[6:46] public process. Tonight, you will have

[6:49] the opportunity to address city council

[6:51] on both agenda and non-aggenda items. To

[6:53] get the process started, you must fill

[6:55] out a speaker request form in order to

[6:57] address the city council. Speaker

[6:59] request forms are located in the back of

[7:01] the council chambers. Please fill it out

[7:03] and deliver your completed form to the

[7:05] city clerk located to the right of the

[7:07] dis accordance with the Americans with

[7:10] Disabilities Act. Please contact a staff

[7:12] member if you need any assistance.

[7:14] Public comment on a non-aggenda item

[7:16] will take place during the citizen

[7:18] comment portion of the evening. These

[7:20] are items that don't appear on tonight's

[7:22] formal agenda. The mayor will call your

[7:24] name when it's time for you to speak. At

[7:27] that time, please approach the podium

[7:28] and tell us your name for the record.

[7:30] You'll have a maximum of 3 minutes. The

[7:33] timer is visible on the dis in front of

[7:35] the mayor. You may choose not to speak

[7:37] if other speakers have already covered

[7:39] your topic. Shouting, cheering, and loud

[7:42] noises will not be tolerated. Violators

[7:45] may be removed for disrupting the

[7:46] meeting. Buckeye City Council meetings

[7:48] are streamed live on Facebook and

[7:50] YouTube. Follow the city social media

[7:52] pages so you don't miss out on all

[7:54] that's happening in Buckeye. Thank you

[7:56] for coming to this meeting and being an

[7:58] active part of your city.

[8:02] » Okay, we will call this meeting to

[8:04] order. This is the city of Buckeye

[8:05] Council meeting for Tuesday, April 21st,

[8:08] 2026.

[8:09] We will get begin with the invocation

[8:12] led by Pastor Rick Wilds from the First

[8:14] Southern Baptist Church, followed by the

[8:16] pledge led by Council Member Tony Yoner.

[8:21] Can we pray? Father God, we do come

[8:23] before you tonight and we ask that you

[8:25] bless this time, Father, that you uh

[8:27] provide protection during this time,

[8:29] that you provide civility, that you give

[8:32] guidance and wisdom so that the

[8:34] decisions that are made will bring honor

[8:35] and glory to you, but also bring um

[8:39] success to our city. Please take care of

[8:41] our council and lead them in Jesus name.

[8:43] Amen.

[8:44] >> Amen. Please join me in the pledgece

[8:48] to the flag of the United States of

[8:51] America and to the republic for it

[8:53] stands. One nation under God,

[8:57] indivisible with liberty and justice for

[8:59] all.

[9:03] » Okay, thank you both. Uh, can we have a

[9:05] roll call, please?

[9:07] >> Council member Yoner

[9:08] >> here. Council member Barry

[9:10] >> here.

[9:10] >> Council member Hegestad

[9:12] >> here. Council member Beard

[9:15] >> present.

[9:15] >> Council member Hustus

[9:17] >> here.

[9:17] >> Vice Mayor Goodman

[9:18] >> present.

[9:19] >> Mayor Osborne

[9:21] >> present. Thank you very much. Item

[9:22] number two is comments from the public.

[9:24] Members of the audience may comment on

[9:25] any non-aggenda item of interest. Do we

[9:27] have any speaker request cards?

[9:28] >> There are no speaker requests.

[9:30] >> No speaker requests. On to item number

[9:31] three, awards, presentations, and

[9:33] proclamations. We do not have any for

[9:35] tonight. We'll go to consent agenda

[9:37] items and new business. Approval of

[9:39] items on the consent agenda. All items

[9:41] with an asterct are considered to be

[9:42] routine matters be enacted by one motion

[9:44] and vote of the city council. There be

[9:45] no separate discussion of these items

[9:47] unless a council member requests. The

[9:49] section may include the approval of

[9:50] minutes from previous meetings. Uh

[9:53] council member Hagestad has declared a

[9:55] conflict of interest on consent agenda

[9:58] item number 4A. Uh and this item we're

[10:01] going to pull off of the consent agenda

[10:03] and hear that uh separately. Uh, so

[10:06] council, uh, can I have a motion for the

[10:08] approval of the consent agenda items 4B

[10:11] through 4P?

[10:13] >> Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make the consent

[10:15] agenda,

[10:17] um, approval of items 4B

[10:22] through 4P is in Paul.

[10:25] >> Second.

[10:25] >> I have a motion for approval and a

[10:28] second for items 4B through 4P. All in

[10:31] favor? I I

[10:32] >> I

[10:33] >> and opposed.

[10:36] And uh that passes unanimous. Uh so

[10:40] agenda item 4A. I I don't know that we

[10:43] have um any request for comment on this.

[10:47] We just want to take this separate from

[10:50] uh from the rest of the consent agenda

[10:52] item and hear this separate so that

[10:54] we're respecting Councilman Hagstad's

[10:57] uh conflict of interest. Any questions

[10:59] from council on 4A?

[11:02] I'm seeing none. Council, what's your

[11:03] pleasure on agenda item 4 A?

[11:05] >> Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move to approve

[11:08] consent agenda item

[11:11] 4 A as drafted.

[11:13] >> Second.

[11:14] >> I have a motion for approval of 4 A and

[11:16] a second. All in favor say I.

[11:17] >> I.

[11:18] And opposed. And 4 A passes

[11:22] unanimous.

[11:24] Thank you.

[11:25] uh agenda or let's see uh number five is

[11:29] public hearings non-consent and new

[11:30] business 5A council to take action to

[11:33] adopt the airport master plan and

[11:35] authorize staff to take all actions

[11:36] necessary to submit the airport master

[11:38] plan to the federal aviation

[11:40] administration for review and approval

[11:43] and Mr. Scott Gray, you are presenting.

[11:46] >> Good evening, mayor and council. Again,

[11:48] I'm Scott Gray, your aviation director.

[11:50] Pleased to be with you tonight to talk

[11:52] about the airport master plan uh process

[11:55] and update.

[12:01] Tonight, I'm going to cover a few items

[12:03] uh tonight for you. Some of the airport

[12:05] related studies kind of pairing off of

[12:07] the workshop earlier this afternoon. uh

[12:10] the purpose of the airport master plan,

[12:13] recap of the previous uh concepts that

[12:15] were brought to council back in

[12:17] September of last year, some subsequent

[12:20] feedback that we received on that plan,

[12:23] revised recommendations for you to

[12:25] consider tonight, and then outlining the

[12:27] next steps on how the master plan will

[12:29] be completed.

[12:33] I want to touch upon uh three specific

[12:36] uh plans that are underway. the airport

[12:38] master plan, which is what we're talking

[12:40] about here tonight and possible action.

[12:41] This is an FAA required document, the

[12:44] airport long range concept, and I'll

[12:46] provide a little brief overview of that

[12:48] um later in the presentation. That is a

[12:51] city related document. And then lastly,

[12:53] what you heard at the workshop earlier

[12:55] today was the airport specific area

[12:58] plan. You heard enough about that

[13:00] earlier, so I won't spend much time on

[13:01] that one.

[13:06] Well, let's uh step back a moment and

[13:08] talk about the specifics of the airport

[13:10] master plan and its purpose. It is a

[13:13] 20-year capital development plan for the

[13:16] airport. It is an FAA guided document.

[13:19] It is a requirement for most public

[13:22] airports to complete every 10 years. It

[13:25] is used by the FAA to determine what's

[13:27] eligible for funding and decision making

[13:29] on which projects can move forward, etc.

[13:33] Um, it does help us determine the extent

[13:36] and type of development that'll happen

[13:38] over a 20-year planning period. It is

[13:41] focus on the approved

[13:44] activity levels that the FAA approved

[13:46] last year. Um, so it's not a visionary

[13:49] document. It is a document based on

[13:52] calculated facts on the number of

[13:54] airplanes that we would likely see at

[13:56] our airport under the current

[13:57] conditions.

[13:59] graphic you see on the right hand side

[14:01] is the process that has been followed.

[14:03] Um it it's broken into four separate

[14:07] distinct areas and then there's a number

[14:09] of public outreach processes that took

[14:11] place in that. We are at the number four

[14:14] or at the far end there um at the tail

[14:16] end of the master plan and in looking

[14:18] for your concurrence this evening.

[14:23] Just a moment on the recap of the

[14:25] previous master plan. Um there were two

[14:27] public meetings that were conducted. One

[14:30] in September of 2024 and uh second one

[14:34] in May of 25 where our consultants

[14:37] provided uh information about all the

[14:39] analysis that was conducted and

[14:41] presented the graphic that you see there

[14:42] on the right. There was a council

[14:45] workshop in September where I presented

[14:48] a very similar presentation to the night

[14:50] of of what was recommended out of that

[14:53] um planning effort. and and briefly it

[14:56] was our current runway alignment 1735

[14:59] was extended to 7,300 ft. There was a a

[15:03] proposed crosswind runway of 6,000 ft

[15:06] runway 1028 as you can see in the blue

[15:08] on the bottom part of that graphic and

[15:11] then the associated landside and hanger

[15:13] developments that associated with the

[15:15] amount of airplanes that we were

[15:17] projected to have based at the airport

[15:19] over that time.

[15:24] of the subsequent feedback that we

[15:26] received um after that

[15:29] presented to the council was from some

[15:31] adjacent property owners primarily

[15:34] concerned with the impacts of a

[15:35] crosswind runway on the adjacent uh

[15:38] development potential roadway alignment

[15:42] issues that may have to take place

[15:44] depending upon the exact uh positioning

[15:46] of that crosswind runway. So its impacts

[15:48] to either Palivvery or Johnson Road.

[15:52] Um several additional concepts were also

[15:55] um floated to the city for development

[15:58] around the airport that there were

[16:00] questions from those developers about

[16:03] how that crosswind runway may act their

[16:06] uh potential development.

[16:09] And then lastly is um limited FAA

[16:12] support that we had throughout that

[16:15] process for the crosswind runway and

[16:18] potentially delaying the approval of the

[16:21] master plan if FAA wasn't supportive of

[16:24] that crosswind runway.

[16:26] That's the kind of the synopsis of the

[16:28] feedback that we received after we came

[16:30] to council. What we did at that point

[16:33] was u take a moment and and come up with

[16:36] some criteria. How do we maybe step back

[16:38] and re-evaluate what we did and what

[16:41] we've heard

[16:43] to number one better understand the

[16:45] concerns of those property owners and

[16:48] the developers. Um certainly be able to

[16:51] meet the FA requirements for an approved

[16:53] airport master plan. That is whole

[16:55] purpose of doing the master plan is so

[16:57] they will approve it so we will be

[16:59] eligible for uh federal funding for

[17:01] projects.

[17:03] um make sure that we can meet the

[17:05] forecast demand that was already

[17:07] approved.

[17:08] No changes to that. Um ultimately allow

[17:12] for expansion beyond the 20 years.

[17:14] Again, that's outside of the context of

[17:16] the master plan. It would be a long

[17:19] range vision. We expand beyond what the

[17:22] master plan shows.

[17:24] Then lastly is ensure that we're still

[17:27] aligned with Luke Air Force Base's

[17:29] mission and the airspace study that

[17:31] we've already completed.

[17:37] The recommendations that came out of

[17:39] that re-evaluation was to remove the

[17:43] crosswind runway for the master plan,

[17:46] just the master plan at this point, and

[17:48] widen the existing runway that was um

[17:52] supported by the FAA to uh to make that

[17:55] change. Um construct the runway existing

[17:58] alignment still out to 7,300 feet. That

[18:02] hasn't changed. And then obviously

[18:04] because the crosswind runway is no

[18:06] longer shown is adjust any landside

[18:08] development um and based on that revised

[18:11] runway layout. So taxiway connections.

[18:18] This is what the the plan that you saw

[18:20] that was on the right hand side of that

[18:22] previous screen. This is the revised and

[18:25] it's it's a little more difficult to see

[18:26] this one. So on the next slides I'll

[18:28] just go through the planning phases and

[18:30] kind of show you those projects. the

[18:32] general overview.

