notice of codification of taxes 12-3-18 sc final combined

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON

PROPOSED FORMAL ADOPTION OF SALES TAXES

APPROVED BY FLAGSTAFF VOTERS

The City of Flagstaff hereby gives notice that it proposes to formally adopt local transaction

privilege taxes (“sales taxes”) previously approved by a majority of the City of Flagstaff qualified

electors voting in general elections. A summary of the previously approved sales taxes follows:

• On November 8, 2016, City voters approved Proposition 411, continuing a combined

0.295% local transaction privilege tax rate, and designating the proceeds from such tax

for public transportation (“Public Transit Sales Tax”) for a ten (10) year period commencing

July 1, 2020. This will not affect the existing sales tax rate.

• On November 6, 2018, City voters approved Proposition 419, continuing a combined

0.426% local transaction privilege tax rate, and designating the proceeds from such tax

for roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, and safety improvements (“Transportation Sales Tax”)

for a twenty-one (21) year period commencing July 1, 2020, and authorizing the incurrence

of debt to accelerate such purposes. This will not affect the existing sales tax rate.

• On November 6, 2018, City voters approved Proposition 420, adopting an additional

0.23% local transaction privilege tax rate, and designating the proceeds from such tax for

a Lone Tree Railroad Overpass from Butler Avenue to Route 66, along with related

pedestrian, bicycle and street connections (“Lone Tree Overpass Sales Tax”) for a twenty

(20) year period commencing July 1, 2019, and authorizing the incurrence of debt to

accelerate such purposes. This will result in increasing the base sales tax rate from

2.051% to 2.281%.

An additional 2% sales tax is charged on gross income from certain taxable activities (e.g. the

hospitality industry and telephone service related to use of public right-of-way.) The total sales

tax rate on these taxable activities will increase from 4.051% to 4.281% starting July 1, 2019, as

a result of Proposition 420.

The City Council will hold a public hearing and consider whether to formally adopt the sales tax

changes at the following date and time:

Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 6:00 p.m.

City Council Chambers

211 W. Aspen Avenue

Flagstaff, Arizona 86001

A first reading of an ordinance to approve the changes may occur on this date. A second reading

of an ordinance to approve the changes may occur at the next public meeting of the City Council

on Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 4:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers.

City Council approval is a formality in accordance with statutory procedures for amending the

Model City Tax Code.

Please contact Sandy Corder, Revenue Director, (928) 213-2252 if you have any questions or to

obtain a copy of the canvass of election results. Copies of the propositions are attached (scroll

down).

Submitted by: Sandy Corder

This notice is posted on the homepage of the City website on Monday, December 3, 2018. This

notice has been distributed to other social media accounts and electronic communication tools of

the City at least 60 days prior to February 5, 2019.

Posted and distributed by: Jessica Drum, Communications Manager (928) 213-2061.

Attachments:

Information Pamphlet for the City of Flagstaff, Arizona General/Special Election November 8,

2016: Proposition 411, Pages 6-9

Information Pamphlet for the City of Flagstaff, Arizona General/Special Election November 6,

2018:

Proposition 419, Pages 36-44

Proposition 420, Pages 46-53

S:\Management Services\Sales Tax\Sales Tax Ord&Res\Notice of Codification of Taxes 2.18

INFORMATION PAMPHLET FOR THE

CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA

GENERAL / SPECIAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 8, 2016

Compiled and issued by the CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA

(Spanish version begins on page 45)

FOLLETO DE INFORMACIÓN DE LA

CIUDAD DE FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA

GENERAL / ELECCIÓN ESPECIAL 8 DE NOVIEMBRE 2016

Compilado y publicado por CIUDAD DE FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA

(La versión en Español empieza en la página 45)

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

GENERAL VOTING INFORMATION 4 SAMPLE BALLOT FOR MAYOR / COUNCIL 5 PROPOSITION NO. 411 – Mountain Line Transit Sales Tax Question Questions and Answers 6 Official Ballot / As It Will Appear on Ballot 9 Arguments For / Against 9 PROPOSITION NO. 412 – Municipal Court Facilities Bond Question Questions and Answers 12 Certain Required Information (Re Bond) 14 Official Ballot – As It Will Appear on Ballot 17 Arguments For / Against 18 PROPOSITION NO. 413 – Initiative for Greater Buffalo Park Full Text of Initiative 19 Official Ballot – As It Will Appear on Ballot 22 Arguments For / Against 22 PROPOSITION NO. 414 – Initiative for a Living Wage Full Text of Initiative 31 Official Ballot – As It Will Appear on Ballot 35 Arguments For / Against 36

To the Voters of the City of Flagstaff: This information pamphlet provides you with information regarding the City of Flagstaff's General Election of November 8, 2016, in which voters will select a mayor and three councilmembers, as well as a Special Election to consider propositions proposed by either the Flagstaff City Council or by initiative. In compliance with the Federal Voting Rights Act, the pamphlet has been printed in English and Spanish. This election will be held in conjunction with the statewide election. You may vote prior to the election date using early voting procedures or in person on the day of the election at your polling place. To cast your vote in person, make sure that you go to the address of the precinct in which you are registered. Please be sure to check the mailing label on this pamphlet—it tells you where you are registered to vote. The polls will open at 6:00 a.m. and close at 7:00 p.m. In order to be prepared to fully exercise your right to vote on November 8, 2016, you are urged to thoroughly read all the material contained within the pamphlet. Please keep in mind that questions may be printed on both sides of the actual ballot and candidate names may appear in a different order. Additional information about the City’s General/Special Election is available through the City Clerk's office, 211 W. Aspen Avenue, (928) 213-2076. Elizabeth A. Burke, MMC Flagstaff City Clerk

3

PRECINCTS AND POLLING PLACES – NOVEMBER 8, 2016

Precinct Name Polling Place Location (Facility) Room

Physical Address

Flagstaff 1 Kingdomheirs Church Foyer/Prayer Room 520 N Switzer Canyon Rd

Flagstaff 2 Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church 1601 N San Francisco St

Flagstaff 3 Federated Community Church Rees Hall 400 W Aspen Ave

Flagstaff 4 Episcopal Church of the Epiphany Parish Hall 423 N Beaver St

Flagstaff 5 The Peaks, Senior Living Community Alpine Room 3150 Winding Brook Rd

Flagstaff 6 DoubleTree by Hilton, Flagstaff 1175 W Route 66

Flagstaff 7 Northland Christian Assembly Main Sanctuary 1715 W University Ave

Flagstaff 8 East Side Public Library Community Room 3000 N 4th St Suite 5

Flagstaff 9 Days Inn 1000 W Route 66

Flagstaff 10 NAU University Union Havasupai Rooms A, B, & C NAU Campus

Flagstaff 11 Northern AZ Church of Christ Back Meeting Room 2203 N East St

Flagstaff 12 Guadalupe Church Administration Bldg 224 S Kendrick St


Flagstaff 14 Murdoch Community Center 203 E Brannen Ave

Flagstaff 15 Coconino County Health Bldg Ponderosa Room 2625 N King St

Flagstaff 16 Breath of Life Church Fellowship Hall 3500 N Fourth St

Flagstaff 17 Family Resource Center 4000 N Cummings St

Flagstaff 18 Living Christ Lutheran Church Fellowship Hall 6401 N Hwy 89

Flagstaff 19 Christ's Church of Flagstaff West Campus 3475 E Soliere Ave


Flagstaff 21 DeMiguel Elementary School Gymnasium 3500 S Gillenwater

Flagstaff 22 Bethel Community Church Multi-Purpose Room 3926 S Walapai Dr

Flagstaff 23 Coconino Community College Board Room 2800 S Lonetree Rd

Flagstaff 24 Country Club Terrace Apartment Homes Clubhouse 5404 E Cortland Blvd

Flagstaff 25 Knoles Elementary School Activity Room 4005 E Butler Ave


Last Day to Register to Vote 10/10/2016 Early Voting Begins 10/12/2016

Last Day to Request an Early Ballot by Mail 10/28/2016 TO OBTAIN FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Coconino County Elections Office

110 East Cherry Avenue Flagstaff, Arizona 86001

Telephone: (928) 679-7860

4

NOTICE TO VOTERS: The candidates listed below may not appear on your ballot in the same order as shown. To vote, fill in the oval next to your choices. To vote for an official write-in candidate, print the name in the space provided and fill in the oval. Do not exceed the number to elect. VOTE LIKE THIS: No other marks will be valid or counted.

MAYOR

VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN 1

EVANS, CORAL J.

NABOURS, JERRY

_______________________________ Write-In

COUNCILMEMBER VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN 3

BREWSTER, KARLA

MCCARTHY, JIM

ODEGAARD, CHARLIE

ORAVITS, JEFF

SHIMONI, ADAM

WHELAN, JAMIE

_______________________________

Write-In

_______________________________ Write-In

_______________________________ Write-In

5

PROPOSITION NO. 411

Mountain Line Transit Sales Tax Proposition 1. Why is the City of Flagstaff sending this proposition to the voters?

The Mountain Line transit sales tax expires on June 30, 2020. If the existing transit sales tax is not continued, the Mountain Line system will have to be significantly reduced and may be eliminated altogether. City voters have authority to control the local sales tax rate, under the City Charter.

2. What is the Mountain Line transit sales tax? The City of Flagstaff imposes a sales tax rate dedicated for public transportation. This tax rate is called

the Mountain Line transit sales tax. The transit sales tax was first approved by city voters in 2000, and the voters approved a rate increase in 2008.

The Mountain Line transit sales tax is dedicated to supporting the Mountain Line public bus system and

the Mountain Lift van services for people with disabilities. The City voters have approved a 0.295% sales tax rate for Mountain Line transit sales tax. Technically, the city’s sales tax is a transaction privilege tax on the gross revenues generated by retail sales and other taxable activities.

The Mountain Line serves a growing population and helps reduce the number of cars on the roads.

Between 2001 and 2008 Mountain Line system ridership grew from 114,274 to 800,000 riders and has continued to grow from 800,000 in 2008 to almost 2,000,000 riders in 2016.

3. Why is the City sending this proposition to the voters now? The Transit Advisory Committee, the Governing Board of the Northern Arizona Intergovernmental

Public Transportation Authority (NAIPTA), and a Citizens’ Review Commission made up of local leaders from throughout Flagstaff, carefully considered Mountain Line’s performance, budgets, and results since 2008. All three groups recommended to the Flagstaff City Council that a proposition to continue funding at the current tax rate level be placed on the November 8, 2016 election ballot.

4. Why did the NAIPTA Board and the Citizen Commission recommend renewal of the Mountain

line transit sales tax at the existing rate? Mountain Line is currently operating efficiently and effectively within its budget and is expected to

continue to be able to serve the city’s public transportation needs through 2030, if the sales tax is renewed at the existing 0.295% rate.

5. Why did NAIPTA and the Citizen Commission recommend a renewal for 10 years instead of 20

years? A renewal ensures that Mountain Line will continue to serve city residents for a decade. By renewing

the tax for 10 years instead of 20, city voters have greater control over local taxes. NAIPTA will come back to voters before the end of 10 years to report on Mountain Line’s performance.

6

6. What will the Mountain Line transit sales tax cost? If renewed, the transit sales tax rate will continue to be 0.295%, which is equal to 29.5 cents on a $100

purchase. 7. Why are taxes used to pay for the Mountain Line system? The Mountain Line system, like roads, bridges, and airports, is supported with tax dollars. While

Mountain Line passengers pay a fare to ride, that revenue is not enough to fund the system. NAIPTA also uses federal grants and funding when available to help fund the Mountain Line system operations and improvements.

8. Why is the City considering using the sales tax to fund Mountain Line bus service? Mountain Line bus service impacts everyone, including visitors and people from neighboring

communities who are working or shopping in Flagstaff. A sales tax allows everyone to assist in paying for the system.

9. Has the City considered raising property taxes or increasing fares to pay for the transit system? Yes. However, the Transit Advisory Committee, the Governing Board of the NAIPTA, and the Citizens’

Review Commission all recommended renewing the transit sales tax. Fares are reviewed, adjusted, and increased by the NAIPTA Board as needed. An increase in fares

usually decreases ridership. The Mountain Line transit sales tax is dedicated to funding the Mountain Line system. State law does not authorize NAIPTA to levy a property tax. The city’s property taxes are limited by

state law. 10. Who will pay the Mountain Line transit sales tax? Every person and business purchasing taxable goods or engaging in taxable activities within the City

will pay the sales tax. This includes visitors to Flagstaff as well as people who live outside the City limits and come into Flagstaff to work, shop, and socialize.

11. How does Flagstaff’s overall sales tax rate compare to other Arizona cities? The City of Flagstaff’s overall sales tax rate is 2.051%, and the Mountain Line transit sales tax is part of

that overall tax rate. This table shows the city sales tax rates for several Arizona cities as of January 2016.

City Sales Tax Rate Page 3.000% Sedona 3.000% Kingman 2.500% Phoenix 2.300% Flagstaff (existing) 2.051% Prescott 2.000% Tucson 2.000%

Some cities, including the City of Flagstaff, impose an additional tax on the hospitality industry.

7

12. What ensures that the transit sales tax money is used only for Mountain Line?

The ballot language is legally binding. Funds must be used as indicated in the proposition. The ballot specifies the purposes of the tax as paying “the costs of acquiring, constructing, improving, operating, and maintaining equipment and facilities for a public transit system within the City of Flagstaff.”

13. Will the transit sales tax rate increase if this proposition passes?

No. If approved, Proposition 401 will continue, but not increase, the current transit sales tax rate through 2030.

14. How have City voters previously supported transportation improvements?

In 1988, City of Flagstaff voters approved bonds for several transportation improvements. In 2000, City voters approved several sales tax increases to fund both street improvements and transit services.

In 2008, voters approved an extension of the sales tax for Mountain Line operations and sales tax increases for four additional Mountain Line improvements. Those 2008 ballot measures were:

Cents per 2008 Increase per Proposition Rate $100 Purchase $100 Purchase Improvement

Prop. 401 .00175 17.5 cents None Existing service Prop. 402 .00020 2.0 cents 2.0 cents Hybrid vehicles Prop. 403 .00020 2.0 cents 2.0 cents Additional Areas Prop. 404 .00040 4.0 cents 4.0 cents Additional Areas Prop. 405 .00040 4.0 cents 4.0 cents Increased Frequency

15. What was the outcome of the 2008 transit ballot questions?

All transit questions were approved by over two-thirds of voters in 2008 and all the transit system improvements were substantially delivered by 2014.

16. If the transit improvements were implemented by 2014, why do they still need to be funded?

An extension of the existing tax will allow the transit improvements approved by voters in 2008 to continue through 2030.

17. Who uses the Mountain Line system now?

Between 2001 and 2008 ridership grew from 114,274 riders to 800,000 and has more than doubled since 2008 with 800,000 riders per year in 2008 to almost 2,000,000 riders in 2016.

A recent survey determined that more than 40% of Flagstaff’s population has used the Mountain Line system in the past year.

Over two-thirds of Mountain Line riders do not have access to a car and rely on public transportation.

Almost one-half of Mountain Line riders are going to and from work or school.

Mountain Line also provides special services to people with disabilities in handicapped equipped vans, providing more than 24,000 special services trips in 2015.

8

18. What level of Mountain Line service does this proposition pay for?

This proposition will support Mountain Line’s current service level of 363 days annually, with eight bus routes traveling the City from 6:00 a.m. to 10:15 p.m. on weekdays and from 7:00 a.m. to 8:15 p.m. on weekends and holidays. It will also support special services for people with disabilities in handicapped equipped vans and in taxis at current levels.

OFFICIAL BALLOT

PROPOSITION NO. 411

OFFICIAL TITLE: A measure referred to the people by the City Council of the City of Flagstaff relating to continuation of a Transit Sales Tax Levy for public transportation. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE: Consideration of a levy of a Transaction Privilege Tax at a rate of 0.295% ($0.00295) for a period commencing July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2030, for the purposes of acquiring, constructing, improving, operating, and maintaining equipment and facilities for a public transit system within the City of Flagstaff.

A “yes” vote shall have the effect of approving a levy continuing a Transit Sales Tax through June 30, 2030 at the existing rate of 0.295%.

YES

A “no” vote shall have the effect of disapproving a levy and allowing the existing Transit Sales Tax to expire on July 1, 2020.

NO

AS IT WILL APPEAR ON BALLOTPR

OPOSITION NO. 41 PROPOSITION NO. 411

A measure referred to the people by the Flagstaff City Council relating to continuation of a Transit Sales Tax Levy for public transportation. A “yes” vote shall have the effect of approving a levy continuing a Transit Sales Tax through June 30, 2030 at the existing rate of 0.295%. A “no” vote shall have the effect of disapproving a levy and allowing the existing Transit Sales Tax to expire on July 1, 2020.

YES NO

ARGUMENTS FOR PROPOSITION NO. 411

We urge a YES vote on Proposition 411, which will renew for ten years our existing transit tax at a rate of .295% so the Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transit Authority (NAIPTA), the operator of our nationally recognized transit system in the Flagstaff area, can continue to provide critical regional transit services.

The “for” and “against” arguments were reproduced exactly as submitted and were not edited for spelling, grammar, or punctuation. These arguments represent the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy of content.

9

For the last 15 years NAIPTA has been growing the system by leveraging dollars, building partnerships, and developing strong relationships with funding agencies. Ridership has increased from 200,000 in 2001 to 1.9 million in 2015. The cost per passenger to operate the system has decreased from $6.28 in 2001 to $2.54 in 2015. We know all too well that one of the biggest challenges facing Flagstaff is the increase in traffic congestion, especially in corridors like Milton Road. While there is no one single solution to the problem, we know that a robust public transit system is critically important to provide alternatives to single occupancy vehicular traffic. We can’t imagine how much worse the traffic problem would be if all of the riders of Mountain Link and Mountain Line were forced to drive their cars on Milton and through downtown. And we can’t imagine what would happen to riders who rely on Mountain Line/Mountain Link to get to work and conduct other daily activities because they don’t own cars or are unable to drive. Building our way out of congestion isn’t the solution. Instead, we can adopt a systems approach to long-range transportation planning, which employs a variety of strategies, including public transit, to get us where we want to go. By voting YES on Proposition 411, Flagstaff voters will again be acknowledging that our public bus system, with its impressive record of achievements, is a vital element of our transportation infrastructure. Celia Barotz NAIPTA Board of Directors Vice Mayor, City of Flagstaff (The views of Ms. Barotz are solely her own.) Art Babbott NAIPTA Chairman of the Board of Directors Coconino County Supervisor, District I ----- To Our Fellow Citizens The Economic Collaborative of Northern Arizona (ECoNA) urges a YES vote on Proposition 411 – Transit Tax. As the regional economic development organization we meet with employers who regularly share with us the importance of public transportation in maintaining a consistent workforce. Since its inception the Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority (NAIPTA) has demonstrated its commitment to quality service and impressive record of achievements by participating directly in understanding the needs of our community. This commitment has lead NAIPTA to be recognized nationally as a leading public transportation organization. A YES vote will continue this outstanding service and will aid in reducing congestion in our community, especially along Milton Road. The Mountain Line / Mountain Link are integral to getting many workers to their place of employment each day. Being without this important transportation system would add to greater automobile congestion and force some to either lose employment of seek lesser opportunities. By supporting this initiative you will be supporting a proven public transit system that aids our workforce and provides an alternative to single occupancy vehicular traffic. We urge you to vote YES for Proposition 411. John Stigmon President & CEO Richard Bowen ECoNA Board Member

10

Friends of Flagstaff’s Future urges you to vote yes on Proposition 411. Friends of Flagstaff’s Future advocates for a more environmentally sustainable, socially just, and economically prosperous Flagstaff. Efficient and accessible public transit is a key component of each of these goals. Our local bus services, including the Mountain Line, Mountain Link, and Mountain Lift, enable local residents to reduce their use of personal automobiles and to get around efficiently even if they don’t own a car. A yes vote on Prop 411 would ensure funding for these bus services through 2030 by continuing an existing .295% sales tax, which is set to expire in 2020. Without this source of funding, the future of Mountain Line bus services will be seriously jeopardized. Our community has come to rely on this excellent service in order to provide efficient and affordable transportation and ease congestion. Public transit in Flagstaff provides benefits to many diverse populations – permanent residents, students, and tourists all ride the bus. We believe our local bus services are well worth the taxpayer dollars invested in them and urge you to vote yes on Proposition 411. Tory Syracuse David McCain Executive Director President of the Board of Directors ----- We support City Proposition 411. Mountain Line first got its start in Coconino County as the Pine Country Transit Bus. Over the years we have worked with the City to create a nationally recognized small city transit system that continues to grow and serve a broad diversity of our population. With over a million rides per year and growing, public transit is a critical part of a broader transportation system that helps provide relief to congestion, alternative choices, and a means of getting to areas that have no parking. Mountain Line not only serves our seniors and school children, it connects the University to town, and helps our residents on fixed incomes. Mountain Line has become an economic engine connecting people to commercial hubs, and linking recreationists to trails. The NAIPTA public bus system has delivered on every promise made since asking voters for their support in passing the ballot initiative. Promises made regarding increased frequency, an NAU connector, hybrid electric buses, and additional routes were kept. Promises Made, Promises Kept is what you can count on. Mountain Line is thriving, but it needs your support to continue to do so. Mountain Line is a sound investment for a small portion of 1 cent. Please join us in supporting our public transit system by voting YES on Proposition 411. Liz Archuleta, Coconino County Supervisor, District 2 Matt Ryan, Coconino County Supervisor, District 3 ARGUMENTS AGAINST PROPOSITION NO. 411

None submitted

11

PROPOSITION NO. 412

Municipal Court Facilities Bond Question 1. What is the purpose of this bond election?

One question is being submitted for consideration (the “Question”). The bonds which are the subject of the Question (the “Bonds”) will provide financing for a project in the City’s long-range capital improvements program. (The Question also satisfies a Charter requirement based on the type of project to be financed.) All voters who are residents of the City of Flagstaff (the “City”) are encouraged to cast their ballots in the City’s General Election and Bond Authorization Special Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2016 (the “Election”).

2. What will this bond program achieve?

If the Question is approved, the City will be able to raise $12,000,000 to help provide the following (the “Project”): • Adequate court room facilities, prosecution facilities, prisoner transport and holding areas,

separate circulation and movement by public, jurors, prisoners and court staff, prosecution staff space for all court events, as well as staff, jurors and the public; and

• Sufficient parking for all of the above that may be used to increase the available capacity of public parking in downtown Flagstaff.

3. Why is a new Municipal Court facility needed?

The current facility is generally recognized undersized for the public, prisoners, defendants, judges, prosecution and staff (see question 8). There are numerous security, health safety, and structural concerns in the current facility in addition to inadequate parking. The Project would solve an under capacity operation and would open up additional parking that could be leveraged while opening up a property that could be redeveloped.

4. Why will the City borrow money to fund some of the Project?

The City may borrow in an amount not to exceed $12 million to allow the City to design and construct the Project now. Construction costs are expected to continue to rise and the longer the Project is postponed, the more expensive it may become.

5. How do bonds work?

Should the Bonds be approved by the voters, the Bonds will be sold over approximately the next two years. If approved, the Bonds would be issued when funds are needed, but may not exceed in total the amount approved by voters. Bond money may only be used for the purposes specified in the Question. Present and future owners of property in the City repay the Bonds, with interest, over a period of time—usually ten to twenty-five years—in the same manner that homeowners pay a home mortgage. Bonds which pledge City property tax revenues as the source for their payment require a vote. The amount of Bonds of this type that can be sold by the City is limited based on a percentage of the net assessed full cash valuation of property within the City.

12

6. Will the bonds pay the entire cost of the Municipal Court facility?

No. The Bonds will fund $12 million of the total $21.5 million that is the City’s portion of the Project cost.The remainder of the funding for the City has been identified as coming from several sources includingselling the old municipal court building, court fees, including some cash balances, and other Citysources.

7. What is a primary tax and a secondary tax?

Primary property tax revenues help to fund the maintenance and operation budgets of localgovernments (including the City). Secondary property taxes fund such things as bond issues (includingthe Bonds), budget overrides and special districts. Both are levied against net assessed limitedproperty valuation.

8. What process did the City use to select the Project?

In 2010, the Mayor and City Council appointed a 15-member citizen Bond Advisory Task Force (the“BATF”) who represented a broad cross section of the community. The BATF reviewed the capitalimprovement projects presented by City staff and space studies provided by experts in the field ofcourthouse space needs and construction as well as the recommendations made by the City’s citizenboards and commissions, who also reviewed projects appropriate to them. The City also commissioneda community survey and focus groups, and numerous public open houses and meetings were held toreceive input on the various projects before the BATF made a recommendation on the bond project listto the City Council.

Based on this input, the City Council placed a bond question on the general election ballot in Novemberof 2010 in the amount of $23,000,000 for the Project. It was turned down.

The need for the Project continues though, and alternative solutions to meeting this need have sincebeen developed. Through the development of alternative funding sources, joint partnerships with othergovernment entities and additional design considerations, the City Council is proposing the Project atthe Election at a lower cost than previously requested.

9. What is the overall cost to the City for the Project?

The City commitment to the Project is estimated to be $21.5 million.

10. Who are the proposed partners in the Project?

The City has been working with Coconino County, and various departments from each entity, to createa proposed joint facility that will house the Flagstaff Municipal Court, the Flagstaff Justice Court and theCity of Flagstaff Attorney’s Office Prosecutor Division. The Coconino County Sheriff’s Office and theFlagstaff Police Department have also been involved in developing the concept particularly in regardsto prisoner transport and holding.

11. How much additional parking would be provided in the downtown area?

The current proposal would call for a minimum of 200 additional parking spaces in a proposedstructure.

12. Where would the Project be located?

The proposal is to locate the Project at the site of the old jail in downtown Flagstaff. The location wouldbe adjacent to the historic jail and the historic county courthouse, both of which would be preserved inthe process of constructing the Project. The address for the Project is 211 N. Agassiz St.

13

CERTAIN REQUIRED INFORMATION

If the Question is approved by the voters, the City expects to sell the Bonds over the next two years. The estimated cost of issuance associated with each issuance of bonds is approximately $160,000. The interest rate borne by the Bonds would be determined by the market conditions that exist at the time of sale, but in no event would the maximum interest rate on the Bonds exceed ten percent (10%) per annum. Repayment of both principal and interest on the Bonds would occur over a period of time not to exceed twenty-five (25) years from the date of issuance of each issue of the Bonds.

Estimated General Obligation Bond Issue Cost to Taxpayers

The Bonds will be repaid from an ad valorem property tax levied against all taxable property within the City.

Implementing the Project over time would have the effect of allowing future councils to determine the timing such that the City’s secondary tax rate does not increase to fund the Project. The City currently structures annual debt service requirements on property tax bonds such that the secondary tax rate is less than or equal to $0.8366 per $100 of net assessed limited property valuation. The current secondary tax rate is $0.8366 per $100 of net assessed limited property valuation.

The exhibit on page 16 lists the existing debt service commitments for property tax bonds of the City and the estimated debt retirement schedule if all the Bonds are issued. The issuance of the Bonds is projected to not impact the City's current tax rate of $0.8366 per $100 of net assessed limited property valuation by using accumulated reserves of past secondary property tax collections as indicated in such exhibit. The City’s secondary property tax rate has remained constant over the past several years. Changes over time in the City's net assessed limited property valuation may, however, impact the tax rate.

The tax impact over the term of the bonds on an owner-occupied property valued by the county assessor at $250,000 is estimated to be $30 per year for 19 years, or $570 total cost. The tax impact over the term of the bonds on commercial property valued by the county assessor at $1,000,000 is estimated to be $214 per year for 19 years, or $4,066 total cost. The tax impact over the term of the Bonds on agricultural or other vacant property valued by the county assessor at $100,000 is estimated to be $18 per year for 19 years, or $342 total cost.

Assessor’s value for tax purposes is the value of property as it appears on a tax bill and does not necessarily represent the market value. Tax impacts are based on the project average annual tax rate over the life of the bond issues and a number of other financing assumptions which are subject to change. Tax impacts assume the net assessed valuation of the property increases annually at the lesser of five percent or fifty percent of the projected total annual increase in net assessed valuation shown on the project debt service schedule.

14

Estimated average net assessed valuation of owner-occupied residential properties, commercial and industrial properties, or agricultural and vacant properties, as applicable, within the jurisdiction is provided by the Arizona Department of Revenue. Estimated Total Cost: Should the Bonds be authorized and issued, the City estimates that the total cost of the Bonds, including principal and interest would be $17,733,038. The amount is based on the assumptions provided in the exhibit on page 16. Debt Limitations The Arizona Constitution limits the outstanding property tax secured bonded indebtedness of cities and towns. For combined water, sewer, light, parks, open space preserves, playgrounds and recreational facilities, outstanding bonded debt may not exceed 20% of net full cash assessed valuation. In addition to the 20% limitation, for all other purposes outstanding bonded indebtedness may not exceed 6% of a city’s net full cash assessed valuation. Unused borrowing capacity for the 20% and 6% debt limitations is shown below based upon the fiscal year 2016/17 assessed valuation.

Water, Light, Sewer, Open Space & Park Bonds

All Other General Obligation Bonds

20% Constitutional Limitation $151,716,350 Net Direct General Obligation

6% Constitutional Limitation $45,514,905 Net Direct General Obligation

Bonds Outstanding (55,788,353) Bonds Outstanding (0) Reduction for Original Issue Premium (2,095,000) (a)

Reduction for Original Issue Premium (0)

Unused 20% Limitation Borrowing Capacity $93,832,997

Unused 6% Limitation Borrowing Capacity $45,514,905

(a) This amount reduces in equal amount the borrowing capacity of the City under State statutes and the Arizona Constitution and

the principal amount authorized at the elections for the City from which bonds were sold based on changes in law. The amount is net original issue premium with respect to the bonds sold less the amounts of premium used to pay certain costs of issuance of, and interest on, the bonds sold.

General Provisions

• In addition to the costs of the Project, bond proceeds may be used to pay for bond insurance or other credit support for the Bonds, all legal, accounting, financial, architectural, design, engineering and construction management costs and all other costs incurred in connection with the issuance of the Bonds and the purposes set forth in the Question.

• Bonds will be issued for the Project for the actual project amount when funds are needed to implement that Project. The total amount may not exceed the amount authorized by voters for the Project.

• The Bonds may be issued in one or more series. • Interest rates for the Bonds shall not exceed ten percent (10%) per annum. • The Bonds will mature over a period not to exceed twenty-five (25) years from their date of issuance. • The amount of the Bonds represents inflated dollars estimated at the time of bond issuance. • The price paid in acquisition of any property would be at the discretion of the Mayor and City Council. • The time frames for the start and finish of the Project are approximate, and demonstrate how the

Project could be implemented over time if the Bonds are approved. Actual time frames will be dependent on many factors such as land availability and acquisition negotiations, environmental permitting processes, utility relocations, weather, design and construction lead-time and other variables.

