Payson Town Council Regular Meeting - February 26, 2025: Budget, IPM Contracts, Pool, and ADOT Updates
Payson Town Council Regular Meeting - February 26, 2025
The Town of Payson Common Council met on February 26, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Council Chambers. The meeting included a contentious public meetings presentation, public comments, a mid-year budget update, a presentation on Interim Public Management (IPM) contracts, updates from ADOT on Highway 87 and 260 projects, approval of a dispatch services agreement, discussion of council policy revisions, and a request to rescind prior authorization to demolish Taylor Pool. The meeting recessed into executive session at 8:10 p.m. and adjourned at 9:59 p.m.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Grant Woodward suggested creating a citizen committee to help move projects forward and reduce misinformation.
- Charlie Seraphin raised ten questions about IPM contracts, including why the legal name of the vendor is not listed, the practice of weekly contracts, and the total paid ($1.4 million). He also asked about the selection process and whether the town pays a fee when temporary employees become permanent.
- Taylor Walden (local asphalt company owner) urged the town to adopt a Job Order Contract (JOC) system so local contractors can bid on town work, noting that out-of-town companies take money away from the local economy.
- Guy Pfister criticized the lack of progress over the last 20 years, describing a revolving door of town managers and stating the process is failing. He recommended the council pick one project and complete it.
- Jeff Robbins thanked staff for a new website service button, corrected a claim that the budget is $101 million (noting it is less than half that), and highlighted the importance of addressing rising insurance rates and fire mitigation grants. He distributed materials on available grants.
- Mike Quinn opposed reviving Taylor Pool, stating that former Council Member Mona (an engineer) had declared it hopeless a year ago. He urged the council to respect local expert advice.
- Michael Heather argued that the council has the power to repair and reopen Taylor Pool and that the town manager is the council's employee, not its boss. He also raised concerns about HURF funds not being used for roads and about IPM contracts.
- Brooke Myers voiced concern that IPM temporary employees involved in hiring for permanent roles may have a conflict of interest, as they might prolong their tenure. He questioned the high cost ($1.431 million for eight positions) and delays in filling positions.
- Darlene Younker-Delange urged the council to rescind the authorization to demolish Taylor Pool and to get a qualified professional evaluation.
- Bob Decker (RIMWAT) asked the council to work together to address wildfire issues, including funding for fuels managers, firewise evaluations, and a coordinated evacuation plan. He noted that federal grant cuts will worsen the situation.
Discussion Items
- Contentious Public Meetings Presentation: Town Attorney Christina Werther presented an overview of First Amendment rights, the limited public forum of call to the public, time-place-manner restrictions, exceptions to protected speech (incitement, true threats, fighting words, defamation, obscenity), and best practices for managing disruptive behavior. She emphasized warnings before removal.
- ADOT Presentation (Highway 87 and 260 Projects): Jeremy DeGeyter (ADOT) and Brendan Foley (remote) presented upcoming projects:
- SR260 Lion Springs reconstruction (widening four miles east of Star Valley, budget $109 million, construction start 2026).
- SR87 pavement rehabilitation from Green Valley Parkway to Milepost 256 (budget $19.8 million, concrete work summer 2025, paving 2026, nighttime impacts).
- McLean Road and Longhorn Road roundabout (budget $1.6 million, construction 2026).
- Signal timing improvements: 8% travel time reduction in 2023 and an additional 7-8% in 2024 after removing Malibu and Forest from coordination. Future improvements require geometric changes (e.g., widening side streets). Council members asked about the Green Valley Parkway/Tribal intersection, the northbound-to-eastbound right-turn lane at 87/260, and a bypass study (deemed prohibitively expensive).
- Mid-Year Budget Update (FY 24-25): Finance Director Dana Ohanesian reported:
- General Fund: Revenues projected $35.7M (down $4.3M from budget, primarily due to lower sales tax); Expenditures $40.5M (down $8M from budget, mainly due to vacancies and no bond payment). Deficit of $4.8M to be covered by fund balance. Projected end-of-year fund balance $13M (unrestricted ~$3.27M after policy reserves).
- HURF: Revenues $8.7M; Expenditures $10.9M (deficit $2.2M from $9M fund balance).
- Water Enterprise: Revenues $12.5M (exceed budget by $2.3M); Expenditures $13M; deficit $550,000 from fund balance.
- The 1% TPT (transactions privilege tax) is generating about $5.6M annually, used initially for bond repayment but now partially for program management office costs. The fund balance decline is not sustainable long-term.
- Interim Public Management (IPM) Contracts Presentation: Acting Town Manager Sheila DeSchaaf explained that IPM provides temporary professionals to fill vacancies and manage projects. Since FY22, the town has spent approximately $1.4 million (projected ~$1.7M by year-end) on IPM services for positions including IT Director, IT Project Manager, CIP Project Manager, Transportation Project Manager, Finance Director, and others. Key points:
- The cost includes salary, overhead, travel, and lodging, but not benefits (health insurance, retirement, PTO) that the town would pay for regular employees.
- Gail Piceno (IT project manager) cost $279,956.09 in FY23, which included extensive hours for network stabilization; some costs were recovered via insurance.
- Council members discussed whether IPM employees are incentivized to delay permanent hires (staff noted they can be terminated at any time and that IPM discourages hiring their temps permanently).
