Payson Town Council Regular Meeting - March 26, 2025
Payson Town Council Regular Meeting - March 26, 2025
The Town of Payson Common Council held a regular meeting on March 26, 2025, starting at 4:02 p.m. and adjourning at approximately 7:26 p.m. after an executive session. The meeting included a proclamation for the Lady Longhorns basketball team, a presentation on the Unified Development Code (UDC) update, approval of a development agreement for a 72-unit affordable housing project, a discussion on the Beeline Bus Route Improvement Project contracts, and a move to executive session for legal advice and contract negotiations.
Consent Calendar
- No items were listed under the Consent Agenda.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Dale Mueller stated that there is no federal mandate for security or fencing at the airport, and argued the fence is only useful for wildlife control; he urged the Airport Commission to address through-the-fence access.
- Mike White, representing Payson Hangar One (PHO), advocated for continued management of the 10 T hangars by PHO, citing their maintenance and administrative responsibilities, and requested a 20-year lease instead of a 30-day notice contract.
- Darlene Younker-Delage expressed concern about a proposed roundabout near a school, asking for clarification on whether it would be a traffic circle or a roundabout and how the town would educate drivers on proper use.
- Attorney Michael Harper and Steve & Linda England described a neighbor dispute involving a 13-foot fence extension and harassment; they requested the town enforce codes against spite fences.
- Brook Myers commended the Parks Director for a successful softball tournament, advocated for a "Department of Payson Efficiency" (DOPE), and criticized the council for lack of progress since being elected.
- Adam Moore, a flight instructor, supported the town taking over management of the hangars, arguing that PHO failed to maintain them and that the town could earn $400,000–$500,000 in additional revenue while addressing a 20-year waitlist.
- Brad Lawrence opposed proposed fees, fines, and permits for the airport, stating they would be passed on to users, including high school students in flight training programs.
- Charlie Seraphin commended a prior speaker for trash cleanup suggestions, urged open contract signing, proactive hiring, and competitive bidding rather than expensive consultant plans.
- Mike Quinn criticized the council for lack of transparency, alleging that town hall meetings are thinly disguised Tea Party gatherings and that the mayor uses KMOG radio to push a partisan agenda.
- Craig Howard questioned Payson Ordinance 2.50, which requires town manager review of all ordinances and resolutions before council presentation, arguing it may limit council’s administrative authority as defined by state statute.
- Tom Thompson, President of Payson Aero Club and PHO member, reviewed the 34-year history of the hangars, disputed claims that doors are unsafe, and encouraged extending the contract with PHO.
- Pam Chittenden requested the town take immediate fire safety measures, including updated fire-hardened building codes, firewise projects, a fully funded brush thinning crew, public education, and evacuation plans, citing extreme drought and climate hazards.
- Tom Dunning praised the town staff for comprehensive and accurate reports, denouncing recent criticisms as baseless lies.
- John Pajerski expressed frustration with staff and past administration regarding the Juniper Pines development, alleging corruption and obstruction after receiving an email that key staff were unavailable.
Discussion Items
- D.1 – Proclamation for Lady Longhorns Basketball Team: Council Member Haws read the proclamation recognizing the team’s 27-7 record, 3A Metro Region championship, and state runner-up finish. Coach Chaz Davis thanked the community for support. Council members praised the team’s dedication and the values instilled by youth sports.
- D.2 – Unified Development Code (UDC) Update: Edward Boik of Matrix Design Group presented the UDC update process. The code was last adopted in 1996 and has been amended piecemeal. The update aims to modernize and streamline the code, align with the General Plan, and improve usability with graphics and plain language. Community engagement included focus groups, meetings, and surveys. The public draft is forthcoming. Council members asked about the relationship between the UDC and General Plan; staff clarified the UDC is regulatory and implements the General Plan’s vision. The update does not change the zoning map or affect existing property owners until they propose changes.
- F.1 – Resolution 3437 (Development Agreement with OPG Mogollon Rim Partners): Julie Leonard presented the agreement for a 72-unit multifamily housing project that includes affordable rental units and a commercial component. The developer is applying for Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) funding. The town will provide a $100,000 loan to improve application competitiveness, contingent on the project receiving funding (notification expected in June). The agreement formalizes incentives from the Workforce Crisis Resolution. Council Member Haws asked if the agreement applies only to this applicant; staff confirmed yes, similar to a land lease approved for another developer last year. The loan will be included in the FY26 budget if needed. The motion passed 7-0.
- G.1 – Procurement Policy Modification: Council Member Ferris requested the item be tabled to the next meeting; council agreed without objection.
- H.1 – Beeline Bus Route Improvement Project Contracts: Town Engineer Larry Halberstadt requested approval of two contracts: one with DBA Construction Inc. for $6,648,985.30 for construction, and one with Consultant Engineering Inc. for $496,600 for construction management. The project includes nine bus stop shelters, ADA improvements, and full reconstruction of road segments (Colcord Road from Cottage Creek to Longhorn, Easy Street from Jura to Forest, and McLean Road near Saddle Lane). The original bid was $6.8 million but expired; after renegotiation and scope reduction (removing two bus stops), the new amount fits within the current fiscal year budget. Funding sources: ~$1.7 million federal grant, ~$1.2 million from the Water Department, and the remainder from Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF). Council Member Bell asked about ridership; Acting Town Manager DeSchaaf reported over 8,000 riders in 2024. Council Member Haws expressed concern that the project was not re-bid, but staff explained that rebidding would take eight weeks and risk missing the grant deadline. The motion passed 6-1, with Council Member Bell voting no.
