[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6217780,"mediaKeyId","3643010-37033879c00d5ca18c7c6df7130e5a0e","parentId",3643010,"title","Council trims 'climate' language from general plan, agrees to focus on energy efficiency","audioSeconds",714,"startMs",3910000,"endMs",4624000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3643010-37033879c00d5ca18c7c6df7130e5a0e&start=3910&end=4624","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3643010-37033879c00d5ca18c7c6df7130e5a0e/thumbnail_3910000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6217780/Prescott-City/Yavapai-County/Arizona/Council-trims-climate-language-from-general-plan-agrees-to-focus-on-energy-efficiency","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6217780-a48ac68f0e143244c64d5a37ae8e7239/orig.mp4?Expires=1771160013&Signature=iILE-T6mrgw6MrHVKHwgUp-XUR9uN6UUq104K1cfBzzx-UDL0RGKECN902VdSr83NtITowJGBJUTrennIxknP37EqNgZqpsBpdpMBMqPewYIyJQko8KYLU4S2HTEP~nmcI9Hega8~Ye9iMa0kNarlxUWL3gm4kumbOte10ypgFk8bRg6GOPA7Zf8Rxi-yP7bB4dfS2dlpAnNjboOMwORUGI19hW-mGiV3MGpaaZu5wQSNllKC61autIKjEn9KEnJZlewcGJ8z3LkG2jCI8SBKB657R5QE2pAdgPdErZR-5gf3zVkcffKCgvbf0GThErBWwyuvwKN7NZzNRc-tyrC4g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Prescott, AZ ","date","2025-06-02T13:29:15Z","article","City of Prescott council members on June 3 agreed to narrow the draft plan’s climate and energy material and to present the revised section under an \"Energy\" heading focused on promoting energy efficiency.

Staff presentation: Chelsea, a city planning staff member, said staff prepared a reduced \"clean\" version of the climate-and-energy section and that the revised goals were condensed to a single goal: \"promote energy efficiency.\" She asked council if they had questions about the shortened approach.

Council debate: Councilman Grady argued for retaining the section, saying it is appropriate to educate the public and that energy and renewable options could yield cost savings. Other council members and members of the public expressed concern that extended climate‑policy language risked politicizing the plan and could complicate voter support.

Outcome: Council reached consensus that the plan’s heading and content should be narrowed to focus on energy and energy efficiency rather than a broader \"climate\" policy set. Chelsea said staff will update the plan so the goals and initiatives match the shortened approach discussed on the dais.

Why it matters: The change reduces content that some council members and residents characterized as policy advocacy beyond the plan’s land‑use focus, while preserving a narrower, implementation‑oriented energy goal that staff and council can address through future, targeted programs.

Next steps: Staff will revise the draft, removing the broader climate language and substituting a concise energy‑efficiency goal and possible initiatives. The updated draft will return to council for review per the schedule agreed elsewhere in the meeting.

Ending: Council instructed staff to proceed with the reduced energy section; no separate vote was taken.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council Special Meeting - June 3rd 2025","oneSentenceSummary","After debate, council agreed to reduce climate and energy language to a single goal — promote energy efficiency — and directed staff to reflect the narrowed scope and rename the heading to 'Energy.'","taxTitle","Prescott City, Yavapai County, Arizona","taxId",53183,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6217783,"Council presses for clearer parking rules, cost‑benefit checks on housing initiatives",224,1592000,1816000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3643010-37033879c00d5ca18c7c6df7130e5a0e&start=1592&end=1816","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3643010-37033879c00d5ca18c7c6df7130e5a0e/thumbnail_1592000.jpg","/articles/6217783/Prescott-City/Yavapai-County/Arizona/Council-presses-for-clearer-parking-rules-costbenefit-checks-on-housing-initiatives","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6217783-91f12434022644f99e40d4e8510f6f30/orig.mp4?Expires=1771160013&Signature=QkuMSG3tklBX21x6xguT53ERHfRB4Wt~NIMMDie6H9QQcFFx7Is27-kX41I8Ua8YRtA9IrjvAWclfyXN9PJWetGnGUnvBzLOnKo8MBtU0eLdEFC4ORuDNYU5OGbyu~k~vzv93ij3wC70OxGSNLDn5~5LJSCUmEh4CZCJKh9Dlj9iwMo4WZy51d5zpRl1sYGiLPLwqScAE~znz5xKRgRkFdQaFOEau6aXPUDBM14mSZcRPGM0kqIvLUtGjVt1p~JQebpJKXNOFoqKiiMYT7JhnUaHJ7HeVwKY~~dKdNkbylItjlpG5d6tx8FuI~97zfPGsrjSCxsTO5rTjZdxkTK4PA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","During the June 3 general plan workshop, Prescott council members raised parking and housing implementation concerns and asked staff to add explicit decision steps to the plan before initiating projects.

Councilwoman Freeworth said multiple sections listing \"possible initiatives\" need guardrails so the city does not present an open-ended list without analysis; she asked that items proposed as initiatives be \"evaluated by a benefit cost analysis and presented to council,\" a request staff accepted for inclusion in draft revisions.