15

CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONAEstim

ated Debt Service Requirements and Projected Im

pact on Secondary Tax Rate*

ProjectedBonds Currently Outstanding (b)

Authorized, but Unissued BondsGeneral Obligation Bonds to be Issued

Projected Combined

Net LimitedEstimated

EstimatedEstimated

FiscalAssessed

TaxEstimated

TaxEstimated

TaxTax

YearValue (a)

PrincipalInterest

CombinedRate

Debt ServiceRate

PrincipalInterest (c)

CombinedRate

CombinedRate

2016/17$702,767,941

$5,501,164 $1,913,695

$7,414,859 $0.84 (d)

$7,374,268 $0.84 (d)

2017/18714,504,166

5,485,912 1,821,888

7,307,800 0.84 (d)

7,269,375 0.84 (d)

2018/19726,436,385

5,610,894 1,646,019

7,256,912 0.84 (d)

$679,000 $0.09

$420,000 $510,000

$930,000 $0.13

8,829,721 0.84 (d)

2019/20738,567,873

5,606,115 1,453,997

7,060,112 0.84 (d)

686,038 0.09 440,000

492,150 932,150 0.13

8,644,410 0.84 (d)

2020/21750,901,956

4,306,582 1,247,455

5,554,037 0.84 (d)

687,225 0.09 460,000

473,450 933,450 0.12

7,143,197 0.84 (d)

2021/22763,442,019

4,045,000 1,080,088

5,125,088 0.84 (d)

682,775 0.09 480,000

453,900 933,900 0.12

6,712,695 0.84 (d)

2022/23765,991,915

3,505,000 918,288

4,423,288 0.58 682,900 0.09

500,000 433,500

933,500 0.12 6,013,143

0.79 2023/24

768,550,328 1,850,000

788,100 2,638,100 0.34

687,388 0.09 520,000

412,250 932,250 0.12

4,233,795 0.55

2024/25771,117,286

1,920,000 717,250

2,637,250 0.34 686,025 0.09

545,000 390,150

935,150 0.12 4,237,165

0.55 2025/26

773,692,818 1,990,000

643,700 2,633,700 0.34

684,025 0.09 565,000

366,988 931,988 0.12

4,231,218 0.55

2026/27776,276,952

2,060,000 571,325

2,631,325 0.34 686,388 0.09

590,000 342,975

932,975 0.12 4,235,045

0.55 2027/28

778,869,717 2,145,000

496,325 2,641,325 0.34

682,900 0.09 615,000

317,900 932,900 0.12

4,244,423 0.55

2028/29781,471,142

1,240,000 418,200

1,658,200 0.21 683,775 0.09

640,000 291,763

931,763 0.12 3,264,067

0.42 2029/30

784,081,256 1,290,000

368,600 1,658,600 0.21

683,800 0.09 670,000

264,563 934,563 0.12

3,270,417 0.42

2030/31786,700,087

1,340,000 317,000

1,657,000 0.21 682,975 0.09

700,000 236,088

936,088 0.12 3,272,740

0.42 2031/32

789,327,665 1,395,000

263,400 1,658,400 0.21

686,300 0.09 725,000

206,338 931,338 0.12

3,276,038 0.42

2032/33791,964,020

1,455,000 207,600

1,662,600 0.21 683,563 0.09

760,000 175,525

935,525 0.12 3,281,688

0.41 2033/34

794,609,180 1,510,000

149,400 1,659,400 0.21

684,975 0.09 790,000

143,225 933,225 0.12

3,277,600 0.41

2034/35797,263,174

1,090,000 89,000

1,179,000 0.15 685,325 0.09

825,000 109,650

934,650 0.12 2,798,975

0.35 2035/36

799,926,033 1,135,000

45,400 1,180,400 0.15

684,613 0.09 860,000

74,588 934,588 0.12

2,799,600 0.35

2036/37802,597,786

682,838 0.09

895,000 38,038

933,038 0.12

1,615,875 0.20

$54,480,666 $69,637,395

$13,002,825 $12,000,000

$17,733,038

Projected Average Additional Tax Per $100 of Assessed Value: $0.1204

* Fiscal year 2016/17 is actual. Tax rates stated per $100 of assessed value and exclude earnings, rebate and delinquency adjustment. City Policy tax rate based on use of reserve funds.

(a)Assumes annual assessed value change of 1.67%

growth for fiscal years 2017/18 through and including 2021/22 assume (based on historical 10-year average growth in net assessed valuation for secondary propertytaxes). Subsequent years assume 0.33%

growth. (b)

Net of the debt service on the portion of the City's General Obligation debt ($1.3 M) that the City pays from water and sewer system revenues. (c)

Assumes one bond sale with an average annual interest rate of 4.25%. See "Certain Required Information - Estimated General Obligation Bond Issue Cost to Taxpayers"

(d)Assumes use of accumulated reserves of past secondary property tax collections to reduce rate to $0.8366.

CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONAEstimated Debt Service Requirements and Projected Impact on Secondary Tax Rate*

Projected Bonds Currently Outstanding (b) Authorized, but Unissued Bonds General Obligation Bonds to be Issued Projected CombinedNet Limited Estimated Estimated Estimated

Fiscal Assessed Tax Estimated Tax Estimated Tax TaxYear Value (a) Principal Interest Combined Rate Debt Service Rate Principal Interest (c) Combined Rate Combined Rate

2016/17 $702,767,941 $5,501,164 $1,913,695 $7,414,859 $0.84 (d) $7,374,268 $0.84 (d)2017/18 714,504,166 5,485,912 1,821,888 7,307,800 0.84 (d) 7,269,375 0.84 (d)2018/19 726,436,385 5,610,894 1,646,019 7,256,912 0.84 (d) $679,000 $0.09 $420,000 $510,000 $930,000 $0.13 8,829,721 0.84 (d)2019/20 738,567,873 5,606,115 1,453,997 7,060,112 0.84 (d) 686,038 0.09 440,000 492,150 932,150 0.13 8,644,410 0.84 (d)2020/21 750,901,956 4,306,582 1,247,455 5,554,037 0.84 (d) 687,225 0.09 460,000 473,450 933,450 0.12 7,143,197 0.84 (d)2021/22 763,442,019 4,045,000 1,080,088 5,125,088 0.84 (d) 682,775 0.09 480,000 453,900 933,900 0.12 6,712,695 0.84 (d)2022/23 765,991,915 3,505,000 918,288 4,423,288 0.58 682,900 0.09 500,000 433,500 933,500 0.12 6,013,143 0.79 2023/24 768,550,328 1,850,000 788,100 2,638,100 0.34 687,388 0.09 520,000 412,250 932,250 0.12 4,233,795 0.55 2024/25 771,117,286 1,920,000 717,250 2,637,250 0.34 686,025 0.09 545,000 390,150 935,150 0.12 4,237,165 0.55 2025/26 773,692,818 1,990,000 643,700 2,633,700 0.34 684,025 0.09 565,000 366,988 931,988 0.12 4,231,218 0.55 2026/27 776,276,952 2,060,000 571,325 2,631,325 0.34 686,388 0.09 590,000 342,975 932,975 0.12 4,235,045 0.55 2027/28 778,869,717 2,145,000 496,325 2,641,325 0.34 682,900 0.09 615,000 317,900 932,900 0.12 4,244,423 0.55 2028/29 781,471,142 1,240,000 418,200 1,658,200 0.21 683,775 0.09 640,000 291,763 931,763 0.12 3,264,067 0.42 2029/30 784,081,256 1,290,000 368,600 1,658,600 0.21 683,800 0.09 670,000 264,563 934,563 0.12 3,270,417 0.42 2030/31 786,700,087 1,340,000 317,000 1,657,000 0.21 682,975 0.09 700,000 236,088 936,088 0.12 3,272,740 0.42 2031/32 789,327,665 1,395,000 263,400 1,658,400 0.21 686,300 0.09 725,000 206,338 931,338 0.12 3,276,038 0.42 2032/33 791,964,020 1,455,000 207,600 1,662,600 0.21 683,563 0.09 760,000 175,525 935,525 0.12 3,281,688 0.41 2033/34 794,609,180 1,510,000 149,400 1,659,400 0.21 684,975 0.09 790,000 143,225 933,225 0.12 3,277,600 0.41 2034/35 797,263,174 1,090,000 89,000 1,179,000 0.15 685,325 0.09 825,000 109,650 934,650 0.12 2,798,975 0.35 2035/36 799,926,033 1,135,000 45,400 1,180,400 0.15 684,613 0.09 860,000 74,588 934,588 0.12 2,799,600 0.35 2036/37 802,597,786 682,838 0.09 895,000 38,038 933,038 0.12 1,615,875 0.20

$54,480,666 $69,637,395 $13,002,825 $12,000,000 $17,733,038


* Fiscal year 2016/17 is actual. Tax rates stated per $100 of assessed value and exclude earnings, rebate and delinquency adjustment. City Policy tax rate based on use of reserve funds.(a) Assumes annual assessed value change of 1.67% growth for fiscal years 2017/18 through and including 2021/22 assume (based on historical 10-year average growth in net assessed valuation for secondary property

taxes). Subsequent years assume 0.33% growth. (b) Net of the debt service on the portion of the City's General Obligation debt ($1.3 M) that the City pays from water and sewer system revenues. (c) Assumes one bond sale with an average annual interest rate of 4.25%. See "Certain Required Information - Estimated General Obligation Bond Issue Cost to Taxpayers"(d) Assumes use of accumulated reserves of past secondary property tax collections to reduce rate to $0.8366.

16

OFFICIAL BALLOT

PROPOSITION NO. 412

Purpose: Bonds for Municipal Court Facilities Amount: $12,000,000 OFFICIAL TITLE: A measure referred to the people by the Flagstaff City Council relating to the issuance of bonds in a principal amount of $12,000,000 to design and construct municipal court facilities. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE: Consideration of the sale and issuance of bonds to provide adequate court room facilities, prosecution facilities, prisoner transport and holding areas, separate circulation and movement for public, jurors, prisoners and court staff, prosecution staff, space for all court events, as well as staff, jurors and the public and sufficient parking for all of the above, shall the City of Flagstaff be authorized to sell and issue general obligation bonds in a principal amount up to $12,000,000 and expend funds therefrom: • for the purpose of design and construction of new facilities for the municipal court and paying necessary

related costs; • for the purpose of design and construction of a parking garage or similar structure to enhance both

municipal court and public parking availability and paying necessary related costs; and • to pay all costs and expenses properly incidental thereto and to the issuance of bonds? The bonds may be issued in one or more series, will not mature more than 25 years from the date or dates of their issue, will bear interest at a rate or rates not to exceed 10% per annum, and will have such other provisions as are approved by the City Council. The following sentence has been included on this ballot as required by Arizona Revised Statutes 35-454(C): The issuance of these bonds will result in a property tax increase sufficient to pay the annual debt service on the bonds. A "YES" vote shall authorize the City Council to issue and sell up to $12,000,000 in general obligation bonds to be repaid with secondary property taxes to design and construct municipal court facilities.

BOND APPROVAL,

YES

A "NO" vote shall not authorize the City Council to issue and sell up to $12,000,000 in general obligation bonds to be repaid with secondary property taxes to design and construct municipal court facilities.

BOND APPROVAL,

NO



A measure referred to the people by the Flagstaff City Council relating to the issuance of bonds in a principal amount of $12,000,000 to design and construct municipal court facilities. A YES vote shall authorize the City Council to issue up to $12,000,000 in general obligation bonds to be repaid with secondary property taxes to design and construct municipal court facilities. A NO vote shall not authorize the City Council to issue up to $12,000,000 in general obligation bonds to be repaid with secondary property taxes to design and construct municipal court facilities.

BOND APPROVAL, YES BOND APPROVAL, NO

17


My name is Jeff Coker and, in addition to being an almost lifelong resident of Flagstaff, I have worked as an attorney and Superior Court judge in our local legal system for the past 35+ years. I would like to address the upcoming bond election, specifically Prop 412, that authorizes bonding to meet the need for a new Municipal Court facility. The Citizens of Flagstaff have been great supporters of our criminal and civil justice system and I ask that you continue that support for a desperately needed new facility for the Flagstaff Municipal Court. The present City Court building is an eighty-year-old former furniture store and is extremely inadequate for the needs of this court (which has seen a 100 % increase in filings in the last 20 years), and is also subject to seasonal flooding. The most pressing reason for supporting a new structure is the safety of the customers and employees of the current court building. Anyone who walks through this building knows that it is a security nightmare. My daughter previously worked in the court system and I have asked myself if I would want her to work in this building and the answer is a resounding no. The potential for harm is simply too great. In addition, like much of downtown Flagstaff, parking is always an issue. The proposal includes a parking structure that is sorely needed. No one likes to volunteer for tax liability, but this proposal does not amount to an increase in that the cost of the structure will be paid by the expiration of other assessments. I urge all voters to vote in the upcoming bond election and support Proposition 412, the bond authorization for a new Municipal Court building. H. Jeffrey Coker ----- We support City Proposition 412. It is another opportunity where we, the County can work cooperatively with the City of Flagstaff to eliminate redundancy and reduce costs. This proposition will help us place the City’s municipal courts in the same building as our Justice of the Peace Courts – which also needs additional space. By having both of these Courts in the same building and adjacent to the Superior Courts, confusion will be eliminated and it will be easier for an individual to find the appropriate Court where his/her case is heard. We have a history of establishing cooperative agreements with the City of Flagstaff and these innovative partnerships help us address the needs of our citizens while making services user friendly and government more cost efficient. Some examples include but are not limited to, coordinated planning with our regional plan, establishment of our Nationally Award winning regional bus system run by NAIPTA, cooperative purchasing agreements, joint law enforcement facilities – housing both the Sheriff’s Office and the Flagstaff Police Department, the Flagstaff Art Council, and so much more. These are a few examples of where we have worked together to make it easier to use various services, to eliminate multiple administrative measures and reduce redundancy, while reducing the costs to the tax payer. We ask that you vote Yes on Proposition 412. Liz Archuleta, Coconino County Supervisor, District 2 Matt Ryan, Coconino County Supervisor, District 3 ARGUMENTS AGAINST PROPOSITION NO. 412 None submitted


18

PROPOSITION NO. 413

INITIATIVE - GREATER BUFFALO PARK

COMPLETE TEXT OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE

AN ORDINANCE SETTING ASIDE, PRESERVING, AND DESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 253 ACRES OF SPECIFIC CITY-OWNED REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS “MCMILLAN MESA,” AND APPROXIMATELY 47 ACRES OF SPECIFIC CITY-OWNED REAL PROPERTY LYING SOUTH OF BUFFALO AND MCPHERSON PARKS AND NORTH OF EAST FOREST AVENUE, TO BE USED AS OPEN SPACE FOR PASSIVE PARK PURPOSES AND PROVIDING FOR EXCEPTIONS, SEVERABILITY, AUTHORITY FOR CLERICAL CORRECTIONS

WHEREAS, the acquisition, provision, and development of parks, trails, and open space are goals set forth in Chapter V of the Flagstaff Regional Plan; and WHEREAS, preservation of real property as passive park is considered a form of open space in the 1998 Flagstaff Area Open Spaces and Greenway Plan; and WHEREAS, open space for passive park purposes makes a significant contribution to the well-being of the citizens of the City of Flagstaff; and WHEREAS, the City maintains an interest in enhancing the beauty and recreational elements within the community, and open space for passive parks purposes contribute to those efforts; ENACTMENT: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Dedication. The portion of real property owned by the City of Flagstaff as described in the attached “Exhibit A” (the “Property”) and incorporated by this reference is hereby set aside, preserved, and designated as open space for passive park purposes. Section 2: Exceptions. The City Council shall have, in its discretion, the option to except up to ten (10) acres within the Property described in the attached Exhibit A to allow the construction and operation thereon of a facility to serve veterans, provided that it has a reasonable similarity to the facility and use contemplated by Flagstaff City Council Resolution No. 2015-16. The remainder of the Property not covered by this exclusion shall remain subject to the provisions of this Ordinance.

Section 3: Limited Uses and Improvements.

The City shall use the Property described in Exhibit A in a manner consistent with the “Neighborwoods” category of Open Space as outlined in the 1998 Flagstaff Area Open Spaces and Greenways Plan. Any other use is inconsistent with the purposes of this Ordinance and the intent of the voters. Further, the City shall not construct, nor permit construction of, any new buildings, roads, motor-vehicle trails, or other improvements on the Property except as necessary for the limited use permitted by Section 2.

19

Section 4: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance or any part of the code adopted herein by reference is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: Clerical Corrections. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to correct typographical and grammatical errors, errors in punctuation, and errors in word choice to this ordinance. Further, City Staff is hereby authorized to make any necessary clerical corrections to the physical description of the property to properly identify the Property as described in the attached Exhibit A and intended to be the object of this Ordinance.

EXHIBIT A Summary Consisting of 253 Acres, more or less, of specific City of Flagstaff owned real property lying East of East Forest Avenue and South of East Cedar Avenue and commonly known as “McMillan Mesa” (APN 107-01-001B, 101-28-007C, and a portion of 109-02-001N) and 47 Acres, more or less of specific City of Flagstaff owned real property lying North of East Forest Avenue, East of Turquoise Drive and South of Buffalo and McPherson Parks (a portion of 110-08-001G) more particularly described as following and demonstrated on the attached not-to-scale map: 1. 107-01-001B All of the City of Flagstaff owned real property located in the Northwester Quarter of Section 14,

Township 21 North, Range 7 East G&SRM, Coconino County, Arizona lying Southeasterly of North Gemini Drive and West of Izabel Street.

2. 101-28-007C All of the City of Flagstaff owned real property located in the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of

Section 15 and the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 21 North, Range 7 East G&SRM, Coconino County, Arizona as described in Docket 1507, Page 264 Coconino County, lying North of Switzer Mesa Unit 2, Case 2, Map 344 Coconino County and North and East of Switzer Mesa Unit 3, Case 3, Map 111 Coconino County and North of that property described in Instrument No. 3725664 and South and East of McMillan Mesa Village, Instrument No. 3488287 Coconino County.

3. Portion of 109-02-001N All of the City of Flagstaff owned real property located in the West Half of Section 11, Township 21

North, Range 7 East G&SRM, Coconino County, Arizona lying East of East Forest Avenue and South of East Cedar Avenue, North and East of North Gemini Drive, South and West of Coconino High School and less that City of Flagstaff owned real property designated by the City of Flagstaff as the location of the Hal Jansen Recreation Center (former known as the Flagstaff Recreation Center).

4. Portion of 110-08-001G All of the City of Flagstaff owned real property located in the Southeast Quarter of Section 10,

Township 21 North, Range 7 East G&SRM, Coconino County, Arizona lying North of East Forest Avenue, South of Buffalo and McPherson Parks, South of the FUTS trail formerly the location of Cedar Avenue, east of Turquoise Avenue and West of North Gemini Drive less 34 Acres, more or less, lying North and West of East Forest Avenue, and South and West of North Gemini Drive, comprising Committed Facilities on City of Flagstaff land including but not limited to the U.S. Geological Survey and Northern Arizona Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology facilities.

If the City Council exercises its authority to except property under this section, and such property is not put to the use described in this Section, the excepted land shall become open space for passive park purposes and subject to the same restrictions as the remainder of the Property described in Exhibit A.

20

Any ordinance or other act of the City Council attempting to transfer any interest in the Property described in Exhibit A for any purpose other than open space is contrary to the purpose of this initiative ordinance and the intention of the voters. The City Council may, however, transfer an interest in the excepted property to the State of Arizona, a political subdivision of the State, the Federal Government, or a non-profit corporation or public-service corporation, so long as the interest granted is subject to the restrictions described in this section.

21

OFFICIAL BALLOT

PROPOSITION NO. 413

OFFICIAL TITLE: Proposed by initiative petition, preserving approximately 253 acres of city-owned real property commonly known as McMillan Mesa and approximately 47 acres of city-owned real property south of Buffalo and McPherson Parks, as open space. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE: Preserving approximately 253 acres of city-owned real property, commonly known as McMillan Mesa, and approximately 47 acres of city-owned real property south of Buffalo and McPherson Parks, as open space, permitting the City to use up to ten acres of the property for the construction of a veterans’ services facility. A YES vote shall have the effect of preserving city owned real property as open space, permitting use of up to ten acres for the construction of a veterans’ services facility.

YES

A NO vote shall have the effect of not preserving city-owned real property as open space.

NO



Proposed by initiative petition, preserving approximately 253 acres of city-owned real property commonly known as McMillan Mesa and approximately 47 acres of city-owned real property south of Buffalo and McPherson Parks, as open space. A YES vote shall have the effect of preserving city owned real property as open space, permitting use of up to ten acres for the construction of a veterans’ services facility. A NO vote shall have the effect of not preserving city-owned real property as open space.

YES NO


Looking back over the 48 years my family has lived in Flagstaff – back to when there were buffalo in what we now call Buffalo Park, I recognize that growth and change are inevitable. I’ve seen Flagstaff grow into a bustling university town with a population of 65,000, but one thing that has remained constant is that people who live here value our open space, parks, FUTS, and easy access to all kinds of outdoor recreational activities.


22

I support Proposition 413 because it’s time to make sure that the city owned undeveloped land near Buffalo Park is managed like Buffalo Park for the people to enjoy and not sold off for development or developed by the city. I like that if the initiative passes then the voters, rather than a majority of the council, will have to approve any future development proposals for the land. I also like that the initiative allows for ten acres to be donated by the city for a new Veteran’s facility and leaves some land near the business incubator for another business development project. Also, there is plenty of private land on McMillan Mesa. Some of it has already been developed and more projects are in the planning process. As Northern Arizona University and our city continue to grow, let’s take this unique opportunity to vote YES on Proposition 413, which over 4,000 voters helped get on the ballot by signing the petition (2,537 signatures were required), and create a Greater Buffalo Park for visitors and residents to use and enjoy. Walt Taylor ----- It is usually only once in a generation that the voters of Flagstaff have the opportunity to boldly express a compelling vision for the future of the community through a vote of the people. We have that opportunity now. On the November 8th ballot is a question put on the ballot by the citizens of Flagstaff, Proposition 413, which will protect as natural open space 253 acres of city owned land on McMillan Mesa and 47 acres of city owned land adjacent to Buffalo and McPherson Parks. Together, these parcels will create “A Greater Buffalo Park”, and add land to our beloved Buffalo Park. A walk through these lands reveals expansive grassy meadows and stunning views of the San Francisco Peaks. It is the open heart of our city, joining East and West Flagstaff. And, the best part is that no tax dollars will be required for the public to enjoy these lands –we already own them! Because Proposition 413 is a citizen initiative, it ensures that four members of the City Council cannot sell this land in the future without a vote of the people first, the highest form of protection available. As private development spreads across portions of McMillian Mesa, Flagstaff citizens and visitors will cherish and enjoy these remaining public lands more than ever. Please join the Committee for a Greater Buffalo Park and vote YES on Proposition 413. Robert G. Breunig President Emeritus, Museum of Northern Arizona ----- As a lifelong Flagstaff resident and after eight years on the Flagstaff City Council, I am keenly aware that a lot of people are passionate about what happens on McMillan Mesa. I support Proposition 413 because it’s one step the voters can take to address the real anxiety about whether all of the new development, including the Hub student housing, will change forever the unique character of Flagstaff. This initiative is about land the taxpayers own and unlike many land protection measures it doesn’t require the city to bond or raise the sales tax to raise revenue for land acquisition. It allows the city to donate ten acres for the construction of a veteran services facility, which I have championed for the last six years, and build more R&D facilities near the business incubator (NACET) and business accelerator. It won’t impact the ability of private property owners on McMillan Mesa to continue to develop their land with both residential and commercial projects. (The city council recently rezoned private land on McMillan Mesa to allow up to 437 residential units, which may mean the construction of a lot of new residential units.) Many people move to Flagstaff, or those who were raised here decide to stay here, because of the quality of life, often at the cost of better jobs elsewhere. Flagstaff will continue to grow and change and developers will continue to build according to their existing zoning, so let’s seize this moment and vote YES on Proposition 413 to protect this public open space and our quality of life before it’s too late. Coral Evans Flagstaff City Councilmember (The views of Ms. Evans are solely her own)

23

I strongly support Proposition 413, which will ensure that city-owned undeveloped land on McMillan Mesa and south of Buffalo and McPherson Parks remains open space just like Buffalo Park. Although we’ve only lived in Flagstaff a short time, we love it here because there are such wonderful open spaces and parks and so many feel a strong sense of connection to the land that surrounds us. I’ve also seen how new development is rapidly changing the complexion of the community and how little control, in most cases, the citizens have over the development process. There’s a lot of private land on McMillan Mesa that’s been developed with commercial and residential projects and a few weeks ago the City Council rezoned some of it for up to 437 residential units. This initiative won’t impact the rights of any of these private property owners to develop their land. I spent many hours collecting signatures in support of placing this question on the ballot and didn’t encounter one voter who declined to sign the petition. Simply put, voters were eager to sign as they expressed their fears about how Flagstaff is changing for the worse in many cases and how some of the development they are seeing, especially the huge student housing projects, will jeopardize what they love about Flagstaff. Parks and open space, including Buffalo Park and the adjacent city undeveloped land, are an essential part of Flagstaff’s unique appeal and what make it such a desirable place to live. More new development is a certainty, so if the voters safeguard this invaluable city land by voting YES on Property 413, we’ll also be giving the voters, rather than four members of the council, the sole right to decide if it should be sold or developed in the future. Linda Webb ----- I support Proposition 413, which was put on the ballot by a citizen committee. It will make sure that city owned undeveloped land adjacent to Buffalo Park and south of McPherson and Buffalo Parks remains open space. With all of the new development in Flagstaff it’s conceivable that the majority on this city council would sell some of this land for student housing like the Hub. You might think this won’t ever happen, but there’s nothing to prevent it. If this initiative passes, then the city council can’t sell the land to a private developer for commercial or residential projects without voter approval. I urge you to seize this important opportunity brought to us by the Committee for a Greater Buffalo Park and vote yes on Proposition 413 to protect this exceptional undeveloped city land in the heart of Flagstaff that defines our city for the people to use until the Flagstaff voters, and not four members of the council, decide they want it to be developed by the city or sold/leased to a private developer. Jamie Whelan ----- I moved to Flagstaff in 2002, when I accepted a position at NAU. I jumped at the offer for several reasons, one of which was the university’s location within both urban and natural landscapes. Buffalo Park became one of my favorite places to walk my dogs, and take out-of-town visitors. So, I was quick to jump on board when the Committee for a Greater Buffalo Park sought volunteer petitioners to collect enough signatures to get it on the ballot. Over 4000 Flagstaff residents signed their names in support of Proposition 413 in a relatively short period of time because they knew that the 300 acres of city property surrounding Buffalo Park belong to the citizens of Flagstaff, and we should, therefore, have a voice in when, how and if the land gets developed or transferred. I knew cyclists, joggers, and others who appreciate having a clean, safe, and beautiful open space in which to exercise use the park, but two things really struck me as I stood outside the park collecting signatures. For

24

one, I’d never noticed before how many families came to the park; parents with babies in strollers and little kids on bikes. Adults taking an elder for a brief walk. Having beautiful and easily-accessible spaces are important to our health and our quality of life, and we mustn’t take them for granted. Secondly, I didn’t realize that Buffalo Park is visited by many people from other parts of Arizona, other states, and even other countries. This underscores Proposition 413’s economic significance. Of course, those visitors weren’t eligible to sign our petitions, but many lamented the fact that their own cities hadn’t had the foresight to ensure they’d have open spaces, and praised Flagstaff for having the wisdom to ensure that we would. Greta Murphy ----- As a dedicated foot-traveler, I’m voting YES on Proposition 413, which will create a Greater Buffalo Park by protecting 300 acres of city owned land on McMillan Mesa and south of McPherson and Buffalo Parks. Flagstaff is nationally recognized as a silver medal walkable community, so it makes perfect sense enhance our most user-friendly and beloved Buffalo Park and provide Flagstaff with a truly magnificent scenic and recreational venue. The over eight-hundred mile Arizona National Trail and the Flagstaff Urban Trail System (FUTS) share a route inside our city limits up to the top of McMillan Mesa, where hikers and walkers are truly dazzled by the stunning, panoramic views of the incredible San Francisco Peaks and Mount Elden landscapes. Further to the northwest lie the A-1, Wing and Kendrick volcanoes. Woody Mountain is to the left and O’Leary Peak to the right. All the people walking or hiking have to do is turn around to experience the wonderful Mormon Mountain view shed. Right now there is no guarantee that the city council won’t sell all or part of this very special place for incompatible development. Proposition 413 doesn’t protect the land forever unless that is what the voters want. It simply ensures that until the voters want it developed, it will remain as open space. Please join me in voting YES on Proposition 413 so at least until the community, rather than the council, says something different we can protect this valuable public resource for the public to use and enjoy. Jack Welch ----- Buffalo Park and nearby city owned open space are Flagstaff treasures. This citizen initiative to protect an additional 300 acres of city – owned land will not only benefit the land on McMillan Mesa and south of McPherson and Buffalo parks, but also those of us in Flagstaff and beyond who routinely escape to Buffalo Park for its accessibility and grandeur. As Flagstaff necessarily grows, open natural areas in the mid-city become even more important. Our FUTS is a wonderful well-used resource, and an important part of its value is its linkage among residential neighborhoods, commercial districts, places of work, and valued open spaces including Buffalo Park. Creating a “Greater Buffalo Park” is part of my vision for Flagstaff’s future, which includes a community that is as appealing to my children and grandchildren as it has been and continues to be to me. Bill Auberle ----- I arrived in northern Arizona fifty years ago. Since that time, Flagstaff has grown from a Route 66 stop to a vibrant city, but I’ve always cherished its unique history and mountain-town ambiance. Recent developments, however, are threatening the quality of life that led people to love Flagstaff so much.

25

Public parks offer oases of serenity in our increasingly urbanized lives. Municipalities have recognized they enhance citizens’ lives almost from the founding of the nation. Tucson has set aside 71,000 acres for people to enjoy; Phoenix, 41,000 acres; Albuquerque, 29,000 acres. Flagstaff voters now have a unique opportunity finally to preserve the undeveloped city land on McMillan Mesa just south of Buffalo and McPherson Parks that Flagstaff acquired from the US Forest Service 60 years ago. This land still remains in limbo, and development proposals for it draw nothing but controversy. It hosts native grasslands broken by scatters of ponderosa, Gambel oak, juniper, and piñon that open to stunning vistas of Mt. Elden and the soaring San Francisco Peaks. FUTS trails and the Arizona Trail bring walkers, cyclists, and runners alike to the area. Proposition 413 preserves this area while leaving available space for a veteran’s facility sought by the City Council and for more research and development near the business incubator and accelerator. As a member of the Committee for a Greater Buffalo Park, I collected signatures in support of placing this question on the ballot because I strongly believe that Flagstaff taxpayers should continue to own this land. Flagstaff voters, rather than four members of city council, should determine the status of this beloved asset. Please join me in voting YES on Proposition 413. Stephen Hirst ----- Please join me in voting YES for Proposition 413, which will enhance Flagstaff’s beloved and iconic Buffalo Park. City taxpayers own roughly 300 acres – about half – of the open space south and west of Buffalo Park and Jay Lively Activity Center. If approved by the voters, the initiative would keep this land as public open space, managed just like Buffalo Park. If the proposition fails, four members of the seven-member city council may very well sell the land for development. If it passes, Arizona law says that voters would have to ratify any development proposed by the city council for the area. In light of our rapid growth and development (some of it incompatible with existing neighborhoods), Flagstaff citizens have brought forward this common sense proposal. Because city taxpayers currently own the land, no public money will be required for land acquisition. The initiative does not include the land near the business incubator and the USGS facility; that land can still be used for business development. Additionally, the proposition permits the city to donate up to ten acres for a veterans’ service facility. It will not affect existing private property rights; private landowners can continue to develop their land. This valuable open space provides connections to established trails, has stunning views, and provides unique opportunities for recreation. It is critical that voters protect this land for visitors and Flagstaff residents. Let’s make Buffalo Park even GREATER, by voting YES on Proposition 413. Jim McCarthy Past member, Flagstaff Planning and Zoning Commission ----- I urge a YES vote on Proposition 413. I’ve lived in Flagstaff for more than thirty years, and have seen development eat up so much of the original open space within the city limits. Given the dramatic land development we’ve seen over the last few years, it’s critical that we carefully consider the future we want for our city.

26

The land around Buffalo Park is the largest piece of contiguous open space within city limits, and an important piece of our heritage that we should preserve. A great deal of Flagstaff’s appeal lies in its superior quality of life, which includes its parks and open space. In fact, this is part of why so many people want to live in Flagstaff and businesses start here or relocate here. The beauty of this initiative is that it neither precludes development on the privately owned land in the vicinity nor prevents future development on the public land. But the key is that if the city council should decide it wants the land developed, it will have to first seek voter approval. This is a win-win situation. This land is already owned by the City of Flagstaff (and therefore by Flagstaff taxpayers). We don’t have to spend any money; protecting the land adds economic and aesthetic value to our city; and we are not precluding the possibility of future development. The over 4,000 signatures the campaign collected to get this question on the ballot indicates the people of Flagstaff are very worried about shortsighted and incompatible development; they want this land managed like Buffalo Park; and they want a voice in any decision about changing its use. I urge a YES vote on Proposition 413. Christa Sadler ----- Join me in voting YES on Proposition 413. It’s time we protect much of the city-owned undeveloped land on McMillan Mesa and south of McPherson and Buffalo Parks -- an area that defines Flagstaff -- as open space for the public to use and enjoy. As Flagstaff continues to grow and change, it is critical to takes steps to preserve this prized public land for future generations and to maintain the city’s character where natural environment balances built environment. Not everybody can live in a house with a wonderful view, but everybody can enjoy our protected open spaces. If the initiative passes, private property owners can continue to develop on McMillan Mesa. Guardian Medical Transport, Basis Flagstaff (charter school), and Flagstaff Senior Meadows have already built projects on private land on McMillan Mesa. Bungalows on Pinecliff is building 24 rental cottages; Wellbrook is building a 34,500 square foot skilled nursing facility; Rehabilitation Hospital of Northern Arizona is applying for a building permit; and City Council has approved a rezoning that will allow up to 437 residential units. This initiative is not asking the voters to acquire land; the taxpayers own the land already. It will not interfere with the city council’s intent to donate ten acres for a veteran services facility and will allow for another R&D facility near the existing business incubator (NACET) and accelerator. Let’s make sure the heart and soul of our city is preserved for the public to use and enjoy and the decision on any potential future use or transfer of this land always remains in the hands of Flagstaff voters. Vote YES on Proposition 413. Eva Putzova Flagstaff City Councilmember The views of Ms. Putzova do not necessarily reflect those of the Flagstaff City Council. ----- I’m voting YES on Proposition 413, which will maintain some of the most valuable and beautiful city owned undeveloped land on McMillan Mesa and south of Buffalo and McPherson Parks as open space for the public to use and enjoy. Many cities throughout the country are paying huge sums of money to buy private land for park purposes but in Flagstaff the taxpayers don’t have to buy this land -- they already own it.

