORT OF AS IT IS.

THIS IS THE RIMOCK SERVICE AREA HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.

THIS IS THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF SEDONA LIMITS.

THE YELLOW STUFF AGAIN DENOTES THE COUNTY PORTION.

BROWN WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED.

THAT'S THE CITY OF SEDONA.

DOWN HERE AT THE BOTTOM, YOU DO HAVE THE VILLAGE OF OAK CREEK AREA AS WELL.

THAT'S WHAT'S BEING SERVED WITHIN THE COUNTY.

WE REQUEST THAT THE BOARD MOVE FORWARD WITH APPROVAL OF THIS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT SO THAT THE ARIZONA WATER COMPANY CAN CONTINUE TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THEIR LINES WITHIN THE COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY.

>> THANK YOU, ROGER. THIS IS IN SUPERVISOR CHAIR'S DISTRICT.

DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO.

>> THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT WATER COMPANY, AS ROGER MENTIONED, PROVIDES A LOT OF SERVICE TO MY COMMUNITY, SO I WOULD BE IN APPROVAL OF THIS.

>> HEARING ITEM. ANY GREEN SHEETS, VICE CHAIR?

>> NO GREEN SHEETS, MADAM CHAIR.

>> THANK YOU. CLERK OF THE BOARD.

>> NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED ON THIS ITEM.

>> THE LOT OF THE AUDIENCE IS GONE, BUT AGAIN, I DON'T SEE ANY COMMENT FROM THERE.

I WILL CLOSE THIS HEARING, AND THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ITEM NUMBER 6.

>> I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE HEARING ITEM NUMBER 6.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. CALL FOR THE VOTE.

>> SUPERVISOR CHAIR?

>> HEARING ITEM NUMBER 6 HAS BEEN APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

>> THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 7.

[7. Public Works - Hearing to approve a water franchise application and agreement with Groom Creek Water Users Association, pursuant to A.R.S. §40-283 and Yavapai County Resolution No. 1262. YC Contract No. 2025-448 (District 5 - Supervisor Mallory)]

ROGER, WE HAVE THE APPLICATION WATER FRANCHISE FOR GROOM CREEK, WHICH IS IN MY DISTRICT.

I GOT SOMETHING ON THIS AGENDA.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIR MALLORY, VICE CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

AGAIN, ROGER MCCORMICK PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.

THIS IS ANOTHER WATER ASSOCIATION WITHIN THE COUNTY IN GROOM CREEK, SO DISTRICT 5 SUPERVISOR MALLORY.

THIS HEARING IS TO APPROVE THEIR FRANCHISE APPLICATION, AS WELL AS THE AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE WITH THE GROOM CREEK WATERS ASSOCIATION.

THIS IS FOR THEM TO WORK WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE COUNTY TO MAINTAIN AND CONSTRUCT THEIR LINES.

ALL OTHER AS MENTIONED BEFORE, ALL OF THE REGULATIONS IN REGARDS TO THE UTILITY ARE GOVERNED BY THE ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION.

THE APPLICATION WAS ALSO REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN RISK MANAGEMENT.

WE DID PUBLICIZE THIS FOR THREE CONSECUTIVE WEEKS IN THE PAPER FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW AND COMMENT ON THE FRANCHISE AND THE STATISTICS FOR GROOM CREEK, RIGHT HERE, 230 CUSTOMERS, AND IT'S BEEN IN USE SINCE 1982.

THIS IS A MAP OF THE AREA, JUST TO ORIENT EVERYBODY.

THIS IS SENATOR HIGHWAY RIGHT HERE THAT'S COMING DOWN ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE.

THE BLACK BOLD IS THE AREA OF THE GREEN CREEK WATER.

YOU HAVE YAVAPAI ROAD UP HERE ON THE TOP, FRIENDLY PINES ROAD HERE ON THE BOTTOM.

THAT'S THE LOCATION.

WE ARE REQUESTING THAT YOU APPROVE THIS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT FOR GROOM CREEK WATER SO THEY CAN CONTINUE TO OPERATE AND SERVE THOSE CONSTITUENTS WITHIN GROOM CREEK.

>> WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I WILL GO AHEAD AND ASK IF WE HAVE ANY. GREEN SHEETS?

>> NO GREEN SHEETS.

>> CLERK OF THE BOARD?

>> NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED ON THIS ITEM.

I'M PRETTY SURE THE AUDIENCE DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ON THIS ITEM, SO WE'RE CLOSING THIS HEARING, AND I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT HEARING ITEM NUMBER 7.

[03:30:02]

>> HAVE A MOTION, HAVE A SECOND.

YOU CALL FOR THE VOTE, PLEASE.

>> SUPERVISOR CHAIR.