By Tammy Gray “The council is supposed to represent us, the citizens, the people, not just sign off on whatever city administration puts in front of you,” Holbrook resident and businessman David Smith said as he addressed the city council on April 8. Following Smith’s comments, the council heard for first reading four separate ordinances, three of which could be considered to have a high impact on city residents and business owners. The council then declared April as Fair Housing Month and conducted no other old or new business as no other items had been included on the agenda. According to the city charter, all ordinances must be read twice by the council before a vote can be taken. Council members heard the first reading of the ordinances by title only and chose not to discuss them publicly during the meeting. Only Smith, who took advantage of the call to the public during the meeting, made any comments. A vote will be taken on the ordinances at the city council meeting scheduled for 6 p.m. on Thursday, April 22, at city hall. The meeting is open to the public, is streamed live on Facebook, and offers an opportunity for residents to submit comments on items before the council. Councilman Kip Woolford and Vice Mayor Francie Payne both encouraged citizens to give input on the impending ordinances. While addressing the council, Smith raised numerous concerns about the business licensing ordinance, some of which apply to the remaining ordinances as well. “This is too important to be rubberstamped so quickly,” he said, while asking the council to create a citizen review committee and contact business owners before making any decision. “It’s not completely written. What’s going to happen? I want to see more of what’s going to happen in this code.” The code referred to by Smith is the proposed ordinance establishing a city business license. The ordinance includes an initial fee for obtaining the license, but establishes no timeline for city staff to complete required procedures such as conducting an open-source check to verify there are no legal issues with the business, verifying sales tax information initially and annually, verifying fire and building code compliance, verifying owner information, and verifying compliance with “underlying zoning requirements.” As Smith pointed out, the ordinance does not address, nor has there been any public discussion of consequences of failing to comply with the ordinance, what city employee will conduct inspections and enforcement, and what sort of training will be provided for such inspections. The city also has not addressed the potential duplication of services with the state, which offers sales tax compliance checks at no cost to the city, where the funding will come from to implement the ordinance, and how any future fees for the license would be calculated. Currently the fee is $24 for the first year and $12 each year thereafter, but also allows the city council to change the fees at any time through the ordinance process, with no limit or methodology of calculating any increase. “I wouldn’t trust the city with enforcing a new city code when they don’t even enforce the ones that are in place,” Smith said. “I would ask the council to not add this without talking to businesses. Represent the citizens, you’re not just a rubber stamp.” Smith also pointed out that as far as he is aware, the city does not currently have anyone on staff who is state certified to inspect the construction and safety of buildings. He noted that when he paid $800 for a residential building permit, the city representative who conducted the inspection didn’t even look at the plans during the inspection. The election ordinance would change the city’s election dates and would add substantially to the term lengths of council members currently in office. Members whose terms currently end in May 2021 would have their term extended to December 2022, and terms ending in May 2023 would be extended to December 2024. Although the council held no public discussion on the matter, the language of the ordinance notes that the state has required cities to conduct elections in coordination with statewide election dates under certain circumstances. A discussion regarding the legal battle between the state and municipalities who feel that the state does not have the right to determine city election dates was not discussed and it was not advised whether that matter has been completely settled. There was no discussion as to whether or not the city fell within the requirements to change the election dates, or how the state law applies to extending the terms of the current council members and mayor. The city charter, which can only be amended through a vote of the people, outlines the city’s procedure for both the timing of elections and the length of terms. As with the other items in the ordinance, there was no discussion as to how the conflict between the state law and city charter would be resolved. Such a conflict between the state and the charter was the source of lawsuits between the state and other Arizona municipalities. The marijuana ordinance is intended to regulate recreational marijuana within city limits. In short, the ordinance allows the testing of marijuana without any special license; allows the operation of a marijuana facility if “authorized by state law and a license has been obtained from the city,”; and allows personal use at a person’s primary residence in accordance with state law as well as other restrictions by the city, such as not being allowed to use kitchens, bathrooms, or primary bedrooms for processing, manufacturing, or cultivation, and requiring that the resident “shall ensure that ventilation, air filtration, building and design standards are compatible with adjacent uses and the requirements of adopted building codes of the city.” Specific penalties are not addressed within the ordinance. It simply notes that a license may be revoked, and that a civil penalty may be imposed. It states, “Violations of any provision of this article shall be civil code offenses which may be adjudicated and enforced by the city civil hearing.” The final ordinance read by the council was the sale of property located on 4th Avenue between Arizona and Buffalo streets to Josh McDermott for a total price of $3,300. Documentation attached to the ordinance noted that the property was placed up for bid and only two bids were received, one of which was withdrawn. There was no mention during the city council meeting whether any of the ordinances had been thoroughly reviewed, prepared or approved by the city attorney. “There are a couple of agenda items at our next meeting that affect residents and businesses. Reach out to me and your other representatives to let us know what you’re thinking and how you feel about this stuff, because decisions are being made and they impact you,” Councilman Woolford said. “So please reach out to us so we know we’re making the right decisions for you.” Vice Mayor Payne also stated, “If you have any interest in any of the four, I encourage you to come out for that meeting also.” She went on to note, “We like to hear from you, so I encourage you to come out and talk to us.” The next meeting is set for 6 p.m. on Thursday, April 22, at city hall in Holbrook. Copies of the ordinances are available at city hall.
