Prescott council delays vote on petition to require voter approval before selling city open space

The Prescott City Council denied a citizen petition to add a charter amendment requiring voter approval before rezoning, selling, leasing or otherwise encumbering city-owned open space, but set a special voting meeting within three weeks to refine the proposal.

The petitioners, Bonnie McMahon and Rod Moyer, asked the council to put an amendment on the ballot that would retain city-owned open space “in perpetuity” and require a majority vote of Prescott registered voters before any sale, lease or non-utility easement. McMahon said petitioners removed an earlier reference to the city’s 2008 Open Space Master Plan and limited the easement prohibition to exclude utility easements after meeting with the city attorney.

City attorneys and department directors raised concerns about the petition’s wording. City Attorney Joe Young recommended edits so the measure would not unintentionally block future necessary city infrastructure, access roads, restroom or visitor facilities, or allow conservation transactions that the city might need. Public Works Director Gwen Rowicz and Fire Chief Holger told council that routine public infrastructure, emergency access roads and fuel-reduction work frequently occur on open-space land and that the measure, as drafted, could complicate or increase the cost of required maintenance and wildfire mitigation.

Petitioners said the amendment’s purpose is to give voters a final say over taxpayer-funded open space and that many protections—easements, disclosure and park uses—could continue without voter action. Supporters in the public comment period including Save the Dells and other residents urged quick placement on the ballot, saying voters intended open-space protections when they approved the original sales tax.

After debate, Council approved a motion to deny the petition as submitted while scheduling a special voting meeting to consider revised language no later than February 7, 2025. The motion passed 6-1. Councilmembers and staff said they expect additional edits to clarify permitted city uses (trails, restroom/visitor facilities, emergency access), to list or map properties already covered by development agreements, and to avoid creating automatic obligations such as costly conservation easement endowments unless voters approve them.

Councilmembers said they support the idea of voter review of major land disposals but want clearer ballot language and a chance to reconcile department technical concerns before sending the measure to voters. The council asked staff to coordinate special-meeting scheduling and to circulate draft language and exhibits to council and the petitioners before the meeting.