Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the General Plan Goals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prescott council backs streamlined approach to 2025 general plan; staff to revise text
Summary
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.
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.
