Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the General Plan Timeline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prescott subcommittee sets timeline options for general plan update; July 2027 feasible but tight
Summary
The Prescott City General Plan subcommittee reviewed a draft consultant scope and timeline Feb. 25, with staff warning a July 20, 2027 ballot is possible but would require a compressed schedule and that the 60‑day review must start by Aug. 3, 2027; an November option offers more breathing room.
The Prescott City Council Subcommittee on the General Plan on Feb. 25 reviewed a staff‑draft consultant scope of work and a proposed project timeline for updating the city’s general plan.
Chelsea Walton, the city’s community development director, told the subcommittee staff had circulated a draft scope based on prior committee direction and asked members to identify any missing items. Walton said the timeline was developed by working backward from potential ballot dates and noted two main options: the July 20, 2027 special/municipal ballot and the November 2027 general election. “We kind of worked up from the ballot,” she said, and asked consultants to submit a realistic schedule as part of proposals.
Walton warned that the July timetable would be compressed: the mandatory 60‑day interagency and public review period would have to begin by Aug. 3 to meet a July 20 deadline, and the period of May 26 to June 22 left little margin for onboarding a consultant and completing outreach if procurement stayed below $50,000. If proposals exceed $50,000, Walton said, the city would need a council action to authorize a contract—a step that lengthens the schedule.
Staff also said they had reached out to nine firms with regional general‑plan experience (including Matrix) and would refine the timeline after consultants respond. Walton reported she had asked the city clerk to hold an April council agenda date as a contingency in case a council action is needed to keep the project on schedule.
Why it matters: the timetable determines how much time the city has for statutory review and for consultant‑led public outreach. Committee members repeatedly urged preserving enough time for community engagement and for the consultant to refine draft materials; several said the November 2027 option gives more breathing room and is more realistic for a thorough review.
What’s next: staff will collect proposals, ask each firm to provide a timeline tied to its resources, and return to the committee with a refined schedule. The subcommittee expects further review meetings (including one in March) before deciding how to proceed toward procurement and ballot placement.
