Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prescott council clears three charter amendment measures for ballot; two require redraft
Summary
Council approved ballot language for three charter amendments—tightening development‑agreement terms, requiring meaningful open space in large annexations and requiring appraisals for property purchases (with edits)—and sent two items (city judge language and a city‑power redraft on infrastructure requirements) back for revision and possible return by June 23.
Prescott City Council voted on June 9 to place three revised charter amendment proposals on the November 3, 2026 special election ballot and directed staff to redraft two other proposals before further consideration.
The council approved the charter-review committee’s proposals on development agreements, annexation open‑space requirements and appraisal procedures for city property purchases, with edits requested by council (notably changing multiple instances of “shall” to the clearer “must” and removing a third paragraph from the appraisal proposal that would have strictly limited payment to appraised value). Proposals affecting the city judge’s charter language and a broad rewrite of the city’s power to require developer‑provided infrastructure were returned for further legal refinement and are expected to return for council consideration by June 23 if council wishes them on the November ballot.
City attorney Joe advised that one early draft of the court language inadvertently threatened judicial independence by including wording that would have made the judge “serve at the pleasure of council.” He recommended removing that clause and changing a one‑year term to two years to comport with case law protecting judicial independence; councilmembers asked for an annual report from the judge and annual feedback while preserving a two‑year appointment cycle.
On development agreements, council approved clearer limits on so‑called adjoining/adjacent clauses and required that new development agreements include a defined term and expiration rather than open‑ended language. The annexation proposal requires meaningful, contiguous open space (the committee recommended a 25% threshold for large annexations) and limits fragmented or token open‑space approaches, with language designed to protect wildlife corridors and native habitat where feasible.
Council also discussed an appraisal proposal that would require an independent licensed appraisal before the city purchases real property. Members agreed to remove language that rigidly capped city payment at the appraised value so the city retains negotiation flexibility while ensuring appraisals become part of the public record.
A motion to approve ballot language for proposals 2, 4 and 5 (with the edits described) passed 7–0. The council asked staff and legal to return revised language for proposals 1 and 3 for possible inclusion on the November ballot once clarifications are complete.
