Prescott subcommittee adopts June 24, 2025 draft as baseline, opts for direct selection of planning consultant

The Prescott City Council Subcommittee on General Plan Review voted Feb. 11 to adopt the June 24, 2025 draft as the baseline document for its review and to pursue direct selection of a planning consultant to help finish revisions and manage public outreach.

The motion to establish the 06/24/2025 draft as the subcommittee’s baseline passed 2–1. Mayor Kathy Rusing moved to use the June 24 draft and Councilman Frederickson seconded; Councilman Grady cast the lone no vote. The subcommittee also appointed its chair and vice chair at the start of the meeting by unanimous voice vote.

Why it matters: legal and timing constraints. City Attorney Joseph Young told the subcommittee that, because the city did not deliver a new plan to voters before the statutory deadline, “we're in violation of the law right now,” and cautioned that the statutes presume a plan be sent to voters. Legal staff and community development emphasized that major plan changes trigger a 60-day public engagement period and other statutory steps that affect whether a revised plan can reach voters for a given election.

How the subcommittee will proceed. Staff and legal outlined two procurement paths: a full request for proposals (RFP) or direct selection of a consultant under the city’s procurement rules for professional services. Deputy City Attorney Matthew Podracki said the code permits direct selection for professional services and that it can shorten procurement time. Community development director Chelsea Walton recommended an RFP for public perception reasons but also acknowledged direct selection would be faster; Walton estimated it could take “a little bit longer” than two months to onboard a consultant and suggested 3–4 months was more realistic.

Council members disagreed on which draft to use as the starting point. Councilman Grady argued the March 25, 2025 draft had more substantial committee and public input and favored beginning there. Mayor Rusing and others supported the June 24, 2025 “skinny” draft because it contains a corrected land-use map — a change the mayor said was needed after she discovered an unpublicized expansion of the planning area that would have added about 12 square miles, including the Williamson Valley Corridor. “We decreased it,” the mayor said of reverting that map change in the June draft.

Next steps and timeline. The subcommittee directed staff to pursue direct selection of a consultant and asked for a revised adoption schedule that identifies deadlines that will trigger statutory public-comment periods and hearings. Staff committed to produce a draft consultant scope and an executive summary of the June 24 draft and to have a timeline and scope ready within about two weeks; the subcommittee agreed to review the plan in sections (beginning with chapters 1 and 2) at future meetings. Members discussed aiming for November 2026 or a later 2027 election, but staff warned that statutory notification and review periods make the later date more realistic unless the subcommittee is willing to compress steps.

What remains unresolved. The committee settled on the June 24 draft as its baseline but acknowledged substantial work remains: clarifying the anti-discrimination language that drew public controversy, confirming which items constitute major versus minor amendments to the plan, and completing a public engagement schedule that meets statutory requirements. The subcommittee also left open whether some changes to the June draft should be pulled from the March 25 version after additional review and public input.

The subcommittee scheduled recurring meetings and placeholders on members’ calendars and adjourned after assigning homework to review the baseline draft by sections in advance of the next meeting.