27

Flagstaff is experiencing a lot of new commercial and residential development, including big projects like The Standard and The Hub. Many residents have spoken at City Council meetings and talked to me about their real concerns over how some of these bigger projects will jeopardize the character of the city and the quality of life that defines our community. Voter initiatives cannot permanently protect land. However, the Arizona Voter Protection Act provides that when voters pass an initiative, then only the voters can override it. This means that Flagstaff voters, as opposed to four members of the city council, must approve any future sale/development proposals. In light of the significant controversies over past development proposals for undeveloped city land on McMillan Mesa, it seems most fitting that the VOTERS should have the final say. Proposition 413, which is the result of months of hard work by many dedicated citizen volunteers who eagerly collected signatures to get the question on the ballot, gives Flagstaff voters a unique opportunity to redouble their commitment to our parks, open spaces, and trails and to secure their right to ensure any future development is compatible with shared community values. Let’s vote YES on Proposition 413 for a Greater Buffalo Park. Celia Barotz Vice-Mayor, Flagstaff (The views of Ms. Barotz are solely her own.) ----- Buffalo Park and McMillan Mesa are special places for many Flagstaff citizens and visitors from all over the world. Personally, they represent the importance of open space in my daily aspirations to live a healthy and active life with the support of friends and a community. I have lived in Flagstaff my whole life and grew up valuing this city owned open space. As a young child, I didn’t completely understand the importance of open space but today as I watch Flagstaff grow and change I do. Buffalo Park and the city land that is still not developed on McMillan Mesa is within everyone’s reach. As Flagstaff continues to grow, I’m seeing more and more pressure on some of our most valuable city open space. It’s time to protect the undeveloped city land on McMillan Mesa and south of Buffalo and McPherson Parks. Whether you walk, jog, bike, or watch a sunrise or sunset, this area is a community jewel. Our undeveloped city land in this area is a non-renewable community resource. Once it’s gone, it’s gone forever. I am grateful as we have this unique opportunity to pass a citizen initiative to protect it not only for those of us here today, but also for future generations. Please join me in voting YES on Proposition 413. Caleb Ring ----- I am voting YES on Proposition 413. Almost 30 years ago Flagstaff voters overwhelmingly supported saving Buffalo Park as open space. The choice was between remaining undeveloped or a major road through the middle of the Park. For more than a decade before the 1986 vote, the paths and trails of the defunct western tourist attraction (buffaloes included) drew walkers and joggers to experience the quiet, the views and the extraordinary landscape. They saw open space as an important community value and it has become even more precious over time. The choice the voters made thirty years ago to ‘Save Buffalo Park’ was undoubtedly the right one. From dawn to dusk and year round, it’s the most used and least costly park to manage in Flagstaff. We are fortunate to have a second opportunity to ensure that some of the remaining unique and historic city land on McMillan Mesa south of Buffalo Park and McPherson Park remains as open space.

28

Because this is a citizen initiative, your YES vote will ensure that future voters, and not a simple majority of four city council members, will be required to approve any proposals to sell the land. It places future use of this open space, which is a city heritage, in the hands of the voters. Nat White ----- Friends of Flagstaff’s Future urges you to vote yes on Proposition 413. Preserving the land in the heart of a city during a time of unprecedented growth is a visionary move: just think of Central Park. Flagstaff is certainly a long way from Manhattan; however, the Flagstaff Regional Plan calls for development to become increasingly high-density. This means that more residents will live more urban lifestyles, and many of them in multi-family housing without individual yards. In this environment, the preservation of parks and natural areas as community spaces for recreation and renewal is critical. The benefits of spending time close to nature are well-documented. Access to public parks and natural areas is critical to quality of life and public health, and should not be limited to those who live adjacent to open space on the edge of cities. The lands of McMillan Mesa are accessible from multiple neighborhoods with diverse populations. Creating a Greater Buffalo Park by voting YES on Prop 413 will ensure that Flagstaff continues to have enough easily accessible parkland to serve our growing population. Tory Syracuse David McCain Executive Director President of the Board of Directors ----- I am in favor of Prop 413. This is a beautiful piece of land in the center of the city that offers a refuge of quiet and reflection for so many who walk, run and bike through it. I truly trust the people of Flagstaff to be good stewards of this property as the Great Buffalo Park and this proposition empowers the people in this regards. I believe open land like this only enriches our town and I hope you vote yes on Prop 413. Fr Patrick Mowrer, Pastor San Francisco de Asis Catholic Community (The views of Fr Mowrer are solely his own) ----- In 1964, my uncles – John G. Babbitt and R.G. “Ted” Babbitt, Jr. – were part of a group which established Buffalo Park on McMillan Mesa at the foot of Mt. Elden and the Dry Lake Hills. Initially, the park was a wildlife refuge and an open-space attraction honoring our Native American and frontier heritage. In 1973, Buffalo Park became part of the Flagstaff Parks and Recreation system, and has since been a magnet for outdoor recreation and renewal. Every day, hundreds of people of all ages and from all walks of life can be seen walking, jogging, biking, skiing, or just strolling through this gem of a park situated in the middle of our town. As Flagstaff grows and more of McMillan Mesa is developed, the need for open-space and a connection to nature becomes more important than ever. I applaud the foresight of those citizens who created Buffalo Park and hope we all have the wisdom to expand the park to meet the recreational and spiritual needs of our residents. James E. Babbitt ----- Northern Arizona is home to a world-class array of national monuments, national parks, wilderness areas, and national recreation areas. As Flagstaff residents we cherish the opportunity to visit these places that are only a

29

short drive away. Closer to home, though, within the city of Flagstaff, we need space – parks in particular – that we can walk or bike to and appreciate any day of the week. Voting yes on Proposition 413 will give Flagstaff residents a beautiful, centrally located park at no cost to taxpayers. Our children and grandchildren will thank us for having the foresight to designate this area a public park. Ethan Aumack Ashley Davidson Conservation Director Communications Director Grand Canyon Trust Grand Canyon Trust ----- Buffalo Park and McMillan Mesa are both valuable public open spaces in the heart of Flagstaff. Though separated by Cedar Avenue, the Arizona Trail connects both of these areas by footbridge. While they are connected, only Buffalo Park is protected open space due to a voter initiative that City residents wisely passed in 1986. Two years ago the City Council requested that city staff provide a list of city owned parcels, including public open space, that could be sold to raise operating funds and also fund new capital projects like the new public works yard and the courthouse. Because of very strong community opposition to the sale of high value open space, the City Council took the idea off the table. The unsuccessful effort by the City Council to sell some of our most valuable open space raised concerns that City Council would next try to sell the remaining city owned undeveloped lands on McMillan Mesa and south of Buffalo and McPherson Parks. The Committee for a Greater Buffalo Park responded by putting this citizen initiative on the ballot because they believe that the City Council should not rely on selling high value public lands in the heart of Flagstaff to raise revenue to operate the city. The Committee also believes that it is essential that the fate of these open spaces be in the hands of the voting citizens of Flagstaff and not a majority of City Council, which may be out of step with the voter’s wishes. A citizen initiative does just this because a citizen initiative can only be changed by another vote of the people. This means that moving forward the voters of Flagstaff will be the ones to decide all future uses of these lands. Vote Yes on Proposition 413! Connect It and Protect It! Marilyn Weissman, Chairperson Committee for a Greater Buffalo Park ----- Please join me in voting YES on Proposition 413. As a long-time Flagstaff resident, we support this citizen initiative that will require the city of Flagstaff to manage 253 acres of city owned undeveloped land on McMillan Mesa and 47 acres south of Buffalo and McPherson Parks as open space for the public to enjoy. Now is the time to create a Greater Buffalo Park. Mike Mongini ARGUMENTS AGAINST PROPOSITION NO. 413 None submitted

30

PROPOSITION NO. 414

INITIATIVE - LIVING WAGE


BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF:

SECTION 1: That Flagstaff City Code is hereby amended as follows: Sections: 15-01-001-0001 Short Title 15-01-001-0002 Definitions 15-01-001-0003 Minimum Wage 15-01-001-0004 Notice and Recordkeeping Requirements 15-01-001-0005 Implementation, Rulemaking and Enforcement 15-01-001-0006 Other Legal Requirements 15-01-001-0007 No effect on more generous policies 15-01-001-0008 Saving Clause 15-01-001-0009 Severability Clause 15-01-001-0001. Short Title This act may be cited as the “The Minimum Wage Act” 15-01-001-0002. Definitions A. “City” is the City of Flagstaff.

B. “Office” is the department, division or office that the City shall establish, create or designate to enforce

this chapter. C. “Employ” includes to suffer or permit to work. D. “Employee” is any individual who (1) works or is expected to work twenty-five (25) hours or more in any

given calendar year within the geographic boundaries of the City for an employer and (2) is or was employed by an employer.

E. “Employer” includes any corporation, proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, limited liability company,

trust, association, political subdivision of the state, individual or other entity acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee, and shall include the City, but does not include the state of Arizona or the United States.

F. “Minimum Wage” is the minimum wage rate as set under Section 15-01-001-0003 of this chapter.

G. “Tip” means a verifiable sum presented by a customer as a gift or voluntary gratuity in recognition of

some service performed for the customer by the employee receiving the tip. H. “Tipped Employee” means an employee who customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a

month in tips, has been informed by the employer in writing about the tip notice provisions required by this chapter, and retains all tips that he or she receives.

31

15-01-001-0003. Minimum Wage A. Employers shall pay employees no less than the minimum wage, which shall be not less than:

1. $10 an hour or $2 above the state minimum wage as provided for under Section 23-363,

Arizona Revised Statutes, whichever is greater, on and after July 1, 2017; 2. $11 an hour or $2 above the state minimum wage as provided for under Section 23-363,

Arizona Revised Statutes, whichever is greater, on and after January 1, 2018; 3. $12 an hour or $2 above the state minimum wage as provided for under Section 23-363,



Arizona Revised Statutes, whichever is greater, on and after January 1, 2021. B. The minimum wage shall be increased on January 1, 2022 and on January 1 of successive years, by

the increase in the cost of living. The increase in the cost of living shall be measured by the percentage increase as of August of the immediately preceding year over the level as of August of the previous year of the consumer price index (all urban consumers, U.S. city average for all items) or its successor index as published by the U.S. department of labor or its successor agency, with the amount of the minimum wage increase rounded to the nearest multiple of five cents.

C. In the event that the federal minimum wage is increased above the level of the minimum wage that is in

force under this section, the minimum wage under this section shall be increased to match the higher federal wage, effective on the same date as the increase in the federal minimum wage, and shall become the new minimum wage in effect under this section.

D. Employees entitled to overtime pay under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§206, 207,

213 are entitled to overtime pay under this chapter in accordance with federal law and regulations concerning overtime compensation under 29 U.S.C. §§206, 207, 213. Such overtime pay shall be calculated based on the employee’s regular rate of pay or the minimum wage rate set forth in this section, whichever is higher

E. For any tipped employee, the employer may pay a cash wage up to:

1. $3 per hour less than the minimum wage rate set forth in this section on or after July 1, 2017; 2. $2.50 per hour less than the minimum wage rate set forth in this section on or after January 1,

2022; 3. $2 per hour less than the minimum wage set forth in this section on or after January 1, 2023; 4. $1.50 per hour less than the minimum wage set forth in this section on or after January 1, 2024; 5. $1 per hour less than the minimum wage set forth in this section on or after January 1, 2025.

Provided, however, that the employer may only pay this lower cash wage if the employ can establish that when adding tips received and retained to wages paid, the employee received not less than the minimum wage for all hours worked and the employee has been informed in writing by the employer of the provisions of this Section. All tips received by tipped employees are the sole property of the tipped employee and shall be retained by the tipped employee, except that nothing in this section shall prohibit a valid tip pool under which tips are pooled and distributed among tipped employees, provided that only the amount actually retained by each employee shall be considered part of that employee’s wages for purposes of this Section. On and after January 1, 2026, an employer shall pay a tipped employee not less than the minimum wage set forth in this section for all hours worked.

32

15-01-001-0004. Notice and Recordkeeping Requirements A. The Office shall publish and make available to employers all of the following, in English, Spanish and

any language spoken by more than 5% of the workforce in the City: (1) a bulletin announcing the adjusted minimum wage rate for the upcoming year and its effective date no less than two months before its effective date; (2) a template bulletin for employers to post in the workplace informing employees of the current minimum wage rate and their rights to the minimum wage, including information about the right to be free from retaliation and the right to file a complaint and the contact information for the Office; and (3) a template notice suitable for use by employers in complying with subsections B and C of this section.

B. Every employer shall post the bulletin referred to in subsection A in a conspicuous place at any

workplace or job site in English, Spanish and any language spoken by at least 5% of the employees at the workplace or job site.

C. Every employer shall also provide each employee, at the time of hire or by July 1, 2017 whichever is

later, written notice of: the employer’s business name, address, and telephone number; the employee’s right to earn the minimum wage and the current minimum wage rate; the employee’s right to be free from retaliation; the employee’s right to file a complaint; and the contact information for the Office where questions about rights and responsibilities under this chapter can be answered. If the employee’s primary language is one spoken by at least 5% of the employees at the workplace or jobsite, the notice required by this subsection shall be provided in English and in the employee’s primary language.

D. Every employer shall maintain payroll records showing the hours worked for each day worked, and the

wages paid to all employees for a period of four years and shall allow the Office access to such records to monitor compliance. Failure to maintain such records and/or allow the Office reasonable access to such records shall raise a rebuttable presumption that the employer did not pay the required minimum wage and the employee’s reasonable estimate regarding hours worked and wages paid shall be relied on, absent clear and convincing evidence otherwise.

15-01-001-0005. Retaliation Prohibited. A. No employer or other person shall discharge or take any other adverse action against any person in

retaliation for asserting any claim or right under this chapter, for assisting any other person in doing so, or for informing any person about their rights. Taking adverse action against a person within ninety days of a person’s engaging in the foregoing activities shall raise a presumption that such action was retaliation, which may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that such action was taken for other permissible reasons.

15-01-001-0006. Implementation, Investigation and Enforcement. A. Administrative Hearing Process. To the extent allowable under state law, the City shall have the

authority to coordinate implantation and enforcement of this chapter, including but not limited to establishing a civil administrative hearing process, including procedural rules, whereby the city shall receive employee complaints in writing and by telephone, investigate and prosecute complaints it deems meritorious and keep complainants notified regarding the status of the investigation. An administrative hearing judge shall hear and adjudicate the case and enter appropriate rulings pursuant to this chapter.

B. The Office may investigate any possible violations of this chapter by an employer or other person. Any person or organization may file an administrative complaint with the Office charging that an employer has violated this chapter as to any employee or other person. When the Office receives a complaint, it may review records regarding all employees at the employer’s worksite in order to protect the identity of any employee identified in the complaint and to determine whether a pattern of violations has occurred. The name of any employee identified in the complaint shall be kept confidential as long as possible.

33

Where the Office determines that an employee’s name must be disclosed in order to investigate a complaint further, it may do so only with the employee’s consent.

C. To the extent allowable by law, a civil action to enforce this chapter may be maintained in the Flagstaff

Municipal Court or in any court of competent jurisdiction by the City or by any private party injured by a violation of this chapter.

15-01-001-0007. Civil Penalties and Remedies. A. Any employer who fails to pay the wages required under this chapter shall be required to pay the

employee the balance of wages owed, including interest thereon, and an additional amount equal to twice the underpaid wages as liquidated damages.

B. Any employer who retaliates against an employee or other person in violation of this chapter shall be

required to pay the employee a penalty set by the Office or a court sufficient to compensate the employee and deter future violations, but not less than $250 for each day that the violation continued or until legal judgment is final. In any case where an Employee has been discharged in retaliation for exercising rights under this ordinance, the period of violation extends from the day of discharge until the day the Employee is reinstated, the day the Employee agrees to waive reinstatement or, in the case of an Employee who may not be rehired, from the day of discharge until the day legal judgment is final.

C. Any employer who violates the recordkeeping, posting or other requirements that the Office may

establish under this chapter shall be subject to a civil penalty payable to the City of at least $250 for a first violation, and least $1,000 for each subsequent or willful violation and may, if the Office or Court determines appropriate, be subject to special monitoring and inspections. In order to compensate the City for the costs of investigating and remedying violations under this chapter, the Office may also order a violating employer or person to pay to the City a civil penalty of not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each day and for each employee or person as to whom a violation of this chapter occurred or continued. To the extent allowable by law, such funds shall be allocated to the Office and shall be used to offset the costs of implementing and enforcing this chapter. Not less than fifty percent (50%) of such funds, and of any other civil penalties assessed and retained by the City pursuant to this chapter, shall be earmarked for the funding of the community-based outreach program provided for in this Section.

D. The Office and the courts shall have the authority to order payment of such unpaid wages, liquidated

damages, and civil penalties and to order any other appropriate legal or equitable relief for violations of this chapter. To the extent allowable by law, civil penalties paid to the City shall be retained by the Office and used to finance activities to enforce this chapter. A prevailing plaintiff shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit from a violating employer.

E. A civil action to enforce this chapter may be commenced no later than two years after a violation last

occurs, or three years in the case of a willful violation, and may encompass all violations that occurred as part of a continuing course of employer conduct regardless of their date. The statute of limitations for bringing a civil action shall be tolled during any investigation of an employer by the Office or other law enforcement officer, but investigation shall not bar a person from the bringing a civil action under this chapter. The requirements of this chapter may also be enforced by the City Attorney. In such case, unpaid wages and damages recovered shall be payable to the individual Employee as to whom the violation occurred. No verbal or written agreement or employment contract may waive any rights under this chapter.

F. The Office shall establish an education and outreach program in partnership with community-based

organizations to conduct education and outreach to employees and employers of their rights and obligations under this chapter.

15-01-001-0008. Other Legal Requirements A. Noting in this chapter shall be interpreted or applied so as to create a conflict with Federal of State Law.

34

B. This chapter provides minimum requirements and shall not be construed to preempt, limit, or otherwise affect the applicability of any other law, regulation, rule, requirement, policy, or standard that provides for greater protections to employees.

15-01-001-0009. No effect on more generous policies A. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to discourage or prohibit the adoption or retention of a wage

policy more generous than that which is required herein. B. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as diminishing the obligation of an employer to comply with

any contract, collective bargaining agreement, employment benefit plan, or other agreement providing more generous wages to an employee than required herein.

15-01-001-0010. Savings Clause This act does not affect rights and duties that matured, penalties that were incurred and proceedings that were begun before the effective date of this act. 15-01-001-0011. Severability If a provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable.

OFFICIAL BALLOT

PROPOSITION NO. 413

OFFICIAL TITLE: Proposed by initiative petition, adding a new Title 15, Minimum Wage Act, to the Flagstaff City Code. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE: Amendment to the Flagstaff City Code by adding a new Title 15, Minimum Wage Act, to enact a minimum wage for the City of Flagstaff and providing for enforcement and remedies for violations of the City minimum wage. A YES vote shall have the effect of adding a new Title 15, Minimum Wage Act, to the Flagstaff City Code to enact a minimum wage for the City.

YES

A NO vote shall have the effect of not adding a new Title 15, Minimum Wage Act, to the Flagstaff City Code and continuing to follow State and Federal laws related thereto.

NO

35


PROPOSITION NO. 414 Proposed by initiative petition, adding a new Title 15, Minimum Wage Act, to the Flagstaff City Code. A YES vote shall have the effect of adding a new Title 15, Minimum Wage Act, to the Flagstaff City Code to enact a minimum wage for the City. A NO vote shall have the effect of not adding a new Title 15, Minimum Wage Act, to the Flagstaff City Code and continuing to follow State and Federal laws related thereto.


I worked at the minimum wage in 1968 to support my wife and son. It was essentially impossible. Adjusted for inflation, that wage would be $11.08/hour now. Proposition 414 would raise the minimum wage to $10.00 in 2017, and would achieve the 1968 equivalent in 2018. This gradual increase, with a $15.00 target after five years, is the proposal at hand, which is reasonable. Many competing position papers have been written on the minimum wage. However, there seems to be some consensus on key points. Higher wages would put more money in the pockets of families trying to live on an unrealistically low wage. This would improve the economy for all of us. The effect would be substantial, especially for the families directly affected. Employers have many expenses, one of which is wages. Higher wages would increase this employer expense. Typically the expense is significantly offset by reduced employee turnover and reduced training costs. Stable workforces yield better efficiencies. Some fear that a reasonable minimum wage could reduce the number of minimum wage jobs. However, research shows that higher wages have generated essentially no reductions in the number of minimum wage jobs. The cost of living is 20 to 25 percent higher in Flagstaff than in Phoenix. It is reasonable to have a higher minimum wage here. In the end, this is not a discussion about numbers; it is a discussion about doing the right thing. It is doing the right thing to lift children out of poverty and to promote a healthy work ethic in adults. Together we will make this a healthier community for everyone. Jim McCarthy Past member Flagstaff Commissions (Planning & Zoning, and Water)

YES NO


36

Vote YES on Proposition 414 to help Flagstaff thrive. When I ran for the City Council in 2014 and throughout the spring of 2016 while collecting signatures for this citizen initiative, I walked through every neighborhood in town. I saw poverty that is both striking and deeply sad. I spoke with thousands of people and have heard stories that share a common thread: multiple generations of families or numerous roommates under one roof with little privacy, juggling multiple low-wage jobs with no prospects of improvement. As an elected official and a human being I find the current poverty level among working people unacceptable. We have a unique opportunity to enact one of the best pieces of legislation that the voters have ever had a chance to consider at a local level and give hard-working people the dignity they deserve. I urge you to take this historic step forward with me and vote YES on Prop 414. Once fully implemented -- by 2021 – Proposition 414 will benefit more than 22,600 workers and countless local businesses that will tap into the $198 million boost the increased minimum wage will bring Flagstaff economy every year. The increase in the minimum wage ripples through the workforce and raises wages for the bottom 20 percent of wage earners – those most vulnerable among us. Flagstaff’s unemployment rate hovers under 5 percent, yet our poverty rate is about 25 percent overall and 28 percent among children. Poverty affects women and children at disproportionally higher rates. Increasing the minimum wage will not only put more dollars into our families’ pockets, but also positively impact other outcomes that are linked to poverty, including community health, educational attainment, domestic violence, and crime. Nobody working full time should live in poverty. Let’s give Flagstaff a raise, let’s vote YES on Proposition 414. Eva Putzova Flagstaff City Councilmember The views of Ms. Putzova do not necessarily reflect those of the Flagstaff City Council. ----- I am a business owner and I will vote YES on Proposition 414. Today, I own a thriving small business and as I expand, I’m committed to pay my workers a decent wage. But not a long time ago I was myself employed, making a minimum wage and not being able to take care of my family. I was always one emergency away from being on the street. I don’t want my employees to experience the same struggles and indignity. Everybody deserves a fair wage and I urge you to vote YES to increase Flagstaff’s minimum wage, to vote YES to Proposition 414. Nobody working full-time should live in poverty. It’s up to us – business owners – to figure out business models that do not depend on poverty wages and if I can do it, anybody can. The minimum wage standard must go up. In Flagstaff, the need to lift the wage floor is more urgent than ever. I ask all responsible businesses to join me in support of the Proposition 414 to increase the minimum wage to $15 over five years. This moderate, phased-in increase not only helps more than 25 percent of all workers, but also infuses our local economy with about $198 million annually when fully implemented. My business may be small in size, but it is great in social responsibility. Vote YES on proposition 414 and give work dignity. Kelly Bailey Owner of Kleening by Kelly

37

A YES vote on Proposition 414 is a vote to support Flagstaff’s small businesses. Ever since I opened my small tea shop in Flagstaff’s Southside, I’ve had dozens of conversations with my customers about how they would like to buy my tea more often but it is difficult to make ends meet in this town. Many of them work minimum wage jobs in retail, hospitality industry, and in office support functions. As business owners serving primarily a local clientele, we depend on our community’s discretionary income. The current minimum wage is inadequate given the local economic conditions and I urge you to vote YES on proposition 414. With more money circulating in our community our businesses will have more and more frequent customers and we all will benefit. A higher minimum wage is not only good for workers, it is good for local business. An increase in the minimum wage is exactly the kind of economic stimulus this community needs. More consumer spending means more business revenue and a thriving business climate. Vote YES on prop 414 to support Flagstaff’s prosperity. Curran Malhotra Owner of Curran’s Specialty Chais & Teas ----- Vote YES on Proposition 414 to support hard-working people. My father taught me growing up that if you work hard, the rewards will come. That where there is a will, there is a way. But also, that the world isn’t necessary fair. I’ve been working in a low wage job while earning my two degrees from NAU. And I put my heart and sour in both efforts. Now being thirty, paying my own bills, and trying to be a responsible adult, I realize what my Dad meant by the “world isn’t fair” phrase. I have worked the same job for ten years – never once being late, and received a total of $3.00 in raises. Where are the rewards for working hard, for loyalty to my employer, for productivity? Sometimes we, the citizens and workers have to fight to make the world fair and that’s why I’m urging you to raise the minimum wage in Flagstaff so hard-working people like me can pay their bills. We are a tourist town, and the service industry – where I have always worked – provides many others with employment. However, the low wages are forcing us to live in sub-standard, unhealthy housing conditions with a number of roommates beyond the dwelling’s intended occupancy. Flagstaff’s minimum wage must get closer to a living wage. We, the Flagstaff working class, ask you to join us to ensure that our hard work gets recognized in our wages. Flagstaff needs a raise. Vote YES to prop 414. Victoria Eakin ----- Vote YES on Proposition 414 to reduce violence and make Flagstaff safer. I urge you to vote YES on PROPOSITION 414 which will be on your ballot on November 8. This local citizen initiative to raise the minimum wage in Flagstaff is sorely needed. From my professional perspective as the Executive Director of Victim Witness Services in Coconino County I can assure you that there is a well-documented correlation between poverty and domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, and other forms of crime. People who live in or below the poverty level have a more than double rate of violent victimization than people in high income families. Poverty and the mistreatment of children go hand in hand. When people are overworked and underpaid, they experience additional stressors that can lead to violence.

38

With 25 percent of the population of Flagstaff living in poverty, including 28 percent of all children, it is time to address this problem and “give Flagstaff a raise” by voting YES on Proposition 414. Myra Ferechil Executive Director, Victim Witness Services of Coconino County The views of Ms. Ferechil are her own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Victim Witness Services of Coconino County ----- Children Deserve to Live in Dignity As a public school teacher over the past 13 years, first on the Navajo reservation and now in Flagstaff, I have witnessed the damage that low wages cause for my students and their families. Sometime the damage comes in the form of missed meals or the necessity of subsisting on cheap, low quality foods with poor nutritional content. For other students, it’s the reading glasses or health clinic visits they cannot afford, which can have devastating impact on the ability to read or concentrate. Still worse, to my mind, is the damage done by the absence of parents who must work two or three jobs just to make ends meet, at $8 or $9 bucks an hour. The children in these families are often raised by television and social media, have little to no help or guidance with assigned homework, and no one outside the school system to support them, hold them accountable, or keep them advancing toward life goals. Is it any wonder that socioeconomic status correlates so strongly to low student achievement outcomes? Study after study for decades has found that if you know a child’s family income alone, you can predict their success in school with 60-70% accuracy. It’s high time we citizens of Flagstaff accept our responsibility as a community to lift these children up and ensure that they have the best opportunity to succeed. Our dedicated education professionals can do the rest, but only when the students in our classrooms have a fair shot to begin with, and that starts at home – with wages that can sustain a family. Derek Born ----- Supporting Proposition 414 is a no-brainer in a town like Flagstaff where according to Governing.com the cost of living is higher than in New York City when wages are considered. Thousands of Flagstaff residents have to work multiple jobs just to make ends meet, to put food on the table, and to afford the high rental costs. Single mothers barely scrape by on the meek $8.05 that is the current minimum wage across the state. Women and people of color are overrepresented in jobs paying low wages. Voting YES on Prop 414 is the right decision for all that consider Flagstaff home. Your YES vote is a vote for economic and social justice. While we need to raise the state minimum wage, one minimum wage across the state does not fit all. Cost of living in Tucson or Phoenix is vastly different than in Flagstaff. Our local economies vary greatly. An incremental increase of the minimum wage in Flagstaff to $15 by 2021 is reasonable and much needed. Flagstaff is often referred to by locals as “poverty with a view.” That is no badge of honor for a place filled with passionate and hard-working community members who give everything in their power to make Flagstaff the best place to work and live. It’s time that Flagstaff joins numerous cities across the country in an effort to lift working people from poverty. Vote YES on Prop 414 and let’s help end poverty together. Kristen Beesley

39

Vote Yes on Proposition 414 to protect workers and our economy. When I first moved to Flagstaff 13 years ago, I was unemployed and too young to qualify for social security. It took me 1.5 years to get a full time job in my field, even though I had 25 years of experience and two degrees. I worked as a temporary for minimum wage and then as an entry-level sales person. I finally got a full time job in my field, but I was paid half of what I had been earning in California. I had worked hard for 40 years, earning 79 cents on the dollar compared to men in my field. Most 60 year olds don’t have as many choices as I had when I was able to retire and many continue to work in minimum wage jobs even after a lifetime of employment. Increasing the minimum wage will benefit an increasing number of seniors and I urge you to vote YES on Proposition 414. Flagstaff has a very high income inequality with 25% of our population living below the poverty level. A gradual increase of the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2021 would mean more money spent on local businesses, a reduction in poverty and a healthier economy. It would have little or no effect on the employment levels. There would be local enforcement to protect workers and educate employers. Nobody working full time should live in poverty. Vote YES on Proposition 414. Sallie Kladnik, Retired ----- I urge you to vote FOR Proposition 414 I am supporting Proposition 414 because our families living in poverty need a raise. Coconino County has a high cost of living and a high rate of children living in poverty, with 28 percent of our children living in poverty. The current minimum wage leaves a parent working full-time over $7000 below the poverty level of $24,250 for a family of four. Sadly, experts state that poverty is the best predictor of child abuse and neglect. We can help prevent child abuse and neglect and make our children’s lives better by supporting an increase in the minimum wage for Flagstaff. Our working families deserve a raise. Vote YES on Proposition 414! Dorothy Renstrom, retired child welfare social worker ----- I urge a YES vote on Proposition 414. Phasing in an increase in the minimum wage in Flagstaff is long overdue. The infamous “Poverty with the View” slogan is a painful reality for too many hard-working unmarried people and families who, despite working long hard hours, just can’t get ahead. Not even a little bit. As a Flagstaff city councilmember for the last six years I’ve tried to help those who need it most. I firmly believe now is the time to address this insurmountable problem by passing Proposition 414, which will gradually increase the minimum wage over the next five years from $8.05 to $15 hour. Not too long ago, Flagstaff became known for having the lowest private sector wages adjusted for the cost of living in the entire country. This troubling statistic highlights another grim one that keeps me awake: 28% of Flagstaff’s children live in poverty. In some of our schools, more than 75% of the children qualify for free or reduced-price lunches. These are children of working parents who often juggle multiple jobs, and still can’t make enough money to provide lunch for their children.