[18:35] Um, but the master plan's broken into 20

[18:37] years. It's fiveyear, fiveyear, and then

[18:40] the final 10 year. And they're called uh

[18:43] PALS or planning activity level. So

[18:46] you'll see in the information you may

[18:48] see years tied to some specific

[18:50] projects. Um, that's just for sequencing

[18:53] more than it is that specific year. It's

[18:56] based on an activity level. So, if we

[18:59] were to have more airplanes show up, we

[19:02] would need to build more apron in order

[19:04] to find a place for them to park. If

[19:06] more airplanes show up, they may need

[19:08] more hangers. So, um it's based on a

[19:10] triggering aspect, not just the fact

[19:13] that the year came and we should go

[19:15] build it. This is the first five years

[19:18] you can see in in this particular um

[19:21] phase. Let me see if I can get the

[19:28] Um you can see that there is red boxes

[19:31] around some of the hangar development

[19:33] areas. Um the one on the right is is

[19:35] already moving forward. That one's under

[19:37] lease and they'll be starting that

[19:39] project here in the next month or so. Um

[19:42] the other dotted lines is some areas

[19:44] that we're um have got some expressed

[19:46] interest to build some larger hangers.

[19:49] And then you see in the blue in the

[19:50] middle, that's the expansion of the

[19:52] apron space for more parking to

[19:54] facilitate those developments. And then

[19:56] everything else that you see there is

[19:57] relevant to airside, which is um the

[20:00] runway extension that you can see um to

[20:04] the north, not not all the way to Yuma

[20:06] Road. That's an 800 foot city funded

[20:09] project. You can see that the runway

[20:11] widening is highlighted there. There's

[20:13] lighting projects that are are moving

[20:15] forward, taxiway pavement projects,

[20:17] taxiway lighting, things of that nature,

[20:20] all in that first phase. And those are

[20:23] associated with triggers that some of

[20:25] which we've already reached. Some of

[20:27] those projects we would like to move

[20:29] forward quickly as possible assuming

[20:32] there's funding available.

[20:34] Next five years um is really looking at

[20:38] um more of the landside development.

[20:41] can see the a acquisition of property.

[20:44] We already have a a easement on FAA

[20:47] although will accept easements. They do

[20:50] like to see fe simple ownership of of

[20:55] areas that would be encompassed by a

[20:57] runway protection zone. We would explore

[20:59] that and then there's some other

[21:00] miscellaneous projects there as well.

[21:06] Lastly is the last 10 years. You can see

[21:09] additional landside development

[21:10] including some additional hangers and

[21:12] apron space expansion etc. On the runway

[21:15] you'll see um a other extension which is

[21:20] in the red that is extending the runway

[21:23] to the 7,300 ft. That does require

[21:26] something to happen with Yuma Road. The

[21:29] curve that you see there is the same

[21:31] curve that's been presented in the

[21:33] previous master plan in 1997 and 2008.

[21:36] It's also what's currently in the

[21:38] adopted transportation master plan. That

[21:41] doesn't necessarily mean that's exactly

[21:43] where it's going to go. There's still

[21:44] some more work that will be done um in

[21:47] conjunction with the PMO's office to

[21:49] determine if there's other alternatives.

[21:51] That could be tunneling, that could be a

[21:53] different location for that road, etc.

[21:56] Um so it's shown on there. is because

[21:58] that's in the adopted transportation

[22:00] master plan, but that will still get

[22:02] further analysis as we move forward with

[22:05] that runway. You can see other pavement

[22:08] work that's done there as well

[22:10] to finish out the 20-year planning

[22:12] period.

[22:16] Similar graphic to what you saw um last

[22:19] time is the funding associated with

[22:22] those various uh planning activity level

[22:25] periods. Um, and it's broken down into

[22:27] the funding source. You will see this

[22:30] particular 20-year plan is shown at

[22:32] about $136 million. Um, last time I was

[22:37] in front of you, September was about

[22:39] $180 million. There was obviously the

[22:41] crosswind runway and other components

[22:43] that were included there. We're down to

[22:46] $136 million. You can see that um 54

[22:49] million of that is is eligible for

[22:51] federal grants. Again, it's it's

[22:53] eligible. Doesn't mean it will get

[22:55] funded. It just means it would be

[22:56] identified as being eligible if funding

[22:58] were to become available. State funds

[23:00] that would be from AOT of 5.4 million.

[23:04] So the federal projects are a little

[23:06] over 91% federal money and the 9% is

[23:10] split between state and city. And then

[23:13] state funded projects which are ADOT

[23:15] grants are 90% state 10% city.

[23:20] And so you add those matches up, you'll

[23:23] see them in the city line along with um

[23:26] whatever projects would be city-only

[23:29] funded projects. So the runway shorter

[23:32] runway extension in that first term and

[23:35] then in the last term was a maintenance

[23:40] been proposed for quite some time. Then

[23:43] lastly is private that's all the private

[23:45] hanger development. So the project

[23:48] that's underway for the executive

[23:51] hangers would fall under that and any

[23:52] future

[23:54] larger hangers would fall under that and

[23:56] those are timed based on what the

[23:59] forecast proposed the amount of hanger

[24:01] space that was needed.

[24:07] » Before we go off of this slide, what is

[24:10] the uh in 25 to 29 the 8.4 million

[24:15] uh city

[24:18] So uh approximately 6.3 million of that

[24:21] is for the 800 foot runway extension to

[24:23] the north. And then the balance of that

[24:25] would be um balance of that would be

[24:28] projects that would have grant matches.

[24:31] So that would be what was listed on the

[24:33] planning activity level number one which

[24:35] would be uh lighting drainage studies

[24:38] tower sighting um

[24:42] design work for the extension

[24:45] tower designway

[24:49] rehabilitation apron construction things

[24:52] would be grant-f funed projects that

[24:55] balance of that would match those other

[24:57] grants.

[24:58] >> Okay. Thank you.

[25:01] And then same as I mentioned the larger

[25:03] number for the long term was because

[25:05] there was a a city only $5.4 million

[25:12] post. It's shown as being city only.

[25:14] There is a possibility there might be

[25:16] grant funds. One thing I did want to

[25:19] mention here, these are certainly only

[25:20] cost estimates at this point and that

[25:23] this um funding strategy is currently

[25:27] not included in the city's capital

[25:29] improvement program andor budget. Um and

[25:32] it it's not reflected at this time. So,

[25:34] if we were to move forward with the

[25:36] adoption of this, we would work closely

[25:38] with the finance department to see about

[25:40] having these projects added into the

[25:43] capital improvement program, assuming

[25:45] there's appropriate funding left or our

[25:48] city match or city funded only.

[25:51] >> Is does that include the 6.3 million for

[25:54] the 800 foot extension? I thought that

[25:56] was

[25:58] >> uh I thought that was included in our

[26:01] CIP in the next project is there. There

[26:04] are a couple of the projects u mayor

[26:06] that are included in the current but not

[26:08] all of them that are listed that I

[26:10] showed you in those three slides.

[26:11] They're not all already morphed into our

[26:14] current capital improvement. Okay.

[26:16] >> We'll have to update that.

[26:23] » The next steps on the airport master

[26:25] plan um is to finalize the report based

[26:29] on tonight's direction from council.

[26:31] submit that to the FAA for review and

[26:34] approval. Um

[26:37] the other studies that I mentioned,

[26:38] these are the next steps on that

[26:39] primarily focused on the airport long

[26:42] range concept and that that is a city

[26:45] document. We will be engaging in

[26:47] additional analysis on the development

[26:49] options beyond the master plan. So that

[26:52] will look at different fleet mixes. So

[26:54] the master plan fleet mix is primarily

[26:57] general aviation and we extend foot on

[27:01] the runway. We may see additional

[27:03] corporate type airplanes be able to use

[27:05] it because the runway is longer. It's a

[27:07] safer environment for them. We'll go

[27:09] beyond that in the long range plan and

[27:11] look at um element options that were

[27:14] already looked at and as well as others

[27:16] to see what opportunities we have beyond

[27:19] the 20-year planning period. We are

[27:22] going to certainly do additional

[27:24] stakeholder outreach, public meetings,

[27:26] council workshop. We are doing a lot of

[27:28] coordination with the airport specific

[27:30] area plan team as well to get some

[27:34] synergy of those efforts and obviously

[27:37] bring that back to council for their

[27:39] consideration. The timing is um for the

[27:43] council consideration is we're looking

[27:46] at July 7th meeting I think is the last

[27:49] one before the summer break.

[27:52] If we can get all of this information

[27:54] condensed into this period of time and

[27:56] all the necessary stakeholder outreach

[27:58] to uh bring back some information

[28:02] and then the specific area plan again

[28:04] which you had all the details in in

[28:07] today's workshop that has a slightly

[28:09] different timeline but these two plans

[28:11] will feed into that study for making

[28:15] decisions about land use.

[28:20] With that, uh, mayor, councel, um, staff

[28:22] recommendation tonight is for the

[28:24] council to take action adopting the

[28:25] airport master plan recommendations,

[28:27] directing staff to incorporate those

[28:29] recommendations into the master plan

[28:31] report and submit it to the FAA for

[28:34] their duration.

[28:36] Happy to answer any questions.

[28:38] >> Okay. Uh, questions from council.

[28:41] >> Vice Mayor.

[28:43] >> Yeah, Scott, you had mentioned the FAA

[28:46] had concerns with the crosswind runway.

[28:50] What were those?

[28:51] >> Um when we did the um Vice Mayor um when

[28:56] we did the first part of the analysis in

[28:59] the alternatives analysis,

[29:02] one of the first alternatives was to

[29:05] widen the runway and then there were

[29:07] four alternatives for locations of that

[29:09] crosswind runway.

[29:11] that first alternative was added based

[29:14] on the FAA's initial um

[29:19] direction from them was they weren't

[29:22] sure they at this time they supported

[29:23] that crosswalk.

[29:26] That said doesn't mean that won't

[29:29] change. It just means under the current

[29:31] conditions under the current forecasted

[29:33] type of activity they were questioning

[29:36] the need for that. So their

[29:37] recommendation which comes out of uh one

[29:39] of the FA guidance documents was to

[29:42] widen the existing run which was now

[29:44] included in these recommendations was to

[29:46] do that. If the crosswind were to come

[29:48] back under the long range analysis, um

[29:52] then that's something that would have to

[29:53] move forward with or without their

[29:56] blessing, make decisions based on a

[29:59] city-f funded project. Would the FAA

[30:02] fund that project because we have a

[30:03] change in fleet mix that would then

[30:05] support that need, etc., etc. So, that

[30:07] will come later on. We're supposed to do

[30:09] an airport master plan every 10 years.

[30:11] So the previous one was done in 2008, a

[30:13] little behind the curve, but I think

[30:15] we're ahead of our forecast already

[30:18] activity. So we'll likely be doing

[30:21] another master plan or at least what

[30:23] they call a mini master plan is updating

[30:25] the forecast and the fleet mix probably

[30:27] in a five-year time.

[30:28] >> So that think we'll see some of that

[30:29] change to happen.

[30:32] >> Thanks. So that crosswind run rate could

[30:34] come back at some point.

[30:37] And then you also said a landowner had

[30:40] some concerns.

[30:42] So were those different than what the

[30:44] FAA's concerns were?

[30:47] >> Yeah, the what the previous um plan had

[30:50] showed the crosswind runway and then we

[30:52] heard from land owners and developers

[30:56] that that crosswind could impact their

[30:59] development decisions. Um it also um

[31:03] while it wasn't shown on that that

[31:05] particular graphic I showed you, the

[31:07] long range plan that was presented back

[31:09] then also had some impacts to the

[31:11] roadways. So it moved their or both

[31:16] Johnson andor Palivver. So they

[31:18] expressed concerns that that could

[31:20] impact their decision to move forward

[31:22] with projects either east or west of the

[31:25] airport primarily. But then there we've

[31:27] started to receive

[31:29] information from property owners and

[31:31] developers about parcels that are closer

[31:33] into the airport that hey they're

[31:35] looking at doing this. Hey, what

[31:36] happened to the crosswind runway? That

[31:38] going to happen or not? And the answer

[31:41] at this point is is it's not included in

[31:43] the master plan, but it will be analyzed

[31:44] further in the

[31:47] >> Very good. Thank you.

