Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sr89 Corridor topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prescott council delays SR 89 widening decision, orders more review after hours of public concern
Summary
After more than two hours of public comment and council questions about traffic modeling, costs and environmental impacts, Prescott City Council agreed to extend the public comment period on the SR 89 effluent and roadway improvement proposals and to direct staff to provide more analysis before a vote.
Prescott City Council on Tuesday paused a final decision on long-planned changes to State Route 89 through the Granite Dells, directing staff to extend public comment by 30 days, prepare a plan to repair a deteriorating effluent pipe and ask the city attorney to review contract language tied to the project.
The action came after a four-hour public hearing and study-session follow-up in which residents, engineers and interest groups challenged traffic counts, modeling assumptions, the project cost estimate and the outreach process behind plans to widen the corridor and replace wastewater infrastructure.
Why it matters: The corridor is a scenic and historic gateway to Prescott. The city is weighing several alternatives that combine roadway capacity changes, roundabouts and replacement of an aging effluent pipeline that carries treated wastewater to irrigation users. The council’s direction buys time to resolve technical questions and to give residents more access to study materials before a potential vote.
Council and staff said the immediate technical need is replacing a failing effluent main that has broken repeatedly and is difficult to repair. “We must fix the effluent line ASAP,” said Councilwoman Ferworth. City staff told the council that slip-lining the pipe is not a feasible option: “we don't believe the slip lining is an option,” staff member Gwen said, noting that slip-lining would require adding roughly 10 manholes and that the installation of those manholes “would be in excess of a million dollars.”
Public commenters pressed the council on analysis and transparency. David Chesson, a retired DOT employee, told the council: “Rethink. Let's do this right,” and criticized the traffic-modeling documentation as incomplete. Mike Coffey said the project “may cost every Prescott household more than $1,500” and urged the council to provide a more detailed cost breakdown rather than summary numbers. Several speakers asked for before-and-after visualizations of the Granite Dells near proposed rock-cleaving work and urged study of alternatives such as targeted intersection improvements or smart signals.
Consultants and some commenters recommended a two-step approach. Kimley-Horn’s traffic impact analysis, cited by supporters, recommends implementing Alternative 2B for immediate safety improvements and advancing larger-capacity alternatives for later consideration; Jim Gehring, a resident experienced with utility rehabilitation, urged the council to consider slip-lining only if feasible and to sequence improvements so “you could implement 2B and then, if necessary, begin design on 3B and 5B.”
Council members expressed differing views but coalesced around more review. Mayor Goode said council has a responsibility to rely on evidence and that “public comment period needs to be extended.” Several council members asked that the second public hearing now scheduled for Sept. 9 be postponed to align with the extended comment period so council can review submitted comments before a final vote.
The city manager summarized the council’s directions: extend the comment period by roughly 30 days; hold additional public Q&A (an open-house / question-and-answer session) with engineers and staff; provide a short plan for prompt replacement or mitigation of the effluent main; and have the city attorney compare and report back on differences between the contract version the mayor signed and the version council approved in November. The mayor also directed staff to provide clearer documentation of estimated project costs, including which elements are excluded from the current $37 million figure.
What the council did not do: The council did not adopt any of the roadway alternatives or award construction contracts for the corridor during the meeting. Instead it issued direction to staff to respond to technical and outreach concerns and to bring a revised schedule and materials back for consideration.
Next steps: Staff will return with the effluent-line plan, additional visuals and clarifications about cost components, and the city will extend the public comment period and reschedule the second required public hearing so councilors have time to review comments before voting.
Residents who spoke and members of the council repeatedly asked for more transparent, readily accessible materials — including traffic counts, modeling inputs, growth-rate assumptions and visual depictions of the Dells after any rock removal — before the council votes on the preferred alternative.