40

I urge you to join me in helping to lift working people from poverty, improve Flagstaff’s health, education, and social outcomes, and increase local spending that will benefit the economy. Raising the minimum wage over time as proposed by the Proposition 414 will transform not only lives of low-wage workers but also lives of children who rely on our ability to recognize and implement good public policy. A YES vote on Proposition 414 is an important step towards reducing poverty in Flagstaff. Celia Barotz Vice Mayor, City of Flagstaff The views expressed herein are solely those of Ms. Barotz. ----- In academic research by such organizations as The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, The Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, The Center for Urban Economic Development at the University of Chicago and many, many more, the consensus is that there is no measurable negative impact on employment when the minimum wage is increased. For over 30 years the cost of living has outpaced wages to the point that full time minimum wage workers must rely on government assistance to meet their basic needs. According to the Economic Policy Institutes Family Budget Calculator, a family of four in Flagstaff needs to earn over $71,000 a year just to meet basic needs. That means that two working adults in that household need to be earning over $17/hour. A single parent with one child needs to be earning over $26/hour just to make ends meet. The collected data at the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that there are 22,000 workers earning less than $15/hour in Flagstaff. 38% of Flagstaff’s workforce of 58,000 are experiencing an income gap ranging from 12% to 70%. According to several studies, a 10% increase in wages translates into at most a half of a percent increase in operating costs. Employee turnover and absenteeism decreases, while productivity, employee morale and customer service increases. If over five years we give our lowest paid employees a 40% raise, we can expect a 2% increase for business operating costs At the end of the five-year phase in there would be a direct reinvestment into the Flagstaff economy of $198,000,000 through pay increases and an indirect reinvestment of $900,000,000 due to the multiplied effects of that additional spending. This increased spending is the demand that requires more labor and therefore creates jobs. Eric Souders, Accredited Wealth Management Advisor ----- As a member of social justice committee of the Beacon Unitarian Universalist Church in Flagstaff I am writing to urge a YES vote on Proposition 414. Proposition 414 would gradually raise the minimum wage in Flagstaff to $15 per hour over five years. Our congregation has long been concerned with the plight of those working for poverty wages in Flagstaff and for that reason we endorsed the effort to bring a living wage to Flagstaff. Proposition 414 will help those most in need in our community – single mothers raising a family, young people trying to pay off college debts, and workers trying to afford the ever increasing rents. It has been reported that our school teachers routinely send food home with many of their students because they live in homes where food is scarce. This is morally unacceptable. Raising the wages of those at or near the minimum wage to a more livable wage is the right thing to do and it is good for the community at large. Vote YES on PROPOSITION 414! Anne Cotten

41

Friends of Flagstaff’s Future urges you to vote yes on Proposition 414. With the adoption of a living wage in Flagstaff, we can continue to support local businesses while also supporting local families. According to the 2014 American Community Survey, 25% of Flagstaff’s population lives in poverty. Our community vision of economic prosperity must apply not only to local businesses, but to individuals and families struggling to make ends meet despite working one or more jobs. Flagstaff has the highest cost of living in Arizona. Housing here is extremely expensive, while many jobs are low-wage and provide minimal (if any) benefits. The current minimum wage in Flagstaff and the rest of Arizona is $8.05 per hour - $16,744 per year for a full-time worker – which is not enough to make ends meet anywhere. Cities across the country are raising the minimum wage to a living wage of $15/hour, and Flagstaff should be among them. Friends of Flagstaff’s Future advocates for a socially just and economically prosperous Flagstaff. We cannot make progress toward either of these goals when, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 25% of all jobs in our community pay less than $10/hour. We recognize that paying a living wage will require businesses to make adjustments to their business plans and practices. Prop 414 increases the minimum wage in several phases in order to ease this transition, and the $15/hour wage will not be reached until 2021. Prop 414 will end poverty wages in our community. We urge you to vote yes! Tory Syracuse David McCain Executive Director President of the Board of Directors ----- Raising the minimum wage in Flagstaff will help our economy by putting more money in the hands of lower wage workers who will certainly spend nearly all of that increase with local businesses. It also allows those workers to be able to afford more of the basic costs of living in Flagstaff, which mostly due to housing is an expensive place to live. When a minimum wage mechanism is used, then businesses are not disadvantaged competitively relative to other businesses in Flagstaff, since all of them will be subject to the same requirements. This will raise labor costs for businesses and so prices for their services or products will increase as a group. So consumers will pay more, but it will likely be barely noticeable when spread over the entire revenues of the business. The minimum wage nationally has not been raised for decades and as a result the buying power of the minimum wage has eroded dramatically over that time. In the Flagstaff Metro region, 14,000 jobs, or 25% of the total, pay less than $10.10, so a very significant number of jobs are at or near minimum wage jobs in our community. Nationally, 60% of these jobs are held by people over 25 years old, meaning these are likely full time jobs that people are using to support themselves and sometimes their families. These are not just teens making spending money. Many cities around the country have increased their minimum wages to respond to their local values and conditions. In a city like Flagstaff, with its high cost of living, setting in motion a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $15 per hour over five years is a good policy decision. Tom Broderick

42

ARGUMENTS AGAINST PROPOSITION NO. 414

Beware of Unintended Consequences Caring for people with developmental and intellectual disabilities is not for everyone – it is demanding and often heart wrenching. Current state funding to care for these individuals stands at 78% of the actual operating costs. Without an increase in state funding, care providers are not in a financial position to pay our amazing direct care workers (DCW) a livable wage for the great work that they do. With turnover rates as high as 80% in Flagstaff, DCW pay is often below what fast food chains can offer their employees, making it difficult to retain existing staff and recruit replacements. While increasing the minimum wage may sound like a simple solution to this problem, it will actually make the situation worse. Without appropriate increases in state funding, care providers will be unable to absorb the cost of increased wages required by this measure. In the best case scenario, care providers will remain open, but offer limited services with reduced staff that will be unable to safely provide critical care to our most vulnerable citizens. Many clients will be forced to move away from their families here in Flagstaff. The more likely consequence, however, is that many care providers will have to close their doors, unable to afford the higher employment costs, which would leave many of the 10,000 individuals with disabilities in the area without a place in Flagstaff to receive care. Care providers want and need to increase the wages of our DCWs. But, unless the Legislature increases funding for the care of those with intellectual and developmental disabilities, this measure jeopardizes the health and safety of Arizona’s most vulnerable residents. It is with a heavy heart that we encourage you to vote NO. Monica Attridge David Schwartz Arizona Association of Providers for People with Disabilities ----- Proponents of 414 obviously care little about most private sector employers, the jobs they provide, or the sales tax they generate. Make no mistake, a 10%-20% increase in the minimum wage creates upward pressure for all wages and increases a host of wage calculated expenses-- payroll taxes, compensation and unemployment insurances, etc. A substantial increase in expense, without a corresponding increase in income (higher prices – fewer employees) may spell the demise of many small businesses. Business owners will try to survive. With passage of 414, expect suppliers of goods and services (employers, large and small, private or governmental--at least the City) to react by raising prices / taxes, or cutting services,


43

as necessary to offset the increase in wages and related expenses. Every citizen, including those on fixed incomes, State and Federal employees (exempted from 414’s increase in wages) can expect to see their buying power eroded. Coconino County employees, neither included nor exempted in the 414 statutory scheme, may or may not get a raise but, they will pay the increased costs of goods and services. It would also appear 414 is intentionally designed to stagnate the Flagstaff economy by requiring wages here to exceed state minimum wage provisions by at least $2.00 per hour. Regardless of the reasoning, claiming Arizona’s highest, minimum cost of doing business does not bode well for attracting substantial employers to our area – perhaps another benefit envisioned by the proponents. Our cost of living is high. The remedy? Increase our pay scale to that of San Francisco, further inflate our cost of living, strangle our private business sector, and lose jobs in the process. I don’t see the logic. But, a bonus!. If 414 passes and doesn’t work, we are stuck with it for a long time. Vote NO on 414. William Preston ----- Proponents of increasing the minimum wage generally argue that it will improve the standard of living for low income earners. However numerous studies have shown that minimum wage increases reduce employment. Consequently, a minimum wage hike can increase earnings for some workers and cause job loss and reduced earnings for others. Artificially mandating increase wages through government action also has the negative effect of increased inflation thereby further reducing any potential gains made by low income employees. The cost of goods and services rise as the money to pay the increased labor cost must come from somewhere. The poor cannot afford counterproductive initiatives like the Flagstaff Living Wage Coalition is attempting to advance in their name. Many of those jobs are held by students and those with no experience. The benefits of the experience gained through a first job, even at relative low pay, provides the first step on the ladder of upward mobility. The vast majority of people who start out earning minimum wage do not remain there for long. Our local economy is largely tourist driven with 31% of our jobs are in retail trade, arts, entertainment, accommodation and food service. Our local retailers/restaurants/hotels, etc. have to stay competitive with extensive online price comparisons. They simply cannot price their local goods and services higher than what any of us can find online. If the cost of labor is increased, and our locally owned businesses are unable to raise their prices, they will be “out of business”. When minimum wage levels are set without regard to productivity, those without corresponding skill sets would be priced out of jobs. There is nothing compassionate about reducing the chances of someone getting a job. Simply put, minimum wage laws have unintended negative consequences. Stuart W. McDaniel Vice President Government Affairs Greater Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce (The views of Mr. McDaniel are solely his own)

44

INDICE DE MATERIAS Page

INFORMACIÓN DE VOTACIÓN EN GENERAL 46 MUESTRA DE LA BALOTA PARA ALCALDE / CONCEJO 47 PROPOSICIÓN NO. 411 - Cuestión de Impuestos Sobre las Ventas de Tránsito de Mountain Line

Preguntas y Respuestas 48 Balota Oficial / Como Aparecerá en la Balota 51 Argumentos A Favor / En contra 52

PROPOSICIÓN NO. 412 - Cuestión de Bonos de las Instalaciones de la Corte Municipal Preguntas y Respuestas 54 Cierta Información Ordenada (Relacionada con los Bonos) 57 Balota Oficial / Como Aparecerá en la Balota 60 Argumentos A Favor / En contra 61 PROPOSICIÓN NO. 413 - Iniciativa del Parque Greater Buffalo Texto Completo de la Iniciativa 62 Balota Oficial / Como Aparecerá en la Balota 65 Argumentos A Favor / En contra 65 PROPOSICIÓN NO. 414 - Iniciativa de un Salario de Vida Texto Completo de la Iniciativa 73 Balota Oficial / Como Aparecerá en la Balota 78 Argumentos A Favor / En contra 79

Para los Votantes de la Ciudad de Flagstaff: Este folleto de información le provee de información en relación con la Elección General del 8 de noviembre de 2016, en cual los votantes elegirán un alcalde y tres miembros del concejo, también como una Elección Especial para considerar proposiciones propuestas o por el Concejo Municipal de Flagstaff o por iniciativa. De acuerdo con la Ley de Derechos de Votar, el folleto se ha imprimido en Inglés y Español. Esta elección se celebrará junto con la elección por todo el estado. Uno puede votar antes de la fecha de la elección empleando los procedimientos de votación temprana o votar en persona el día de la elección en su centro de votación. Para votar en persona, asegúrese de acudir a la dirección del precinto en cual está inscrito para votar. Por favor asegúrese de revisar el marbete postal de este folleto – le avisa en donde esta inscrito para votar. Las urnas abrirán a las 6:00 a.m. y cerrarán a las 7:00 p.m. Para que este preparado a ejercer su derecho de votar completamente el 8 de noviembre de 2016, se le alienta leer completamente todo el material contenido en este folleto. Por favor tenga en cuenta que las cuestiones se podrán imprimir en ambos lados de la balota actual y los nombres de los candidatos pueden aparecer en orden diferente. Información adicional tocante la Elección General/Especial de la Ciudad está disponible a través de la oficina de la Secretaria Municipal 211 W. Aspen Avenue, (928) 213-2076. Elizabeth A. Burke, MMC Secretaria Municipal de Flagstaff

45

PRECINTOS Y CENTROS DE VOTACIÓN – 8 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2016 Nombre del

Precinto Localización del Centro (Facility) Cuarto Dirección

Físca Flagstaff 1 Kingdomheirs Church Foyer/Prayer Room 520 N Switzer Canyon Rd




Flagstaff 5 The Peaks, Senior Living Community Alpine Room 3150 Winding Brook Rd



Flagstaff 8 East Side Public Library Community Room 3000 N 4th St Suite 5

Flagstaff 9 Days Inn 1000 W Route 66



Flagstaff 12 Guadalupe Church Administration Bldg 224 S Kendrick St



Flagstaff 15 Coconino County Health Bldg Ponderosa Room 2625 N King St

Flagstaff 16 Breath of Life Church Fellowship Hall 3500 N Fourth St



Flagstaff 19 Christ's Church of Flagstaff West Campus 3475 E Soliere Ave


Flagstaff 21 DeMiguel Elementary School Gymnasium 3500 S Gillenwater

Flagstaff 22 Bethel Community Church Multi-Purpose Room 3926 S Walapai Dr





Última Fecha Inscribirse para Votar 10/10/2016 Comienzo de la Votación Temprana 10/12/2016 Última Fecha para pedir una Balota

Temprana Enviada por Correo 10/28/2016

PARA OBTENER INFORMACIÓN ADICIONAL, COMUNIQUESE CON:

Oficina de Elecciones del Condado Coconino

110 East Cherry Avenue Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 Teléfono: (928) 679-7860

46

AVISO PARA LOS VOTANTES; Lo candidatos que aparecen abajo pueden aparecer en orden diferente de lo que se muestra. Para votar, llene el óvalo en seguida de su de sus elecciones. Para votar por candidatos oficiales de votación por escrito, escriba el nombre en letra de molde en el espacio proporcionad, y llene el óvalo. No exceda el número a ser elegidos. VOTE DE ESTA MANERA: Ningunas otras marcas será válidas o se contaran.

ALCALDE

VOTE POR NO MAS DE 1

EVANS, CORAL J.

NABOURS, JERRY

_______________________________ Escrito MIEMBRO DEL CONCEJO

VOTE POR NO MAS DE 3

BREWSTER, KARLA

MCCARTHY, JIM

ODEGAARD, CHARLIE

ORAVITS, JEFF

SHIMONI, ADAM

WHELAN, JAMIE

_______________________________ Escrito

_______________________________ Escrito

_______________________________ Escrito

47

PROPOSICIÓN NO. 411

Proposición del Impuesto Sobre las Ventas de Tránsito de Mountain Line

1. ¿Por qué les presenta esta proposición a los votantes la Ciudad de Flagstaff? El impuesto sobre las ventas de tránsito Mountain Line se vence el 30 de junio de 2016. Si el impuesto sobre las ventas de tránsito no se continua, el sistema Mountain Line se tendrá que reducir significantemente y podrá ser eliminado por completo. Bajo la Constitución de la Ciudad, los votantes de la Ciudad tienen la autorización de controlar la tasa de impuestos sobre las ventas local.

2. ¿Qué es el impuesto sobre las ventas de tránsito de Mountain Line? La Ciudad de Flagstaff grava una tasa de impuestos sobre las ventas dedicado a la transportación pública. Esta tasa de impuestos se llama el impuesto sobre las ventas de tránsito Mountain Line. El impuesto sobre las ventas de tránsito se aprobó por primera vez por los votantes de la ciudad en 2000, y los votantes aprobaron un aumento de la tasa en 2008. El impuesto sobre las ventas de tránsito Mountain Line se dedica en apoyando el sistema de autobús público Mountain Line y servicios de camionetas de fuerza propulsaría para la gente con incapacidades. Los votantes de la Ciudad han aprobado una tasa del impuesto sobre las ventas de 0.295% del impuesto sobre las ventas de tránsito Mountain Line. Técnicamente, el impuesto sobre las ventas de la ciudad es un impuesto de privilegio de transacción sobre los ingresos brutos producidos por ventas al por menor y otras actividades imponibles. El Mountain Line sirve a una creciente población y ayuda a reducir e número de autos en los caminos. Entre 2001 y 2008 el número de pasajeros del sistema Mountain Line creció de 114,274 a 800,000 viajeros y continua creciendo de 800,000 en 2008 a casi 2,000,000 viajeros en 2016.

3. ¿Por qué les presenta esta proposición a los votantes hoy la Ciudad? El Comité Consultivo Asesor de Tránsito, el Consejo Escolar de la Autoridad de Transportación Publica Intergubernamental de Northern Arizona (NAIPTA), y una Comisión de Ciudadanos de Revisión consistiendo de líderes locales de por todo Flagstaff, cuidadosamente consideraron el desempeño, presupuestos, y resultados desde 2008. Todos los tres grupos le recomendaron al Concejo Municipal de Flagstaff que una proposición para continuar el financiamiento al nivel actual de la tasa de impuestos se colocará en la balota de la elección del 8 de noviembre de 2016.

4. ¿Por qué recomendó la Junta de NAIPTA y la Comisión de Ciudadanos una renovación del impuesto sobre las ventas de tránsito de Mountain Line a la tasa existente? Actualmente Mountain Line opera eficazmente y efectivamente dentro de su presupuesto y se espera continuar sirviendo las necesidades de transportación pública de la ciudad hasta 2030, si se renueva el impuesto sobre las ventas a la tasa existente de 0.295%.

5. ¿Por qué recomendó NAIPTA y la Comisión de Ciudadanos una renovación de 10 años en lugar de 20 años?

Una renovación asegura que Mountain Line continuará sirviendo los residentes de la ciudad por una década. Al renovar el impuesto por 10 años en lugar de 20, los votantes de la ciudad tendrán mucho

48

más control sobre los impuestos locales. NAIPTA se les presentará a los votantes antes del fin de 10 años para reportar en el desempeño de Mountain Line.

6. ¿Qué costará el impuesto sobre las ventas de tránsito de Mountain Line? Si se renueva, la tasa del impuesto sobre las ventas de tránsito continuará siendo el 0.295%, que es igual a 29.5 centavos en una compra de $100.

7. ¿Por qué se usan impuestos para pagar por el sistema Mountain Line? El sistema Mountain Line, como los caminos, puentes, y aeropuertos se apoya con dólares de los impuestos. Mientras que los pasajeros de Mountain Line pagan una tarifa para viajar, esos ingresos no son suficientes para pagar por el sistema. NAIPTA también usa concesiones federales y financiamiento cuando disponible para ayudar a pagar por las operaciones y mejoramientos de Mountain Line.

8. ¿Por qué está considerando la Ciudad usando el impuesto sobre las ventas para pagar por el servicio de autobuses de Mountain Line? El servicio de autobuses de Mountain Line tiene un impacto en todos, incluyendo visitantes y la gente de comunidades de alrededor quienes trabajan o compran en Flagstaff. Un impuesto sobre las ventas les permite a todos ayudar a pagar por el sistema.

9. ¿Ha considerado la Ciudad aumentando los impuestos sobre la propiedad o aumentado las tarifas para pagar por el sistema de tránsito? Si. Sin embargo, el Comité Consultivo Asesor de Tránsito, el Consejo Escolar de la NAIPTA, y la Comisión de Ciudadanos de Revisión todos recomendaron la renovación de impuesto sobre las ventas de tránsito. El Concejo NAIPTA revisó las tarifas, las ajustó, y las aumentó como necesario. Un aumento de las tarifas por lo regular reduce los pasajeros. El impuesto sobre las ventas de tránsito de Mountain Line se dedica a pagar por el sistema Mountain Line. La ley del Estado no autoriza a NAIPTA imponer un impuesto sobre la propiedad. Los impuestos sobre la propiedad son limitados por la ley del estado.

10. ¿Quién pagará el impuesto sobre las ventas de tránsito de Mountain Line? Cada persona y negocio comprando mercancía imponible o comprometidos en actividades imponibles dentro de la Ciudad pagarán el impuesto sobre las ventas. Esto incluye visitantes de Flagstaff también como la gente viviendo fuera de los límites de la Ciudad y que acuden a Flagstaff para trabajar, ir de compras, y socializar.

11. ¿Cómo se compara la tasa de impuestos completa de Flagstaff con otras ciudades de Arizona? La tasa de impuestos completa de Flagstaff es de 2.051%, y el impuesto sobre las ventas de tránsito de Mountain Line es parte de la tasa de impuestos completa. Esta tabla expone las tasas de impuestos sobre las ventas de varias ciudades de Arizona a partir de enero de 2016.

49

Ciudad Tasa de Impuestos Sobre las Ventas

Page 3.000% Sedona 3.000% Kingman 2.500% Phoenix 2.300% Flagstaff (existente) 2.051% Prescott 2.000% Tucson 2.000%

Algunas ciudades, incluyendo la Ciudad de Flagstaff, impone un impuesto adicional sobre la industria de hospitalidad.

12. ¿Qué asegura que el dinero del impuesto sobre las ventas de tránsito se usa solamente para

Mountain Line?

El lenguaje de la balota es jurídicamente obligante. Los fondos se tienen que usar como indicado en la proposición. La balota específica los propósitos del impuesto como pagarán por “los costos de adquirir, construir, mejorar, operar, y mantener el equipo y las instalaciones del sistema de transportación pública dentro de la Ciudad de Flagstaff.”

13. ¿Si se aprueba esta proposición se aumentará la tasa de impuestos sobre las ventas de

tránsito?

No. Si aprobada, la Proposición 401 continuará, pero no aumentará, la tasa de impuestos sobre las ventas de tránsito actual hasta 2030.

14. ¿Cómo han apoyado los votantes de la Ciudad los mejoramientos de transportación en el

pasado?

En 1998, los votantes de Flagstaff aprobaron bonos de varios mejoramientos de transportación. En 2000, los votantes aprobaron varios aumentos del impuesto sobre las ventas para pagar por ambos mejoramientos de las calles y servicios de tránsito.

En 2008, los votantes aprobaron una extensión del impuesto sobre las ventas para la operación de Mountain Line y el impuesto sobre las ventas para cuatro mejoramientos adicionales de Mountain Line. Aquellas medidas de la balota de 2008 fueron:

Centavos por Aumento de 2008 Proposición Tasa Compra de $100 por Compra de $100 Mejoramiento

Prop. 401 .00175 17.5 centavos Ninguno Servicios Existentes Prop. 402 .00020 2.0 centavos 2.0 cents Vehículos Hybrid Prop. 403 .00020 2.0 centavos 2.0 cents Áreas Adicionales Prop. 404 .00040 4.0 centavos 4.0 cents Áreas Adicionales Prop. 405 .00040 4.0 centavos 4.0 cents Frecuencia Aumentado

15. ¿Qué fue el resultado de las cuestiones de bonos de tránsito de 2008?

Todas las cuestiones de tránsito se aprobaron por más de dos tercios de los votantes en 2008 y todos los mejoramientos del sistema de tránsito sustancialmente se realizaron para 2014.

50

16. ¿Si los mejoramientos de tránsito se implementaron para 2014, por qué es necesario continuar pagándolos?

Una extensión del impuesto existente permitirá los mejoramientos de tránsito aprobados por los votantes en 2008 continuar hasta 2030.

17. ¿Ahora quién usa el sistema de Mountain Line?

Entre 2001 y 2008 los pasajeros aumentaron de 114,274 a 800,000 y ha más de doblado desde 2008 con 800,000 pasajeros por año en 2008 a casi 2,000,000 pasajeros en 2016.

Una reciente encuesta determinó que más del 40% de la población de Flagstaff ha usado el sistema de Mountain Line el año pasado.

Más de dos tercios de los pasajeros de Mountain Line no tienen acceso a un automóvil y dependen de la transportación pública.

Casi la mitad de los pasajeros de Mountain Line viajan a o de su trabajo o escuela.

Mountain Line también ofrece servicios especiales a la gente con incapacidades con camionetas con equipo para minusválidos, proveyendo más 24,000 viejas de servicios especiales en 2015.

18. ¿Qué nivel de los servicios de Mountain Line pagará esta proposición?

Esta proposición apoyará el nivel de servicios actual de Mountain Line de 363 días cada año, con ocho rutas de autobuses viajando por la Ciudad de 6:00 a.m. a 10:15 p.m. durante la semana y de las 7:00 a.m. a 8:15 p.m. en fines de semana y días festivos. También apoyará servicios especiales para la gente con incapacidades con las camionetas con equipo para minusválidos y en libres a niveles actuales.

BALOTA OFICIAL

PROPOSICIÓN NO. 411 TÍTULO OFICIAL: Una medida referida a la gente por el Concejo Municipal de la Ciudad de Flagstaff en relación con la continuación de una Exacción de un Impuesto Sobre las Ventas de Tránsito para transportación pública. TÍTULO DESCRIPTIVO: Consideración de la exacción de un Impuesto de Privilegio de Transacción a una tasa del 0.295% ($0.00295) por un período de tiempo comenzando el 1 de julio de 2020 hasta el 30 de junio de 2030, con los propósitos de adquirir, construir, mejorar, operar, y mantener equipo e instalaciones para un sistema de tránsito público dentro de la Ciudad de Flagstaff. Un voto de “sí” tendrá el efecto de aprobar una continuación de un Impuesto Sobre las Ventas de Tránsito hasta el 30 de junio de 2030 a la tasa existente de 0.295%.

SÍ

Un voto de “no” tendrá el efecto de no aprobar una exacción y permitir que el Impuesto Sobre las Ventas de Tránsito existente se venza el 1 de julio de 2020.

NO

51

COMO APARECERÁ EN LA BALOTA OPOSITION NO. 41

PROPOSICIÓN NO. 411 Una medida referida a la gente por el Concejo Municipal de Flagstaff en relación con la continuación de una Exacción de un Impuesto Sobre las Ventas de Tránsito para transportación pública. Un voto de “sí” tendrá el efecto de aprobar una continuación de un Impuesto Sobre las Ventas de Tránsito hasta el 30 de junio de 2030 a la tasa existente de 0.295%. Un voto de “no” tendrá el efecto de no aprobar una exacción y permitir que el Impuesto Sobre las Ventas de Tránsito existente se venza el 1 de julio de 2020.

SÍ NO

ARGUMENTOS A FAVOR LA PROPOSICION 411

Nosotros urgimos un voto de SÍ por la Proposición 411, que va a renovar por diez años nuestro impuesto de tránsito existente a una tasa de .295% para que la Autoridad de Transportación Publica Intergubernamental de Northern Arizona (NAIPTA), operador de nuestro sistema de tránsito reconocido nacionalmente de la región de Flagstaff, pueda continuar proveyendo los críticos servicios regionales de tránsito. Por los últimos 15 años pasados NAIPTA ha estado aumentado el sistema por aplaciéndolos dólares, asociaciones de construcción, y desarrollando fuertes relaciones con agencias de financiamiento. Los pasajeros han aumentado de 200,00 en 2001 a 1.9 millones en 2015. El costo por pasajero para operar el sistema se ha reducido de $6.28 en 2001 a $2.54 en 2015. Nosotros bien sabemos que uno de los más grandes desafíos enfrentando Flagstaff es el aumento de la congestión de tráfico, especialmente en los corredores como Milton Road. Mientras que no existe una sola solución del problema, nosotros sabemos que un sistema de tránsito público robusto es críticamente importante en proveer alternativas de tráfico vehicular de una sola ocupación. No nos podemos imaginar cuanto peor fuera el problema de tráfico si los pasajeros de Mountain Line y si Mountain Line se les forzará conducir sus autos en Milton y por el centro del pueblo. Y no podemos imaginarnos que les pasará a los pasajeros que dependen del Mountain Line/Mountain Link para ir al trabajo y llevar a cabo otras actividades a diario debido a que no tienen un auto o no saben manejar. La construcción para resolver la congestión no es la solución, En lugar, podemos adoptar un enfoque del sistema de planificación de transportación de largo plazo, que emplea una variedad de estrategias, incluyendo tránsito público, para llevarnos a donde deseamos ir. Al votar SÍ por la Proposición 411, los votantes de Flagstaff de nuevo afirmaran que nuestro sistema de autobuses, con admirable record de éxito, es un elemento vital de la infraestructura de transportación. Cecilia Barotz Junta Directiva de NAIPTA Vice-Alcalde, Ciudad de Flagstaff (Las opiniones de Ms. Barotz son solamente suyas.)

Los argumentos “a favor” y “en contra” se reprodujeron exactamente como sometidos y no se revisaron para ortografía, gramática, o puntuación. Estos argumentos representan las opiniones e los autores y no se han revisado por exactitud de contenido.

52

Art Babbott Presidente de la Junta Directiva de NAIPTA Supervisor del Condado Coconino, Distrito 1 ----- Para Nuestros Co Ciudadanos El Economic Collaborative of Northern (ECoNA) urge un voto de SÍ por la Proposición 411 – Impuesto de Tránsito. Como la organización regional de desarrollo económico nosotros nos reunamos con empleadores que regularmente comparten con nosotros lo importante de la transportación pública en manteniendo una planta laboral constante. Desde su inicio la Autoridad de Transportación Publica Intergubernamental de Northern Arizona (NAIPTA) ha demostrado su compromiso a servicio de calidad y record impresionante de éxitos por participando directamente en comprendiendo las necesidades de nuestra comunidad. Este compromiso ha guiado a NAIPTA a ser reconocido nacionalmente como una organización destacada de transportación pública. Un voto de SÍ continuara este servicio sobresaliente y ayudará en reducir la congestión de nuestra comunidad, especialmente a lo largo de Milton Road. El Mountain Line/Mountain Link son integral en llevando a muchos trabajadores a su lugar de empleo cada día. La falta de este sistema de transportación importante iba a añadirle más a la congestión de autos y forzarle a algunas personas o perder empleo o procurar oportunidades menores. Al apoyar esta iniciativa uno va a apoyar un sistema de tránsito probado que le ayuda a nuestra planta laboral y proveye una alternativa a tráfico vehicular. Les urgimos que voten SÍ por la Proposición 411. John Stigman Presidente y CEO Richard Bowen Miembro de la Junta ECoNA ----- Amigos del Futuro de Flagstaff le urge votar sí por la Proposición 411. Amigos del Futuro de Flagstaff abogan por un Flagstaff ambientalmente sostenible, socialmente justo, y próspero económicamente. El tránsito público accesible y eficaz es un componente clave de todos estas metas. Nuestros servicios de autobuses locales, incluyendo el Mountain Line, Mountain Lift, les permite a los residentes locales reducir su uso de automóviles personales y de viajar más eficazmente aunque no sean dueños de un auto. Un voto de sí por la Proposición 411asegura financiamiento para estos servicios de autobuses hasta 2030 por continuando un impuesto sobre las ventas existente del .295%, que se fija a vencerse en 2020. Sin esta fuente de financiamiento, el futuro de los servicios de autobuses de Mountain Line se perjudicará seriamente. Nuestra comunidad ha llegado a depender de este excelente servicio para poder proveer transportación eficaz y asequible y que facilita la congestión. El tránsito público de Flagstaff provee beneficios para muchas poblaciones diversas – residentes permanentes, estudiantes, y turistas que todos viajan por autobús. Nosotros creemos que nuestros servicios de autobús locales bien valen el dinero de los dólares de los contribuyentes de impuestos invertidos en esos y le urgimos votar sí por la Proposición 411. Tory Syracuse David McCain Director Ejecutivo Presidente de la Junta Directiva

53

Nosotros apoyamos la Proposición 411 de la Ciudad. Mountain Line primero comenzó en el Condado Coconino como el Tránsito de Autobús Condado Pine. Sobre los años pasados nosotros hemos trabajado con la Ciudad para desarrollar un sistema de tránsito pequeño de la ciudad que continua creciendo y que sirve una amplia diversidad de nuestra población. Con más de un millón de pasajeros por año y creciendo, el tránsito público es una crítica parte de un sistema de transportación más amplio que ayuda proveer alivio de la congestión, opciones alternativas, y medios de viajando a áreas sin estacionamiento.

Mountain Line no solamente sirve a nuestras de personas edad avanzada y niños escolares, conecta la Universidad al pueblo, y les ayuda a nuestros residentes de ingresos fijos. Mountain Line se ha convertido en una máquina económica conectando a la gente con centros comerciales, y enlazando personas de recreo con senderos.

El sistema de autobuses públicos de NAIPTA ha cumplido cada promesa que hizo desde solicitando de los votantes su apoyo en aprobando la iniciativa de la balota. Las promesas que se hicieron en relación con la frecuencia aumentada, un conector a NAU, autobuses hybrid eléctricos, y rutas adicionales se cumplieron. Promesas que se hicieron, promesas que se cumplieron es en lo que uno puede depender. Mountain Line es prospero, pero necesita su apoyo para continuar siéndolo.

Mountain Line es una inversión sólida de una pequeña parte de 1 centavo. Por favor únase con nosotros en apoyando nuestro sistema de tránsito público por votando SÍ por la Proposición 411.

Liz Archuleta, Supervisora del Condado Coconino, Distrito 2 Matt Ryan, Supervisor del Condado Coconino, Distrito 3

ARGUMENTOS EN CONTRA LA PROPOSICIÓN NO. 411

Ningunos sometidos


Cuestión de Bonos de las Instalaciones de la Corte Municipal

1. ¿Qué es el propósito de esta elección de bonos?