[31:50] >> Any questions from council?

[31:54] uh the C I I thought the I thought we

[31:58] had FAA's buy in on the crosswind that

[32:01] was depicted on what you had shown just

[32:04] a little while ago

[32:06] based on the wind study that that was

[32:08] done. Uh and and while the widening of

[32:13] the runway was an option, it's not a

[32:16] great option. Um,

[32:19] and I thought they had buy in on that crosswind and being able to to

[32:26] put that in to deal with the we don't

[32:28] meet the the coverage for

[32:32] uh pilots having the ability to to land

[32:35] in windy conditions, crosswinds.

[32:38] >> Mayor, thank you for that question. And

[32:41] um

[32:43] the FAA

[32:47] questioned the need for the crosswind

[32:50] runway all along. Um we moved forward

[32:53] with the crosswind runway for some of

[32:55] the things that you just

[32:59] craft crosswinds

[33:02] at by having that crosswind versus one

[33:05] of the one of the things that the FAA

[33:08] supports and it is in their document is

[33:11] to widen the runway to meet crosswind

[33:13] components. While that is an option

[33:16] under the FAA guidance, it doesn't

[33:18] really solve some of the problems, we

[33:21] did do a full uh wind analysis both for

[33:25] 24-hour winds and daytime and nighttime

[33:28] winds. Most of our activity is during

[33:30] the day. And the daytime activity, um

[33:34] there's a certain amount of wind

[33:36] coverage you need to cover in order to

[33:39] justify a cross. and we were just over

[33:42] that line with the daytime but not the

[33:45] 24-hour time. So, um FAA was questioning

[33:49] whether or not that it was justified at

[33:52] this moment. They said we could

[33:55] certainly do the analysis of the

[33:57] crosswind which we did. Um and we opted

[34:00] to go with that alternative when we

[34:02] presented that back in.

[34:05] But that also then goes to at that time

[34:08] did not have any

[34:12] property owners and developers that

[34:13] indicated that there was an issue that

[34:16] crosswind runway and FA takes into

[34:18] account public support of projects. So I

[34:22] think after we've heard that information

[34:24] that became another possible challenge

[34:26] that could delay us completing the

[34:29] master plan and then jeopardize funding

[34:32] because it's

[34:33] >> right. So, I I think this has been one

[34:36] of the most frustrating processes in the

[34:40] history of frustrating processes at the

[34:42] city. Uh I

[34:45] I'm not going to say I started this with

[34:46] a full head of hair because that's not

[34:48] true, but I I think I'm going to lose

[34:50] the last of it. Uh on on this process,

[34:55] uh there's there is a U. So, I guess to

[34:58] go back to to the master plan, it's a

[35:00] very prescribed

[35:02] process that the FAA has that

[35:05] essentially says whatever you have right

[35:07] now from an air a fleet mix is

[35:10] essentially what you're going to have.

[35:12] And we're not going to contemplate

[35:13] anything outside of that unless

[35:15] miraculously you can start landing

[35:18] uh much much larger aircraft on the

[35:21] facilities that we have right now. and

[35:24] that's not going to happen because the

[35:26] facilities that are needed for those

[35:28] larger aircraft are not built and it's

[35:29] the circular reference that we keep

[35:31] going through.

[35:33] So the um

[35:36] I think my intent when we

[35:39] rallied for kicking this entire thing

[35:41] off a few years ago was let's just get

[35:44] something down on paper so that we can

[35:46] take that out to the to the industry and

[35:49] say this is what we want to be when we

[35:51] grow up. And we get through that process

[35:54] or started into that process and the FAA

[35:56] says, "Well, you can't show that." Well, you can't you

[35:59] can't show a crosswind runway that that

[36:01] is long that would accommodate larger

[36:05] traffic that that we see in our future

[36:08] here, which is cargo, the potential of

[36:11] passenger traffic, potential military,

[36:14] who knows what that is out there.

[36:17] Um so we pivot to this idea of a um a

[36:22] long range plan

[36:25] and and the idea was a master plan that

[36:29] is essentially checking a box for FAA

[36:35] although not completely necessary at

[36:37] this time even though the one we have is

[36:38] expired the the or it's it's old I guess

[36:42] stale uh but we're not gaining really

[36:44] anything in this new master plan that

[36:46] wasn't already shown in the previous

[36:48] master plan. This is a half a million

[36:51] dollar venture over three and a half

[36:53] years.

[36:56] So, um so in in that process, what we're

[37:00] trying to do again is go back and show

[37:02] this is industry. This is what we're

[37:05] looking to do.

[37:07] We're limited to what we can do on the

[37:08] existing runway alignment.

[37:12] So, there's only so far we can extend

[37:14] out. and you start to get into issues

[37:16] with I 10 to the north. You have a canal

[37:18] that's to the south.

[37:20] >> So there's and the the land that's up to

[37:22] the north is much more expensive than

[37:24] something that is sorry council member

[37:26] that that is in the middle of a field

[37:29] that is south of and not near uh the the

[37:35] u freeway. So, we started kicking around

[37:38] ideas that plus the the crosswing

[37:40] component started kicking around ideas

[37:42] of what if we came up with a uh and your

[37:47] conversation about if if we do extend

[37:48] past Yuma Road, how do we deal with Yuma

[37:50] Road? Is it a um is it the Wowee that we

[37:54] show on the road right now or is it a

[37:56] tunnel?

[37:58] We will not be building a tunnel. I'm

[38:01] not going to approve a tunnel, the

[38:03] funding for a tunnel for Yuma Road.

[38:07] So the ideas kicked around were, well,

[38:10] maybe we do a crosswind runway that

[38:11] gives us more room to build out a longer

[38:14] facility that accommodates

[38:17] cargo that could be going to Asia that

[38:19] needs much longer runways,

[38:22] buying less expensive property, getting

[38:25] rid of the hindrances that we have in

[38:27] either a canal to the south or a freeway

[38:29] to the north. Uh, and then take that

[38:33] idea and and it gives us that crosswind

[38:35] component also that we need so that

[38:38] smaller traffic when they're coming in

[38:39] are not having to deal with a stiff

[38:41] crosswind which makes our airport

[38:42] essentially unusable at certain times.

[38:47] And then go through and do this entire

[38:49] uh planning airspace planning with Luke

[38:52] Air Force Base. Make sure that we're not

[38:54] jamming them up and that uh and we're

[38:56] being really really good neighbors. In

[38:59] that discussion, Luke says, "Actually,

[39:00] if you turn it the other way, that might

[39:04] be better for us." So, a 1028, which I

[39:07] think is what was depicted on this.

[39:10] Uh, and and then so we've we've cleared

[39:13] that hurdle and there's there's not many

[39:17] property owners. There's one property

[39:18] owner that is kicking back and saying,

[39:22] "Please do not aim runways directly at

[39:24] buildings that we're contemplating

[39:26] building.

[39:28] So, I just I want to be super clear on

[39:30] all of the the details of this. It's it

[39:33] is a crosswind runway that we're trying

[39:36] to stick in. That is a much longer

[39:38] facility than the 6300 or whatever it

[39:41] was that was shown on. That's the long

[39:43] range vision that we're trying to get

[39:45] to. That's separate from what we're

[39:49] going to approve tonight.

[39:52] Uh but but that that crosswind

[39:56] can be several different areas. That's

[39:58] this long range vision that you're going

[40:00] through is going to contemplate these

[40:01] and and study these different

[40:03] potentials. It could be a slightly

[40:05] turned so it's not pointing at at uh

[40:08] buildings. There's there's a there's a

[40:11] lot of opportunity to deconlict and take

[40:13] care of the one property owner that has

[40:15] an issue. The property owners to the

[40:17] east have no idea what our plan is. We

[40:20] haven't really taken that out on the

[40:21] road and said we're we're potentially

[40:24] aiming

[40:26] um a runway at development that you have

[40:30] on the east side of the property. Uh and the Johnson and Paulie, we can deal

[40:36] with that as it comes. That's not a

[40:39] those aren't game stoppers for us. So,

[40:43] um,

[40:45] again, just frustrating, probably just

[40:47] more venting than everything, but we're

[40:49] going to approve this, which

[40:53] has to be done at this point. Um, but we

[40:57] have to go immediately into figuring out

[40:59] what our long range vision is. We talked

[41:01] about this at our workshop earlier which

[41:03] is uh we we have got to start showing

[41:08] what the impact of these runways in this

[41:11] facility is on the surrounding

[41:13] communities so that we can let the

[41:14] property owners aside know do not build

[41:18] residential or do not build data centers

[41:20] in this area. Do not build some other

[41:22] very specific things in the approach or

[41:25] the departure corridor of these runways.

[41:29] uh otherwise folks are going to enclose

[41:31] on us and we're going to miss a

[41:33] tremendous opportunity to realize the

[41:35] full potential of the Buckeye airport

[41:39] and and that window is closing

[41:43] every day. We're talking with developers

[41:45] this afternoon about plans that they

[41:47] have for the eastern edge of the

[41:50] airport. So, it is it is it's important

[41:53] that we pass this,

[41:56] but it is incredibly important that we

[41:58] move fast on figuring out what our long

[42:01] range vision is.

[42:03] Uh, and and we cordon off the area

[42:05] around the airport in this airport

[42:07] specific area plan and go so that we

[42:10] don't lose the opportunity to grow the

[42:13] Buckeye airport in into the economic

[42:16] engine that it's going to be in the

[42:18] future.

[42:19] Uh, I I I just want to make sure we're

[42:23] ultra clear on here's here's the

[42:25] specifics of of where we're at with the plan. Here's here's why we're not

[42:30] showing a crosswind right now because

[42:32] we're trying to honor what is happening

[42:34] on one landowner that is on the western

[42:36] edge of the uh the airport.

[42:40] So,

[42:42] uh we're going to work through that

[42:43] process with them and see how we can

[42:44] deconlict that. Um but but it isn't as

[42:47] dire as the whole crosswind runway idea

[42:52] or concept goes away. And if you if we

[42:57] show this and we take this out to

[42:59] industry, whoever that is, whether it's

[43:01] a a cargo company or it's um passenger

[43:06] traffic or it's military or whoever is

[43:08] looking for a new location to land. Uh

[43:11] that's where we start working into

[43:14] incredible opportunities to not not only

[43:16] to to site uh companies out this way but

[43:19] also share in the cost of the

[43:21] infrastructure because we are not going

[43:22] to be building uh the um the 140 or 200

[43:27] or whatever the the millions of dollars

[43:29] worth of infrastructure there is. Um so

[43:33] I think I'm done with that little hissy

[43:37] fit, but we we have we have got to giddy

[43:39] up on this. We are out of time.

[43:43] Uh council on uh agenda item 5A, what is

[43:48] your pleasure?

[43:50] >> Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion

[43:52] that we approve agenda item 5A as an

[43:55] Adam.

[43:56] >> Second.

[43:58] >> Have a motion for approval for agenda

[44:00] item 5A and a second. All in favor say

[44:02] I.

[44:02] >> I. I.

[44:04] >> Opposed?

[44:06] 5 A passes. 5B. Council hold public

[44:08] hearing to take action on Orange number

[44:10] 11-26 approving an amendment to the

[44:11] Sundance Community Master Plan as

[44:13] described in case PLZZ-25-000012

[44:18] and amending the zoning map of the city

[44:20] of Buckeye for approximately 8.3 acres

[44:22] located west of the southwest corner of

[44:24] Yuma Road and Dean Road from commercial

[44:27] center CC to commercial center CC with

[44:30] Sundance Community uh master plan

[44:32] overlay.

[44:34] Mandy, you are up.

[44:37] >> Good evening, mayor, members of the

[44:39] council. My name is Mandy Woods and I'm

[44:41] a principal planner with development

[44:43] services.

[44:44] Tonight, I will be presenting case PLZ25

[44:49] 0012

[44:58] to this. This is

[45:03] Oh, it worked.