- Council Member Ferris questioned the 61% increase in personnel costs over four years; staff clarified that IPM costs are included in personnel budgets because they fill budgeted vacant positions.
- Council Member Bell expressed concern about lack of competition and the 5% annual fee increase. Staff stated that IPM has been successful and that other firms do not offer director-level interim services.
- Resolution 3434 – Dispatch Services Agreement with Gisela Valley Fire District: Fire Chief David Staub presented the agreement to provide dispatch services (about 2-3 calls per month). Council approved unanimously (6-0, Council Member Bell absent during vote, later returned).
- Town Council Policy Revisions (H.1): Council Member Bell requested a change to remove restrictions on council members meeting with department heads, with a courtesy notice to the town manager. Council discussed the need for open communication without fear of retaliation. Several members shared experiences. The consensus was to leave the policy as written but with an understanding that council members can meet with department heads, provided they are respectful and the town manager is informed. No formal change was made.
- Request to Rescind Authorization to Demolish Taylor Pool (H.2): Council Member Bell presented arguments for renovating Taylor Pool, citing Globe’s $2.3 million renovation versus a $70 million new aquatic center (staff later clarified the schematic design cost was $40-45 million). He asked for a professional pool evaluation and a resolution to nullify the demolition. Staff noted that no demolition is scheduled and that the capital projects discussion on March 4 would include options. Council consensus: a formal resolution is not needed; staff will include a professional evaluation of Taylor Pool (and possibly the Malibu site) in the upcoming work session.
Key Outcomes
- Resolution 3434 (Dispatch Services with Gisela Valley Fire District) approved 6-0.
- Council Policy: No change adopted; council agreed that members may meet with department heads, with courtesy notice to the town manager, and that the policy language will be reviewed for clarity.
- Taylor Pool: No vote to rescind the demolition authorization; council directed staff to obtain a professional evaluation of Taylor Pool and bring options to the March 4 work session.
- IPM Contracts: Council received the presentation; no formal action taken. Staff will provide a cost comparison between IPM and regular employees for specific positions.
- Executive Session: Council voted 7-0 to recess into executive session to discuss the Tonto Apache Tribal Water Settlement, public safety communications system security, and insurance policy coverage (legal advice).
Meeting Transcript
For the invocation. Eric Anderson, state president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. How would you please step to the podium? Oh, that's very standard. Huh? Very standing in proxy for I'm sorry. I'm sorry. But also he's a counselor from the state presence. Our most kind and loving Heavenly Father, we humbly bow to thee this day. Grateful for our many blessings. We are indeed grateful for thy son Jesus Christ, our Savior. We're grateful for his life and for his example. We're grateful for his atoning sacrifice for us. Father, we're grateful for these beautiful wooded mountains which thou has provided for us. We're thankful for this free nation for the rights and privileges it grants to us. We're grateful for these leaders here today. We pray that that would bless them with wisdom and knowledge, bless them with thy spirit as they make important decisions. Bless them that they'll be able to avoid the temptations of the evil one. No, I think they got me. We had several questions arise after the last meeting about sort of what are the parameters within state law, also within council policy, having to do with public comments and also disruptions in meetings. So this is going to be somewhat high level, just so that we're not here for hours, right? Because we could talk about the First Amendment for a very long time. So I'm just going to give you a little bit of a framework of sort of First Amendment itself, and then how that intersects with the call to the public and then meeting disruptions. Okay, so a First Amendment overview. So the test of whether the government has unconstitutionally abridged the freedom of speech depends on the type of forum that this where the speech occurred. And this is very important. So there are there's a forum analysis that all the courts, the Supreme Court has examined over the years. So there's four categories of forums. You can have a non-public, right? So there's no public forum at all, a traditional public forum, a designated public forum, and a limited public forum. So quintessential sort of public forums that we sort of think about when we think about First Amendment are government controlled property, like parks, streets, sidewalks, right? When you think of protests on the street, that's kind of what you think about when you think about First Amendment. It's important to note though that even though someone might be lawfully protesting on the street, exercising their First Amendment rights, that doesn't predict uh protect against illegal conduct, right? You can't you know cause criminal damage, assault someone, that conduct is still criminal under our laws. So it's about the speech that's protected. So that's the sort of traditional, I think, public forum we think of. The designated public forum is where the government intentionally creates a space for public discussion, so like as a meeting space in the library. You can go rent a space, you can have those types of uh opportunities for discussion. For a limited public forum, this is where the government makes its property available to certain class of speakers or limited to certain topics. So, for example, the public comment section, right? For a call to the public is a limited public forum. So we'll talk about that more. So when we have call to the public on the agenda, as we all know, right? Open meeting law requires that we can't talk about anything unless it's agendized. So call to the public is agendized, and when you have that uh opportunity for the public to speak, then that's their time to speak. And the only other time they can speak is when we have specific agendized items, and then in the mayor's discretion, he allows speakers to talk about that specific topic. So those are the only two occasions where we have basically the public right to speak at a meeting because the purpose of the meeting, this meeting and other town council meetings, work sessions, anything like that, is to conduct town business, right? It isn't the same forum as like on a sidewalk where maybe you're protesting, you're exercising different types of First Amendment speech. So the public only has the right to speak during the call to the public, and then again after sort of each individual topic if they're gonna speak on that specific topic. But we're still also restricted.
openpublica.com