Se presenta una cuestión para su consideración (la “Cuestión”). Las obligaciones que son el tema dela cuestión (los “Bonos”) van a proveer financiamiento para un proyecto del programa demejoramientos de capital de largo plazo. (La Cuestión también satisface un requisito de la Constituciónbasado en el tipo de proyecto a pagarse.) Se les alienta a todos los votantes residentes de la Ciudadde Flagstaff (la” Ciudad”) emitir sus balotas en la Elección General de la Ciudad y la Elección Especialde Autorización de Bonos que se celebrará en martes, 8 de noviembre de 2016. (la “Elección”).

2. ¿Qué va a realizar este programa de bonos?

Si la cuestión se aprueba, la Ciudad podrá producir $12,000,0000 para ayudar proveer lo siguiente (el“Proyecto”):

54

• Instalaciones de salas de la corte adecuadas, instalaciones de acción criminal, transporte de prisioneros y áreas de detención, circulación separada y movimiento del público, jurado, prisioneros y personal de la corte, personal de acción criminal, espacio para todos los eventos de la corte, también como personal, jurado y el público; y

• Suficiente estacionamiento para todo lo de arriba que se puede usar para aumentar la capacidad disponible de estacionamiento público en el centro del pueblo de Flagstaff.

3. ¿Por qué es necesaria un instalación de la Corte Municipal?

La instalación actual generalmente reconocida como poco más pequeña para el público, prisioneros, acusados, jueces, acción criminal y personal (vea la cuestión 8). Existen numerosas preocupaciones de seguridad, seguridad de salud, y estructural en la instalación actual además del estacionamiento inadecuado. El Proyecto iba a resolver una operación de operación baja y abrir estacionamiento adicional que se podría desarrollar de nuevo.

4. ¿Por qué va a pedir dinero prestado la Ciudad para financiar parte del Proyecto?

La ciudad puede pedir prestado una cantidad que no exceda $12 millones para permitir a la Ciudad diseñar y construir el Proyecto hoy. Se anticipa que los costos de construcción siguen aumentando y lo más que el Proyecto se posponga, los más costosos que serán.

5. ¿Cómo trabajan los bonos?

Si los votantes aprueban los Bonos, los Bonos se venderán sobre los aproximadamente 2 años siguientes. Si aprobados, los Bonos se emitirán cuando los fondos sean necesarios, pero no podrán exceder la cantidad aprobada por los votantes. El dinero de los Bonos solamente se puede usar para los propósitos especificados en la Cuestión

Los propietarios actuales y venideros de la Ciudad reembolsan los Bonos, con interés, sobre un período de tiempo – usualmente de diez a veinticinco años – de la misma manera que dueños de casa pagan por una hipoteca de casa. Los Bonos que prometen ingresos del impuesto sobre la propiedad de la Ciudad como la fuente de su reembolso requieren un voto. La cantidad de los Bonos de este tipo que la Ciudad puede vender se limita a base de un por ciento de la valuación neta tasada al valor de la propiedad dentro de la Ciudad.

6. ¿Es qué los Bonos pagarán por el costo completo de la instalación de la Corte Municipal?

No. Los Bonos pagarán $12 millones de la suma de $21.5 millones que es la parte de la Ciudad del costo del proyecto. El resto del financiamiento de la Ciudad se ha identificado como produciéndose de varias fuentes incluyendo la venta del edifico de la corte municipal, honorarios de la corte, incluyendo algunos saldos de caja, y otras fuentes de la Ciudad.

7. ¿Qué es un impuesto primario y un impuesto secundario?

Los ingresos del impuesto primario ayudan pagar por los presupuestos de mantenimiento y operación de los gobiernos del estado y locales (incluyendo la Ciudad). Los impuestos secundarios sobre la propiedad pagan por tales cosas como cuestiones de bonos (incluyendo los Bonos), anulaciones del presupuesto y distritos especiales. Ambos se gravan contra la valuación neta tasada limitada de la propiedad.

8. ¿Qué proceso uso la Ciudad para elegir los Proyectos?

En 2010, el Alcalde y el Concejo Municipal nombraron un Grupo de Trabajo Asesor de Bonos de ciudadanos de 15 miembros (el “BATF”) que representó una sección representativa de la comunidad. El BATF revisó los proyectos de capital de mejoramientos que el personal de la Ciudad presentó y estudios de espacio proveídos por expertos en el campo de necesidades de espacio del edifico del

55

tribunal y construcción también como las recomendaciones presentadas por las juntas y comisiones de ciudadanos de la Ciudad, quienes también revisaron proyectos apropiados a eso. La Ciudad también comisó una encuesta de la comunidad y grupos de enfoque, y numerosas reuniones de puerta abierta y reuniones se celebraron para recibir información sobre varios proyectos antes de que BATF hiciera una recomendación tocante la lista de proyecto de bonos al Concejo Municipal.

A base de esta información, el Concejo Municipal colocó una cuestión de bonos en la balota de la

elección general de noviembre de 2010 en una cantidad de $23,000.000 para el Proyecto. Se rechazó.

La necesidad de este Proyecto continúa aunque, soluciones alternativas para satisfacer esta necesidad desde entonces se han desarrollado. A través del desarrollo de fuentes alternativas de financiamiento, asociaciones unidas con otras entidades gubernamentales y consideraciones adicionales de diseño, el Concejo Municipal propone el Proyecto de la Elección a un costo más bajo que solicitado anteriormente.

9. ¿Qué es el costo total de la Ciudad del Proyecto? El compromiso de la Ciudad del Proyecto se calcula ser $21.5 millones? 10. ¿Quiénes son los socios propuestos del proyecto?

La Ciudad ha estado trabajando con el Condado Coconino y varios departamentos de cada entidad, para establecer una instalación propuesta conjuntamente que alojará la Corte Municipal de Flagstaff, la Corte de Justicia de Flagstaff y la división de Acción Criminal de la Oficina del Procurador Municipal de Flagstaff. La Oficina del Sheriff del Condado Coconino y el Departamento de Policías de Flagstaff también se han involucrado en desarrollando la idea particularmente en relación con el transporte y detención de prisioneros.

11. ¿Cuánto estacionamiento adicional se ve a proveer en la área del centro del pueblo?

La propuesta actual solicita una mínima cantidad de 200 espacios de estacionamiento adicionales de una estructura propuesta.

12. ¿Dónde se va a localizar el Proyecto?

La propuesta es de localizar el Proyecto en el sitio de la cárcel vieja del centro del pueblo de Flagstaff. La localización sería adyacente a la cárcel histórica y el edificio del tribunal histórico, ambos de cuales se iban a conservar en el proceso de construir el Proyecto. La dirección del Proyecto es 211 N. Agassiz St.

56

CIERTA INFORMACIÓN REQUERIDA Si los votantes aprueban la Cuestión, la Ciudad espera vender los Bonos sobre los siguientes dos años. El Calculado costo de emisión relacionado con cada emisión de bonos es aproximadamente $160,000. La tasa de interés que llevarán los Bonos será determinada por las condiciones de mercado que existen al momento de la venta, pero en ningún caso la tasa de interés máxima de los Bonos iba a exceder el diez por ciento (10%) por año. El reembolso de ambos el principal e interés de los Bonos iba a ocurrir sobre un período de tiempo que no exceda veinticinco (25) años de la fecha de emisión de cada serie de Bonos. Calculado Costo de la Emisión de Bonos de Obligación General a los Contribuyentes de Impuestos Los Bonos se reembolsarán con impuestos sobre la propiedad impuestos sobre toda la propiedad sujeta a impuestos dentro de la Ciudad. Sobre el tiempo la implementación del Proyecto iba a tener un efecto de permitir concejos venideros determinar la programación de eso en que la tasa secundaria de impuestos no aumente para financiar el Proyecto. Actualmente la Ciudad forma los requisitos del servicio de deuda anual sobre el impuesto sobre la propiedad como para que la tasa de impuestos secundarios sea menos que o igual que el $0.8366 por $100 de valuación neta tasada limitada de la propiedad. La tasa secundaria de impuestos actual es $0.8366 por $100 de la valuación neta tasada limitado de la propiedad. El documento de prueba de la página 59 enumera los compromisos existentes de servicio de deuda de los impuestos sobre la propiedad de bonos de la Ciudad y el programa del calculado retiro de la deuda si los Bonos se emiten. La emisión de los Bonos se proyecta a no tener un impacto en la tasa de impuestos actual de $0.8366 por $100 de la valuación neta tasada limitada de la propiedad por usando las reservas acumuladas de recaudaciones pasadas de impuestos secundarios sobre la propiedad como se indica en dicho documento de prueba. La tasa secundaria de impuestos sobre la propiedad ha permanecido constante sobre los últimos años pasados. Sin embargo, la tasa secundaria de impuestos de la propiedad, los cambios sobre el tiempo podrán tener un impacto en la tasa de impuestos. El impacto durante el término de los bonos de propiedad a un dueño que vive en la casa con un valor del asesor del condado de $250,000 se calcula a ser $30 por año por 19 años, o un costo total de $570. El impacto en los impuestos sobre el término de los bonos de propiedad comercial con un valor del asesor del condado de $1,000,000 se calcula a ser $212 por año por 19 años, o un costo total de $4,066. El impacto en los impuestos sobre el término de los bonos de propiedad agrícola u otra propiedad vacante con un valor del asesor del condado de $100,000 se calcula a ser $18 por año por 19 años, o un costo total de $342. El valor del asesor para propósitos de impuestos es el valor de la propiedad como aparece en una cuenta de impuestos y no representa necesariamente el valor de mercado. Los impactos en los impuestos se basan en el promedio anual de la tasa de impuestos proyectada sobre la vida de las cuestiones de bonos y un número de otras asunciones financieras sujetas a cambiar. Los impactos en los impuestos asumen aumentos anuales de la valuación neta tasada a lo menos del cinco por ciento o cincuenta por ciento del total del aumento proyectado de la valuación neta tasada como se muestra en el programa de servicio de deuda proyectado. El calculado promedio de la valuación neta tasada de propiedades en las cuales vive el dueño, comercial e industriales, o propiedades agrícolas o vacante, como aplicable, dentro de la jurisdicción proporcionado por el Departamento de Ingresos de Arizona. Calculado Total del Costo: Si los Bonos se autorizan y se emiten, la Ciudad calcula que el total del costo de los Bonos, incluyendo el principal e interés sería $17,733,038. La cantidad se basa en las asunciones proveídas en el documento de prueba de la página 59.

57

Limitaciones de Deuda La Constitución de Arizona limita la deuda de bonos asegurados por impuestos sobre la propiedad pendiente de las ciudades y de los pueblos. Para agua, alcantarillado, luces, parques, preservas de espacio abierto, jardines de recreo, e instalaciones de recreo combinadas, la deuda de bonos pendiente no puede exceder el 20% de la valuación neta tasada del valor total. Además de la limitación del 20%, para todos otros propósitos la deuda de bonos pendiente no puede exceder el 6% de la valuación neta tasada del valor total. La capacidad de préstamo sin usar del 20% y el 6% de limitaciones de deuda se muestran abajo a base del año fiscal de la valuación tasada de 2016/17.

Agua, Luces, Alcantarillado, Espacio Abierto y Parques

Todos otros Bonos de Obligación General

Limitación Constitucional del 20% $151,716,350 Obligación General Directa Neta

Limitación Constitucional del 6% $45,514,905 Obligación General Directa Neta

Bonos Pendientes (55,788,353) Bonos Pendientes (0)

Reducción de la Prima Original Emitida (2,095,000) (a) Reducción de la Prima Original Emitida (0)

Limitación de la Capacidad de Préstamo del 20% Sin Usar $93,832,997

Limitación de la Capacidad de Préstamo del 6% Sin Usar $45,514,905

(a) Esta cantidad reduce en cantidades iguales a la capacidad de préstamo de la Ciudad bajo los estatutos del Estado y la Constitución de Arizona y la cantidad principal autorizada en la elección de la Ciudad de cual los bonos se vendieron a base de cambios de la ley. La cantidad es la prima neta emitida originalmente con respecto a los bonos vendidos menos las cantidades de prima que se usaron para pagar por ciertos costos de la emisión de, e interés sobre, los bonos que se vendieron.

Provisiones en General

• Además de los costos del Proyecto, las ganancias de los bonos se pueden usar para pagar por el seguro de los bonos u otro apoyo de crédito de los Bonos, todos los costos legales, de contabilidad, financieros, arquitecturales, de diseño, ingeniería y administración de construcción, y todos otros costos incurridos en relación con la emisión de los Bonos y los propósitos que se exponen en la Cuestión.

• Los se emitirán para el Proyecto por la cantidad actual del proyecto cuando los fondos se necesiten para implementar ese Proyecto. La cantidad total no puede exceder la cantidad autorizada por los votantes para el Proyecto.

• Los Bonos se pueden emitir en una o más series. • Las tasas de interés e los Bonos no deberán exceder el diez por ciento (10%) por año. • Los Bonos se vencerán sobre un período que no exceda veinticinco (25) años de la fecha de su

emisión. • La cantidad de los Bonos representa calculados dólares de inflación al momento de la emisión de los

bonos. • El precio que se pagará para la adquisición de cualquier propiedad sería a la discreción del Alcalde y

Concejo Municipal. • Los períodos de tiempo para el comienzo y término del Proyecto son aproximados y muestran como el

Proyecto se podría implementar sobre el tiempo si los Bonos se aprueban. Los períodos de tiempo actuales dependerán de muchos factores tal como disponibilidad de terreno y negaciones de adquisición, procesos de permiso ambientales, re-localizaciones de servicios públicos, tiempo, diseño y construcción plazo de entrega y otros factores.

58

CIUD

AD D

E FL

AGST

AFF,

ARI

ZONA

Requ

isito

s del

Calcu

lado

Serv

icio

de D

euda

y el

Impa

cto

Proy

ecta

do en

la T

asa S

ecun

daria

de I

mpu

esto

sRat

e*

Valor

Neto

Tasa

doLim

itado

Proy

ectad

o (a)

Bono

s Act

ualm

ente

Pen

dien

tes(

b)Bo

nos A

utor

izado

s Per

o S

in E

miti

rBo

nos d

e Obl

igac

ión

Gene

ral a

Em

itirs

ePr

oyec

tado

Com

bina

do

Calcu

lada

Tasa

deIm

pues

tos

Calcu

lado

Servi

ciode

Deu

daCa

lculad

a Tas

ade

Impu

estos

Calcu

lada

Tasa

deIm

pues

tosTa

saIm

pues

tosAñ

oFis

cal

Calcu

lado

Inter

és (c

)Pr

incipa

lInt

erés

Comb

inado

Princ

ipal

Comb

inado

Comb

inado

2016

/17$7

02,76

7,941

$5

,501,1

64

$1,91

3,695

$7

,414,8

59

$0.84

(d)

$7,37

4,268

$0

.84 (

d)20

17/18

714,5

04,16

6 5,4

85,91

2 1,8

21,88

8 7,3

07,80

0 0.8

4 (d

)7,2

69,37

5 0.8

4 (d

)20

18/19

726,4

36,38

5 5,6

10,89

4 1,6

46,01

9 7,2

56,91

2 0.8

4 (d

)$6

79,00

0 $0

.09

$420

,000

$510

,000

$930

,000

$0.13

8,8

29,72

1 0.8

4 (d

)20

19/20

738,5

67,87

3 5,6

06,11

5 1,4

53,99

7 7,0

60,11

2 0.8

4 (d

)68

6,038

0

.09

440,0

00

492,1

50

932,1

50

0.13

8,644

,410

0.84

(d)

2020

/2175

0,901

,956

4,306

,582

1,247

,455

5,554

,037

0.84

(d)

687,2

25

0.09

46

0,000

47

3,450

93

3,450

0.1

2 7,1

43,19

7 0.8

4 (d

)20

21/22

763,4

42,01

9 4,0

45,00

0 1,0

80,08

8 5,1

25,08

8 0.8

4 (d

)68

2,775

0

.09

480,0

00

453,9

00

933,9

00

0.12

6,712

,695

0.84

(d)

2022

/2376

5,991

,915

3,505

,000

918,2

88

4,423

,288

0.58

682,9

00

0.09

50

0,000

43

3,500

93

3,500

0.1

2 6,0

13,14

3 0.7

9 20

23/24

768,5

50,32

8 1,8

50,00

0 78

8,100

2,6

38,10

0

0.3

4 68

7,388

0

.09

520,0

00

412,2

50

932,2

50

0.12

4,233

,795

0.55

2024

/2577

1,117

,286

1,920

,000

717,2

50

2,637

,250

0.34

686,0

25

0.09

54

5,000

39

0,150

93

5,150

0.1

2 4,2

37,16

5 0.5

5 20

25/26

773,6

92,81

8 1,9

90,00

0 64

3,700

2,6

33,70

0

0.3

4 68

4,025

0

.09

565,0

00

366,9

88

931,9

88

0.12

4,231

,218

0.55

2026

/2777

6,276

,952

2,060

,000

571,3

25

2,631

,325

0.34

686,3

88

0.09

59

0,000

34

2,975

93

2,975

0.1

2 4,2

35,04

5 0.5

5 20

27/28

778,8

69,71

7 2,1

45,00

0 49

6,325

2,6

41,32

5

0.3

4 68

2,900

0

.09

615,0

00

317,9

00

932,9

00

0.12

4,244

,423

0.55

2028

/2978

1,471

,142

1,240

,000

418,2

00

1,658

,200

0.21

683,7

75

0.09

64

0,000

29

1,763

93

1,763

0.1

2 3,2

64,06

7 0.4

2 20

29/30

784,0

81,25

6 1,2

90,00

0 36

8,600

1,6

58,60

0

0.2

1 68

3,800

0

.09

670,0

00

264,5

63

934,5

63

0.12

3,270

,417

0.42

2030

/3178

6,700

,087

1,340

,000

317,0

00

1,657

,000

0.21

682,9

75

0.09

70

0,000

23

6,088

93

6,088

0.1

2 3,2

72,74

0 0.4

2 20

31/32

789,3

27,66

5 1,3

95,00

0 26

3,400

1,6

58,40

0

0.2

1 68

6,300

0

.09

725,0

00

206,3

38

931,3

38

0.12

3,276

,038

0.42

2032

/3379

1,964

,020

1,455

,000

207,6

00

1,662

,600

0.21

683,5

63

0.09

76

0,000

17

5,525

93

5,525

0.1

2 3,2

81,68

8 0.4

1 20

33/34

794,6

09,18

0 1,5

10,00

0 14

9,400

1,6

59,40

0

0.2

1 68

4,975

0

.09

790,0

00

143,2

25

933,2

25

0.12

3,277

,600

0.41

2034

/3579

7,263

,174

1,090

,000

89,00

0 1,1

79,00

0

0.1

5 68

5,325

0

.09

825,0

00

109,6

50

934,6

50

0.12

2,798

,975

0.35

2035

/3679

9,926

,033

1,135

,000

45,40

0 1,1

80,40

0

0.1

5 68

4,613

0

.09

860,0

00

74,58

8 93

4,588

0.1

2 2,7

99,60

0 0.3

5 20

36/37

802,5

97,78

6 68

2,838

0.0

9 89

5,000

38

,038

933,0

38

0.12

1,615

,875

0.20

$54,4

80,66

6 $6

9,637

,395

$13,0

02,82

5 $1

2,000

,000

$17,7

33,03

8

Prom

edio

Pro

yect

ado

de la

Tas

a de I

mpu

esto

s Adi

ciona

l Por

$100

del

Valo

r Tas

ado:

$0

.1204

*Añ

o Fisc

al201

6/17 e

s actu

al. La

s tas

as de

impu

estos

se de

calar

an po

r $10

0 del

valor

tasa

do y

exclu

ye ga

nanc

ias, r

ebaja

s y aj

ustes

delin

cuen

tes. L

a tas

a de i

mpue

stos d

e la P

olític

a de l

a Ciud

ad se

basa

sobr

e el u

sode

fond

os de

rese

rva.

(a)

Asum

e un c

ambio

del v

alor t

asad

o anu

al de

crec

imien

to de

l 1.67

% pa

ra lo

s año

s fisc

ales 2

017/1

8 has

ta e i

ncluy

endo

2021

/22 as

ume (

basa

do en

el cr

ecim

iento

histór

ico de

un pr

omed

io de

10 añ

os de

la va

luació

n neta

tasad

a par

a imp

uesto

s sec

unda

rios d

e pro

pieda

d). A

ños s

ubse

cuen

tes as

umen

crec

imien

to de

l 0.33

%(b

) Ne

to de

l ser

vicio

de de

uda s

obre

la pa

rte de

la de

uda d

e Obli

gació

n Gen

eral

de la

Ciud

ad ($

1.3 m

illone

s) qu

e la C

iudad

paga

de lo

s ing

reso

s de s

u sist

ema d

e agu

a y al

canta

rillad

o. (c)

As

ume u

na ve

nta de

bono

s con

un pr

omed

io de

la ta

sa de

inter

és an

ual d

el 4.2

5%. V

ea "C

ierta

Infor

mació

n Req

uerid

a - C

alcula

do C

osto

de la

Cue

stión

de B

onos

de O

bliga

ción G

ener

al a l

os C

ontrib

uyen

tes de

Impu

esto.

"(d

) As

ume e

l uso

de la

s res

erva

s acu

mulad

as de

reca

udac

iones

pasa

das d

e imp

uesto

s sec

unda

rios s

obre

la pr

opied

ad a

la tas

a red

ucida

a $0

.8366

.

CIUDAD DE FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONARequisitos del Calculado Servicio de Deuda y el Impacto Proyectado en la Tasa Secundaria de ImpuestosRate*

Valor NetoTasadoLimitado

Proyectado (a)

Bonos Actualmente Pendientes(b) Bonos Autorizados Pero Sin Emitir Bonos de Obligación General a Emitirse Proyectado Combinado

CalculadaTasa de

Impuestos

CalculadoServicio

de DeudaCalculada Tasade Impuestos

CalculadaTasa de

ImpuestosTasa

ImpuestosAño

FiscalCalculadoInterés (c)Principal Interés Combinado Principal Combinado Combinado

2016/17 $702,767,941 $5,501,164 $1,913,695 $7,414,859 $0.84 (d) $7,374,268 $0.84 (d)2017/18 714,504,166 5,485,912 1,821,888 7,307,800 0.84 (d) 7,269,375 0.84 (d)2018/19 726,436,385 5,610,894 1,646,019 7,256,912 0.84 (d) $679,000 $0.09 $420,000 $510,000 $930,000 $0.13 8,829,721 0.84 (d)2019/20 738,567,873 5,606,115 1,453,997 7,060,112 0.84 (d) 686,038 0.09 440,000 492,150 932,150 0.13 8,644,410 0.84 (d)2020/21 750,901,956 4,306,582 1,247,455 5,554,037 0.84 (d) 687,225 0.09 460,000 473,450 933,450 0.12 7,143,197 0.84 (d)2021/22 763,442,019 4,045,000 1,080,088 5,125,088 0.84 (d) 682,775 0.09 480,000 453,900 933,900 0.12 6,712,695 0.84 (d)2022/23 765,991,915 3,505,000 918,288 4,423,288 0.58 682,900 0.09 500,000 433,500 933,500 0.12 6,013,143 0.79 2023/24 768,550,328 1,850,000 788,100 2,638,100 0.34 687,388 0.09 520,000 412,250 932,250 0.12 4,233,795 0.55 2024/25 771,117,286 1,920,000 717,250 2,637,250 0.34 686,025 0.09 545,000 390,150 935,150 0.12 4,237,165 0.55 2025/26 773,692,818 1,990,000 643,700 2,633,700 0.34 684,025 0.09 565,000 366,988 931,988 0.12 4,231,218 0.55 2026/27 776,276,952 2,060,000 571,325 2,631,325 0.34 686,388 0.09 590,000 342,975 932,975 0.12 4,235,045 0.55 2027/28 778,869,717 2,145,000 496,325 2,641,325 0.34 682,900 0.09 615,000 317,900 932,900 0.12 4,244,423 0.55 2028/29 781,471,142 1,240,000 418,200 1,658,200 0.21 683,775 0.09 640,000 291,763 931,763 0.12 3,264,067 0.42 2029/30 784,081,256 1,290,000 368,600 1,658,600 0.21 683,800 0.09 670,000 264,563 934,563 0.12 3,270,417 0.42 2030/31 786,700,087 1,340,000 317,000 1,657,000 0.21 682,975 0.09 700,000 236,088 936,088 0.12 3,272,740 0.42 2031/32 789,327,665 1,395,000 263,400 1,658,400 0.21 686,300 0.09 725,000 206,338 931,338 0.12 3,276,038 0.42 2032/33 791,964,020 1,455,000 207,600 1,662,600 0.21 683,563 0.09 760,000 175,525 935,525 0.12 3,281,688 0.41 2033/34 794,609,180 1,510,000 149,400 1,659,400 0.21 684,975 0.09 790,000 143,225 933,225 0.12 3,277,600 0.41 2034/35 797,263,174 1,090,000 89,000 1,179,000 0.15 685,325 0.09 825,000 109,650 934,650 0.12 2,798,975 0.35 2035/36 799,926,033 1,135,000 45,400 1,180,400 0.15 684,613 0.09 860,000 74,588 934,588 0.12 2,799,600 0.35 2036/37 802,597,786 682,838 0.09 895,000 38,038 933,038 0.12 1,615,875 0.20

$54,480,666 $69,637,395 $13,002,825 $12,000,000 $17,733,038

Promedio Proyectado de la Tasa de Impuestos Adicional Por $100 del Valor Tasado: $0.1204

* Año Fiscal2016/17 es actual. Las tasas de impuestos se de calaran por $100 del valor tasado y excluye ganancias, rebajas y ajustes delincuentes. La tasa de impuestos de la Política de la Ciudad se basa sobre el usode fondos de reserva.

(a) Asume un cambio del valor tasado anual de crecimiento del 1.67% para los años fiscales 2017/18 hasta e incluyendo 2021/22 asume (basado en el crecimiento histórico de un promedio de 10 años de la valuación netatasada para impuestos secundarios de propiedad). Años subsecuentes asumen crecimiento del 0.33%

(b) Neto del servicio de deuda sobre la parte de la deuda de Obligación General de la Ciudad ($1.3 millones) que la Ciudad paga de los ingresos de su sistema de agua y alcantarillado. (c) Asume una venta de bonos con un promedio de la tasa de interés anual del 4.25%. Vea "Cierta Información Requerida - Calculado Costo de la Cuestión de Bonos de Obligación General a los Contribuyentes de

Impuesto."(d) Asume el uso de las reservas acumuladas de recaudaciones pasadas de impuestos secundarios sobre la propiedad a la tasa reducida a $0.8366.

59

BALOTA OFICIAL

PROPOSICÓN NO. 412

Propósito: Bonos para las Instalaciones de la Corte Municipal Cantidad: $12,000,000

TÍTULO OFICIAL: Una medida referida a la gente por el Concejo Municipal de Flagstaff en relación con la emisión de bonos en una cantidad principal de $12,000,000 para diseñar y construir instalaciones de la corte municipal.

TÍTULO DESCRIPTIVO: Consideración de la venta y emisión de bonos para proveer instalaciones de salas de la corte adecuadas, instalaciones de acción criminal, transporte de prisioneros y áreas de detención, circulación separada y movimiento del público, jurado, prisioneros y personal de la corte, personal de acción criminal, espacio para todos los eventos de la corte, también como personal, jurado y el público y suficiente estacionamiento para todo lo de arriba, se le deberá autorizar a la Ciudad de Flagstaff a vender y emitir bonos de obligación general en una cantidad principal de hasta $12,000,000 y gastar los fondos de eso:

• para el propósito de diseñar y construir instalaciones nuevas para la corte municipal y para pagar por loscostos necesarios y relacionados;

• para el propósito de diseñar y construir un garaje de estacionamiento o estructura parecida para fomentarambos la corte municipal y disponibilidad de estacionamiento público y para pagar por los costosnecesarios y relacionados;

• para apagar por todos los costos y gastos propiamente incidentales a eso y a la emisión de los bonos?

Los bonos se pueden emitir en una más series, no se vencerán más de 25 años de la fecha o fechas de su emisión, llevarán interés a una tasa o tasas que no excedan el 10% por año, y llevarán dichas otras provisiones como aprobado por el Concejo Municipal. La siguiente frase se ha incluido en esta balota como ordenan los Estatutos Revisados de Arizona 35-454(C): La emisión de estos bonos resultará en un aumento de impuestos sobre la propiedad de suficiencia para pagar por la deuda de servicio anual de los bonos.

Un voto de “SÍ” deberá autorizar al Concejo Municipal a emitir y vender bonos de obligación general en una cantidad de hasta $12,000,000 a ser reembolsados con impuestos secundarios sobre la propiedad para diseñar y construir instalaciones de la corte municipal.

APROBACIÓN DE LOS BONOS,

SÍ

Un voto de “NO” no deberá autorizar al Concejo Municipal a emitir y vender bonos de obligación general de hasta $12,000,000 a ser reembolsados con impuestos secundarios sobre la propiedad para diseñar y construir instalaciones de la corte municipal.

APROBACIÓN DE LOS BONOS,

NO

COMO APARECERÁ EN LA BALOTAPR OPOSITION NO. 41

PROPOSICÓN NO. 412

Una medida referida a la gente por el Concejo Municipal de Flagstaff en relación con la emisión de bonos en una cantidad principal de $12,000,000 para diseñar y construir instalaciones de la corte municipal.

Un voto de SÍ deberá autorizar al Conejo Municipal a emitir y vender bonos de obligación general en una cantidad de hasta $12,000,000 a ser reembolsados con impuestos secundarios sobre la propiedad para diseñar y construir instalaciones de la corte municipal.

Un voto de NO no deberá autorizar al Concejo Municipal a emitir bonos de obligación general de hasta $12,000,000 a ser reembolsados con impuestos secundarios sobre la propiedad para diseñar y construir instalaciones de la corte municipal.