[45:04] It just doesn't like me. Um, so for the

[45:08] project overview, the applicant on this

[45:10] is Jeffrey Blighty with Gilbert Blly on

[45:12] behalf of Yuma

[45:15] LLC, which is the property owner. The

[45:18] location is west of the southwest corner

[45:20] of Yuma Road and Dean Road. Um, two

[45:23] parcels

[45:25] and um that location will be delineated

[45:27] on the exhibit on the next slide. And

[45:30] the overall request is to amend the

[45:32] Sundance Community Master Plan or CMP to

[45:36] include 8.3 acres as a commercial land

[45:39] use designation

[45:41] purpose of a multif family residential

[45:43] development.

[45:48] Site context. Um you can see the subject

[45:50] property is outlined in red on that

[45:52] slide. Currently a vacant property. To

[45:55] the north we have Wind Village

[45:57] residential and then we have vacant

[45:59] auxiliary field

[46:02] landing area

[46:04] south and then to the west we have

[46:07] residential single family community um

[46:09] Sundance and to the east is commercial

[46:13] civic services um library the Coyote

[46:16] branch

[46:20] and then for the general land

[46:28] note is that this land use designation

[46:31] is typically intended for community

[46:33] master plans or plan developments

[46:40] for the existing zoning of the property.

[46:42] This is um commercial center and then

[46:45] the proposed zoning of the property that

[46:47] commercial center is not changing but we

[46:49] are proposing to expand the the boundary

[46:52] of the Sunday overlay to cover this

[46:55] property. So the request just

[47:01] the land use exhibit that you see up on

[47:03] the slide. It's a big one because it's

[47:05] encompassing the entire Sundance.

[47:09] See the the subject property is outlined

[47:12] red and there's a leader coming off of

[47:13] it that is subject of this

[47:18] area parcel 34.

[47:22] The proposed CMPA

[47:25] is a major amendment um because there's

[47:27] land that's being added to this CMP.

[47:33] It includes the inclusion of um 8.3

[47:36] acres as I stated. Um so this becomes

[47:38] the new parcel 34C and it will be

[47:41] assigned a commercial land use. I want

[47:43] to clarify this is commercial land use

[47:45] as described in the Sundance CMP. Um and

[47:48] that commercial designation in the

[47:50] Sundance scene allows for more

[47:53] credentials. That is the reason

[47:56] particular land use within the CMP.

[47:59] Um it's generally pretty good planning

[48:02] practice to have kind of cohesive zoning

[48:04] across a project site. And so since the

[48:07] intent for parcel 34C is to develop with

[48:11] the adjacent parcel to the west par 34B,

[48:14] um that is one of the reasons that staff

[48:17] was supportive of expanding the the CMP

[48:20] overlay to have a little bit more

[48:21] cohesiveness in the the zoning of the ultimate project that will be here.

[48:28] Um but right now it's proposed to

[48:30] include a total of 188 multif family

[48:33] residential units. Um, I did want to

[48:35] note that multifamily residential is an

[48:38] allowed use in the current commercial

[48:40] center zoning for the property right

[48:42] now. Right now, it could develop with

[48:44] multif family residential, albeit at a a

[48:47] slightly lower density. Um but the

[48:50] benefit of including this within the

[48:52] unance CMP setbacks will be more

[48:55] compatible with the adjacent single

[49:00] bringing it in.

[49:04] Um continuing on to kind of the impact

[49:06] of the the overall CMP the total number

[49:08] of planned units for the overall CMP is

[49:11] increasing from 6798

[49:14] to 6,954.

[49:17] Um there is a current CMP maximum of

[49:20] 6,933

[49:22] which is less than the total number of

[49:25] units and we wanted to keep the the

[49:27] impact of this specific to just this

[49:29] parcel and not have wide reaching

[49:31] impacts on the entirety of the CMP. So

[49:34] this particular amendment request

[49:36] includes an exception that would allow

[49:38] an additional 21 units would be

[49:40] restricted to partial 34.

[49:44] Um, and then the overall density with

[49:46] the inclusion of this parcel keeps it at

[49:48] about 3.42, which is well on target with

[49:52] the CMP target density.

[49:56] And then kind of the final primary

[49:57] component of this CMP amendment request.

[50:01] As with all of our community master

[50:04] plans and our PADS, oftentimes they

[50:07] include modified provisions or kind of

[50:09] customized development standards. And in

[50:11] this case, this request includes a

[50:14] modified building height step down

[50:16] provision.

[50:17] The way that it works with just kind of

[50:19] our base code standard is the height of

[50:23] each multifamily residential building

[50:25] that's taller than 35 ft. In theory,

[50:27] likely taller than three stories, has to

[50:30] be stepped down one full story on any

[50:33] end of that building that's located

[50:35] within 50 ft of an adjacent area that's

[50:37] zoned for residential use. uh as well as

[50:40] anything that's used for residential

[50:42] use. And in this particular case, um for

[50:45] parcel 34C, there is an adjacent 90 foot

[50:48] wide residentially zoned tract that is

[50:52] used for um it's just anway tract. It's

[50:54] a wash corridor. It's never going to be

[50:56] developed with

[50:58] residential use. And so the the

[51:01] provision for that in this amendment

[51:04] request includes um just a slight tweak

[51:06] to the wording where that 50 foot

[51:10] Step down provision would be measured

[51:12] from the nearest property line of a

[51:15] single family resident.

[51:23] The public participation component of

[51:25] this included a neighborhood meeting

[51:27] which was of this year held at the

[51:31] Coyote branch library location so very

[51:34] close to the site. The attendees

[51:37] included the project team of course um

[51:39] city staff one and then was one

[51:47] all notices required for this caseed in

[51:51] accordance with our development code

[51:52] requirements.

[51:54] There were no speakers in the public at

[51:57] the planning and zoning commission

[51:58] public hearing for this

[52:04] um for future development. The there is

[52:06] a companion site plan request that is in

[52:09] for review right now. Um it includes two

[52:12] and threetory kind of garden style or

[52:14] residential buildings, the clubhouse and

[52:17] a

[52:20] there is um traffic impact analysis that

[52:22] was submitted and approved with this

[52:24] CMPA component has already been done and

[52:28] then uh there's confirmed water and

[52:31] sewer capacity for the very small

[52:33] increase residential units and there's

[52:36] no development agreement updated

[52:38] thatired as a result of this.

[52:44] for um emergency services and schools.

[52:46] The property of course will be serviced

[52:48] by city fire and police and the

[52:50] applicant did fulfill their requirements

[52:52] by doing the adequate school facilities.

[52:55] Notable

[52:57] high schools district and

[53:06] then just to conclude the analysis on

[53:07] this uh staff believes that this does

[53:09] further goals of our general plan. It

[53:12] conforms to our development code and or

[53:14] proposes some alternate standards that

[53:16] will result in high quality development

[53:18] and there are no outstanding issues

[53:23] for the recommendation. U recommendation

[53:25] is to conduct a public hearing and then

[53:28] ordinance approving this case and I

[53:31] wanted to note that the applicant is

[53:32] also here

[53:35] arise. Thank you.

[53:36] >> Okay. Thank you Mandy. Uh we'll start

[53:38] with a public hearing. We'll open a

[53:39] public hearing. Do we have any speaker

[53:42] request cards for agenda item 5B?

[53:44] >> There are no speaker requests.

[53:45] >> No speaker request cards. We will close

[53:48] public hearing. Uh council, any

[53:51] questions on agenda item 5B?

[53:53] >> I have one. Uh

[53:56] to the south of that wash, there's a

[53:58] little walking track where the community

[54:00] uses that walking track. Is that going

[54:02] to still be available to the public?

[54:06] Yeah, you can go back to it.

[54:13] So, right there in the green where it's

[54:14] highlighted in the green, there's a

[54:16] walking track right there. You can see

[54:18] where it comes off of Puma and that

[54:20] little walkway.

[54:21] >> Yes.

[54:22] >> And it goes it goes uh it goes west and

[54:25] east and there's a little walking track

[54:27] that the uh community used. We just want

[54:28] to make sure we maintain that because

[54:30] it's it's used a lot. Every morning I

[54:32] see a group of people walking through

[54:33] there.

[54:34] >> Thank you for the question. Um the

[54:36] request tonight does not

[54:39] the walking path that's within that HOA

[54:41] tract.

[54:42] >> Okay. Thank you.

[54:44] >> Okay. Any other questions for council?

[54:47] >> Council, what's your pleasure?

[54:49] >> Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we

[54:50] approve agenda item 5B as in boy.

[54:55] >> Second.

[54:56] >> I have a motion and a second to approve

[54:57] agenda item 5B. All in favor say I.

[55:00] >> I.

[55:02] >> And opposed. 5B passes unanimous. Thank

[55:05] you, Mandy.

[55:07] 5C. Council state excellent on

[55:08] resolution number 39-26 approving

[55:11] intergovernmental agreement number

[55:13] 26-001579-I

[55:17] between the state of Arizona acting

[55:19] through its department of transportation

[55:20] the city of Buckeye and Arizona

[55:22] Municipal Corporation establishing a

[55:24] funding mechanism to provide

[55:25] reimbursement to the city for certain

[55:27] staffing costs incurred in conjun uh

[55:30] connection with its participation in the

[55:32] construction of the Jackrabbit Trail

[55:34] traffic interchange and associated work

[55:36] on the Interstate 10 I 10 widening

[55:38] project and authorizing the city manager

[55:40] to execute and deliver set agreement and

[55:43] any related documents on behalf of the

[55:45] city of Buckeye. Mr. John Willillet

[55:49] may council audience is one of the few

[55:52] times I actually get to come up here and

[55:53] be excited about talking about a

[55:54] project. those who are aware, we've been

[55:57] working with ADOT for I'll say a few

[55:59] days to try to get this interchange

[56:01] constructed and this is now actually

[56:04] about going to the very next phase and

[56:07] bringing it to reality. So what ADOT has

[56:10] done is they have selected what's called

[56:12] the construction manager risk means they

[56:14] pre-select a contractor. They bring him

[56:16] in to start working on the final design

[56:18] and making comments. I will give ADOT

[56:21] some kudos here. They actually took the

[56:23] initiative and combined the I 10 Jackar

[56:26] rabbit trail traffic interchange and the

[56:29] I 10 widening project that was going to

[56:32] add the fourth lane on I 10 from S85 to

[56:35] loop through three combined it into one

[56:36] project. They saw the foresight because

[56:39] both projects impacted the jack rabbit

[56:42] trail ramps on I 10. Well, the

[56:44] construction manager risk method allows

[56:47] them to do this and is ADOT a mechanism

[56:50] to build the project in phases. We can

[56:53] do phase one, phase two. ADOT calls it a

[56:55] GMP phase. That's what this allows us to

[56:58] do. So the key thing about this is now

[57:00] we will have a seat at the table. We get

[57:02] to be involved during discussions with

[57:04] the contractor and ADOT and how things

[57:07] may or may not move forward. First time

[57:10] Buckeye has been involved in this. So

[57:12] it's kind of actually is not kind of it

[57:14] really is new to us. But what's the

[57:16] city's role? We will be in the meetings

[57:18] sneak at the table reviewing

[57:22] guarantee maximum price like the bottom

[57:23] button says that the contractor is going

[57:26] to submit. They're going to build phase

[57:27] one for X dollars. We will have a say

[57:30] and are those prices seem reasonable or

[57:32] not. You support ADOT by addressing city

[57:35] related projects. I'm kind of working

[57:36] uphill on the bullet items.

[57:40] Contractor has questions. We ask we

[57:42] provide input. Do things like that. We

[57:44] give them answers. So, what are we

[57:48] helping with? Quality, project timing,

[57:50] and resident impact to make sure this is

[57:52] actually an overall a good project for

[57:54] the Buckeye community. Um, key benefits,

[57:58] it allows us, this this provides a

[58:02] funding mechanism, and this is what's

[58:03] unique. All the time and effort we spend

[58:08] working on this project, answering

[58:10] questions, doing some research,

[58:11] providing information. This allows ADOT

[58:15] to fund us back for our time. This is

[58:18] what's new. So, for example, on the IT

[58:21] 10 widening that happened and finished a

[58:23] few years ago, all the time and effort

[58:25] spent by myself and our staff in

[58:26] meetings, that was just time the city

[58:28] ate. This is an ability for us to be

[58:31] reimbursed back from ADOT for that

[58:34] effort. Allows us to have a proactive

[58:36] role or voice in discussion of regional

[58:40] stuff especially relates to IT 10. Um it

[58:43] helps us keep our interest leveraged

[58:47] when working with ADOT and it allows us

[58:50] to stay involved in a lot of decision-

[58:52] making.