- H.2 – Executive Session: The council voted 7-0 to enter executive session pursuant to A.R.S. 38-431.03(A)(3), (4), and (6) to receive legal advice and discuss negotiations regarding Development Services Agreements with Payson Golf Club, LLC and Recreational Investment Group, LLP. The meeting recessed at 6:01 p.m. and reconvened at 7:26 p.m., after which the meeting adjourned.
Key Outcomes
- Proclamation for Lady Longhorns Basketball Team was recognized with unanimous support from council.
- Resolution 3437 approving the Development Agreement with OPG Mogollon Rim Partners (including $100,000 loan) passed 7-0.
- Procurement Policy modification (Item G.1) was tabled to the next regular meeting.
- Beeline Bus Route Improvement Project contracts were approved 6-1 (Council Member Bell dissenting).
- Motion to enter Executive Session passed 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m.
Meeting Transcript
Every year same time this time and then call this meeting to order the common council for the town of Payson March twenty-sixth, twenty twenty-five. Please bow your heads and your hearts and let's go before the Lord. We come to you today with uh those of us who love Payson, those of us uh who have been delegated and elected uh to lead this beautiful town, Lord. We pray that by the power of the Holy Spirit, Lord God, that you would grant these leaders favor and discernment, put people in their path, Lord God, that would give them good scriptural basis uh for who you are and how they are to lead, and we pray your protection upon uh all those uh that are in leadership here in Payson Lord, that you would guide this meeting, and it would be all done according to your will, and we ask you for unity, Lord God, and purpose and in spirit, and bless this uh discussion today, Lord. We love you and we trust in you in Jesus' name we pray. Council Member Ferris is present electronically. Uh mayor and council. I'm here to address a uh an issue with the airport, and it is fees and security versus security. And I want to just put out right there, there is some disingenuous information going around that the uh the gates and through the gates and the fencing is required by federal law. This is a misconception. That is not true. Where this information came from, but there is no federal mandate from any federal agency of any initials, make up any three you wish, demanding that there be security at this airport. This airport is not a group two airport. It is not covered by what is called FAR Part 139. There is no security necessary, not even a fence necessary. Now let me say, I think the town was wise in putting up the fence for a wildlife control. And that's your purview. Keeping elk off the runway is a really, really good idea. Um unfortunately, the javelina get under the fence, and you know, we address that as necessary. However, um there is it is not designed to keep people off of this airport. And this is a this has been a problem with other airports that don't fence their uh perimeters, but we are not required to have any security, and because of that, um we morph into a separate issue, which uh should be something that will the airport commission should address when they come to it, and that's the residential through the fence agreement, which is a misnomer by itself because it contains the word fence. There doesn't need to be a fence. The fence is this derails the entire conversation. So I judge I just want it known that if the town of Payson wants to fence the airport, put in gates, charge fees for the gates, that's on the town of Payson, and the town of Payson is certainly authorized to do that. It's their airport, but it is not mandated by any federal regulation anywhere, anyhow. That's all I need. I got a minute left. You can give it to somebody else. Thanks. Thank you. Mike White. I haven't had my menu. Hi, my name is Mike White, and very active with the uh airport, and with my last name, I'm used to being at the end, so I'll be happy with number two. All right, my position tonight is to advocate for the continuing uh continued management of uh the hangars, the the 10 T hangers at the airport by Payson hangar one, right for a number of reasons. Um now the existing contract is a 30-day notice contract and contains elements from the original one like 30 years ago. Now, some of those things that still exist, I think still should continue to exist is that uh PHO as a fixed-based operator is responsible for all the maintenance administration expenses, payments, and everything that goes with those hangars. We we'd like to continue doing that. We're literally, as it says in the contract, an independent contractor and operator, and part of that is a re as a requirement to indemnify the town from liability responsibility. So I think that's a major uh positive position for the town is to continue that. Uh, right now we're paying uh and it goes up every year, but seventeen thousand one hundred dollars for the 10 T hangers, plus we spend about six thousand dollars a year in insurance uh taxes and electricity, and it does say in the contract that the hangar rate would be a function of fair market value, competition with other uh not competition, but comparison to other towns. Right, another thing here. Uh one of the reasons where we think it would be better to stay as it is. If a town assumes responsibility for maintenance of the hangers, I think you're gonna see a huge increase in maintenance costs to the town because I think you're probably uh restricted to use certain uh or certified purchase certified by purchasing uh contractors who are gonna from the valley are gonna charge you a lot more than what we've been able to do using local welders, people like that to get it done. And there are reports floating around that we don't agree with at all. And speaking as an engineer, I can kind of specify why. The the uh existing inspections is uh very flawed, suggests replacing all hangar doors because one or two had some uh defects, most of which were uh cosmetic, not really structural. That's another topic. Uh another thing we do is uh we administrate everything for the uh 10 leases uh with 10 different um hangars. We do all that. You're the town would have to assume all that.
openpublica.com