APROBACIÓN DE LOS BONOS, SÍ

APROBACIÓN DE LOS BONOS, NO

60

ARGUMENTOS A FAVOR LA PROPOSICIÓN NO. 412

Mi nombre es Jeff Coker y, además de siendo casi un residente de toda al vida de Flagstaff, yo he trabajado como un abogado y Juez de la Corte Superior en nuestro sistema legal local por los últimos 35+ años. Me nace dirigirme a la elección de bonos pendiente, específicamente la Proposición 412, que autoriza bonos para satisfacer la necesidad de una instalación nueva de la Corte Municipal. Los Ciudadanos de Flagstaff han sido grandes apoyadores de nuestro sistema de justicia criminal y civil y le pido que continúe ese apoyo de una instalación nueva de mucha necesidad para la Corte Municipal de Flagstaff. El edificio de la Corte Municipal actual es una ex tienda de muebles de ochenta años de vieja y se encuentra extremamente inadecuada para las necesidades de esta corte (que ha visto un aumento del 100% de actas de registro en los últimos 20 años pasados), y también tiene la tendencia de inundación estacional. La razón más urgente de apoyar un estructura nueva es la seguridad de los clientes y de los empleados del edificio de cortes actual. Cualquier persona que pasa por este edificio sabe que la seguridad es una pesadilla. MI hija trabajó en el sistema de la corte y me pregunto si deseará que trabajara en este edificio y la respuesta es una resonante no. La posibilidad de daño es simplemente muy grande. Además, como mucho del centro del pueblo de Flagstaff, el estacionamiento siempre es una cuestión. La propuesta incluye una estructura de estacionamiento profundamente necesaria. A nadie le nace ofrecer responsabilidad de impuestos, pero esta propuesta no suma a una cantidad en que el costo d la estructura se pagará por el vencimiento de otras tasaciones. Yo le aliento a todos los votantes que voten en la siguiente elección de bonos y que apoyen la Proposición 412, la autorización de bonos para un edificio de la Corte Municipal nuevo. H. Jeffrey Coker ----- Nosotros apoyamos la Proposición 412. Es otra oportunidad donde nosotros, el Condado podemos trabajar cooperativamente con la Ciudad de Flagstaff para eliminar inutilidad y reducir los costos. Esta proposición nos ayudará colocar las cortes municipales de la Ciudad en el mismo edificio como nuestras Cortes de Justicia de la Paz – que también necesita espacio adicional. Al tener ambas de estas cortes en el mismo edificio y adyacentes a las Cortes Superiores, se eliminará la confusión y será más fácil para que una persona pueda encontrar la corte apropiada donde se presenta su caso. Nosotros tenemos una historia de establecer contratos cooperativos con la Ciudad de Flagstaff y estas asociaciones innovadoras nos ayudan a tratar con las necesidades de nuestros ciudadanos mientras haciendo los servicios más amistosos y el gobierno más eficaz con los costos. Algunos ejemplos incluyen pero no se limitan a, planificación coordinada con nuestro plan regional, establecimiento de nuestro sistema de autobuses regionales Premiado Nacionalmente operado por NAIPTA, contratos de compras cooperativos, instalaciones unidas de ejecución de la ley – alojando ambas la Oficina del Sheriff y el Departamento de Policía de Flagstaff, y mucho más. Estos son unos cuantos de los ejemplos de donde hemos trabajado juntos para hacerlo un poco más fácil de usar los varios servicios, para eliminar medidas administrativas múltiples y reducir inutilidad, reduciendo los costos al contribuyente de impuestos. Le pedimos que vote Sí por la Proposición 412. Liz Archuleta, Supervisora del Condado Coconino, Distrito 2 Matt Ryan, Supervisora del Condado Coconino, Distrito 3 ARGUMENTOS EN CONTRA LA PROPOSICIÓN NO. 412 Ningunos sometidos


61


INICIATIVA - GREATER BUFFALO PARK

TEXTO COMPLETO DE LA PROPUESTA ORDENANZA

UNA ORDENANZA QUE APARTA, CONSERVA, Y DESIGNA APROXIMADAMENTE 253 ACRES DE BIENES INMUEBLES ESPECÍFICOS PROPIEDAD DE LA CIUDAD COMÚNMENTE CONOCIDO COMO “MCMILLAN MESA,” Y APROXIMADAMENTE 47 ACRES DE BIENES INMUEBLES ESPECÍFICAMENTE PROPIEDAD DE LA CIUDAD COLOCADO AL SUR DE LOS PARQUES BUFFALO Y MCPHERSON Y AL NORTE DE FOREST AVENUE AL ESTE, QUE SE USARAN COMO ESPACIO ABIERTO PARA PROPÓSITOS PASIVOS DE PARQUES Y PROVEYENDO POR EXCEPCIONES, DIVISIBILIDAD, AUTORIZACIÓN DE CORRECCIONES DE OFICINA

VISTO QUE, la adquisición, provisión y desarrollo de los parques, senderos, espacio abierto son metas que se exponen en el Capítulo V del Plan Regional d Flagstaff; y VISTO QUE, la preservación de bienes inmuebles como un parque pasivo se considera una forma de espacio abierto del Plan de la Región de Espacio Abierto y Greenway de Flagstaff; y VISTO QUE, espacio abierto para propósitos de parque realiza una contribución significante al bien estar de los ciudadanos de la Ciudad de Flagstaff; y VISTO QUE, la Ciudad mantiene un interés en fomentando la belleza y los elementos de recreo dentro de la comunidad, y espacio abierto para propósitos de parques pasivos contribuyen a esos esfuerzos; PROMULGACIÓN: AHORA, POR CONSIGUIENTE, RESUELVE LA GENTE DE LA CIUDAD DE FLAGSTAFF COMO LO QUE SIGUE: Sección 1: Dedicación. La parte de bienes inmuebles propiedad de la Ciudad de Flagstaff como descritos en el “Documento de Prueba A” adjunto (la “Propiedad”) e incorporada por esa referencia por la presente se aparta, conserva, y se designa como espacio abierto para propósitos de parques pasivos. Sección 2: Excepciones. El Concejo Municipal deberá tener, a su discreción, la opción de aceptar hasta diez (10) acres dentro de la Propiedad descrita en el Documento de Prueba A para permitir la construcción y operación sobre eso una instalación para servir a los veteranos, siempre que tiene una similitud razonable a una instalación y el uso contemplado por la Resolución No. 2015-16 del Concejo Municipal de Flagstaff. El resto de la propiedad no cubierta por esta exclusión deberá permanecer sujeta a las estipulaciones de esta Ordenanza. Sección 3: Usos Limitados y Mejoramientos. La Ciudad deberá usar la Propiedad descrita en el Documento de Prueba A de una manera consistente con la categoría “Neighborwoods” del Espacio Abierto como se resume en los 1998 Plan de la Región y Espacio abierto y Greenways de Flagstaff. Cualquier otro uso no consistente con los propósitos de esta Ordenanza y el intento de los votantes. Además, la Ciudad no deberá construir, no permitir la construcción de, cualesquier edificios nuevos, caminos, senderos de automóviles, u otros mejoramientos de la Propiedad excepto como necesario para el uso limitado permitido por la Sección 2.

62

Sección 4: Divisibilidad. Si cualquier sección, sub-sección, cláusula, frase, o cualquier de esta ordenanza o cualquier parte del código adoptado en esto por referencia se declaran ser inválidas o inconstitucional por cualquier corte de jurisdicción competente, dicha no deberá afectar la validez de las partes que permanecen de eso. Sección 5: Correcciones de Oficina. Por la presente se le autoriza a la Secretaria Municipal corregir cualesquier errores tipográficos y gramáticos, errores de puntuación, y errores de la selección de palabras de esta ordenanza. Además, por la presente se le autoriza al Personal de la Ciudad llevar a cabo cualesquier correcciones de oficina necesarios de la descripción física de la propiedad para propiamente identificar la Propiedad como descrita en el Documento de Prueba A adjunto y con la intención de ser el tema de esta Ordenanza.

DOCUMENTO D PRUEBA A Resumen Consistiendo de 253 Acres, más o menos de propiedad específica propiedad de la Ciudad de Flagstaff colocada al Este de East Forest Avenue y al Sur de East Cedar Avenue y comúnmente conocido como “McMIllan Mesa” (APN 107-01-001B, 101-28-007C, y una parte de 109-02-001N) y 47 Acres, más o menos de propiedad específica propiedad de la Ciudad de Flagstaff colocada al Norte de East Forest Avenue, al East de Turquoise Drive y al Sur de los Parques Buffalo y McPherson (una parte de 110-08-001G) más particularmente descrita como lo siguiente y que se expone en el mapa no a la escala adjunto. 1. 107-01-001B

Todos los bienes inmuebles propiedad de la Ciudad de Flagstaff localizados en la Cuarta Parte al Noroeste de la Sección 14, Municipio 21 al Norte, Hielera 7 al Este GySRM, Condado Coconino, Arizona localizado hacia el Suroeste de North Gemini Drive y al Oeste de Izabel Street.

2. 101-28-007C

Todos los bienes inmuebles propiedad de la Ciudad de Flagstaff localizados en la Mitad al Sur de la Cuarta Parte al Noreste de la Sección 15 y la Mitad al Norte de la Cuarta parte al Sureste de la Sección 15, Municipio 21 a Norte, Hilera 7 al Este GySRM, Condado Coconino, Arizona, como descrito en el Registro 1507, Página 264 Condado Coconino, localizada al Norte de Switzer Mesa Unidad 2, Caso 2, Mapa 344 Condado Coconino y al Norte y al Este de Switzer Mesa Unidad 3, Caso 3, Mapa 111 Condado Coconino y al Norte de esa propiedad descrita en el Instrumento No. 3725664 y al Sur y al Este de McMillan Mesa Village, Instrumento No. 3488287 Condado Coconino.

3. Parte de 109-02 001N

Todos los bienes inmuebles propiedad de la Ciudad de Flagstaff localizados en la Mitad al Oeste de la Sección 11, Municipio 21 al Norte, Hilera 7 al Este GySRM, Condado Coconino, Arizona, localizado al Este de East Forest Avenue y al Sur de East Cedar Avenue, Norte y Este de North Gemini Drive, Sur y Oeste de Coconino High School y menos de bienes inmuebles propiedad de la Ciudad de Flagstaff designada por la Ciudad de Flagstaff como la localización del Centro de creo de Hal Jansen (anteriormente conocido como el Centro de Recreo de Flagstaff).

4. Parte de 110-08-001G

Todos los bienes inmuebles propiedad de la Ciudad de Flagstaff localizados en la Cuarta Parte al Sureste de la Sección 10, Municipio 21 al Norte, Hilera 7 al Este GySRM, Condado Coconino, Arizona, localizado al Norte de East Forest Avenue, Sur de los Parques Buffalo y McPherson, Sur del sendero FUTS anteriormente la localización de Cedar Avenue, al este de Turquoise Avenue y al Oeste de North Gemini Drive menos de 34 Acres, más o menos, localizada al Norte y al Oeste de East Forest Avenue, y Sur y al Oeste de North Gemeini Drive, constando las Instalaciones Comprometidas en terreno de la Ciudad de Flagstaff incluyendo pero sin limitación al Estudio Geológico de los Estadios Unidos y Centro Northern Arizona de instalaciones de Empresarios y Tecnología.

63

Si el Concejo Municipal ejerce su autorización de aceptar propiedad bajo esta sección, y dicha propiedad no se usa para el uso descrito en esta Sección, el terreno in-aceptable se deberá convertir en espacio abierto para propósitos de parques pasivo y sujeto a las mismas limitaciones como el esto de la Propiedad descrita en el Documento de Prueba A.

Cualquier ordenanza u otra ley del Concejo Municipal con la intención de transferir cualquier interés de la Propiedad descrita en el Documento de Prueba A para cualquier propósito que para espacio abierto es contrario el propósito de esta ordenanza de iniciativa y la intención de los votantes. El Concejo Municipal puede, sin embargo, transferir un interés de la propiedad in-aceptable al Estado de Arizona, una sub-división política del Estado, el Gobierno Federal, o una corporación no de lucro, mientras que el interés otorgado es sujeto a las limitaciones descritas en esta sección.

Millas Parque Propuesto

Senderos de Arizona y Sistema & Senderos Urbanos de Flagstaff

**Instalación de Servicios de los Veteranos Propuesta no se representa

64

BALOTA OFICIAL

PROPOSICÓN NO. 413

TÍTULO OFICIAL: Propuesta por petición de iniciativa, conservando aproximadamente 253 acres de bienes inmuebles propiedad de la ciudad comúnmente conocido como McMillan Mesa y aproximadamente 47 acres de bienes inmuebles propiedad de la ciudad al sur de los Parques Buffalo y McPherson, como espacio abierto. TÍTULO DESCRIPTIVO: Conservando aproximadamente 253 acres de bienes inmuebles propiedad de la ciudad, comúnmente conocido como McMillan Mesa, y aproximadamente 47 acres de bienes inmuebles propiedad de la ciudad al sur de los Parques Buffalo y McPherson, como espacio abierto permitiendo a la Ciudad usar hasta diez acres de la propiedad para la construcción de una instalación de servicios para los veteranos. Un voto de SÍ tendrá el efecto de conservar bienes inmuebles propiedad de la ciudad como espacio abierto, permitiendo el uso de hasta diez acres para la construcción de una instalación de servicios para los veteranos.

SÍ

Un voto de NO tendrá el efecto de no conservar bienes inmuebles propiedad de la ciudad como espacio abierto.

NO

COMO APARECERÁ EN LA BALOTAPR

OPOSITION NO. 41 PROPOSICÓN NO. 413

Propuesta por petición de iniciativa, conservando aproximadamente 253 acres de bienes inmuebles propiedad de la ciudad comúnmente conocido como McMillan Mesa y aproximadamente 47 acres de bienes inmuebles propiedad de la ciudad al sur de los Parques Buffalo y McPherson, como espacio abierto. Un voto de SÍ tendrá el efecto de conservar bienes inmuebles propiedad de la ciudad como espacio abierto, permitiendo el uso de hasta diez acres para la construcción de una instalación de servicios para los veteranos. Un voto de NO tendrá el efecto de no conservar bienes inmuebles propiedad de la ciudad como espacio abierto.

SÍ NO

ARGUMENTOS A FAVOR LA PROPOSICIÓN NO. 413

Mirando atrás sobre los últimos 48 años mi familia ha vivido en Flagstaff – mirando atrás cuando buffalo de lo que hoy llamamos Parque Buffalo, reconozco que el crecimiento y el cambio es inevitable. Yo he visto a Flagstaff crecer en un pueblo universitario de mucho movimiento con una población de 65,000, pero una cosa que ha permanecido constante es que la gente que vive aquí valoran nuestro espacio abierto, parques, FUTS, y acceso fácil a todos tipos de actividades de recreo al aire libre.


65

Yo apoyo la Proposición 413 por la razón de que ha llegado el tiempo de que el terreno no desarrollado propiedad de la ciudad cerca del Parque Buffalo se administre como el Parque Bufffalo para que la gente disfrute y que no se venda para desarrollo o desarrollo de nuevo por la ciudad. Me nace que si la iniciativa se aprueba entonces los votantes, en lugar de una mayoría del concejo, tendrán que aprobar cualesquier propuestas de desarrollo en el futuro. También me nace que la iniciativa permite que diez acres obsequiados por la ciudad para una instalación nueva de Veteranos deje algún terreno cerca de la incubadora comercial para otros proyectos de desarrollo comercial. También existe bastante terreno privado en McMillan Mesa. Parte ya se ha desarrollado y más proyectos se encuentran en el proceso de desarrollo. A como siguen creciendo Northen Arizona University y nuestra ciudad, hay que tomar esta única oportunidad para votar SÍ por la Proposición 413, que más de 4,000 votantes ayudaron colocar en la balota al firmar la petición (se requirieron 2,537 firmas), y establecer un Parque Greater Buffalo para que los visitantes y los residentes usen y disfruten. Walt Taylor ----- Por lo regular solamente ocurre una vez en una generación que los votantes de Flagstaff tienen la oportunidad de declarar victoriosamente una cautiva visión para el futuro de la comunidad a través de un voto de la gente. Hoy tenemos la oportunidad. En la balota del 8 de noviembre se presenta una cuestión colocada en la balota por los ciudadanos de Flagstaff, la Proposición 413, que va a proteger como espacio abierto 253 acres de terreno propiedad de la ciudad en McMillan Mesa y 47 acres de terreno propiedad de la ciudad adyacente a los Parques Buffalo y McPherson. Juntas, estas parcelas van a establecer “Un Gran Parque Buffalo”, y añadirle terreno a nuestro adorable Buffalo Park. Un paseo por estos terrenos revela praderas cubiertas con pastos expansivos y vistos sensacionales de San Francisco Peaks. Es el corazón libre de nuestra ciudad, juntando el Este y Oeste Flagstaff. ¡Y la mejor parte es que no se van a requerir dólares de impuestos para que el público pueda disfrutar estos terrenos – ya son de nosotros! Siendo que la Proposición 413 es una iniciativa de los ciudadanos, asegura que cuatro miembros del Concejo Municipal no pueden vender este terreno en el futuro sin primero un voto de la gente, la forma más alta de protección disponible. A como se desparrama el desarrollo privado por partes de McMillan Mesa, los ciudadanos de Flagstaff y los visitantes van a apreciar y disfrutar estos terrenos públicos que permanecen más que nunca. Por favor únase con el Comite para un Greater Buffalo Park y vote SÍ por la Proposición 413. Robert G. Breunig Presidente Emeritus, Museo de Northen Arizona ----- Como residente de toda la vida de Flagstaff y después de ocho años en el Concejo Municipal, estoy profundamente consciente que una mayoría de la gente son apasionados tocante lo que ocurre en McMillan Mesa. Yo apoyo la Proposición 413 por la razón de que es un paso que los votantes pueden tomar para tratar la verdadera preocupación tocante si todo el desarrollo nuevo, incluyendo las viviendas estudiantiles Hub, cambiarán para siempre el carácter único de Flagstaff. Esta iniciativa trata terreno propiedad de los contribuyentes de impuestos y diferente a muchas medidas de protección de terrenos no requiere que la ciudad venda bonos o aumente los impuestos sobre las ventas para obtener ingresos para la adquisición de terreno. Le permite a la ciudad donar diez acres para la construcción de una instalación de servicios para los veteranos, que por los últimos seis años pasados yo he defendido, y construir más instalaciones RyD cerca de incubadoras comerciales (NACET) y acelerador comercial. No tendrá un impacto en la habilidad de que los propietarios privados de McMillan Mesa continuar desarrollando sus terrenos con ambos proyectos residenciales y comerciales. (Recientemente el concejo municipal cambio de zonas terreno privado de McMillan Mesa para permitir hasta 437 unidades residenciales, que posiblemente indique la construcción de una cantidad de unidades residenciales nuevas.) Mucha gente se muda a Flagstaff, o aquellas que se crearon aquí deciden permanecer aquí, debido a la calidad de vida, a menudo al costo de mejores trabajos en otros lugares. Flagstaff continuará creciendo y cambiando y los promotores continuarán construyendo conforme sus zonas existentes, así es que hay que tomar este momento y votar SÍ por la Proposición 413 para proteger este espacio abierto y nuestra calidad e vida ante de que sea muy tarde.

66

Coral Evans Miembro del Concejo de la Ciudad de Flagstaff (Las opiniones de Ms. Evans son solamente suyas) ----- Yo firmemente apoyo la Proposición 413, que asegura que terreno no desarrollado propiedad de la ciudad en McMillan Mesa y al sur de los Parques Buffalo y McPherson permanezca como espacio abierto igual que el Parque Buffalo. Aunque solamente hemos vivido en Flagstaff un corto tiempo, nos encanta aquí por la razón de que existen espacios abiertos maravillosos y muchas personas sienten un fuerte sentido de conexión a los terrenos que nos rodean. También he visto como el desarrollo nuevo rápidamente está cambiando el complejo de la comunidad y que poco control, en la mayoría de los casos, tienen los ciudadanos sobre el proceso de desarrollo. Existe mucho terreno privado de McMillan Mesa que se ha desarrollado con proyectos comerciales y residenciales y hace unas cuantas de semanas pasadas el Concejo Municipal cambio las zonas de una parte para hasta 437 unidades residenciales. Esta iniciativa no tiene un impacto en los derechos de cualesquier de estos propietarios privados para desarrollar su terreno. Yo pase muchas horas recaudando firmas en apoyo de colocando esta cuestión en la balota y no enfrente un votante quien se niego a firmar la petición. Simplemente, los votantes estaban ansiosos en firmar a como expresaron sus peligros tocante como Flagstaff está cambiando para lo peor en muchos casos y como una parte del desarrollo que observan, especialmente los inmensos proyectos de viviendas, van a perjudicar lo que aman de Flagstaff. Los parques y los espacios abiertos, incluyendo el Parque Buffalo y el terreno no desarrollado adyacente a la ciudad, son una parte esencial de atrajo único y lo que lo hace tal lugar deseable en donde vivir. Más desarrollo nuevo es por cierto, así que si los votantes defienden este terreno inapreciable de la ciudad por votando SÍ por la Proposición 413, también le dará a los votantes, en lugar que los cuatro miembros del concejo, el único derecho de decidir si se debe vender o desarrollar en el futuro. Linda Webb ----- Yo apoyo la Proposición 413, que se colocó en la balota por un comité de ciudadanos. Va asegurar que el terreno no desarrollado propiedad de la ciudad adyacente a Buffalo Park y al sur de los Parques McPherson y Buffalo permanezca como espacio abierto. Con todo el desarrollo nuevo de Flagstaff es posible que la mayoría del concejo municipal vendiera parte de este terreno para viviendas de estudiantes como Hub. Uno puede pensar que jamás tomará lugar, pero existe nada para impedirlo. Si esta iniciativa se aprueba, entonces la el concejo municipal no podrá vender el terreno a un promotor privado para proyectos comerciales o residenciales sin aprobación de los votantes. Le aliento de tomar esta importante oportunidad presentada por el Comité de un Gran Parque Buffalo y vote sí por la Proposición 413 para proteger este terreno n desarrollado excepcional propiedad de la ciudad en el corazón de Flagstaff que defina nuestra ciudad para ale uso de la agente hasta que los votantes de Flagstaff, y no cuatro miembros del concejo, decidan que esos que desean que sea desarrollado por la ciudad o vendos/arriendados a un promotor privado. Jamie Whelan ----- Yo me mude a Flagstaff en 2002, cuando acepte un puesto en NAU. Yo brinque por la oferta por varias razones, una de ellas fue la localización de la universidad dentro de ambos paisajes urbanos y naturales. El Parque Buffalo se convirtió en uno de mi favorito lugar donde caminar mis perros, y llevar a visitantes de fuera del pueblo. Así que rápidamente tome la oportunidad de participar cuando el Comité de un Gran Parque Buffalo procuró voluntarios para pasar peticiones para recaudar firmas para colocarlo en la balota. Más de 4000 residentes de Flagstaff firmaron sus nombres como apoyo de la Proposición 413 en un corto período de tiempo por la razón de que sabían que los 300 acres de propiedad de la ciudad abarcando el Parque Buffalo pertenece a los ciudadanos de Flagstaff, y nosotros, por eso, tenemos un voz en cuando, como y si el terreno se desarrolle o se transfiere. Yo sabía que los ciclistas, joggers, y otros que aprecian disfrutando de espacio abierto limpio, seguro y maravilloso en que hacer ejercicio usan el parque, pero dos cosas me impresionaron a como estaba parado fuera del parque recaudando firmas. Primero, jamás me había fijado cuantas familias visitaban el parque;

67

padres con niños en bogues y chiqueos en bicicletas. Adultos llevando a un anciano por un breve paseo. El disfrutar de espacios bellos y fácilmente accesibles es importante para nuestra salud y nuestra cálida de vida, y no tenemos que tomarlo por descontado. Segundo, no realice que mucha gente de otras parte de Arizona, otros estados, y hasta otros países visitan el Parque Buffalo, Esto subraya los significantes económicos de la Proposición 413. De seguro, estos visitantes no estaban elegibles en firmar nuestras peticiones, pero muchos lamentaron el hecho que sus propias ciudades no habían tenido la imprevisión de asegurar que tendrían espacios abiertos, y alabaron a Flagstaff por tener la sabiduría de asegurar que nosotros si lo hicimos. Greta Murphy ----- Como un dedicado viajero a pie, yo votaré SÍ por la Proposición 413, que establecerá un Parque Buffalo por protegiendo 300 acres de terreno de la ciudad de McMillan Mesa y al sur de los Parques McPherson y Buffalo. Flagstaff se reconoce nacionalmente como una comunidad de viaje a pie medalla plata, así que hace buen sentido fomentar nuestro más amistoso y adorado Parque Buffalo y proveerle a Flagstaff lugar verdaderamente magnífico panorámico de recreo. El sistema de Senderos Urbanos de Flagstaff (FUTS) y el Sendero Nacional de Arizona de más de ochocientas millas comparten una ruta dentro de nuestros límites de la ciudad hasta la cima de McMillan Mesa, donde los excursionistas y caminantes verdaderamente son deslumbrados por las vistas sensacionales, panorámicas de los increíbles San Francisco Peaks y los paisajes Mount Elden. Más allá hacia al noroeste están localizados los volcanes A-1, Wing y Kendrick. Woody Mountain queda a la izquierda y O’Leary Peak a la derecha. Lo único que yo y la gente caminando o de excursión tiene que hacer se voltear para observar la vista de la cabaña Mormon Mountain En este momento no existe una garantía que el concejo municipal o venderá toda o parte de este lugar muy especial para el desarrollo incompatible. La Proposición 413 no protege el terreno para siempre a menos que eso es lo que los votantes desean. Simplemente asegura que hasta que los votantes lo deseen desarrollarse, permanecerá como espacio abierto. Por favor únase conmigo votando SÍ por la Proposición 413 para que a lo menos la comunidad, en lugar que el concejo, declare algo diferente que nosotros podemos proteger este recurso público valioso para que el público lo use y lo disfrute. Jack Welch ----- El Parque Buffalo y espacio abierto propiedad de la ciudad son los tesoros de Flagstaff. Esta iniciativa de los ciudadanos para proteger 300 acres adicionales propiedad de la ciudad – no solamente será de beneficio del terreno de McMillan Mesa y al sur de los Parques McPherson y Buffalo, sino también aquellos de nosotros de Flagstaff y más allá que como rutina escapamos al Parque Buffalo por su accesibilidad y grandura. A como Flagstaff necesariamente crece, regiones de espacio abierto en el centro de la ciudad son hasta más importantes. Nuestro FUTS es un recurso maravilloso y de buen uso, y una parte importante de su valor es el enlace entre vecindarios residenciales, distritos comerciales, sitios de trabajo, y espacios abiertos valerosos incluyendo el Parque Buffalo. El establecimiento del “Gran Parque Buffalo” es parte de mi visión del futuro de Flagstaff, que incluye una comunidad que es atractiva para mis niños y nietos como ha sido y continuará siendo para mí. Bill Auberle ----- Yo llegue a northern Arizona hace cincuenta años pasados. Desde entonces, Flagstaff ha crecido de una parada de la Ruta 66 a una ciudad vibrante, pero yo siempre aprecie su historia única y ambiente de pueblo de montañas. Los recientes desarrollos, sin embargo, amenazan la calidad de vida que hizo a la gente amar a Flagstaff tanto. Los parques públicos ofrecen oasis de serenidad en nuestras vidas urbanizadas crecientes. Las municipalidades han reconocido que fomentan las vidas de los ciudadanos casi desde la fundación de la nación. Tucson ha apartado 71,000 acres para que la gente disfrute; Phoenix 41,000 acres; Albuquerque 29,000 acres. Los votantes de Flagstaff hoy tiene la oportunidad única de por fin preservar terreno propiedad de la ciudad sin desarrollarse de McMillan Mesa hacia al sur de los Parques Buffalo y McPherson que Flagstaff adquirió del

68

Servicio Forestal de los Estados Unidos hace 60 años pasados. Este terreno siempre permanece en limbo, propuestas de desarrollo causo nada más que controversia. Aloja praderas nativas quebradas por desparrames de ponderosa, robles Gambel, enebro, y piñón que dan una sensacional vista de Mt. Elden y los altísimos San Francisco Peaks. Los senderos de FUTS y los Senderos de Arizona atraen caminantes, ciclistas, y corredores iguales a la región. La Proposición 413 conserva esta región mientras dejando espacio disponibles para una instalación de veteranos procurada por el Concejo Municipal y para más estudio y desarrollo cerca el incubadora comercial y acelerador. Como miembro del Comité por un Gran Parque Buffalo, yo recaude firmas en apoyo de colocar esta cuestión en la balota por la razón de que yo firmemente creo que los contribuyentes de impuestos de Flagstaff deberían continuar siendo dueños de este terreno. Los votantes de Flagstaff, en lugar de los cuatro miembros del concejo municipal, deben determinar el estado de este activo bien amado. Por favor únase conmigo en votando SÍ por la Proposición 413. Stephen Hirst ----- Por favor únase conmigo en votando SÍ por la Proposición 413, que fomentará el Parque Buffalo bien amado e icónico. Los contribuyente de impuestos de la ciudad son dueños de aproximadamente 300 acres – casi la mitad – de espacio abierto al sur y al oeste del Parque Buffalo y Centro de Actividad Jay Lively. Si aprobado por los votantes, la iniciativa iba a mantener este terreno como espacio abierto, administrado igual que el Parque Buffalo. Si la proposición falla cuatro miembros del concejo municipal de siete miembros probablemente puedan vender el terreno para el desarrollo. Si se aprueba, las leyes de Arizona declaran que los votantes tuvieran que ratificar cualquier desarrollo propuesto por el concejo municipal de esta región. A luz de que nuestro rápido crecimiento y el desarrollo (parte incompatible con vecindarios existentes), los ciudadanos de Flagstaff ha causado que se presente esta propuesta de sentido común siendo que los contribuyentes de impuestos actualmente son dueños del terreno, ningún dinero público se va a requerir para la adquisición de terreno. La iniciativa no incluye el terreno cerca de la incubadora comercial y la instalación USGS; ese terreno siempre se puede usar para el desarrollo comercial. Adicionalmente, la proposición permite a la ciudad donar hasta diez acres para una instalación de servicios para los veteranos. No afectará los derechos de propietarios privados existentes; propietarios privados pueden continuar desarrollando su terreo. Este valioso espacio abierto provee conexiones a senderos establecidos, tiene vistas sensacionales, y provee oportunidades únicas de recreo. Es crítico que los votantes protejan este terreno para los visitantes y residentes de Flagstaff. Hay que hacer al Parque Buffalo HASTA MÁS GRANDE, por votando SÍ por la Proposición 413. Jim McCarthy Ex Miembro, Comisión de Planificación y Zonificación de Flagstaff ----- Aliento un voto de SÍ por la Proposición 413. Yo he vivido en Flagstaff por más de treinta años, y he observado el desarrollo devorar tanto del espacio abierto original dentro de los límites de la ciudad. Dado el desarrollo de terreno dramático que hemos observado sobre los pocos años pasados, es crítico que consideremos con cuidado el futuro de la nuestra ciudad. El terreno alrededor de Buffalo Park es el pedazo más grande e espacio abierto contiguo dentro de los límites de la ciudad, y un pedazo importante de nuestra herencia que debemos conservar. Una gran parte de la atracción de Flagstaff queda en su calidad superior de vida, que incluye sus parques y espacio abierto. En hecho, esto es parte de la razón por la cual tanta gente desea vivir en Flagstaff y los negocios comienzan aquí. La belleza de esta iniciativa es que ni impide el desarrollo en terreno de dueños privados en la área ni prohíbe el desarrollo en el futuro de terreno público. Pero la calve es que si el concejo municipal debería decidir que se desarrolle el terreno, tendrá que procurar aprobación de los votantes.