[58:53] ADOT has created a bucket, so to speak,

[58:57] of reimbursing us $350,000 a year, and

[59:00] this is for two years. It's for the IT

[59:02] 10 widening part, but more importantly,

[59:04] the first phase, which is the Jack

[59:05] Rabbit TI. And with that, I will answer

[59:09] none of the questions you will have.

[59:12] >> Any questions from council?

[59:15] >> Go ahead,

[59:16] >> John. So with this IGA AOT has already

[59:20] approved this. So now it's on our side

[59:23] to approve it.

[59:24] >> Actually uh council or vice mayor it is

[59:26] actually we're the first ones. Way ADOT

[59:28] works is we approve it first and then

[59:30] they approve it. But we they provided a

[59:33] draft to us. We reviewed it. Legal

[59:34] reviewed it. We kicked back comments.

[59:37] They gave it back. We gave it back.

[59:40] Finally got to a finished agreement on

[59:42] what all the verbiage is. And once we

[59:43] approve it, we'll kick it to ADOT.

[59:45] they'll approve it and send it right

[59:47] back and then I send it to Summer and

[59:48] she does her magic.

[59:50] >> Okay. So, just to summarize that

[59:55] pingpong tournament you just highlighted

[59:58] >> that we won.

[59:59] >> Yeah. So, we approved this. It goes to

[1:00:03] ADAT. They've already approved the

[1:00:04] language and they'll do their thing and

[1:00:06] we're good to go.

[1:00:06] >> Yes, sir.

[1:00:07] >> All right. Thank you.

[1:00:10] >> Thank you, Mr. Willlet. Uh I just for

[1:00:14] the benefit of the public maybe a little

[1:00:16] bit on the agreement and what we're

[1:00:18] attempting to get out of this with ADOT.

[1:00:22] Uh the the project is uh kind of complex

[1:00:25] but it's actually really simple. There

[1:00:27] are two main components to it. One is

[1:00:29] the Jackrabbit trail traffic interchange

[1:00:33] and if we can get funding in the budget

[1:00:37] uh the governor's budget currently does

[1:00:39] not provide funding for I 10 uh but the

[1:00:43] legislature their budget does include

[1:00:45] funding for I 10. If we can get the

[1:00:47] funding at least the first phase of the

[1:00:49] I 10 widening these two projects will go

[1:00:52] at one time. and we had a conversation

[1:00:55] with ADOT about what we would like to

[1:00:56] see in in the I10 widening. Can you

[1:01:00] maybe go through some of those bullet

[1:01:02] points and what we're really excited

[1:01:04] about and really do not care uh is is in

[1:01:07] that first phase and really our attempt

[1:01:10] to maximize lane miles and the benefit

[1:01:13] to the traveling public.

[1:01:15] >> Sure thing, mayor. So caveat to kind of

[1:01:17] go with that. The Jack Rabbit TI

[1:01:19] construction is funded by Prop 439. The

[1:01:22] money to build the interchange is there.

[1:01:24] It's earmarked. It's moving forward.

[1:01:26] What you're mentioning is about the I 10

[1:01:28] widening project is a legislative

[1:01:31] earmark, so to speak. It came from the

[1:01:33] state legislature and that is currently

[1:01:35] phased over several years because they

[1:01:37] don't have all the money to do it today.

[1:01:40] They have initially allocated a certain

[1:01:43] dollar amount and the goal was to

[1:01:45] combine that with some money that the

[1:01:47] city and MAG had to bring to the table

[1:01:49] and do what as you mentioned phase one

[1:01:52] of the IT 10 widening back up a smidge.

[1:01:56] The Seymar process allows ADAT to do

[1:01:58] exactly what they want to do and that's

[1:02:00] phases project. So if they only have

[1:02:02] money for part of IT 10 widening, they

[1:02:04] can combine that with a TI and do that

[1:02:07] and then legislator provides funding in

[1:02:10] 28 27 they can do another what they call

[1:02:14] GMP phase and do some more widening and

[1:02:17] then when they get the remaining balance

[1:02:18] they do another GMP phase and phase

[1:02:20] finish the rest. So, as you mentioned,

[1:02:22] what we're trying to get ADOT to do is

[1:02:24] >> for the record, is is that the most

[1:02:26] efficient way to do construction

[1:02:28] projects

[1:02:29] >> for for this unique project, it's

[1:02:32] actually not bad.

[1:02:33] >> It's actually pretty good.

[1:02:34] >> There's no way it makes sense to split

[1:02:37] up a

[1:02:38] >> year and a half project into

[1:02:39] >> but since the funding is coming in

[1:02:41] several the other option is you got to

[1:02:43] wait till all the money's available. So,

[1:02:44] nothing happens till 29. So, at least

[1:02:47] this way we're going to get it in small

[1:02:49] pieces chunks. will be in construction

[1:02:51] for or four years,

[1:02:53] >> right?

[1:02:53] >> As opposed to build the TI, wait three

[1:02:56] years, and then go back and work on the

[1:02:58] exact same ramps that the TI did and do

[1:03:00] it all over again. So, there is some

[1:03:02] benefit to bring in the widening part

[1:03:04] and do it in phases. I said, I'll give

[1:03:06] ADOT a little bit of kudos. Um, but to

[1:03:09] talk about what you'd mentioned, what's

[1:03:10] going to be done phase one, and that the

[1:03:12] goal is we'd like to get the fourth lane

[1:03:14] added on 910 from Verado to the 303. The

[1:03:18] lane only the lane not necessarily all

[1:03:22] the sound walls

[1:03:24] the roadway lighting that there's

[1:03:26] nothing out there today it's functioned

[1:03:28] without it for years can we at least get

[1:03:30] enough pavement to add the fourth lane

[1:03:32] I'll say tomorrow

[1:03:34] then bring the extra stuff when that

[1:03:36] phase 2 money is available that's what

[1:03:39] you and I and others at the city have

[1:03:40] met with ADOT had proposed

[1:03:43] >> and it it

[1:03:45] probably does there's going to be plenty

[1:03:47] of money to do one lane. If we're only

[1:03:49] talking one lane from

[1:03:52] uh Citrus to Verado, I think the intent

[1:03:55] is let's make that lane go as far west

[1:03:59] as we can. Uh and then maybe take some

[1:04:02] of that money and because this is a a

[1:04:04] Seymar project,

[1:04:07] uh and ADOT can divvy this up however

[1:04:09] they want to. It's making that lane go

[1:04:11] as far as it can and then it's

[1:04:13] potentially intersection or off-ramp

[1:04:16] improvements at Watson and Miller that

[1:04:18] make it a much safer condition getting

[1:04:20] off uh in the afternoons coming home or

[1:04:23] getting on the uh the freeway and in the

[1:04:28] mornings heading in. So there's it's not

[1:04:31] just let's get the one lane in from

[1:04:34] Citrus to Verata Way. is trying to

[1:04:36] maximize

[1:04:38] the dollars that have been allocated and get as much relief for the traveling

[1:04:44] public as we can. And that's I think the

[1:04:47] intent of this. We said we want to be a

[1:04:49] part of this. be in the conversation so

[1:04:52] that um you're not just going out and

[1:04:55] building full freeway improvements from

[1:04:58] Citrus to Broadway, which is 27 or $30

[1:05:02] million with sound walls and lighting

[1:05:05] and

[1:05:06] all the other gingerbread that comes

[1:05:08] with it. It is lanes for the traveling

[1:05:11] public to um ease that commute.

[1:05:16] >> Correct. Yeah, mayor. That's correct.

[1:05:17] That's exactly what we'd like them to

[1:05:19] do. this mechanism, this allows us to

[1:05:22] have a voice at the table and encourage

[1:05:24] that loudly,

[1:05:27] >> right?

[1:05:27] >> As opposed to, "All right, yeah, thanks.

[1:05:30] We're we're moving forward." We'll

[1:05:31] actually be at the table and pushing and

[1:05:33] saying, "Hey, we really need this,"

[1:05:35] >> or or not being at the table and then

[1:05:37] have them come up with here's what the

[1:05:39] plan is and it's already in motion and

[1:05:41] we have no say. So, we get a beautiful

[1:05:44] freeway from Citrus to Verataway and

[1:05:47] then nothing west of there.

[1:05:48] >> Yes, sir. Okay. All right.

[1:05:51] Uh, beat that horse. Okay. So, um,

[1:05:55] council for agenda item 5 C. What is

[1:05:59] your pleasure?

[1:06:01] >> Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion that we

[1:06:02] approve

[1:06:04] agenda item 5 C is in Charles. Second.

[1:06:09] >> I have a motion for approval of 5C and a

[1:06:11] second. All in favor say I.

[1:06:13] >> I.

[1:06:14] >> And opposed. 5C passes unanimous. 5D.

[1:06:17] Thank you, Mr. Willlet. 5D council to

[1:06:20] take action on resolution number 38-26

[1:06:22] establishing new or increased municipal

[1:06:24] fees, establishing an effective date,

[1:06:26] repealing conflicting resolutions, and

[1:06:28] providing for severability. And Mr.

[1:06:30] Brian Craig, you're presenting.

[1:06:32] >> Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and

[1:06:33] Council. This is the successive

[1:06:36] presentation and action to the workshop

[1:06:38] we had in December on development and

[1:06:41] other related user fees at the city. um

[1:06:44] development services fees, community

[1:06:45] services fees, some public works fees

[1:06:47] and aviation fees are being considered

[1:06:49] tonight. These are unique from impact

[1:06:52] fees. Uh impact fees are related to the

[1:06:54] impact on our services and our

[1:06:56] infrastructure. User fees are more about

[1:06:58] the impact on our resources in

[1:07:00] particular staff time to process permits

[1:07:03] and other types of activities within the

[1:07:05] city. Um we're really trying to better

[1:07:07] account and be more accurate for the

[1:07:09] cost recovery. uh we haven't updated the

[1:07:12] development user fees in over five and a

[1:07:14] half years.

[1:07:17] So we will review just at a high level

[1:07:19] some of the discussion we had in

[1:07:20] December at the workshop uh a little bit

[1:07:22] about the process and how we go about

[1:07:25] developing the draft fees and then make

[1:07:27] them more firmed up and final some

[1:07:29] samples of the fees that are being

[1:07:31] established and recommended tonight

[1:07:33] comparisons with other jurisdictions.

[1:07:36] And then one thing we did some

[1:07:37] significant changes both uh increases

[1:07:39] and decreases. And then since the 60-day

[1:07:42] notice posting we're required by law to

[1:07:44] do some minor changes that staff is

[1:07:47] recommending to that and those are all

[1:07:48] reductions or clarifications.

[1:07:52] Here's a sample of what's in the

[1:07:54] development user fees now. And again the

[1:07:56] bulk of what we're considering tonight

[1:07:58] for fee changes are uh squarely within

[1:08:00] this document. The development user

[1:08:02] fees. Everything from our planning and

[1:08:04] entitlement, our engineering and

[1:08:05] building, everything that happens below

[1:08:07] grade and above grade as far as

[1:08:08] permitting inclusive of fire fees as

[1:08:11] well and business licenses. We are not

[1:08:13] updating section 7 tonight. Uh this

[1:08:16] council has seen some improvements to

[1:08:18] that section to create incentives in the

[1:08:20] downtown area in particular in downtown

[1:08:22] surrounding area. That that section of

[1:08:25] the chapter is staying the same.

