Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Committee Formation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Payson council directs staff to draft resolution for citizen committee to review permitting, contracts
Summary
Council members agreed on direction for staff to return a resolution creating a five-member citizen committee to review permitting processes (with emphasis on the building department) and select contracts; no formal vote was taken — staff will solicit applications and return options to council.
The Payson Town Council on Jan. 15 directed staff to draft a resolution to form a special citizen committee to review internal processes, with an initial focus on the building/permitting process and certain town contracts, and to return appointment options to the council.
Council members said they want the committee to identify strengths, needs and opportunities for process improvements and report back to the council regularly. Staff said it would bring a proposed resolution and application process for council action; the council did not take a formal vote during the work session.
Town staff summarized statutory and local-code constraints for any council-created committee, noting that Town Code Chapter 33 requires a resolution to specify the number of members, purpose and duties, that minutes must be kept, and that committee members may not incur debts or enter contracts that bind the town. Staff also reminded the council that committees created by the council are subject to Arizona’s open meeting law and that appointments and any required trainings are handled through council processes.
Members debated the committee’s scope, size and role. Multiple councilmembers urged a narrow initial scope focused on the building department — which councilmembers identified as the source of the most complaints — and on contracts that affect departmental performance. Several members recommended that the committee emphasize “strengths” and “needs” rather than an approach framed solely as fault-finding.
Councilmembers discussed committee composition and quorum concerns. Some members preferred a three-member committee to stay small; others favored five members to broaden representation and to reduce frequent quorum constraints under the open meeting law. Councilmembers also discussed a limited term and reporting cadence: options raised included a six-month review period or quarterly reports for an initial year, with the possibility of extension.
Councilmember Steve (Mayor) accepted the role of liaison, and the council asked staff to solicit applications and return recommended appointments for council action. Council direction included asking Sheila (staff) to prepare a written summary of the parameters heard at the meeting and for Steve, Sheila and community member Charlie Serafin to meet to flesh out a proposed functional committee structure before the next council meeting. Staff said the clerk would solicit applications and that any appointments would be made by council action after the resolution is adopted.
No formal motion or roll-call vote occurred in the meeting excerpt; councilmembers described the discussion as direction to staff. Staff indicated it would return a draft resolution and application materials for council consideration at a future meeting (February was discussed as a target month).
