Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Arch Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents push back on $146,000 arch lighting line item and raise development, water concerns
Summary
At Prescott Valley’s June 25 council meeting, several residents urged the council to remove a $146,000 budget line for Glassford Hill arch lighting, questioned use of COVID relief funds for the arch, raised campaign‑contribution transparency concerns and warned about long‑term water supply limits tied to planned development.
Several Prescott Valley residents used the public‑comment period at the June 25 Town Council meeting to press the council to remove a proposed $146,000 budget line item for repairs or enhancements to lighting on the Glassford Hill arch and to question the town’s spending and development priorities.
“Oppose spending $146,000 of taxpayer money to repair or enhance the lighting on the arch,” said Randy Bosford, introduced as a longtime Prescott Valley resident, arguing federal COVID relief funds were meant for recovery efforts such as supporting families, small businesses and essential services and not for a “vanity project.” He urged the council to “correct course” and remove the funding from the FY2026–27 budget.
Maria Ginter, identifying herself as a Prescott Valley resident, read aloud a list of legal campaign contributions to local elected officials from developers and builders, noting amounts and donor names and saying residents “deserve to know who is financially supporting our elected officials” and to consider whether donors have interests before the council.
Carolyn Zern urged the council to make protecting Glassford Hill a priority and asked that proposals affecting the landmark be considered with attention to traffic, water, wildlife habitat and long‑term community character. Robert Johansson warned the council to be “very cautious in approving any new development” because he said about 10,000 housing units have been approved but not built and the town’s water supply is finite; he cited an estimated $300 million cost if a pipeline were required.
Mayor Paul Guda and council members did not alter the published agenda in response to the comments; members discussed whether to poll residents but ultimately moved forward with agenda votes later in the meeting. No formal change to the $146,000 line item was made at that meeting.
Next steps: the town adopted its final FY2026–27 budget later in the meeting. Any change to the arch funding would require council action in a later meeting or a budget amendment.
