Page 10 - the NOISE March 2015

COunCil vOtes against Citizens’ request tO re-Open water pOliCy
stOry & phOtO by kyle bOggs
On February 3, the Flagstaff City Council voted not to reopen or further discuss its water policy, formerly titled Principles of Sound Water Management, which was adopted less than a year ago, last April. The refusal raises questions about consistency in revisiting newly adopt- ed policies and highlights “irrational” fears among some council members in having important conversations about water.
On January 6, Flagstaff citizen Rudy Preston formerly submitted a Citizen Petition urging City Council to place on a future agenda a discussion to re-open the city’s water policy. “I don’t feel like it really got to the heart of a lot of the issues,” Mr. Preston told Council. “You gave away your right ... to have any say in any huge water contracts to out-of-city developers. I feel this a very dangerous thing to do, and proved immediately correct,” said Mr. Preston referring to the way in which the newly adopted water policy allowed Utilities Director Brad Hill to amend and administratively renew the Arizona Snowbowl’s reclaimed wastewater contract with the city for 20 years without City Council discussion or public input.
Procedurally, a citizen can submit a petition to City Council to request an issue be discussed, or if a discussion should be pursued. If at least three Council members agree that the petition raises some important points suitable for the Council to discuss, it will be placed on a future agenda within 30 days. such was the case with Mr. Preston’s petition, which was supported by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz, and council members Coral Evans & Eva Putzova.
while it takes three council members to get the issue on a future agenda, it takes at least four members to vote on any action. During the City Council meeting on February 3, Item 15A, “Consideration to re-open discussion on the Principles of Sound Water Management,” was the
product of Mr. Preston’s petition. The council’s task that day was to vote over whether or not a discussion over the City’s water policy should be pursued.
During the public comment period of the discussion, eleven Flagstaff citizens and one person representing the organization, Friends of Flagstaff’s Future, spoke up about their concerns about how the City manages its water resources, and raised many questions for City staff to con- sider. An additional twelve citizens submitted written comments. Citizens expressed concerns regarding the sale of water outside the City, the length of contracts, the process by which large water contracts are approved, the rate structure, and several water related issues they felt were emblematic of a lack of transparency and accountability. In addition, questions were also raised about the current water policy, much of which revolved around vague language.
Vice Mayor Barotz, and council members evans & Putzova found merit in much of the public’s concern, and asked a series of questions as well. [See these specific questions at the end of this article]. This led to a motion made by Ms. Putzova and seconded by Ms. Barotz to postpone to a future date the discussion of the water policy until after staff has answered the questions posed. The motion was voted down with Mayor Jerry Nabours, and council members Scott Overton, Karla Brewster, & Jeff Oravits voting no.
Mr. nabours made a second motion that no specific direction should be given to staff other than to answer the questions posed by council members. The motion was seconded by Mr. Overton and favored by a 4-3 majority, with Vice Mayor Barotz and council members evans, and Putzova voting no. Therefore, a serious discussion about the City’s water policy was reject- ed. Ms. Barotz said the council’s decision was shortsighted. neither council members Oravits, Brewster, nor Overton responded to requests for comment, as of deadline.
“I voted against the Mayor’s motion because I believe that as leaders of a geographically iso- lated community in the southwest that relies exclusively on groundwater and surface water, the Flagstaff City Council should recognize the responsible thing to do is to not be afraid to ask questions about the water policy we adopted in April 2014,” said Ms. Barotz.
During the public comment period, many citizens cited the recent study featured in local and national media news outlets about the scientifically-informed prediction of “mega-droughts,” which will reportedly become widespread and frequent in our area in the decades to come. Councilmember evans noted the severe water shortage neighboring williams is currently fac- ing just 32 miles west of Flagstaff. “since water is rapidly becoming a critical issue,” said Ms. Barotz, “the public deserves answers in a city council meeting, which could then set the stage
Lake Mary Reserve, as of the end of February
for an educated conversation about whether the policy, as written, is clear and whether certain policies should be revisited.”
when Mr. nabours was pressed to answer why he made the motion, he said there is “no in- tention to preclude the public,” he said. “when there is a specific proposed action, for example a proposed change to a specific section, then it can work its way on to the agenda and will be considered ... just to say we want to revisit the water policy is too vague for me,” he said, adding,
“keep in mind, we had numerous public meetings before we adopted the water policy.” Council members Overton and Brewster similarly stated there were numerous meetings in which the water policy was discussed, and added the water policy itself was adopted less than a year ago. Mr. Overton said the water policy was “based on sound reason and logic by the council,” he said. “I’m comfortable leaving the policy as is.” Ms. Brewster similarly stated that the current water policy “has been vetted, and barely in place a year,” she said. “we’ve had ten
meetings on this ... let’s give it a chance to work before we start taking it apart.”
Ms. evans quickly challenged the consistency of the council’s treatment of some discus- sion over others, and cited lengthy and expensive adoption of the City’s zoning code. when the zoning code was adopted, there were “480 different meetings with different stakeholders about the concept of zoning in the city. we had 10 meetings regarding water,” she said. “The conversations we had about water were here, and meetings we had about the zoning code were all over the city.”
Ms. Barotz agreed that the irony was unbelievable. Indeed, looking back, the Zoning Code — a set of laws that determine the process by which development can and can not take place within the city — was adopted prior to Mr. nabours becoming mayor, and was the product of over $800,000 in consulting fees, and several years of meetings both at City Hall and several
locations within the city.
However, the first meeting after Mr. nabours was sworn in, he sought to revisit the zoning
code — specifically to make zoning easier for developers in regards to upfront costs. Like the water policy, the zoning code had been in place less than a year.
“we hadn’t even had one rezoning case come through to even test the process we had estab- lished in the new zoning code,” said Ms. Barotz after the meeting. Ms. evans noted that “within the first twelve months of approving the zoning code, we reviewed and changed it twice ... and within the next 6 months, we’re going to review that document and change it again,” she said, then added, “for us to say it’s been in place just a year and we should just let it play out, maybe we should have done that with the land development code that cost us a lot more money to produce.”
Ms. evans later said, “The Principles of Sound Water Management document was not provided an outside consultant nor given the same monetary resources as was the Zoning Code. This was definitely an ‘in house’ document,” she said. “At the time that this document was approved by Council, it was clear this document was a ‘good first step’ in ensuring our City has water for future generations,” she said. “Clearly a ‘good first step’ implies there will be more steps that follow.”
Ms. Putzova pointed out every single citizen who came to speak that evening or wrote in were in favor of revisiting the water policy. Representing Friends of Flagstaff’s Future, Moran Henn later said, “when 100% of public comments are in support of a request and when three members of council bring up very important questions, Council should allow this issue to go on a future agenda. Or at least they should give us the courtesy of letting staff provide answers at a public Council meeting. But they didn’t even support that. It’s interesting they were willing to look at other policies like the zoning code, and the sign code, but not willing to look at the water policy, which begs the question, what are they so afraid of?”
The political presence of The Arizona snowbowl weighed heavily on the council chambers during this meeting. The ski resort was mentioned many times throughout public comments. Looking at Mr. nabours campaign finance reports, he did receive financial contributions from both snowbowl majority owner Eric Borowsky and snowbowl General Manager J.R. Mur- ray. And during public comments, one citizen brought to everyone’s attention a large Arizona snowbowl logo on Mr. Hill’s work notebook — the sole city staff member given permission un-
10 • MARCH 2015 • the NOISE arts & news • thenoise.us
>> continued on page 39 >>
newsfeature