[1:08:29] Not all the graphics are loading

[1:08:31] unfortunately. uh some of the

[1:08:33] philosophies tonight. Uh really we'll

[1:08:35] start with the end in mind. We we talked

[1:08:37] about in December and we got some head

[1:08:39] nods that we should be moving towards

[1:08:41] 100% cost recovery to make sure that the

[1:08:43] growth related activities for private

[1:08:45] development are helping pay for the the

[1:08:47] impact on city resources, city staff. Um

[1:08:50] there is some changes you'll see and

[1:08:52] we're happy to highlight that there's

[1:08:53] some reduction in fees that has a lot to

[1:08:55] do with the improvements we've made in

[1:08:56] our department over the last few years

[1:08:57] and related development disciplines to

[1:09:00] gain have some gains in reducing the

[1:09:02] amount of time that a project may go

[1:09:04] through the review and iterative

[1:09:06] process. And then again one of the

[1:09:08] council strategic plans that exists

[1:09:09] today is to develop a user fee cost

[1:09:11] recovery philosophy. So, not only for

[1:09:13] development services, but as you're

[1:09:14] going to see um the the other half of

[1:09:17] the presentation in December was related

[1:09:18] to community services and the types of

[1:09:20] services they offer the community. And

[1:09:22] again, those aren't apples to apples.

[1:09:24] Those are types of services that perhaps

[1:09:26] are best not recovered at 100%.

[1:09:30] We'll start with the exception to the

[1:09:32] rule in mind. And it's important you'll

[1:09:34] see that fourth bullet down. BA projects

[1:09:37] based on permit revenues based on

[1:09:40] valuation make up about 90% of the

[1:09:41] revenue that comes into development

[1:09:43] services.

[1:09:45] This is the type of project where uh we

[1:09:47] spend a lot of time setting the staff

[1:09:48] time involved and what is appropriate

[1:09:50] fee for certain permit type. You need a

[1:09:53] CFO. You need to come in and get a solar

[1:09:55] permit. Those are types of things that

[1:09:56] are a little easier to accurately depict

[1:09:59] each discipline that's involved and how

[1:10:00] much time they're spending on that. the

[1:10:03] there's too much variation in saying

[1:10:04] we're going to build a new building

[1:10:05] shell that could be range in size from

[1:10:08] 10,000 square feet to a million square

[1:10:09] feet. So to combat that variation, those

[1:10:12] permit types, the industry standard

[1:10:14] internationally is to use what's called

[1:10:16] the building valuation data table. It's

[1:10:18] published twice a year by the

[1:10:19] international code council and we're we

[1:10:22] will be now with this recommendation

[1:10:24] among 11 cities in the valley that are

[1:10:25] updating it annually to be more

[1:10:27] accurately reflective of the cost of

[1:10:29] construction. So what you do uh when you

[1:10:32] use this process is you you take both

[1:10:35] residential and non-residential permit

[1:10:37] types. You plug in the square foot and

[1:10:39] the type of construction method and it

[1:10:40] gives you a value and you convert that

[1:10:42] value through our process to a permit

[1:10:44] fee and a plan review fee. Our

[1:10:46] recommendation tonight is to annually

[1:10:49] adopt the new valuation table every

[1:10:50] February and that will continue

[1:10:52] concurrently each year with this

[1:10:54] approval. Uh, one of the things that

[1:10:58] makes this a good good recommendation is

[1:11:00] that it creates consistency across

[1:11:02] jurisdictions. As I said, we're we're

[1:11:03] among 11 jurisdictions in the valley and

[1:11:05] the state that are that are using this

[1:11:07] and it's an industry standard across the

[1:11:08] country. We have shared this uh with our

[1:11:11] the building,

[1:11:13] excuse me, the um the home builder

[1:11:15] association of central Arizona. They're

[1:11:17] aware of this. They're used to this sort

[1:11:19] of methodology for calculating fees

[1:11:21] across the valley.

[1:11:24] So outside of the building valuation

[1:11:26] standard of of assessing a fee category

[1:11:29] would be this sort of the ABCs of

[1:11:31] developing user fee schedule

[1:11:34] beginning first with establishing do we

[1:11:36] have all the right categories. Some of

[1:11:37] the recommendations with this update are

[1:11:39] to remove some categories that are no

[1:11:41] longer relevant because both technology

[1:11:43] and permit types and use types are

[1:11:46] changing. We do have some new proposed

[1:11:47] categories as well. And then updating uh

[1:11:49] the bulk of the existing fees.

[1:11:51] Allocating not only just uh staff time

[1:11:53] in our department and the types of

[1:11:55] discipline that are looking at a permit

[1:11:57] type, but outside of our department, we

[1:11:59] may incorporate uh review comments from

[1:12:01] the water resources department on a

[1:12:03] large project. And so accounting for

[1:12:04] their staff time. And then before we go

[1:12:07] and we publish the final recommended

[1:12:09] version, we do sort of a gut check with

[1:12:11] other valley jurisdictions to make sure

[1:12:13] we're not out of we're grossly out of

[1:12:14] alignment with what's being recommended.

[1:12:20] And again, this is a sample. So you're

[1:12:22] not meant to have to go line by line

[1:12:24] through here, but this is a sample of

[1:12:25] what it looks like. In this case, the

[1:12:27] major site plan review, all the types of

[1:12:30] different disciplines and levels of

[1:12:31] discipline that touch that project and

[1:12:33] their staff time involved throughout the

[1:12:34] process.

[1:12:38] And then as promised, we take a sampling

[1:12:40] of our proposed fees and we look at not

[1:12:43] only in that the sec the third column

[1:12:44] over what our existing fees are, but a

[1:12:46] West Valley average there as well. and

[1:12:48] then individually some of the the more

[1:12:51] high growth cities in the west valley.

[1:12:53] These categories in particular you'll

[1:12:55] see a couple of them are actually well

[1:12:56] this first one is being reduced and

[1:12:58] that's a reflective of site plans are

[1:13:00] now administrative but there's also a

[1:13:02] reduction in the number of reviews and

[1:13:04] the time to get through a process based

[1:13:06] on our continuous improvement efforts.

[1:13:09] And then further down the list, the

[1:13:11] third item, plan review. That's

[1:13:12] engineering plan review per sheet.

[1:13:14] Another reduction based on the types of time we spend on that

[1:13:19] review. And again, just a comparison to

[1:13:21] make sure that we're not out of

[1:13:22] alignment with other jurisdictions. And

[1:13:24] the last one you see, we are much lower

[1:13:27] than other jurisdictions. And maybe this

[1:13:28] is a good one to highlight, traffic

[1:13:30] control plans. This is for items that

[1:13:31] are temporary uh temporary control plans for partial closures of

[1:13:37] streets or full closures of streets.

[1:13:39] Recognizing that uh not only city

[1:13:41] projects but private development

[1:13:42] projects benefit from speed to getting

[1:13:45] um projects mobed and under and started,

[1:13:47] we've created a hybrid hybrid program

[1:13:50] where it's the the plans are reviewed by

[1:13:53] an inspector. So they spent a little bit

[1:13:55] of time on the computer reviewing the

[1:13:56] plans, but a lot of that work happens in

[1:13:58] the field with their traffic control

[1:13:59] staff.

[1:14:02] And then as we highlighted before, some

[1:14:05] significant changes in the green. Those

[1:14:07] are savings to customers. Maintenance

[1:14:10] improvement districts, street light

[1:14:11] improvement districts, drastically

[1:14:13] reducing costs based on the that being

[1:14:15] an entirely in-house review now versus

[1:14:17] third party review, third party legal

[1:14:19] and engineering. And then plan unit plan

[1:14:22] amendments. another drastic reduction

[1:14:24] and again that has a lot to do with that

[1:14:25] being almost an entirely administrative

[1:14:27] process for us saving some of the

[1:14:29] hearings involved. There are some

[1:14:31] drastic increases percentage-wise but as

[1:14:34] far as dollar amounts somewhat nominal

[1:14:37] you can imagine Buckeye seven or eight

[1:14:39] years ago wasn't doing as large projects

[1:14:41] that you'll see along the I 10 corridor

[1:14:42] and SR85 corridor now. So grading

[1:14:44] permits in particular the amount of

[1:14:46] pages and the amount of acreage that

[1:14:48] staff is looking at is drastically

[1:14:50] increased and that's what's being

[1:14:51] reflected there. And then concept site

[1:14:53] plan reviews. Historically those were

[1:14:55] looked at only by planning and maybe one

[1:14:57] other discipline and gave some

[1:14:59] preliminary guidance. The way we use

[1:15:00] those concept site plan reviews now is

[1:15:03] they're complete reviews involving all

[1:15:04] the necessary disciplines. So it gives

[1:15:06] greater confidence to that customer that

[1:15:08] they can take that and move into

[1:15:10] construction documents. Then variance

[1:15:13] fee is one of those ones where there is

[1:15:14] an increase but the volume of variances

[1:15:16] the city sees is about one every two

[1:15:18] years. we had the ability to review back

[1:15:21] with a recent variance and understand

[1:15:24] just directly the cost involved. So

[1:15:25] that's why there's an increase there.

[1:15:27] >> Ryan, before you go off of that, the uh

[1:15:29] the increase that we're seeing in

[1:15:31] grading permit cost and uh concept site

[1:15:36] plan review is is that for any size

[1:15:39] development?

[1:15:40] >> The that grading permit is is more I

[1:15:44] think that's the first level. We have

[1:15:47] successive levels above that for larger

[1:15:49] tracks of land, but this one would be

[1:15:51] for the first sort of I don't have in

[1:15:53] front of me. It's going to be like

[1:15:57] 20 acres or less. I'll get you that

[1:15:58] number and then it would increase beyond

[1:16:01] that as well. A lot of grading permits

[1:16:04] historically have been those infill

[1:16:06] parcels. So maybe 5 to 10 acres.

[1:16:13] » Okay. It's a It's just a pretty

[1:16:16] substantial increase. And I'm sure

[1:16:19] that's backed up by the amount of time

[1:16:20] that it takes to process that. That's a

[1:16:25] 20acre site is much much different than

[1:16:27] a than a Burlington that's that's being

[1:16:30] developed.

[1:16:31] >> Correct. And typically you would have

[1:16:34] one acre or less is exempt from certain

[1:16:37] grading permit requirements or grading

[1:16:38] and drainage requirements. So that's

[1:16:41] >> okay. These these mentioned they're all

[1:16:43] reflective of spending time putting in

[1:16:46] time involved for each level of

[1:16:48] discipline and trying to accurately

[1:16:49] account for what we need to recoup back.

[1:16:52] Do we have what the industry or the the

[1:16:55] area average is for each of those?

[1:16:59] We're seeing a pretty significant

[1:17:01] increase. Is are we coming up to par

[1:17:03] with

[1:17:04] >> across other jurisdictions? I don't have

[1:17:06] that for you.

[1:17:08] >> Okay.

[1:17:11] I think the and the the salient note on

[1:17:13] this slide is that we're not

[1:17:14] recommending over recovering costs on

[1:17:17] any category. Everything's at the 100%

[1:17:19] or the high 90s. Round off the numbers.

[1:17:22] >> I guess that's the bottom line on this

[1:17:23] one is this is just recovering

[1:17:27] 90% of what it cost us to do the permit.

[1:17:29] >> Correct.

[1:17:30] >> Okay.

[1:17:34] And then another case study, business

[1:17:36] licensing had historically had 17

[1:17:39] different categories. The fees ranging

[1:17:41] up to $1,000. Some of them we weren't

[1:17:43] charging any fees. We've cons

[1:17:45] consolidated those fees into a general

[1:17:48] category with the exception I'll explain

[1:17:50] the specialty fee types in a minute.

[1:17:53] But really the benefit to the city is

[1:17:55] capturing these businesses. So, not only

[1:17:58] can we make sure we're accounting for

[1:17:59] the businesses in our community that are

[1:18:01] they meeting the sales tax requirements,

[1:18:03] but are we able to provide them

[1:18:04] resources and are they part of the

[1:18:06] network of things that we can provide

[1:18:08] from the city? So, now the first permit

[1:18:11] out the door for them, their first time

[1:18:12] in will be $75 and then an annual review

[1:18:15] update of $50. And the other thing

[1:18:18] that's happened with this update and the

[1:18:19] code change, we had required everyone to

[1:18:22] renew at the same time of the year,

[1:18:24] which was a burden on staff to have

[1:18:25] everything being renewed at the same

[1:18:27] time. This is a rolling annual update.

[1:18:29] So you can apply. It's for that good for

[1:18:31] that 12 month instead of a prorated

[1:18:33] amount, which we weren't offering

[1:18:34] before. You would pay that full amount

[1:18:36] whether it was in January or November.