69

Esta es una situación sin pierde. Este terreno ya propiedad e la Ciudad de Flagstaff (y por consiguiente por los contribuyentes de impuestos de Flagstaff). NO tenemos que gastar cualquier dinero, la protección del terreno le añade al valor económico y estético de nuestra ciudad, y no estamos impidiendo la posibilidad del desarrollo en el futuro. Las más de 4,000 firmas que la campaña recaudó para colocar esta cuestión en la balota indica que la gente de Flagstaff está muy preocupada del desarrollo de corta vista e incompatible; desean que este terreno se administre como Buffalo Park; y desean una voz en cualquier decisión tocante cambiando su uso. Aliento un voto de SÍ por la Proposición 413. Christa Sadler ----- Únase conmigo en votando SÍ por la proposición 413. Ha llegado el momento de proteger mucho del terreno no desarrollado propiedad de la ciudad en McMillan Mesa y sur de los parques McPherson y Buffalo – una región que defina a Flagstaff – como espacio abierto para que el público lo use y lo disfrute. A como continua creciendo y cambiando Flagstaff, es crítico tomar pasos para conservar este terreno público premiado para las generaciones venideras y para mantener el carácter de la ciudad donde un ambiente natural balancea el ambiente construido. No todos pueden vivir en una casa con una maravillosa vista, pero todos pueden disfrutar nuestros espacios abiertos protegidos. Si la iniciativa se aprueba, los propietarios privados pueden continuar desarrollando McMillan Mesa. Guardian Medical Transport, Basis Flagstaff (escuela privada), Flagstaff Senior Meadows ya han construido proyectado en terreno privado en McMillan Nesa. Bungalow en Pinecliff está construyendo 24 cabañas de alquiler; Wellbrook está construyendo una instalación de enfermeras destrezas de 34,500 pies cuadrados; Rehabilitation Hospital de Northern Arizona ha solicitado un permiso de construcción y el Concejo Municipal ha aprobado un cambio de zonas que permitirá hasta 437 unidades residenciales. Esta iniciativa no solicita de los votantes adquirir terreno; los contribuyentes de impuestos ya son dueños del terreno. No se entrometerá con el intento del concejo municipal de donar diez acres para una instalación de servicios de los veteranos y permitirá otra instalación de RyD cerca de la incubadora comercial existente (NACET) y acelerador. Hay que asegurar que el corazón y la alma de nuestra ciudad se conserve para el uso público y gozar de la decisión del uso posible en el futuro de usar o transferir de este terreno siempre permanezca en las manos de los votantes de Flagstaff. Vote SÍ por la Proposición 413. Eva Putzova Miembra del Concejo de la Ciudad de Flagstaff Las opiniones de Ms. Putzova no reflejan necesariamente aquellas del Concejo Municipal de Flagstaff. ----- Yo votaré SÍ por la Proposición 413, que mantendrá un poco del terreno más valioso y bello propiedad de la ciudad en McMillan Mesa y al sur de los Parques Buffalo y McPherson como espacio abierto para que los use y disfrute el público. Muchas ciudades por todos el país están pagando grandes cantidades de dinero para comprar terreno privado para propósitos de parques pero en Flagstaff los contribuyentes de impuestos no tienen que comprar este terreno – ya son dueños del. Flagstaff esta pasando por mucho desarrollo comercial y residencial nuevo, incluyendo proyectos grandes como The Standard y el Hub. Muchos residentes han hablado en reuniones del Concejo Municipal y conmigo tocante sus verdaderas preocupaciones sobre como algunos de estos proyectos más grandes van a perjudicar el carácter de la ciudad y la calidad de vida que defina nuestra comunidad. Iniciativas de los votantes pueden proteger terreno permanentemente, sin embargo, la Ley de Protección de los Votantes de Arizona provee que cuando los votantes aprueban una iniciativa, entonces solamente los votantes pueden anularla. Esto indica que los votantes de Flagstaff, como opuestos a cuatro miembros del concejo municipal, tienen que aprobar cualesquier propuestas de venta/desarrollo en e futuro. A la luz de las significantes controversias sobre propuestas de desarrollo pasadas tocante terreno propiedad de la ciudad de McMillan Mesa, parece apropiado que los VOTANTES debían de tener la última palabra. La Proposición 413, resultado de meses de trabajo duro por muchos ciudadanos voluntarios dedicados quienes ansiosamente recaudaron firmas para colocar la cuestión en la balota, les ofrece a los votantes de Flagstaff la oportunidad única de re-doblar su compromiso de nuestros parques, espacios abiertos, y senderos

70

y de asegurar su derecho de asegurar que cualquier desarrollo en el futuro sea compatible con los valores compartidos de la comunidad. Hay que votar SÍ por la Proposición 413 para un Gran Parque Buffalo. Cecilia Barotz Vice-Alcalde, Flagstaff (Las opiniones de Ms. Barotz son solamente suyas) ----- El Parque Buffalo y McMillan Mesa son lugares especiales de muchos de los ciudadanos de Flagstaff y muchos de por todo el mundo. Personalmente, representan lo importante de espacio abierto de mis diarias aspiraciones de vivir una vida sana y activa con el apoyo de amigos y una comunidad. Yo he vivido en Flagstaff toda mi vida y crecí valorando este espacio abierto propiedad de la ciudad. Como niño, no comprendí completamente lo importante de espacio abierto pero hoy observó a Flagstaff crecer y cambiar si lo comprendo. El Parque Buffalo y el terreno de la ciudad que permanece sin desarrollar de McMillan Mesa esta del alcance de todos. A como Flagstaff sigue creciendo, observó más y más presión sobre la mayoría de nuestro espacio abierto valioso de la ciudad. Ha llegado el momento de proteger el terreno de la ciudad no desarrollado de McMillan Mesa y al sur de los Parques Buffalo y McPherson. O si camina, corre, o anda en bicicleta, o observa un amanecer o un crepúsculo, esta región es una joya de la comunidad. Nuestro terreno no desarrollado de la ciudad de esta región es un recurso de la comunidad no renovable. Al perderse, se pierde para siempre. Estoy agradecido que tenemos esta oportunidad única de aprobar una iniciativa de los ciudadanos para protegerlo no solamente para nosotros hoy aquí, pero también para las generaciones en el futuro. Por favor únase conmigo en votando SÍ por la Proposición 413. Caleb Ring ----- Yo votaré SÍ por la Proposición 413. Hacen casi 30 años pasados que los votantes de Flagstaff abrumadoramente apoyaron salvar el Parque Buffalo como espacio abierto. La opción fue entre permaneciendo no desarrollado un camino mayor a través del centro del Parque. Por más de una década antes del voto de 1986, los caminos y senderos de la atracción del oeste turística extinta (incluyendo búfalos) atrajeron caminantes y joggers para sentir el silencio, las vistas y el paisaje extraordinario. Vieron el espacio abierto como un valor de la comunidad importante y se ha convertido hasta más valioso sobre el tiempo. La opción que los votantes hicieron hace treinta años pasados de ‘Salvar el Parque Buffalo’ sin duda fue la correcta. Del amanecer al anochecer todo el año, es el parque de más uso menos costoso de administra en Flagstaff. Estamos afortunados de tener una segunda oportunidad de asegurar que parte de este terreno propiedad de la ciudad permanezca único e histórico en McMillan Mesa y sur de los Parques McPherson y Buffalo como espacio abierto. Siendo que esta es una iniciativa de los ciudadanos, su voto de SÍ va a asegurar que los votantes en el futuro, y no una simple mayoría de cuatro miembros del concejo municipal, se va a requerir para aprobar cualesquier propuestas de vender el terreo. Coloca el uso en el futuro de este espacio abierto, que es una herencia de la ciudad, en las manos de los votantes. Nat White ----- Amigos del Futuro de Flagstaff le alienta votar sí por la Proposición 413. Conservando el terreno en el corazón de la ciudad durante un tiempo de crecimiento sin precedente es un acción visionaria; simplemente piense de Central Park. De seguro Flagstaff se encuentra muy lejos de Manhatten; sin embargo, el Plan Regional de Flagstaff solicita que el desarrollo se convierta más de densidad alta. Esto indica que más residentes vivirán etilos de vida más urbanas, y muchos de ellos en viviendas de multi-familias sin patios individuales. En este ambiente, la conservación de los parques y regiones naturales como espacios de la comunidad para el recreo y renovación es crítica. Los beneficios de gastar tiempo cerca de la naturaleza son bien documentados. Acceso a los parques públicos y áreas naturales es crítico para la calidad de vida y la sanidad pública, y no debería ser limitada a

71

aquellas personas que viven adyacentes al espacio abierto en las orillas de las ciudades. Los terrenos de McMillan Mesa son accesibles de múltiplos vecindarios con poblaciones diversas. Estableciendo un Gran Parque Buffalo por votando SÍ por la Proposición 413 va a asegurar que Flagstaff continúe disfrutando de suficiente terreno de parques fácilmente accesibles para servir nuestra creciente población. Tory Syracuse David McCain Director Ejecutivo Presidente de la Junta Directiva ----- Yo estoy a favor de la Proposición 413. Este es un maravilloso pedazo de terreno en el centro de la ciudad que ofrece refugio silencioso y de reflexión para muchos que caminan, corren y pasean en bicicleta. Yo verdaderamente confió de la gente de Flagstaff ser buenos administradores de esta propiedad como el Gran Parque de Buffalo y esta proposición invierte a la gente en relación con esto. Yo creo que terreno abierto como este solamente enriquece nuestro pueblo y espero que vote sí por la Proposición 413. Fr Patrick Mowrer, Pastor San Francisco de Asis Catholic Community (Las opiniones de Fr. Mowrer son solamente suyos) ----- En 1964, mis tíos – John G. Babbitt y R.G. “Ted” Babbitt, Jr. – fueron parte de un grupo que estableció el Parque Buffalo de McMillan Mesa y al pie de Mt. Elden y el Dry Lake Hills. Inicialmente, el parque era un refugio de fauna y flora y una atracción de espacio abierto honrando nuestra herencia Nativo Americano y fronteriza. En 1973, el Parque Buffalo se hizo parte del sistema de Parques y Recreo de Flagstaff, y desde entonces ha sido un imán de recreo y renovación al aire libre. Cada día, cienes de personas de todas edades y de todos las profesiones y condiciones sociales se pueden observar caminado jogging, en bicicletas, esquiando, o simplemente paseando por esta joya de un parque localizado en el centro de nuestro pueblo. A como Flagstaff crece y más de McMillan Mesa se desarrolla, la necesidad de espacio abierto y una conexión a la naturaleza se hace más importante que nunca. Yo aplaudo la previsión de los ciudadanos que establecieron el Parque Buffalo y espero que todos tengamos la sabiduría de extender el parque para satisfacer las necesidades de recreo y espiritual de nuestros residentes. James E. Babbitt ----- Northern Arizona es el hogar de una variedad de monumentos nacionales de talla mundial, parques nacionales, regiones silvestres, y regiones nacionales de recreo. A como los residentes de Flagstaff disfrutan de la oportunidad de visitar estos lugares que solamente queda a una corta distancia. Más cerca de casa, aunque, dentro de la ciudad de Flagtaff, necesitamos espacio – particularmente parques – donde podemos caminar o pasear en bicicleta y apreciar cualquier día de la semana. El votar sí por la Proposición 413 le ofrecerá a los residentes de Flagstaff un bello parque, localizado en el centro a ningún costo a los contribuyentes de impuestos. Nuestros niños y nietos nos darán las gracias por la previsión de designar esta región como parque público. Ethan Aumack Ashley Davidson Director de Conservación Director de Comunicaciones Grand Canyon Trust Grand Canyon Trust ----- El Parque Buffalo y McMillan Mesa ambos son valiosos espacios abiertos públicos en el corazón de Flagstaff. Aunque separados por Cedar Avenue, el Sendero Arizona conecta ambas de estas áreas por un puente peatonal. Mientras que se están conectados, solamente el Parque Buffalo es espacio abierto protegido debido a una iniciativa de los votantes que los residentes de la Ciudad sabiamente aprobaron en 1986. Hace dos años pasados el Concejo Municipal solicite que el personal de la Ciudad presentará una lista de parcelas propiedad de la ciudad, incluyendo espacio abierto público, que se podrían vender para producir fondos de operación y también pagar por proyectos de capital nuevos como el sitio de obras públicas y el edificio del tribunal. Debido a una sólida oposición de la comunidad en cuanto la venta de espacio abierto de alto valor, el Concejo Municipal aplazó la idea. Este esfuerzo sin éxito del Concejo Municipal de vender parte de nuestro espacio abierto valioso causó preocupaciones que el Concejo Municipal luego iba a intentar de vender el resto del terreno no desarrollado propiedad de la ciudad en McMillan Mesa y al sur de los Parques Buffalo y McPherson. El Comité de un Gran Parque Buffalo respondió por colocando esta iniciativa de los ciudadanos en la balota por la razón que ellos

72

creen que el Concejo Municipal no debería depender en vendiendo terreno público de alto valor en el corazón de Flagstaff para producir ingresos para opera la ciudad. El Comité también cree que es esencial que el destino de estos espacios abiertos esta en las manos de los ciudadanos votantes de Flagstaff y no en una mayoría del Concejo Municipal, que puede estar fuera de paso con los deseo de los votantes. Una iniciativa de los ciudadanos realiza exactamente esto debdo a que un iniciativa de los ciudadanos solamente se puede cambar por otro vote de la gente. Esto indica que marchando hacia adelante los votantes de Flagstaff serán los que decidan los usos en el futuro de estos terrenos. ¡Vote Sí por la Proposición 413! ¡Conéctelo y Protéjalo! Marilyn Weissman, Presidenta Comité para un Gran Parque Buffalo ----- Por favor únase conmigo en votando Sí por la Proposición 413. Como residentes de toda la vida de Flagstaff, nosotros apoyamos esta iniciativa de los ciudadanos que va a requerir que la ciudad de Flagstaff administré 253 acres de terreno no desarrollado propiedad de la ciudad e McMillan Mesa y 47 acres al sur de los Parques Buffalo y McPherson como espacio abierto para que el público disfrute. Hoy es el momento de establecer un Gran Parque Buffalo. Mike Mongini ARGUMENTOS EN CONTRA LA PROPORCIÓN 413 Ningunos sometidos


INICIATIVA - SALARIO DE VIDA

TEXTO COMPLETO DE LA PROPUESTA ORDENANZA

LA GENTE DE LA CIUDAD DE FLAGSTAFF PROMULGA: SECCIÓN 1: Que por la presente se enmienda el Código de la Ciudad de Flagstaff como lo siguiente: Secciones: 15-01-001-0001 Título Corto 15-01-001-0002 Definiciones 15-01-001-0003 Salario Mínimo 15-01-001-0004 Requisitos de Avisos y Mantenimiento de Registros 15-01-001-0005 Implementación, Establecimiento de Reglamentos y Cumplimiento 15-01-001-0006 Otros Requisito Legales 15-01-001-0007 Ningún efecto en más políticas generosas 15-01-001-0008 Cláusula Restrictiva 15-01-001-0009 Cláusula de Divisibilidad 15-01-001-0001 Título Corto Esta ley se permite citar como “La Ley de Salario Mínimo”

73

15-01-001-0002 Definiciones A. “Ciudad” es a Ciudad de Flagstaff. B. “Oficina” es el departamento, división u oficina que la Ciudad deberá establecer, desarrollar o asignar

para cumplir con este capítulo. C. “Emplear” incluye sufrir o permitir trabajar. D. “Empleado” es un individuo que (1) trabaja o se supone trabajar veinticinco (25) horas o más en

cualquier dado año de calendario dentro de los límites geográficos de la Ciudad para un empleados y (2) es o fue empleado por un empleador.

E. “Empleador” incluye cualquier corporación, derecho de propiedad, empresa conjunta, compañía de

responsabilidad limitada, fideicomiso, asociación, sub-división política del estado, una entidad individual u otra actuando directamente o indirectamente en el interés de un empleador en relación con un empleado, y deberá incluir la Ciudad, pero no incluye el estado de Arizona o los Estados Unidos.

F. “Salario Mínimo” es la tasa del salario mínimo como se fija bajo la Sección 15-01-001-0003 de este

capítulo. G. “Propina” indica una cantidad verificable presentada por un cliente o como un regalo o recompensa

voluntaria como reconocimiento del servicio llevado a cabo para el cliente por el empleado recibiendo la propina.

H. “Empleado recibiendo Propina” indica un empleado quien habitualmente y regularmente recibe más de

$30 por mes en propinas, que el empleador le ha informado por escrito tocante las provisiones del aviso requerido por este capítulo, y retener todas las propinas que el o ella recibe.

15-01-001-0003 Salario Mínimo A. Los empleadores deberán pagarles a los empleados no menos del salario mínimo, que deberá ser no

menos de: 1. $10 por hora o $ 2 más que el salario mínimo del estado como se estipula bajo la Sección 23-

363, Estatutos Revisados de Arizona, cualquiera que sea mayor, en o después del 1 de julio de 2017;

2. $11 por hora o $ 2 más que el salario mínimo del estado como se estipula bajo la Sección 23-

363, Estatutos Revisados de Arizona, cualquiera que sea mayor, en o después del 1 de enero de 2018;







B. El salario mínimo se deberá aumentar el 1 de enero de 2022 y el 1 de enero de los años sucesivos,

por el aumento del costo de vida. El aumento de costo de vida se deberá medir por el por ciento del aumento a partir de agosto del año inmediatamente precedente mayor que el nivel a partir de agosto del año anterior del índice de precios al consumo (todos los consumidores urbanos, promedio de ciudades de los UU EE de todos los artículos) o su índice de sucesor como publicado por el departamento laboral de los EE UU o su agencia sucesora, con la cantidad del aumento del salario mínimo redondeado al múltiple más cerca de cinco centavos.

74

C. En el caso de que el salario mínimo se aumente mayor que el nivel del salario mínimo que ta en vigor

bajo esta sección, el salario mínimo bajo esta sección se deberá aumentar para igualar el salario federal más alto, vigente en la misma fecha como el aumento del salario mínimo federal, y deberá ser el salario mínimo en vigor bajo esta sección.

D. Los empleados con derecho a salarios por horas extras bajo la Ley que Regula Condiciones de

Trabajo federal, 29 U.S.C. §§206, 207, 213 tienen el derecho a salario de horas extra bajo este capítulo conforme a la ley federal y reglamentos en relación con compensación de horas extra bajo 29 U.S.C. §§206, 207, 213. Dicho salario de horas extra deberá ser calculado a base de la tasa regular de salario del empleado o la tasa regular de salario mínimo que se expone en esta sección, cualquier que sea más alta.

E. Para cualquier empleado de propine, el empleador puede pagar un salario en efectivo de hasta: 1. $3 por hora menos que la tasa de salario mínimo que es expone en esta sección en o después

del 1 de enero de 2017; 2. $2.50 por hora menos que la tasa de salario mínimo que es expone en esta sección en o

después del 1 de enero de 2022; 3. $2 por hora menos que el salario mínimo que es expone en esta sección en o después del 1 de

enero de 2023; 4. $1.50 por hora menos que el salario mínimo que se expone en esta sección en o después del 1

de enero de 2024; 5. $1 por hora menos que el salario mínimo que se expone en esta sección en o después del 1 de

enero de 2025; Siempre que, sin embargo, el empleador puede pagar solamente este salario en efectivo más bajo si el empleado puede establecer que al añadir las propinas que recibe y retiene contra los salarios pagados, el empleado recibirá no menos del salario mínimo por las horas trabajadas y se le ha informado por escrito al empleado por el empleador de las estipulaciones de esta Sección. Todas las propinas recibidas por el empleado recibiendo propinas son la propiedad única el empleado recibiendo propinas y se deberá retener por el empleado recibiendo propinas, con la excepción de que nada en esta sección deberá prohibir una reserva de propinas bajo cual se combinan las propinas y se reparten entre los empleados recibiendo propinas, siempre que solamente la cantidad actualmente retenida por cada empleado deberá ser considerada parte de los salarios de ese empleado para los propósitos de esta Sección. En o después del 1 de enero de 2026, un empleador deberá pagarle a un empleado recibiendo propinas no menos que el salario mínimo que se expone en esta sección por todas las horas trabajadas. 15-01-001-0004 Requisitos de Avisos y Mantenimiento de Registros A. La Oficina deberá publicar y tener disponible para los empleados todo de lo siguiente, en Inglés,

Español y cualquier lengua que se habla por más de del 5% de la planta laboral de la Ciudad: (1) una cartelera anunciando la tasa mínima de salario para el siguiente año y sus fechas vigentes no menos de dos meses antes de la fecha vigente; (2) una plantilla de cartelera en donde los empleadores fijen en el sitio de trabajo informando a los empleados de la tasa mínima de salario actual y sus derechos al salario mínimo, incluyendo información tocante el derecho de estar libre de castigo y del derecho de registrar una demanda e información de comunicación de la Oficina; y (3) una plantilla de aviso adecuada para el uso de los empleados en cumplimiento con la sub-sección B y C de esta sección.

B. Cada empleador deberá fijar la cartelera mencionada en la sub-sección A en un sitio bien visible en

cualquier lugar de trabajo sitio de trabajo en Inglés, Español y cualquier lengua que se habla por lo menos del 5% de los empleados en el lugar de trabajo o sitio de trabajo.

C. Cada empleador también deberá proveerle a cada empleado, al momento de emplearlo o para el 1 de

julio de 2017 cualquiera más tarde, aviso por escrito de: el nombre del empleador, dirección, y número de teléfono; derecho del empleado de ganar el salario mínimo y la tasa mínima de salario actual; los derechos del empleado de estar libre de castigo; los derechos del empleado de registrar una demanda; e información de comunicación de la Oficina donde preguntas tocante los derechos y responsabilidades bajo este capítulo se pueden responder. Si la lengua primaria del empleado es que se habla por lo menos del 5% de los empleados en el lugar de trabajo o sitio de trabajo, el requerido aviso por esta sub-sección se deberá proveer en Inglés y en la lengua primaria del empleado.

75

D. Cada empleador deberá mantener registros de nóminas mostrando las horas trabajadas de cada día trabajado, y los salarios que se le pago a todos los empleados por un período de cuatro años y le permitirá a la Oficina acceso razonable a dichos registros para controlar cumplimiento. El fallo de mantener dichos registros y/o permitir a la Oficina acceso razonable a dichos registros deberá alzar una presunción refutable que el empleador no pago el salario mínimo requerido y el cálculo razonable dl empleado en relación con las horas trabajadas y los salarios pagados deberán confiar en, de otra manera evidencia clara y no compareciente y convincente.

15-01-001-0005 Represalia Prohibido A. Ningún empleador u otra persona deberá despedir o tomar cualquier otra acción adversa contra

cualquier persona en represalia por afirmando cualquier demanda o derecho bajo este capítulo, por ayudando a cualquier otra persona en hacerlo, o por informando a cualquier persona de sus derechos. El tomar de una acción adversa contra una persona entro de noventa días de una persona comprometa en las actividades precedentes deberá alzar una presunción que dicha acción era represalia, que puede ser refutado por evidencia clara y convincente que dicha acción se tomo por otras razones permisibles,

15-01-001-0006. Implementación, Investigación y Cumplimiento. A. Proceso de Audiencia Administrativa. Hasta el punto permitido por la ley del estado, la Ciudad deberá

tener la autorización de coordinar la implementación y cumplimiento de este capítulo, incluyendo pero sin limitación a estableciendo un proceso de audiencia administrativa civil, incluyendo reglas de procesal, por medio del cual la ciudad deberá recibir demandas de empleados por escrito y por teléfono, investigar y encausar demandas que determina meritorias y mantener las demandas notificadas en relación con el estado de la investigación Un juez de audiencia administrativa deberá oír y adjudicar el caso y registrar las decisiones apropiadas de acuerdo con este capítulo.

B. La oficina puede investigar cualesquier posibles violaciones de esta capítulo por un empleador u otra

persona. Cualquier persona u organización puede entablar una demanda administrativa con la Oficina acusando que un empleado ha violado este capítulo en cuanto cualquier empleado u otra persona. Cuando la Oficina reciba una demanda, puede revisar los registros en relación con todos los empleados del lugar de trabajo del empleador para poder proteger la identidad de cualquier empleado identificado en la demanda y para determinar si una pauta de violaciones ha ocurrido. El nombre de cualquier empleado identificado en la demanda se deberá mantener confidencial por un período de tiempo lo más largo posible. Cuando la Oficina determine que el nombre del empleado se tiene que hacer público para poder investigar una demanda adicionalmente, se puede lograr solamente con el consentimiento del empelado.

C. Hasta el punto permitido por la ley, una acción civil para hacer cumplir con este capítulo se puede

mantener en la Corte Municipal de Flagstaff o en cualquier corte de jurisdicción competente por la Ciudad o por cualquier parte privada dañada por la violación de este capítulo

15-01-001-0007. Multas Civiles y Recursos A. Cualquier empleador que falle en pagar los salarios requeridos bajo este capítulo se le deberá requerir

pagarle al empleado el balance de los salarios que se deben, incluyendo el interés sobre eso, y una cantidad adicional igual al doble de los salarios menos pagados como daños liquidados.

B. Cualquier empleador que represalia en contra un empleado y otra persona en violación de este

capítulo se le deberá requerir pagarle al empleado una multa fijada por la Oficina o una corte suficiente para compensar el empleado y deferir violaciones en el futuro, pero no menos que los $250 por cada día que la violación continuó o hasta que une finalice una decisión legal. En cualquier caso en que el empleado se ha despedido en represalia de ejerciendo derecho bajo esta ordenanza, el período de la violación se extiende del día de la resalía hasta el día que el empleado sea re-instalado, el día que el Empleado acuerde renunciar ser instalado de nuevo o, en el caso de un Empleado quien no puede ser empleado de nuevo, del día de despido hasta el día en la decisión legal sea final.

C. Cualquier empleador que viole el mantenimiento de registros, el fijar u otros requisitos que la Oficina

pueda establecer bajo este capítulo será sujeto a una multa civil pagadera a la Ciudad de a lo menos $250 por la primera violación, y a lo menos de $1,000 por cada violación subsecuente o intencional y

76

puede, si la Oficina o la Corte determine apropiada, será sujeta a inspecciones y control especial. Para poder compensar a la Ciudad por los costos de investigar y remediar las violaciones bajo este capítulo, la Oficina también puede ordenar a un empleador en violación o persona pagarle a la Ciudad una multa civil de no más de cincuenta dólares ($50.00) por cada día y por cada empleado o persona como a quien una violación d esta capítulo le ocurrió o continuó. Hasta el punto permitido por la ley, dichos fondos se le deberán designar a la Oficina y se deberán usar para compensar ls costos de implementando y haciendo cumplir este capítulo. No menos del cincuenta por ciento (50%) de dichos fondos, y de cualesquier multas civiles tasadas y retenidas por la Ciudad de acuerdo con este capítulo, se deberán designar para el financiamiento del programa de información basado en la comunidad proveído para esta Sección.

D. La Oficina y las cortes deberán tener la autorización de ordenar pago de dichos salarios no pagados,

daños liquidados, y multas civiles y para ordenar cualquier otro alivio apropiado legal o equitativo por violaciones de este capítulo. Hasta el punto permitido por la ley, las multas civiles pagaderas a la Ciudad se deberán retener por la Oficina y se deberán usar para financiar actividades para hacer cumplir con este capítulo. Un demandante vencedor deberá tener el derecho a honorarios razonables de abogado y costos del juicio de un empleador en violación.

E. Una acción civil para hacer cumplir con este capítulo se puede iniciar no más tarde que dos años

después de que una violación ocurrió, o tres años en el caso de una violación voluntaria, y puede abarcar todas las violaciones que ocurrieron como parte de un curso continuó de la conducta del empleador indiferente de su fecha. Los estatutos de limitación para plantar una acción civil se deberá impedir durante cualquier investigación de un empleador de la Oficina u otro oficial de cumplimiento con la ley, pero la investigación no deberá prohibir a una persona de planteando una acción civil bajo este capítulo. Los requisitos de este capítulo también se pueden hacer cumplir por el Abogado Municipal. En tal caso, los salarios no pagados y los daños recuperados deberá ser pagaderos al Empleado individual a quien le ocurrió la violación. Ningún acuerdo verbal o por escrito o contrato de empleo puede renunciar cualesquier derechos bajo esta capítulo.

F. La Oficina deberá establecer un programa de educación e información en asociación con

organizaciones a base de la comunidad para conducir educación e información para los empleadores y empleados e sus derechos y obligaciones bajo este capítulo.

15-01-001-0008 Otros Requisitos Legales A. Nada en este capítulo se deberá interpretar o aplicar como para causar un conflicto con la Ley Federal

o del Estado. B. Nada en este capítulo se deberá construir para reemplazar, limitar, o de otra manera afectar la

aplicabilidad de cualquier otra ley, reglamento, regla requisito, política o standard que proveye más protecciones a los empleados.

15-01-001-0009 Ningún efecto en políticas más generosas A. Nada en este capítulo se deberá construir para disuadir o prohibir la adopción o retención de una

política de un salario más generosa que lo que se requiere en esto B. Nada en este capítulo s deberá construir para disminuir la obligación de un empleador de cumplir con

cualquier contrato, acuerdo de negociación colectiva, plan de beneficios de empleo, u otro acuerdo proveyendo salarios más generosos a un empleado de lo requerido en esto.

15-01-001-0010 Cláusula Restrictiva Esta ley no afecta los derechos y obligaciones de multas vencidas, que se incurrieron y procedimientos que se iniciaron antes de la fecha vigente de esta ley. 15-01-001-0011 Divisibilidad Si una provisión de esta ley o su aplicación a cualquier o circunstancia se determina ser inválida, la invalidez no afecta otras provisiones o aplicaciones de la ley que puede recibir efecto sin la provisión inválida o aplicación, y a este fin las provisiones de esta ley son divisibles.

77

BALOTA OFICIAL

PROPOSICÓN NO. 414

TÍTULO OFICIAL: Propuesta por petición de iniciativa, añadiendo un Título 15 nuevo, Ley de Salario Mínimo, al Código Municipal de Flagstaff. TÍTULO DESCRIPTIVO: Una enmienda al Código Municipal de Flagstaff por añadiendo un Título 15 nuevo, Ley de Salario Mínimo, para promulgar un salario mínimo para la Ciudad de Flagstaff y proveyendo por la ejecución y recursos para las violaciones del salario mínimo de la Ciudad. Un voto de SÍ tendrá el efecto de añadir un Título 15 nuevo, Ley de Salario Mínimo, al Código Municipal de Flagstaff para promulgar un salario mínimo para la Ciudad.

SÍ

Un voto de NO tendrá el efecto de no añadir un Título 15 nuevo, Ley de Salario Mínimo, al Código Municipal de Flagstaff, y continuar observando las leyes del Estado y Federales relacionadas a eso.

NO

COMO APARECERÁ EN LA BALOTAR

PROPOSICÓN NO. 414 Propuesta por petición de iniciativa, añadiendo un Título 15 nuevo, Ley de Salario Mínimo, al Código Municipal de Flagstaff. Un voto de SÍ tendrá el efecto de añadir un Título 15 nuevo, Ley de Salario Mínimo, al Código Municipal de Flagstaff para promulgar un salario mínimo para la Ciudad. Un voto de NO tendrá el efecto de no añadir un Título 15 nuevo, Ley de Salario Mínimo, al Código Municipal de Flagstaff, y continuar observando las leyes del Estado y Federales relacionadas a eso.

SÍ NO

78

ARGUMENTOS A FAVOR LA PROPOSICIÓN NO.414

En 1968 yo trabaje al salario mínimo para soporta mi familia e hijo, esencialmente era imposible. Ajustada para la inflación ahora ese salario fuera $11.08/ hora. La Proposición 414 iba a aumentar el salario mínimo a $10.00 en 2017, y realizar el equivalente de 1968 en 2018. Este aumento gradual, con un objetivo de $15.00 después de cinco años, en la propuesta que se presenta, que es razonable. Muchos papeles de posición competitiva se han escrito sobre el salario mínimo. Sin embargo, parece haber un poco de consenso en puntos claves. Salarios más altos iba a poner más dinero en los bolsillos de las familias tratando de vivir en un salario muy poco realismo. Esto iba a mejorar la economía para todos nosotros. El Efecto sería sustancial, especialmente para las familias afectadas directamente. Los empleadores tienen muchos costos, uno siendo salarios. Los salarios más altos iban a aumentar los costos de este empleador. Típicamente, el costo es significante compensado por la rotación reducida de empleados y costos reducidos de capacitación. Plantas laborales estables producen mejores eficaces. Algunas personas temen que un salario mínimo razonable podría reducir el número trabajos de salarios mínimos. Sin embargo, los estudios indican que salarios más altos han producido esencialmente ningunas reducciones en el número de trabajos d salarios mínimos. El costo de vivir es el 20 al 25 por ciento más alto en Flagstaff que en Phoenix. Es razonable tener un salario mínimo más alto aquí. Al fin, esto no es una discusión de números; es una discusión de llevando acabo lo que es correcto. Es llevando a cabo lo que es correcto para subir a los niños de la pobreza y para fomentar una ética de trabajo sana para los adultos. Juntos haremos esta una comunidad más sana para todos. Jim McCarthy Ex miembro de las Comisiones de Flagstaff (Planificación y Zonificación, y Agua) ----- Vote SÍ por la Proposición 414 para ayudar a Flagstaff prosperar. Cuando corrí para el Concejo Municipal en 2014 y por todo la primavera de 2016 mientras recaudando firmas para esta iniciativa de la gente, yo camine por cada vecindario del pueblo. Observé la pobreza que es ambos impresionante y profundamente triste. Platique con miles de personas y he escuchado las historias que comparten una línea común: múltiples generaciones de familias o numerosos compañeros de cuarto bajo un tejado con poca privacidad reorganizando múltiplos trabajos de salarios bajos sin posibilidades de mejoramiento. Como oficial elegido y un ser humano encuentro que el nivel de pobreza actual entre la gente trabajadora no es aceptable. Tenemos un oportunidad única de promulgar una de las mejores piezas de legislación que nosotros los votantes jamás hemos considerado a un nivel local y ofreciéndoles a la gente trabajando duro la dignidad que merecen. Le aliento que tome este paso histórico hacia adelante conmigo y vote SÍ por la Proposición 414. Al estar completamente implementada – para 2021 – la Proposición 414 será de beneficio para más de 22,600 trabajadores y un sin número de negocios locales que aprovecerán el aumento de $198 millones del aumento del salario mínimo le ofrecerá a la economía de Flagstaff cada año. El aumento del salario mínimo ondula por la planta laboral y aumenta los salarios del fondo del 20 por ciento de ganadores de salarios – aquellos más vulnerables entre nosotros. El desempleo de Flagstaff se encuentre a eso del 5 por ciento, aun nuestra tasa de pobreza es aproximadamente el 25 por ciento en completo y el 28 por ciento entre los niños. La pobreza afecta a las


79

mujeres y a los niños a tasas desproporcionadamente más altas. Aumentando el salario mínimo o solamente pondrá más dólares en los bolsillos de nuestras familias, pero también un impacto positivo en otros resultados que se enlacen con la pobreza, incluyendo la salud de la comunidad, consecución educacional, violencia doméstica, y el crimen.

Ninguna persona trabajando a tiempo completo debería vivir en la pobreza. Hay que ofrecerle a Flagstaff un aumento, hay que votar SÍ por la Proposición 414.

Eva Putzova Miembra del Concejo de la Ciudad de Flagstaff Los puntos de vista de Ms.Putzova no necesariamente reflejan aquellos del Concejo Municipal de Flagstaff. ----- Yo soy dueño de un negocio y yo voy a votar SÍ por la Proposición 414.