Parking and ADUs: Several council members said downtown and nearby neighborhoods already face constrained on‑street parking and cautioned against treating reduced parking requirements as incentives that could worsen local congestion. Councilwoman Freeworth said parking pressures are not limited to downtown and urged a neighborhood‑by‑neighborhood evaluation rather than a blanket approach.

Home of Our Own program: Chelsea, a city planning staff member, clarified that the city is not intending to recreate the county's Home of Our Own program. She told the council an MOU with Yavapai County \"is being reviewed, and we should be able to launch that program here in the next few months,\" noting that local implementation for multi‑family or townhome plan sets may still be needed.

State law and ADUs: Staff also noted recent state legislative changes that limit what cities can require for accessory dwelling units (ADUs); the plan will be updated to reflect those constraints and to describe a neighborhood evaluation approach for parking and related flexibility.

Next steps: Council directed staff to: add language requiring cost/benefit or feasibility analysis for possible initiatives before staff pursues them; include a process for neighborhood‑level parking evaluation tied to ADU policy; and reflect the status of the Yavapai County \"Home of Our Own\" MOU in the plan text.

Ending: Council did not adopt any new regulations at the workshop; the meeting produced direction to tighten the plan’s implementation verbiage so proposals come forward with analysis before action.","Council members pressed staff to clarify parking policy tied to ADUs, require cost‑benefit analysis for housing initiatives, and confirmed the city is pursuing the county 'Home of Our Own' program via an MOU rather than creating a new program.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6217789,"Council shrinks but does not settle Prescott expansion map; Williamson Valley residents urge exclusion",2639,4651000,7290000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3643010-37033879c00d5ca18c7c6df7130e5a0e&start=4651&end=7290","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3643010-37033879c00d5ca18c7c6df7130e5a0e/thumbnail_4651000.jpg","/articles/6217789/Prescott-City/Yavapai-County/Arizona/Council-shrinks-but-does-not-settle-Prescott-expansion-map-Williamson-Valley-residents-urge-exclusion","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6217789-a7a91750a29d7953c058f8bd70111c77/orig.mp4?Expires=1771160013&Signature=O6~E1KVphAlqCcKtz5yFKnJnAISbHAr4EYoKUMBNN~4FhdJvArd4zNkXPsC5UIfMstIufrAGtv4ZxXEa4cZYcFbmtSo8n5a6OAwZw9rRO8oWr1RHnv1w~7pauTJkdVAkFF3YeUix5JElzpbAWTXxtvuJ3sNqA4Lrq-8M4WmqvKdnMXtM5GDJXozHgR0tsAmL~1nAZKFUmnvtqai-wzdVHD4f4pmAKc7tB1vrisO4H5miThTrQ~46-1nesLstZy82vSVE8n6jbaZqIBGHSKpl3WpZTdc1G3mWhrre~nPkcaserIPLUvRm3uqr1DGbXvMTVUE97ch1NQXby3U1shU4rA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City of Prescott council members spent a large portion of the June 3 workshop debating the proposed future land‑use map and where the city should reserve planning influence outside its corporate limits. Council reached tentative consensus on removing already developed county neighborhoods from the planning boundary while keeping nearby undeveloped sections and adding targeted commercial/employment nodes, but made no binding decision on annexations.

Chelsea, a city planning staff member, opened the map discussion by saying the map \"sends a message\" about how the city would like adjacent areas to develop and emphasized that the map is a planning tool rather than an automatic annexation. \"Just because a property is depicted as being on this map does not mean it's contractually obligated in any way to annex,\" she told the council.

Why it matters: The future land‑use map guides long‑range planning (roads, water, services) and signals the city's preferences to neighboring jurisdictions and developers. Residents in outlying neighborhoods told council they were alarmed when their parcels appeared on the draft map.

Key points and council direction: Council members disagreed about how far west the planning boundary should extend. Mayor Goode said he had \"no interest in including anything west of the airport specific area plan boundary\" and other members echoed concerns about existing county neighborhoods being colored for future city planning. After extended discussion the council coalesced around a compromise roughly described by staff as:
- Remove colors (planning-designation overlays) from already developed county neighborhoods so those parcels are not inside the city's future planning boundary; and
- Retain nearby large undeveloped land sections within the planning boundary for long‑range planning, with an added commercial/employment designation along Outer Loop Road and a node near Highway 89 to encourage local services rather than development draining to Prescott Valley or Chino Valley.

Not a commitment to annex: Chelsea reiterated that inclusion on the map is not an automatic annexation nor a contract; annexations remain governed by state law and future council decisions. She also reminded the council that prior general plans had included areas that never annexed.

Public reaction: Numerous residents from Williamson Valley and other county areas told council they do not want to be annexed and asked the city to remove developed neighborhoods from the map. Amy West of Williamson Valley said the proposed map \"opens up Williamson Valley\" to urban development and urged the council to respect rural residents’ choices. Other commenters urged a regional planning approach with the county and neighboring towns.