[1:18:38] And then these specialty fee types,

[1:18:40] again, those are a little bit more

[1:18:41] discernment required, uh, meeting not

[1:18:44] only city requirements, but federal and

[1:18:46] state requirements. So, there's more to

[1:18:47] look at with those applications, and

[1:18:48] there's a little bit more higher um,

[1:18:51] scrutiny required as you go through

[1:18:53] those.

[1:18:58] And then, as I mentioned at the top of

[1:19:00] the presentation, there are a few other

[1:19:02] categories outside development that are

[1:19:04] increasing their fees. I would say maybe

[1:19:06] more on the nominal basis. Uh just a

[1:19:09] couple slides on both the airport and

[1:19:11] public works slides.

[1:19:13] Um a couple increases. There's a

[1:19:16] decrease in there. The commercial

[1:19:18] photography, that's again one of those

[1:19:19] things that um there's not a high volume

[1:19:21] of commercial photography occurring on

[1:19:23] the airport, but we want to make sure

[1:19:24] that's not a discouraging fee amount. So

[1:19:27] maybe we're not recovering cost to

[1:19:29] provide that service or allow that

[1:19:30] service on our property if there's any

[1:19:32] disruption. These other fee categories

[1:19:35] are just a matter of it's been five to

[1:19:37] six years since we've updated fees at

[1:19:38] the airport and basing them on market

[1:19:42] rate studies.

[1:19:47] And this last slide on the airport again

[1:19:50] more fees um in nominal nature related

[1:19:54] to just common activities at the

[1:19:56] airport.

[1:20:01] And then in the public works realm,

[1:20:03] there are some additional fees that

[1:20:04] needed added uh as far as this user

[1:20:07] services they're offering to the

[1:20:08] community. First one there, residential

[1:20:10] household waste drop off, a new $40 fee

[1:20:13] being assessed there. And then again,

[1:20:16] white good drop off, $25, and then key

[1:20:19] replacement. Just nominal fees. Wanted,

[1:20:21] it's not maybe not worth the the minutes

[1:20:23] I'm giving it based on the volume of

[1:20:25] these types of projects. We want to make

[1:20:26] sure we're we're discussing those. And

[1:20:28] then unique to public works to align

[1:20:30] with the solid waste fees there is a 4%

[1:20:33] annual escalator added.

[1:20:37] And then community services as Miranda

[1:20:39] had presented in the December workshop.

[1:20:42] There is a range from community type of

[1:20:45] amenity to more an individual type of

[1:20:47] amenity. You can imagine shelter rentals

[1:20:50] and private swim lessons being something

[1:20:52] that's more individual in nature,

[1:20:53] whereas open access to a park or the

[1:20:56] library material resources are something

[1:20:58] that benefits the community as a whole.

[1:21:00] And so the amount of recovery proposed

[1:21:03] with those are they range from 0 to 100.

[1:21:06] So this next slide shows you the

[1:21:09] recommended column and that's the second

[1:21:11] to last column and then where the study

[1:21:13] found that we exist today. call it out

[1:21:15] in orange where we're a little bit shy

[1:21:17] or over or under meeting those targets.

[1:21:20] So, this would what's being proposed

[1:21:22] today allows the community services

[1:21:24] department to study and understand their

[1:21:27] cost to provide each of these services

[1:21:29] and recommend a fee within the range

[1:21:32] that's posted in that third column and

[1:21:34] then continually monitor their fees for

[1:21:36] services and the revenue related to

[1:21:38] that. Make sure that they're within an

[1:21:39] alignment of that cost recovery

[1:21:41] suggestion.

[1:21:46] Can I ask a question back on on that?

[1:21:48] So, um,

[1:21:51] are we saying these fees have not been

[1:21:54] decided yet and they're going to come up

[1:21:56] with what that fee is somewhere in that

[1:21:59] range for for cost recovery? Um,

[1:22:02] Miranda's gonna nod her head, but the

[1:22:04] first thing I'll say is there is fee fee

[1:22:06] level being recommended tonight

[1:22:09] with the fee schedule attached to the

[1:22:10] materials, but then annually or as

[1:22:13] periodically as needed, the fees will be

[1:22:15] updated to make sure that they're

[1:22:17] maintaining true alignment with those

[1:22:18] recommended ranges.

[1:22:19] >> So, we've we've talked also about some

[1:22:22] of the open spaces and specifically like

[1:22:25] a um

[1:22:27] uh across the street at Sixth Street

[1:22:29] Plaza and and trying to activate that

[1:22:32] area. Uh but it's difficult to do that

[1:22:35] when there's a a fee associated with

[1:22:41] uh especially the nonprofits or the the

[1:22:44] small gathering get together or things

[1:22:46] like that. It how is that how do we

[1:22:50] activate those areas?

[1:22:53] uh and and maybe we are doing fee

[1:22:56] recovery or we're not doing fee recovery

[1:22:58] on that uh based on the conversations

[1:23:01] we've had about it then I I think at our

[1:23:03] workshop also talking about

[1:23:06] that or um uh ramadas at the park or or

[1:23:12] other things along those lines.

[1:23:14] >> Sure. So you can see that the rentals uh

[1:23:17] specifically are in the 100% uh cost

[1:23:20] recovery category. Um and the reason for

[1:23:23] that is that it's a pretty

[1:23:24] individualized use, right? Um but the

[1:23:28] open access and the use of some of those

[1:23:30] facilities is in the lower area. So I

[1:23:33] guess all that to say that it as we

[1:23:37] depending on the amount of time that it

[1:23:38] takes for staff to facilitate that type

[1:23:41] of use. So, if somebody were coming in

[1:23:44] and reserving a facility for a birthday

[1:23:46] party or something to that effect, um we

[1:23:49] would be tracking the amount of time

[1:23:50] that we directly spend to facilitate

[1:23:53] that use and creating a fee category or

[1:23:58] creating a fee that aligns with that. um

[1:24:01] in and I don't I didn't bring my my

[1:24:03] binder up, but in your um packet

[1:24:06] tonight, there is a range of fees that

[1:24:08] allows us to be flexible in that right

[1:24:10] now so that we're not overcharging for

[1:24:13] what that could be or uh undercharging

[1:24:15] or subsidizing that. Thank you.

[1:24:19] So,

[1:24:20] >> so an example, let's say somebody wanted

[1:24:23] to rent out uh Six Street Plaza for a

[1:24:27] small one-hour event on on a Saturday

[1:24:29] morning. What that's that's

[1:24:33] community-minded.

[1:24:35] What What would be the cost to rent

[1:24:37] that?

[1:24:37] >> So, today that cost is $250 because that

[1:24:40] is the adopted fee and that is the only

[1:24:42] fee that I can charge. What we're

[1:24:44] proposing is that we would uh take a

[1:24:47] look at what that actually costs, which

[1:24:49] is going to be less than $250,

[1:24:52] uh, and charge exactly what we find that costs back to the to the renter.

[1:24:58] So, you would see that that fee shrink.

[1:25:03] So I what that's going to do though and

[1:25:05] we've had this discussion before is it

[1:25:07] means that nobody uses Six Street Plaza

[1:25:10] then unless it's a larger event where

[1:25:12] you have a

[1:25:14] somebody that's willing to step in. for

[1:25:16] an hour event.

[1:25:18] Um, and I probably have one specific in

[1:25:21] mind, but there there are other events

[1:25:24] where people would like to, you know,

[1:25:26] gather in a certain spot and and it

[1:25:31] um takes a uh a permit.

[1:25:35] Uh so you've you've got some kind of

[1:25:39] uh idea of um we're the requirement is

[1:25:43] you have to have a a permit to do this

[1:25:46] specific event uh a small get together

[1:25:48] event like this. Um and and then that

[1:25:52] triggers a cost to that nonprofit or in

[1:25:54] some cases it's not even a nonprofit.

[1:25:56] It's just a group of people in the

[1:25:59] community that want to get together for a reason on Sixth Street Plaza.

[1:26:04] uh $250

[1:26:06] doesn't work and $100 they're going to

[1:26:09] go someplace else.

[1:26:10] >> So whether it's the event I'm thinking

[1:26:13] of or it's a different event, we're

[1:26:17] essentially saying

[1:26:18] don't use this,

[1:26:21] go someplace else and and hold your

[1:26:23] event.

[1:26:25] >> So a couple of things. First, the the

[1:26:28] fee that we are proposing is $10 to

[1:26:30] $400. So, it allows us to get very

[1:26:34] um very light on the fee if there is a

[1:26:38] very light requirement of staff for to

[1:26:41] help facilitate that rental. Um, a

[1:26:44] couple of other things. I mean, anybody

[1:26:45] can come out and use our facility any

[1:26:47] time as long as it's not reserved for

[1:26:49] any other reason. So, we don't restrict

[1:26:51] use of our facilities, you know, in open

[1:26:53] areas and so forth. um where a fee would would be utilized as if they were

[1:27:00] reserving it for a specific reason that

[1:27:04] um then restricted it from public use

[1:27:06] otherwise. The other thing that I will

[1:27:09] say is that we do have groups that we

[1:27:11] work with pretty regularly that help uh

[1:27:13] facilitate events for the city in

[1:27:16] partnership with the city. So the other

[1:27:18] way that we could accomplish maybe

[1:27:19] helping facilitate some of those events

[1:27:21] are through agreements. Um, one of them

[1:27:23] that you're probably pretty familiar

[1:27:24] with would be like the Main Street or

[1:27:26] the Chamber. We work with even the White

[1:27:29] Tank Mountains Conservancy. We work with

[1:27:30] groups like that to help facilitate

[1:27:32] those things. So, I don't know if that

[1:27:34] answers your questions, but there's a

[1:27:36] couple of different ways that we can go

[1:27:37] about either reducing the fees and or

[1:27:41] um, you know, again, if it's a pretty

[1:27:43] light facilitation of a of a an

[1:27:46] activity, then I wouldn't anticipate a

[1:27:48] large charge.

[1:27:49] >> Yeah. Um,

[1:27:52] I think I think this probably warrants

[1:27:55] more discussion. It's It sounds like you

[1:27:57] have a a a range that you can work that

[1:28:00] into, but it's still going to come back

[1:28:02] to a

[1:28:03] we had to send a guy out there to open a

[1:28:05] gate or something like that that that is

[1:28:07] a an hourly rate fee. And I don't I

[1:28:10] don't know what that was. 100 bucks or

[1:28:12] 65 bucks or something like that.

[1:28:15] it it is going to discourage and does

[1:28:18] discourage people from using the

[1:28:20] facilities that we have where we're

[1:28:21] wanting to program and and activate I

[1:28:25] guess program's not the right term

[1:28:26] activate those areas so that the public

[1:28:28] is coming out and spending time in them

[1:28:30] and if we're charging um fees to do that

[1:28:35] those groups that we would invite in to have just a presence at a at the

[1:28:42] plaza or at a ramada or someplace in a

[1:28:45] park are going to say we will go

[1:28:47] someplace else to do this and that's

[1:28:51] there's there's some of the fees where I

[1:28:53] understand we're trying to recoup

[1:28:54] expense and actual expense that we have

[1:28:56] in it. Uh but there's other ones that

[1:28:58] are um the the facility is built. It's

[1:29:03] paid for. It's it's maintained and and I

[1:29:07] don't know that charging a fee is going

[1:29:10] to accomplish what we want it to

[1:29:12] accomplish. It is going to is going to

[1:29:14] discourage people from using some of the

[1:29:16] public space that we have.

[1:29:19] >> Understood. I think I mean I don't know

[1:29:22] at this point if it's best to I'm

[1:29:24] looking to I guess our our council

[1:29:27] because council could recommend a lower

[1:29:30] cost recovery at this point also.

