Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sanofi Creek Ranch HOA seeks town help on decade‑long flooding; council approves consent agendas 6‑0
Summary
During public comment Laurel Polly of the Sanofi Creek Ranch HOA asked the town to act on a drainage study for 190th Street and Riggs Road that residents say would reduce chronic flooding. A separate resident thanked council for opposing a zoning change; the council approved the regular and public‑hearing consent agendas by 6‑0 votes.
Two members of the public used the council’s public‑comment period to raise neighborhood concerns, and the council adopted its consent agendas by unanimous votes later in the meeting.
Laurel Polly, a member of the Sanofi Creek Ranch homeowners association board, said the neighborhood has endured more than 10 years of flood‑water damage and asked the town to move forward with a trench‑drainage project described in a drainage study. Polly said consultants at T.Y. Lin International prepared a drainage report dated Oct. 21, 2019, and residents were told the report had been updated and sent to the town for approval; she said she has been unable to obtain a clear status update from town staff and county partners.
Polly said she was directed to contact town engineering staff, and that Maricopa County Flood Control and county planning divisions also told her responsibility for action rests with the town. She named town staff she had worked with and said Sanofi Creek Ranch residents are not financially able to continue absorbing flood damages.
Pat Ritz, an Encantara resident, used public comment to thank the town for opposing a developer’s zoning request on the northeast corner of Ganzel and Algarve Place that would have allowed a three‑story apartment project on land in Pinal County. Ritz said town leaders and Mayor Wheatley wrote letters or spoke to supervisors in opposition, and that residents had successfully blocked approval to date.
Later in the meeting the council approved the consent agenda “as published” and the public‑hearing consent agenda by recorded tallies of 6‑0. The council did not elaborate on either consent agenda item during the meeting; staff had presented the listed consent items as routine and without public comment.
Ending: Polly’s request names a specific drainage study and asks for town staff follow‑up; council members did not make decisions during public comment and directed staff to handle consent items as routine.
