Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the General Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prescott council fails to send updated general plan to November ballot after split vote
Summary
After six public hearings and months of drafting, the City of Prescott council did not reach the five-vote threshold to place the 2025 general plan on the November ballot. The meeting included map changes for airport-adjacent land, debate over wording on nondiscrimination, and extensive public comment.
The Prescott City Council on June 24 voted but did not reach the five-vote threshold required to place an updated city general plan before voters on Nov. 4, 2025.
Chelsea Walton, the city's community development director, presented the updated 2025 general plan and an amended future land use map. Walton and Airport Director Rick Kreider discussed a specific Northeast quadrant adjacent to the Prescott Airport runway; council members agreed to extend a "very low density" future-land-use designation to vacant sections up to the airport-specific-area boundary in the northeast, and staff said they would incorporate that amendment before any further action.
The meeting became contentious over a nondiscrimination wording and other edits. Mayor Jerry Goode and several council members debated replacing the word "genders" in plan text with the word "sexes" (or with a different term) after the mayor said he feared that federal grant reviewers might penalize applicants for certain language. Opponents said the proposed substitution was politically driven and not required; supporters said the change would reduce perceived risk to federal grant funding.
After public comment that ranged from support for the draft plan to criticisms that it was either too broad or too prescriptive, Councilmember [name not specified in transcript] moved to accept the March 25 draft of the plan and send it to the ballot. The motion did not achieve the five votes required for placing the measure on the ballot. A subsequent motion to adopt the resolution that would place the plan on the Nov. 4 ballot failed on a 3-4 vote.
Walton told council that staff would correct typographical errors identified in the packet, update the future-land-use map consistent with the airport discussion, and prepare materials for public information if council later decides to place the plan on a future ballot. By statute and practice, if the council does not send an updated plan to voters, the city will continue to operate under the 2015 general plan until council acts again.
Public commenters were sharply divided; supporters urged the council to trust the citizen general-plan review committee and take the draft to voters, and opponents urged additional edits before a public vote. Several commenters raised concerns about water, budget implications, and specific plan language.
"This is a general plan document when the park is finalized and marketing name and marketing material created," Walton said during discussion of a related park-name question, noting the plan can be updated later. The council did not adopt the resolution to send the plan to voters on June 24.
