Flagstaff advisory committee weighs $500M‑plus funding options to shore up public safety and operations

A Flagstaff City advisory committee met to scrutinize a proposed multi‑year funding package to close gaps in public safety and ongoing city operations, repeatedly asking staff for a clear explanation of how the shortfall developed and which funding tools the city can legally use.

The committee heard staff say parts of the package are capital (bond‑fundable) while other needs are ongoing operating gaps that bonds cannot cover. "There is a fair portion of it that is to maintain current operations," a staff member said, and the group was repeatedly urged to separate one‑time capital priorities from recurring costs.

Members identified several concrete figures and shortfalls during the discussion. Committee member Kurt Stahl said the fire service needs roughly $28,000,000 to maintain current station capacity, and a participant who reviewed the handout calculated operational asks totaling about $92,000,000 over 10 years—roughly $9,000,000 per year.

Brandy Souda, the city's finance director, told the panel that state law constrains primary property‑tax growth and the assessor limits assessed‑value increases, limiting how much additional revenue the city can raise through the primary property tax. "State law only allows us to increase that amount by 2% every year," Souda said, and new construction generates only modest general‑fund revenue.

Committee members debated the tradeoffs among funding tools. Staff explained that general‑obligation bonds are appropriate for one‑time capital such as stations or training facilities, while a dedicated sales tax could provide recurring revenue for public‑safety operations. Development and impact fees can fund growth‑related infrastructure but generally cannot pay for ongoing personnel costs.

Several members raised political and equity concerns about asking voters to approve a large measure. One member presented a preliminary estimate that a full proposal could increase a family's tax burden by about $1,600 over a 10‑year span, and others warned Flagstaff is already one of the least affordable cities in the state. "If we have to ask the voters, we can only give them the stuff that they're going to support," a committee member said.

The committee pressed staff for more history and context. Members asked for ten‑year departmental budget trends and snapshots showing the proportion of the general fund allocated to public safety at several prior dates so the committee can explain to voters whether the current gap is structural, cyclical or a product of past policy choices.

Staff committed to return with a prioritized list of projects broken into tiers (tier 1–5) including dollar amounts and the ongoing costs those projects would create. The group also asked for clarified contingency and reserve balances and for a compiled list of the outstanding questions raised at the meeting.

No formal motion or vote was recorded at the meeting. The committee concluded by asking staff to prepare the requested materials and to craft messaging that explains what a ballot measure would cost a typical household and what services would change if voters decline funding.

The committee is scheduled to reconvene next week to review the prioritized tiered list and staff responses to the questions raised.