Next steps: Staff will update the map to reflect the council's direction and return an amended map for additional council review; council members suggested more study sessions may be needed before any final action or ballot placement.

Ending: Council members said they want to avoid signaling an unwanted intent to annex existing neighborhoods while preserving the city's ability to plan for large undeveloped sections; staff will return with a revised map and timeline for further discussion.","Council debated the proposed future land‑use map and agreed in principle to remove already developed county neighborhoods from the planning boundary while retaining undeveloped land sections; Williamson Valley residents strongly opposed inclusion of their neighborhoods.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6217794,"Prescott council backs streamlined approach to 2025 general plan; staff to revise text",10868,452000,11320000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3643010-37033879c00d5ca18c7c6df7130e5a0e&start=452&end=11320","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3643010-37033879c00d5ca18c7c6df7130e5a0e/thumbnail_452000.jpg","/articles/6217794/Prescott-City/Yavapai-County/Arizona/Prescott-council-backs-streamlined-approach-to-2025-general-plan-staff-to-revise-text","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6217794-ec8a7febb075afae027438a838779d36/orig.mp4?Expires=1771160013&Signature=QOpdMkxPVD3vv6b9PfXaiCEMHaFc7scmmZk-9dIdeCGp2ut7s2yv~KraTR1pdKcp6pI9E3ZEDEajE-0oBQsBu-09Yi~bV5vd15nhGM7aAy3zzR2jZxSxJyBYi9cmcUc4NItlA4KOWiRu6ymdMDOnMwfsndcJJMhNTHiypwKTNk4XTRF9Clf6Dwf2wzwzGpiA5nsywgzNnbH4eVHpy6XlJr7B2swYq9OYHmfDHSQtFcH3tprvBACGdAUABAKd0cHtqN88voKTU-UHUDyEZwNOBkaSC58vIDkKN6oYEfvJR7xHuZC-Yw87kFy1z~tp-hbYEH4oG-pgdwURz9E1-1hb8w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City of Prescott council members on June 3 signaled consensus to narrow the 2025 general plan’s goals and strategies to a more aspirational format and asked staff to produce a revised draft for further review.

Chelsea, a city planning staff member, told the council the document is \"an aspirational document, not an operational\" plan and described the alternate approach as a shorter, more general set of goals and strategies developed after meetings and committee work over the last two-and-a-half years. \"We're not looking for a vote today, but rather council direction on all the proposed changes,\" she said.

Why it matters: The general plan will guide zoning, infrastructure and policy priorities for the next decade and will be presented to voters if council chooses. Council members said a slimmer, clearer plan would be easier for the public to read while still giving the city a voice about future development.

Most important facts: Council members repeatedly voiced a preference for a high‑level “vision” document rather than a long operational manual. Councilwoman Freeworth said she had viewed earlier drafts as \"a Christmas wish list of 354 items for this city to try and accomplish in 10 years\" and supported the trimmed approach, while Mayor Goode and Councilman Grady emphasized readability and public support as priorities. Council members asked that where the plan lists \"possible initiatives\" the text make clear that staff will return with cost and feasibility analyses before pursuing them.

Staff direction and next steps: Under direction from the council, staff will:
- Update the plan text to reflect the alternate (clean) goals-and-strategies approach discussed on the dais;
- Restore the community value statements that had been removed from the March draft after council discussion;
- Add clearer language that initiatives listed as \"possible\" will be evaluated and brought to council with supporting data (for example, cost‑benefit or feasibility analysis) before action;
- Produce an updated draft for council review on or before the June 24 meeting, with the understanding that ballot timing for a November measure requires final council action no later than the July 8 meeting to meet the July 9 county deadline for ballot language.

What council members said: Chelsea summarized the staff view of the document as aspirational and described how the draft reflected two years of committee and public input. Councilwoman Freeworth pushed for clarity about accountability and insisted that initiatives be presented with data: \"possible initiatives, evaluated by a benefit cost analysis and presented to council,\" she said. Councilman Grady supported keeping elements that educate the public about local risks and consequences but agreed material should be concise and understandable.

Process notes: Council members emphasized that the plan itself does not automatically change city operations or create immediate obligations; rather, council will direct any implementation. No formal ordinance vote or adoption occurred at the workshop; the meeting produced direction for staff revisions and further council discussion.

Ending: Staff told the council they would return with a revised draft for further consideration; depending on remaining edits and scheduling, the council indicated it may need additional study sessions prior to any final decision about placing the plan on the November ballot.","City council signaled broad support for a simplified, aspirational goals-and-strategies format for the 2025 general plan, directed staff to make targeted edits and return a revised draft for review. Council also agreed to restore previously‑discussed community value statements.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council trims 'climate' language from general plan, agrees to focus on energy efficiency

Council presses for clearer parking rules, cost‑benefit checks on housing initiatives

Council shrinks but does not settle Prescott expansion map; Williamson Valley residents urge exclusion

Prescott council backs streamlined approach to 2025 general plan; staff to revise text