[1:29:34] >> Yes. And Miranda, thank you mayor and

[1:29:36] council. to Miranda's point, the

[1:29:38] proposed fees tonight have with the city

[1:29:41] has followed the notice requirements in

[1:29:43] the um the statute and that requires

[1:29:47] that the city prepare a report subst you

[1:29:50] know supporting the proposed uh new or

[1:29:53] increased fees and uh post a copy of the

[1:29:57] report the schedule of the proposed fees

[1:30:00] um and the that that data on the clerk's

[1:30:03] website also requires the city to

[1:30:06] prepare a notice of intent with the

[1:30:08] date, time, location of the meeting uh

[1:30:11] tonight to approve or reject the fees

[1:30:14] and the city has complied with the

[1:30:16] notice of requirements. Now those the

[1:30:19] information the report and the schedule

[1:30:21] sets the upper um limit of the fees. So,

[1:30:25] um, in in light of the lengthy notice,

[1:30:29] um, requirements, if council had the

[1:30:32] desire to, um, modify some of the

[1:30:35] proposed fees downward within that

[1:30:38] noticed range, the council could opt to

[1:30:41] do so tonight or direct staff to to move

[1:30:44] accordingly. Um, if it were a percentage

[1:30:47] reduction or something along those

[1:30:49] lines.

[1:30:51] Yeah, I

[1:30:53] um

[1:30:55] not exactly sure how to handle that.

[1:30:57] >> Do we uh do we have to vote on this

[1:30:59] tonight or we have can we table it?

[1:31:05] » So council could table it. It would

[1:31:08] require a motion uh to either table the

[1:31:11] item or to continue it to another

[1:31:13] meeting. If that were the desire of

[1:31:15] council, I would recommend that you

[1:31:17] continue it to a date certain. Um but

[1:31:22] if there were specific fees, it sounds

[1:31:25] as though there might be just one or two

[1:31:27] specific fees that are at issue and if

[1:31:30] that's something that could be further

[1:31:32] discussed tonight as well or modified

[1:31:34] tonight by the council, you could also

[1:31:36] do so and then have the vote tonight. We

[1:31:38] don't have to start the process over u

[1:31:41] for the the

[1:31:44] um notice of intent to increase fees.

[1:31:48] >> Mayor, if the discussion involved

[1:31:50] increasing the fees above what was

[1:31:52] noticed, then then arguably

[1:31:55] >> that's not what we're talking to to

[1:31:57] restart that process.

[1:31:59] >> In this case, it's not. So, we're I

[1:32:01] think um I think we continue this and we

[1:32:05] have a more robust conversation about

[1:32:06] the fees and and what we're trying to

[1:32:08] accomplish.

[1:32:10] Um and and some of them it it we're So,

[1:32:14] here's what's going to happen. If if we

[1:32:15] go through and we pass this, there's

[1:32:17] unintended consequences. And it's going

[1:32:19] to be not next month, it's going to be

[1:32:22] six months or a year down the road where

[1:32:23] a group is going to come in and say, "We

[1:32:26] are the um

[1:32:29] you know, we're the we're the group that brings out puppies for petting in

[1:32:34] uh in a Romana at the park or at at some

[1:32:38] just some of the most benign, soft,

[1:32:41] loving stuff that that you can come up

[1:32:43] with."

[1:32:44] and and

[1:32:46] we're going to tell them you got to pay

[1:32:48] a hundred or $250 to go bring puppies to

[1:32:52] the park for kids to to pet. Probably a

[1:32:54] terrible example, but you know what I'm

[1:32:56] getting at with this. I mean, we've had

[1:32:58] this over and over and over. And then

[1:33:00] all that blows back on us as council and

[1:33:02] then the it's, you know, all buried

[1:33:05] within the fees that we're talking

[1:33:06] about. Uh and and so then at that point

[1:33:09] we come back to you and say, "Hey, can

[1:33:11] we do anything about this?" and well,

[1:33:12] you guys approved this 6 months or a

[1:33:14] year ago. So, I think it's probably a

[1:33:17] timeout we need to call on this uh and

[1:33:20] then have the conversation if we can

[1:33:21] maybe have it at the next council

[1:33:24] meeting so that we're we're all a little

[1:33:27] bit more focused on these fees and some

[1:33:30] of the specifics that we're talking

[1:33:31] about.

[1:33:33] >> Mr. Mayor,

[1:33:35] >> hold on just one second. Doug, you're

[1:33:37] about to say something.

[1:33:38] >> I was going to say a couple different

[1:33:39] things. Is uh the way the fee schedule

[1:33:41] is set up and with the percentages in

[1:33:43] here, it leaves a lot of discretion to

[1:33:46] the community services director to be

[1:33:48] able to deal with those one-off types of

[1:33:50] situations that you're talking about. Um

[1:33:53] so that if we do run into a group where

[1:33:55] the fee is over the top, Miranda's going

[1:33:58] to have a lot of discretion to be able

[1:33:59] to deal with those. And I believe we

[1:34:01] also have some fee waiver abilities in

[1:34:04] there. and also um a lot of other forms

[1:34:08] of funding assistance and so on. Um and

[1:34:12] what we are talking about here are very

[1:34:14] rare occurrences, one-off kind of

[1:34:16] situations. And I believe that the way

[1:34:18] the structure it is structured, we've

[1:34:20] got the ability to deal with those.

[1:34:21] >> But then we get into the argument every

[1:34:23] time, well, if I do it for this group,

[1:34:25] then I have to do it for this group. Or

[1:34:27] what if this group comes in? What if

[1:34:29] this group that none of us I mean the people that bring cats, what if that

[1:34:34] group comes in, we don't want to give

[1:34:37] them the the reduction in fee. And so

[1:34:39] then we're in this circular reference

[1:34:42] constantly on this stuff.

[1:34:44] >> And and that's uh kind of how we got to

[1:34:47] the what is it? $250 now,

[1:34:50] >> right?

[1:34:51] >> It's black and white,

[1:34:52] >> right?

[1:34:53] >> And to get to black and white, that's

[1:34:54] what you end up with. If you when you

[1:34:57] leave a little bit of discretion in

[1:34:58] there, you do end up with some

[1:35:00] discussions of the around and around

[1:35:03] with the gray, but it makes sure that we

[1:35:05] do have that ability and that

[1:35:06] discretion. Having it black and white

[1:35:08] ends up somebody's always not going to

[1:35:11] be happy.

[1:35:13] >> Yeah, vice mayor.

[1:35:14] >> Yeah, I think we're

[1:35:19] we don't want to get to the point where

[1:35:22] we're creating policy around the

[1:35:24] exceptions. And I think we're talking

[1:35:26] about the exceptions here that you know

[1:35:30] having read through this that um there

[1:35:34] is a lot of latitude and and the ping

[1:35:38] petting puppies group and the you know

[1:35:41] snuggling cats group. I think

[1:35:42] >> we don't want the snuggling cats. Well,

[1:35:44] we might at some point, but um I think

[1:35:48] there's

[1:35:49] a lot of latitude where those things can

[1:35:52] we can address those things and I think

[1:35:56] we have an opportunity moving forward

[1:35:58] that you know if that if those

[1:36:00] exceptions become the rule then and

[1:36:03] modify the policy accordingly.

[1:36:07] So, I think you know that Miranda and

[1:36:10] her team and Brian and her team and the

[1:36:12] others that were involved with this put

[1:36:13] a lot of work into it and a lot of

[1:36:15] thought into it. Um, and I think we have

[1:36:20] a better product now or potentially

[1:36:23] better product now than we had prior to

[1:36:25] this.

[1:36:27] Um, so I I I think we're we're getting

[1:36:31] into a slippery slope that if we don't

[1:36:35] look at this and give it a try, then

[1:36:37] we're going to continually try to create

[1:36:40] policy around those exceptions and we're

[1:36:42] not going to have anything we can rely

[1:36:44] on.

[1:36:47] >> Mr. Mayor.

[1:36:49] >> Yes, sir.

[1:36:50] >> I've got a question and I'll make a

[1:36:51] proposal.

[1:36:53] If I take my family of eight or 10 and

[1:36:58] go down to Sundance Park and go to a

[1:37:02] Ramada number 18 and have a birthday

[1:37:05] party, are you going to come down and

[1:37:08] charge me if you see a group of people

[1:37:10] down there? Because it's not busy on a

[1:37:12] Saturday. So, I just go down there with

[1:37:14] my family and I sit down and I have a

[1:37:17] party. Is somebody going to come along?

[1:37:19] Because you do have staff down there.

[1:37:21] somebody going to come along and check

[1:37:22] my staff status, excuse me, my my permit

[1:37:26] status. Is someone at that point going

[1:37:29] to charge me or run me and my family

[1:37:31] off?

[1:37:32] >> Councilman Huis, no sir. So, our

[1:37:35] facilities are available and open as

[1:37:37] long as they are not reserved. So, we do

[1:37:39] allow the reservation of a ramada so

[1:37:42] that if you wanted to have a birthday

[1:37:43] party, you could plan accordingly and

[1:37:45] you would know that when you show up

[1:37:46] that Ramada will be made available to

[1:37:47] you. But if that ramada is open then

[1:37:50] it's first come first served and there

[1:37:51] is no charge.

[1:37:52] >> So if I go to reserve it I have to pay.

[1:37:54] If I just go down there I don't have to

[1:37:56] pay

[1:37:57] >> as Yes sir. As long as it's not

[1:37:59] reserved. As long as it's open it's

[1:38:02] available for use. And right now that

[1:38:03] charge is $10.

[1:38:06] >> I'm going to leave it up to council. I'm

[1:38:07] going to make a proposal. So, I'll make

[1:38:09] a motion that we delay this to the next

[1:38:12] city council meeting so we have more

[1:38:13] time to discuss it and more time for us

[1:38:16] to understand a little bit more about

[1:38:18] it.

[1:38:23] » Second.

[1:38:25] >> Okay. I have a motion and a second for a

[1:38:28] um

[1:38:30] continuence to the next council meeting.

[1:38:33] >> Requests a roll call vote. Okay.

[1:38:37] >> Have a roll call vote, please.

[1:38:42] Council member Yoner.

[1:38:44] >> Hey.

[1:38:45] >> Council member Barry.

[1:38:46] >> Hi.

[1:38:49] >> Council member Haggistad.

[1:38:51] >> Hi.

[1:38:52] >> Council member Beard.

[1:38:54] >> Hi.

[1:38:56] >> Council member Hustus.

[1:38:57] >> Hi.

[1:38:58] >> Vice Mayor Goodman.

[1:38:59] >> Nay.

[1:39:01] Mayor

[1:39:01] >> Wors. Hi. Let's

[1:39:02] >> have it.

[1:39:03] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:39:06] All right. Thank you.

[1:39:09] Uh, item number six, comments from mayor

[1:39:12] and council. Any comments from

[1:39:15] council? Not seeing any. Item number

[1:39:17] seven, city manager report. Summary of

[1:39:19] your current events.

[1:39:21] >> Couple items tonight. Mayor council. Uh,

[1:39:23] last night we welcomed at festival we

[1:39:26] welcomed approximately 130 residents to

[1:39:28] our annual openhouse town hall series.

[1:39:30] This was the first of four openhouse

[1:39:33] events. The intent of the open houses is

[1:39:35] to promote a direct connection between

[1:39:38] our residents, employees, and the

[1:39:40] services that the city provides. The

[1:39:42] openhouse format allows residents to

[1:39:44] circulate, ask questions from city

[1:39:46] staff, and to get information on the

[1:39:48] topics and services that they are most

[1:39:50] interested in. And last night was our

[1:39:52] first and our next open house will be on

[1:39:54] May 14th in Tarteso with two additional

[1:39:57] ones planned in June.

[1:40:01] And then last week we had 45

[1:40:03] participants of the winter 2026 Buckeye

[1:40:06] Civic Institute graduate from an 11-week

[1:40:09] program where they were informed about

[1:40:10] how the city runs and how to become more

[1:40:13] civically engaged in the community. Due

[1:40:15] to the success of this program, we will

[1:40:17] begin offering the Buckeye Civic

[1:40:19] Institute twice a year with a fall and a

[1:40:22] winter session. And for any residents

[1:40:24] who are interested in participating in

[1:40:26] the civic institute, the interest form

[1:40:28] is now available on our city's website.

[1:40:32] Those are my two updates. Okay. Thank

[1:40:35] you very much. Uh item number eight,

[1:40:37] proposal for future agenda items. Any

[1:40:39] from council?

[1:40:40] Seeing none, item number nine. With

[1:40:42] nothing else on the agenda, we are

[1:40:43] adjourned.

Buckeye City Council Meeting 4-21-2026

Transcript