Presentemente, soy dueño de un negocio pequeño próspero y a como lo extendió, estoy comprometido en pagarles a mis trabajadores un salario decente. Pero no mucho antes yo mismo estaba empleado, recibiendo un salario mínimo y no pudiendo cuidar por mi familia. Siempre me encontraba una emergencia de encontrarme en la calle. Yo no deseo que mis empleados pasen por los mismos esfuerzos e indignidad. Cada persona merece un salario justo y lo aliento votar SÍ para aumentar el salario mínimo de Flagstaff, votar SÍ por la Proposición 414.

Ninguna persona trabajando de tiempo completo debería vivir en la pobreza. Depende de nosotros – dueños de negocios – figurar modelos de negocios que no dependen de los salarios de pobreza si yo lo hice cualquier persona puede. El standard de salario mínimo tiene que aumentarse. En Flagstaff, la necesidad de aumentar el piso del salario es más urgente que nunca. Yo les pido a todos los negocios responsables que se unan conmigo en apoyo de la Proposición 414 para aumentar el salario mínimo a $15 sobre los cinco años. Este aumento moderado en fases no solo le ayuda a más del 25 por ciento de todos los trabajadores, pero también infunde nuestra economía local con aproximadamente $198 millones anualmente al ser completamente implementada.

Mi negocio puede ser chico en tamaño, pero es grande en la responsabilidad social. Vote SÍ por la Proposición 414 y ofrézcale dignidad al trabajo.

Kelly Bailey Dueña de Kleening by Kelly ----- Un voto SÍ por la Proposición 414 es un voto para apoyar los negocios pequeños de Flagstaff.

Desde que abrí mi pequeña tiende de te en lado al Sur de Flagstaff, he tenido docenas de conversaciones con mis clientes tocante como les nacería comprar mi te más a menudo pero es dificultoso de llegar al fin de mes en este pueblo. Muchos de ellos trabajan trabajos de salarios mínimos de ventas al por menor, industria de hospitalidad, y en funcionas de apoyo de oficina.

Como dueños de negocios sirviendo primeramente una clientela local, nosotros dependemos en los ingresos discrecionales de nuestra comunidad. El salario mínimo actual es inadecuado dadas las condiciones económicas locales y le aliento que vote SÍ por la proposición 414. Con más dinero circulando en nuestra comunidad nuestros negocios tendrán más y más clientes frecuentes y todos nosotros sacaremos beneficio. Un salario mínimo más alto no solo es bueno para los trabajadores, es de beneficio para los negocios locales.

Un aumento del salario mínimo es exactamente el tipo de estímulo económico que esta comunidad necesita. El más gastar de los consumidores significa más ingresos para los negocios y un clima de negocios prospero. Vote SÍ por la proposición 414 para apoyar la prosperidad de Flagstaff.

Curran Malhotra Dueño de Curran’s Speciality Chais & Teas

80

Vote SÍ por la proposición 414 para apoyar la gente que trabaja duro. Cuando estaba creciendo mi padre me enseño que si uno trabaja duro, los premios se presentarán. Que donde existe una voluntad, existe una manera. Pero también que el mundo no es necesariamente justo. Yo he estado trabajando en un trabajo de salario mínimo mientras obteniendo mis dos certificados de NAU. Y yo pongo mi corazón y alma en ambos esfuerzos. Ahora con treinta años, pagando mis propias cuentas, y intentando ser un adulto responsable, reconozco lo que mi Padre quería decir por la frase “el mundo no es justo”. Yo he trabajado el mismo trabajo por diez años – jamás una vez tarde, y recibí una sum de $3.00 e aumento. ¿Dónde están las recompensas por trabajando duro, por la lealtad a mi empleador, por productividad? A veces nosotros, los ciudadanos y trabajadores tenemos que luchar para hacer el mundo justo y por eso es que yo le aliento aumentar el salario mínimo de Flagstaff para que la gente trabajadora como yo podamos pagar nuestras cuentas. Nosotros somos un pueblo de turistas, y la industria de servicios– donde yo siempre he trabajado – les provee a muchos otros con empleo. Sin embargo, los salarios bajos nos están forzando vivir en condiciones de calidad inferior, viviendas no sanas con un número de compañeros de cuarto más alla de la ocupación intentada para esa vivienda. El salario mínimo de Flagstaff tiene que llegar más cerca al salario de vida. Nosotros, la clase de trabajadores de Flagstaff, les pedimos que se unan con nosotros para asegurar que nuestro trabajo duro se reconozca en nuestros salarios. Flagstaff necesita un aumento. Vote SÍ por la proposición 414. Victoria Eakin ----- Vote SÍ por la Proposición 414 para educir la violencia y hacer a Flagstaff más seguro. Yo le aliento votar SÍ por la PROPOSICIÓN 414 que se presentará en su balota el 8 de noviembre. Esta iniciativa de los ciudadanos local para aumentar el salario mínimo de Flagstaff es gravemente necesaria. De mi perspectiva profesional como el Director Ejecutivo de Victim Witness Services del Condado Coconino yo le puedo asegurar que existe un buena documentada correlación entre la pobreza y la violencia doméstica, asalto sexual, abuso de niños, y otras formas de crimen. La gente que vive en o bajo el nivel de pobreza lleva más del doble de la tasa de trato injusto que la gente de familias de ingresos altos. La pobreza y el mal tratamiento de los niños van mano a mano. Cuando la gente trabajado demasiado y de bajos salarios, ellos pasan por presiones adicionales que pueden causar violencia. Con el 25 por ciento de la población de Flagstaff vive en la pobreza, incluyendo el 28 por ciento de los niños, ha llegado el tiempo de tratar este problema y “ofrecerle un aumento a Flagstaff” por votando SÍ por la Posposición 414. Myra Ferechil Directora Ejecutiva, Victim Witness Servicios of Coconino County Los puntos de vista de Ms.Frechil son de ella y no necesariamente reflejan aquellos del Victim Witness Servicios of Coconino County ----- Los Niños Merecen Vivir en Dignidad Como un maestro de la escuela pública por los 13 años pasados, primero en la reservación Navajo y ahora en Flagstaff, yo he observado el daño que los salarios bajos causan para mis estudiantes y sus familias. Algunas veces el daño viene en la forma de comidas pérdidas o la necesidad de viviendo con comidas baratas de pobre calidad con pobre contenido nutritivo. Para otros estudiantes, son los lentes para leer o visitas a la clínica de salud que no pueden pagar, que puede tener un impacto devastador sobre la habilidad de leer o concentrar, Aun peor, en mi mente, es el daño que causa la ausencia de los padres que tienen que trabajar dos o tres trabajos para hacer el fin de mes, a $8 o $9 dólares por hora. Los niños de estas familias a menudo se crían por la televisión y los medios sociales, tiene muy poca y ninguna ayuda o dirección con la tarea asignada, y a nadie fuera del sistema escolar para apoyarlos, hacerlos responsables, o mantenerlos

81

avanzando hacia las metas de la vida. Estudio tras estudio a por décadas han descubierto que si uno conoce solamente los ingresos de la familia del niño, uno puede pronosticar su éxito en la escuela con el 60-70% de exactitud. Es alto tiempo que nosotros los ciudadanos de Flagstaff aceptemos la responsabilidad como un comunidad de levantar estos niños hacia arriba y asegurar que tendrán la mejor oportunidad para triunfar. Nuestros presiónales dedicados de la educción pueden hacer el resto, pero solamente cuando los estudiantes de nuestras aulas tengan una oportunidad justa en el comienzo, y eso comienza en casa – con salarios que pueden sostener una familia. Derek Born ----- El apoyo de la Proposición 414 es algo sin sentido en un pueblo como Flagstaff donde según Governing.com el costo de vivir es más alto que la Ciudad de Nueva York. Miles de residente de Flagstaff tienen que trabajar múltiplos trabajos solamente para hacer el fin de mes para poner comida en la mesa, para poder pagar por los altos costos de arrendamientos. Madres solteras apenas alcanzan para vivir por el sumiso $8.50 que es el salario mínimo por todo el estado/ Las mujeres y la gente de color son sobre representadas en los trabajos pagando salarios bajos. Votando SÍ por la Proposición 414 es la decisión correcta para todos los que consideran Flagstaff su hogar. Su voto de Sin es un voto para la justicia económica y social. Mientras que nosotros necesitamos aumentar el salario mínimo, un salario mínimo por todo el estado no le queda a todos. El costo de vivir de Tucson o Phoenix es vastamente diferente que el de Flagstaff. Nuestras economías locales oscilan mucho. Un aumento incrementado del salario mínimo de Flagstaff a $15 para 2021 es razonable y muy necesario. A menudo los locales se refieren a Flagstaff como “pobreza con una vista”. Eso no es una insignia de honor para un lugar lleno de miembros de la comunidad apasionados y buenos para trabajar quienes dan todo de su poder para hacer a Flagstaff el mejor lugar en donde trabajar y vivir. Ha llegado el tiempo para que Flagstaff se una con numerosas ciudades por todo el país en un esfuerzo de levantar a la gente trabajadora de la pobreza. Vote SÍ por la Proposición 414 y hay que ayudar a terminar la pobreza juntos Kristen Beesley ----- Vote Sí por la Proposición 414 para proteger los trabajadores y nuestra economía. Cuando primero me mude a Flagstaff hace 13 años pasados, estaba sin empleo y demasiado joven para calificar para el seguro social. Me tomó 1.5 años para encontrar un trabajo de todo tiempo en mi carrera, aunque yo tenía 25 años de experiencia y dos certificados. Trabajé como un temporal de salario mínimo y luego como una persona de ventas al nivel de entrada. Finalmente logre un trabajo de tiempo completo en mi campo, pero ganaba la mitad de lo que ganaba en California. Yo había trabajado duro por 40 años, ganando 79 centavos del dólar comparado con gente en mi campo. La mayoría de las personas con 60 años de edad no tienen muchas opciones como yo las tuve cuando podía jubilarme y muchas continúan trabajando en trabajos de salarios mínimos hasta después de empleo de toda la vida. Aumentando el salario mínimo será de beneficio para un número creciendo de personas de edad avanzada y le aliento que vote SÍ por la Proposición 414 Flagstaff tiene una desigualdad muy alta de ingresos con el 25% de nuestra población viviendo abajo del nivel de pobreza. Un aumento gradual del salario mínimo a $15 por hora para 2021 iba a indicar más dinero gastado en los negocios locales, una reducción de la pobreza y una economía más sana. Iba a tener un pequeño o no efecto en los niveles de empleo. Hubiera cumplimiento local para proteger trabajadores y educar los empleadores. Nadie trabajando de tiempo completo debía de vivir en la pobreza. Vote SÍ por la Proposición 414. Sallie Kladnik, Jubilada

82

Le aliento que vote POR la Proposición 414 Yo apoyo la Proposición 414 por la razón de que nuestras familias viviendo en la pobreza necesitan un aumento. El Condado Coconino tiene un costo alto de vivir y una tasa alta de niños viviendo en la pobreza, con el 28 por ciento de nuestros niños viviendo en la pobreza. El salario mínimo actual deja a un padre/madre trabajando de tiempo completo más de $7000 abajo del nivel de pobreza de $24,250 para una familia de cuatro. Tristemente, los expertos declaran que la pobreza es el mejor pronosticador de abuso de los niños y descuido. Nosotros podemos ayudar prevenir abuso de los niños y descuido y hacer las vidas de nuestros niños mejor por apoyando un aumento l salario mínimo de Flagstaff. Nuestras familias trabajadoras merecen un aumento. ¡Vote SÍ por la Proposición 414! Dorothy Renstrom, retired child welfare social worker ----- Yo aliento un voto de SÍ por la Proposición 414. El establecer de un aumento el salario mínimo en fases de Flagstaff se debería haber realizado mucho antes. El infamante eslogan “Poverty with the View” (“Pobreza con una Vista”) es una penosa realidad de mucha gente soltera trabajadora y familias quienes, a pesar de trabajando muchas duras horas, no pueden adelantar. Ni un poquito. Como miembro del concejo municipal de la ciudad de Flagstaff por los últimos seis años pasados yo he intentado ayudar a aquellas personas que más lo necesitan. Yo firmemente creo que hoy es el tiempo de tratar con este problema insuperable por aprobando la Proposición 414, que gradualmente aumenta el salario mínimo sobre los siguientes cinco años de $8.05 a $15 por hora. No hace mucho, que Flagstaff llego a reconocerse por teniendo los salarios más bajos del sector privado ajustados para el costo de vida de todo el país. Esta estadística penosa enfoca otra sombría que me mantiene despierta: el 28% de los niños de Flagstaff viven en la pobreza. En algunas de nuestras escuelas, más del 75% de los niños califican para comidas gratis o de precio reducido. Estos niños de padres/madres/que trabajan que a menudo oscilan trabajos, y siempre no pueden ganar suficiente dinero para proveer comida para sus niños. Le aliento que se una conmigo en ayudando levantar gente trabajadora de la pobreza, mejorar la salud, educación, y resultados sociales de Flagstaff y aumentar gastos locales que serán de benéfico para la economía. Aumentando el salario mínimo sobre el tiempo como propone la Proposición 414 va a transformar no solamente las vidas de trabajadores de ingresos bajos pero también las vidas de los niños que dependen en nuestra habilidad de reconocer e implementar buena política pública,. Un voto de SÍ por la Proposición 414es un importante paso hacia reduciendo la pobreza de Flagstaff. Celia Barotz Vice-Alcalde, Ciudad de Flagstaff Los puntos de vista expresados en esto son solamente aquellos de Ms. Barotz ----- En estudios académicos por tales organizaciones como The Fedral Resrve Bank of Chicago, The Political Econom,y Research Institute de la Universidad de Massachusetts, The Center for Urban Economic Developmentde la Universidad de Chicago y muchos, muchos más el acuerdo es que no existe impacto negativo que se puede medir en el empleo cuando el salario mínimo se aumenta. Por más de 30 años el costo de vivir ha dejado atrás los salarios hasta el punto que los trabajadores de tiempo completo de salario mínimo tienen que depender de ayuda del gobierno para satisfacer sus necesidades básicas. Según el Economic Policy Institutes Family Budget Calculator, una familia de cuatro de Flagstaff necesita ganar más de $71,000 por año solamente para satisfacer las necesidades básicas, Esto indica que dos adultos trabajando de un hogar necesitan ganar más de $17/hora. Un padre/madre soltero con un niño necesita estar ganado más de $26/hora solamente para hacer el fin de mes.

83

La información recaudad el Bureau of Labor Statistics indica que existen 22,000 trabajadores ganado menos de $15/hora en Flagstaff, 38% de la planta laboral de Flagstaff de 58,000 están observando un espacio de ingresos oscilando entre el 12% al 70%. Según varios estudios, un aumento del 10% de salarios se traduce a lo más a un aumento de la mitad de un por ciento de los costos de operación. La rotación de empleados y ausentes se reduce, mientras que la productividad, moral de los empleados y servicios de los clientes aumenta. Si sobre cinco años le ofrecemos a los empleados de pago más bajo un aumento del 40%, podemos anticipar un aumento del 2% de los costos de operación de los negocios. Al fin de los cinco años en fases existiera una inversión de nuevo directa en la economía de Flagstaff de $198,000,000 a través de aumentos de pago y una inversión de nuevo indirecta de $900,000,000 debido a los efectos multiplicados de esos gastos adicionales. Este aumento de gastos es la demanda que requiere más trabajadores y por consecuente establece trabajos. Eric Souders, Accredited Wealth Management Advisor ----- Como miembro del comité de justicia social de la Iglesia Beacon Unitarian Universalist Church de Flagstaff yo escribo para urgir un voto de SÍ por la Proposición 414. La Proposición 414 iba a gradualmente aumentar el salario mínimo de Flagstaff a $15 por la hora sobre cinco años Nuestra congregación por mucho tiempo se ha preocupado de la dificultad de aquellas personas trabajando por salarios de pobreza de Flagstaff y por esa razón es por la cual nosotros apoyamos el esfuerzo de traer un salario de vivir a Flagstaff. La Proposición 414 les ayudará a aquellas personas más en necesidad de nuestra comunidad – madres soleteras creando una familia, jóvenes tratando de pagar por sus deudas de colegio, trabajadores tratando de pagar por las rentas siempre aumentado. Se ha reportado que los maestros de nuestras escuelas como rutina envían comida a casa de muchos de sus estudiantes porque viven en casas donde la comida es escasa. Esto moralmente no es aceptable. Aumentando los salarios de aquellos a o cerca del salario mínimo a un salario más de vida es lo correcto que hacer y es de beneficio para la comunidad completa. ¡Vote SÍ por la PROPOSICIÓN 414! Anne Cotten ----- Friends of Flagstaff’s le alienta votar sí por la Proposición 414. Con la adopción de un salario de vida de Flagstaff, nosotros podemos continuar apoyando los negocios locales mientras también apoyando las familias locales. Según la American Community Survey de 2014, el 25% de la población de Flagstaff vive en la pobreza. La visión de nuestra comunidad de prosperidad económica se le tiene que aplicar no solamente a los negocios locales, sino a las personas y familias luchando para hacer el fin de mes a pesar de trabajando uno o más trabajos. Flagstaff tiene el costo de vivir más alto de Arizona. Las viviendas aquí son sumamente caras, mientras que muchos trabajos son de salario bajo y ofrecen lo mínimo (si los hay) beneficios. El salario mínimo actual de Flagstaff y el resto de Arizona es $8.05 por hora - $16,744 por año de un trabajador de tiempo completo – que no es suficiente para hacer el fin de mes donde quiera. Las ciudades por todo el país están aumentando el salario mínimo a un salario de vivir de $15/hora, y Flagstaff debería ser entre ellas. Friends of Flagstaff’s Future defiende un Flagstaff socialmente justo y próspero económicamente. No podemos marchar adelante hacia cualesquier de estas metas cuando, según el US Bureau of Labor Statistics, el 25% de todos los trabajos de nuestra comunidad paga menos que $10/hora. Nosotros reconocemos que pagando un salario de vida va a requerir que los negocios llevan a cabo ajustes a sus planes comerciales y prácticas. La Proposición 414 aumentará el salario mínimo en varias fases para poder facilitar esta transición, y el salario de $15/hora no se realizará hasta 2021.

84

La Proposición 414 terminará salarios de pobreza de nuestra comunidad. ¡Le aliento votar sí! Tory Syracuse David McCain Director Ejecutivo Presidente de la Junta Directiva ----- Aumentando el salario mínimo de Flagstaff ayudará a nuestra economía al colocar más dinero en las manos de trabajadores de salarios bajos que ciertamente gastarán casi todo de ese aumento en los negocios locales. También les permite a aquellos trabajadores pagar por los costos básicos de vivir en Flagstaff, que por la mayor parte debido a las viviendas es un lugar caro en cual vivir. Cuando se usa un mecanismo de salario mínimo, entonces los negocios no son desfavorecidos competitivamente en relación con otros negocios de Flagtaff, de que todos son sujetos a los mismos requisitos. Esto aumentará los costos de trabajar de los negocios y así los precios de sus servicios o productos aumentarán como un grupo. Así que los consumidores pagarán, pero probablemente apenas se notará al repartirse sobre los ingresos completos de los negocios. El salario mínimo nacionalmente no se ha aumentado por décadas y como resultado el poder de compras del salario mínimo se ha reducido dramáticamente sobre ese tiempo. En la región metro de Flagstaff, 14,000 trabajos, o el 25% del total, pagan menos que $10.10, así que un número significante de los trabajos se encuentran a o cerca de trabajos de salario mínimo de nuestra comunidad. Nacionalmente. El 60% de estos trabajos se ocupan por gente con más de 25 años de edad, indicando que estos probablemente son trabajos de tiempo completo que la gente usa para soportarse y a veces sus familias. Estos no son solamente jóvenes ganado dinero para gastar. Muchas ciudades por todo el país han aumentado su salario mínimo para responder a sus valores locales y condiciones. En una ciudad como Flagstaff, con su alto costo de vivir, iniciando la moción de gradualmente aumentar el salario mínimo a $15 por la hora sobre cinco años es una buena decisión de política. Tom Broderick ARGUMENTOS EN CONTRA LA PROPOSICIÓN 414

Cuidado de Consecuencias no planeadas El cuidado de personas con incapacidades de desarrollo e intelectual no es para todos - se muy demandante y a menudo es desgarrador. El financiamiento del estado actual para el cuidado de estos individuos se encuentra al 78% de los costos de operación actuales. Sin un aumento del financiamiento del estado, los proveedores no se encuentran en una posición financiera para pagar nuestros increíbles trabajadores de cuidado directo (DCW) un salario de vida por el gran trabajo que hacen. Cuando las tasas de rotación tan altas como el 80% de Flagstaff, el pago de DCW a menudo es menos de lo que cadenas de comidas corridas pueden ofrecer a sus empleados, haciéndolo muy dificultoso de retener el personal existente y reclutar reemplazos. Mientras que el aumentar del salario mínimo parece una sencilla solución de este problema, actualmente hace la situación peor. Sin aumentos apropiados del financiamiento del estado, proveedores de cuidado no podrán absorber el costo de salarios aumentados por esta medida. En un escenario de mejor caso, los proveedores de cuidado permanecerán abiertos, pero ofrezcan servicios limitados con personal reducido que no podrá seguramente proveer cuidado crítico a nuestros ciudadanos más vulnerables. Se les forzará a muchos clientes mudarse y dejar sus familias aquí en Flagstaff. La consecuencia más probable, sin embargo, es que muchos de los proveedores de cuidado tendrán que cerrar sus puertas, sin poder pagar por los costos de empleo, que iban a dejar muchas de los 10,000 personas con incapacidades de la área sin un lugar en Flagstaff para recibir cuidado.


85

Los proveedores de cuidado quieren y necesitan aumentar los salarios de nuestros DCW. Pero, a menos que la Legislatura aumente el financiamiento del cuidado de aquellas personas con incapacidades de desarrollo o intelectual, esta medida perjudica la salud y seguridad de los residentes más vulnerable. Es con gran tristeza que le animamos a votar NO. Monica Attridge David Schwartz Arizona Association of Providers for People with Disabilities ----- Los proponentes de 414 obviamente les importan poco del sector de empleadores privados, los trabajos que proveyen, o el impuesto sobre las ventas que producen. No cometa el error, un aumento del 10%-20% del salario mínimo causa una presión hacia arriba de los salarios y aumenta un anfitrión de gastos calculados de los gastos – impuestos sobre la nómina, compensación y seguros de desempleo, etcétera. Un aumento sustancial de los gastos sin un aumento de los ingresos correspondiente (precios más altos – menos empleados) puede indicar el deceso de muchos negocios pequeños. Los dueños de negocios tratarán de sobrevivir. Con la aprobación de 414, espere que los proveedores de mercancía y servicios (empleadores, grandes y pequeños, o privados o gubernamentales – a lo menos la Ciudad) reaccionarán por aumentando los precios / impuestos, o reduciendo servicios, como sea necesario para compensar el aumento de los salarios y relacionados gastos. Cada ciudadano incluyendo aquellos en ingresos fijos, empleados del Estado y Federales (exentos del aumento de salario de 414) pueden esperar ver su poder de compras reducido. Los empleados del Condado Coconino, ni incluidos o exentos de la esquema estatutaria del 414, puede o no podrán recibir un aumento pero, si pagarán los costos aumentados de mercancía y servicios. También parece que 414 está diseñada intencionalmente para estancar la economía de Flagstaff por requiriendo que los salarios de aquí excedan las estipulaciones del salario mínimo del estado por a lo memos de $2.00 por la hora. Indiferente de la razón, demandando que llevando a cabo negocios de costo mínimo de Arizona más alto, no es buena señal en atrayendo empleadores sustanciales a nuestra región – a la mejor otro beneficio prevenido por los proponentes. Nuestro costo de vivir es alto. ¿El remedio? Aumentar nuestra escala de salarios a eso de San Francisco, inflar más nuestro costo de vivir, ahorcar nuestro sector comercial privado, y perder trabajos en el proceso. No comprendo lo lógico. ¡Pero, una prima! Si se aprueba 414 y no trabaja, vamos a estar atrancados con eso por mucho tiempo. Vote NO por 414. William Preston ----- Los proponentes de aumentando el salario mínimo generalmente discuten que va mejorar el standard de vivir de los ganadores de ingreso bajos. Sin embargo, numerosos estudios han mostrado que el salario mínimo aumenta el empleo reducido. Consecuentemente, una subida del salario mínimo puede aumentar ganancias de algunos trabajadores y causa pérdidas de trabajo y reduce las ganancias de otros. Artificialmente, demandando aumentos de salarios a través una acción gubernamental también tiene el efecto negativo de aumentar la inflación por consiguiente reduciendo adicionalmente cualesquier posibles ganancias que se hicieron por los empleados e ingresos bajos. El costo de mercancía y de los servicios aumentan a como el dinero para pagar por el costo de labor aumentado se presenta de otro lugar. Los pobres no pueden pagar iniciativas contra productivas como lo que intenta Flagstaff Living Wage Coalition trata de avanzar su nombre. Muchos de los trabajos son de estudiantes y aquellas personas sin experiencia. Los beneficios obtenidos de la experiencia del primer trabajo, hasta a un pago relativamente bajo, provee el primer paso de la escalera e movilidad hacia arriba. La amplia mayoría de la gente que comenzaron ganando un salario mínimo no permanece ahí por mucho tiempo. Nuestra economía local por lo mayor es de turistas con el 31% de nuestros trabajos en el comercio de ventas al por menor, arte, entretenimiento, alojamiento y servicios de comida. Nuestros vendedores al por menor/restaurantes/hoteles etcétera, tienen que permanecer competitivos con comparaciones extensivas de precios en línea. Si el costo de trabajar se aumenta, y nuestros negocios de dueños locales no pueden aumentar sus precios, se encontrarán “fuera de negocio”.

86

Cuando los niveles de salarios mínimos se fijan sin considerar la productividad, aquellas personas sin las destrezas correspondientes se iban a perder trabajos debidos a los precios. No hay nada compasivo de reduciendo las oportunidades pe una persona encontrando un trabajo. Simplemente, las leyes de salarios mínimos han tenido consecuencias negativas o planeadas. Stuart W. McDaniel Vice-Presidente Goverment Affairs Cámara de Comercio de Gran Flagstaff (Los puntos de vista del Sr McDaniel so solamente suyos)

87

PRSRT STDU.S. Postage

PAIDPhoenix, AZ

Permit No. 43

CITY CLERK OF FLAGSTAFF211 W ASPEN AVEFLAGSTAFF, AZ 86001-5359

YOUR PRECINCT IS: SU PRECINTO ES:

Prec.

SEE PAGE 4 FOR YOUR POLLING PLACE INFORMATIONVEA LA PÁGINA 46 PARA INFORMACIÓN DE SU LUGAR DE VOTACIÓN

OFFICIAL VOTING MATERIALS - ONLY ONE PAMPHLET HAS BEEN MAILED TO EACH HOUSEHOLD CONTAINING QUALIFIED ELECTORS OFTHE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF. PLEASE MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO ALL QUALIFIED ELECTORS IN THE HOUSEHOLD.

MATERIALES OFICIALES ELECTORALES - SOLAMENTE UN FOLLETO SE HA ENVIADO A CADA DOMICILIO EN CUAL RESIDEN ELECTORESCALIFICADOS DEL MUNICIPIO DE FLAGSTAFF. FAVOR DE COMPARTIRLO CON TODOS LOS ELECTORES CALIFICADOS EN SU DOMICILIO.

INFORMATION PAMPHLET

FOR THE


GENERAL / SPECIAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 6, 2018

Compiled and issued by the


FOLLETO DE INFORMACIÓN PARA LA


ELECCIÓN GENERAL / ESPECIAL 6 DE NOVIEMBRE 2018

Compilado y publicado por


FOR A SPANISH VERSION OF THIS PUBLICITY PAMPHLET CALL 928-213-2076 OR VISIT WWW.FLAGSTAFF.AZ.GOV/ELECTIONS

PARA UNA VERSIÓN EN ESPAÑOL DE ESTE FOLLETO PUBLICITARIO LLAME AL 928-213-2076 O VISITE WWW.FLAGSTAFF.AZ.GOV/ELECTIONS

http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/ELECTIONS

http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/ELECTIONS

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

GENERAL VOTING INFORMATION 4

SAMPLE BALLOT FOR MAYOR / COUNCIL 6 CANDIDATE STATEMENTS 7

PROPOSITION NO. 418 – Initiative for Sustainable Wages Act

Full Text of Proposed Ordinance 14 Official Ballot / As It Will Appear on Ballot 19 Arguments For / Against 20

PROPOSITION NO. 419 – Continuation of Sales Taxes for Roadway, Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Safety Improvements

Summary Analysis 36 Map 39 Questions and Answers 40 Official Ballot / As It Will Appear on Ballot 43 Arguments For / Against 44

PROPOSITION NO. 420 – Sales Tax – Lone Tree Railroad Overpass from Butler Avenue to Route 66

Summary Analysis 46 Map 48 Questions and Answers 48 Official Ballot / As It Will Appear on Ballot 52 Arguments For / Against 53

PROPOSITION NO. 421 – Sales Tax – Increasing Transit Services Summary Analysis 55 Questions and Answers 56 Official Ballot / As It Will Appear on Ballot 60 Arguments For / Against 61

PROPOSITION NO. 422 – Secondary Property, Ad Valorem Tax – General Obligation Bonds for Improving Housing Affordability

Summary Analysis 63 Questions and Answers 66 Certain Required Information (Re Bond) 69 Official Ballot / As It Will Appear on Ballot 72 Arguments For / Against 73

4

To the Voters of the City of Flagstaff: This information pamphlet provides you with information regarding the City of Flagstaff's General Election of November 6, 2018, in which voters will select a mayor and three councilmembers, as well as a Special Election to consider propositions proposed by either the Flagstaff City Council or by initiative. The pamphlet has been printed in both English and Spanish. To request a Spanish version, contact the City Clerk’s Office at (928) 213-2076. This election will be held in conjunction with the statewide election. You may vote prior to the election date using early voting procedures or in person on the day of the election at your polling place. To cast your vote in person, make sure that you go to the address of the precinct in which you are registered or one of the three Vote Centers in Coconino County. Vote Centers are an alternative to the traditional precinct-assigned polling place. Voters from any precinct in the County may vote at one of the Vote Centers regardless of their residential address. The mailing label on this pamphlet will tell you your precinct-assigned polling place. The polls will open at 6:00 a.m. and close at 7:00 p.m. In order to be prepared to fully exercise your right to vote on November 6, 2018, you are urged to thoroughly read all the material contained within the pamphlet. Please keep in mind that questions may be printed on both sides of the actual ballot and candidate names may appear in a different order. The information provided in this document reflects the best information available to the City of Flagstaff at the time

of its preparation. The descriptions of future programs and expenditures are based on currently available information

and expectations. All such programs and expenditures are subject to future decisions and actions of the City

Council. As such, the actual future programs and expenditures may vary from the descriptions herein. The actual

ballot language, of any ballot proposition that is approved, is legally binding on the future actions of the

City Council, and no monies may be expended except for the purposes described in such ballot.

Stacy Saltzburg, MMC, Acting City Clerk 211 W. Aspen Avenue, Flagstaff, Arizona (928) 213-2076 - [email protected]

Vote Centers for the November 6, 2018 General Election

Early Voting Sites for the November 6, 2018 General Election

Flagstaff Mall 4650 N US Highway 89 Flagstaff, AZ NAU Walkup Skydome 1705 S San Francisco Street Flagstaff, AZ Tuba City High School Warrior Pavilion 67 Warrior Drive Tuba City, AZ

Coconino County Elections Office 110 E Cherry Ave Flagstaff, AZ (Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm) Coconino County Elections Eastside Office - Flagstaff Mall 4650 N. US Highway 89 Next to JCPenney Flagstaff, AZ 86004 (Monday – Friday 10:00 am – 5:00 pm)

mailto:[email protected]

5

PRECINCTS AND POLLING PLACES – NOVEMBER 6, 2018

Precinct Physical Name Polling Place Location (Facility) Room Address

Flagstaff 1 Harvest Bible Church Café/Fellowship Room 520 N Switzer Canyon Rd (formerly Kingdomheirs Church)




Flagstaff 5 Shepard of the Hills Lutheran Church 1601 N San Francisco St



Flagstaff 8 Breath of Life Church 3500 N Fourth St

Flagstaff 9 College America 399 S Malpais Ln

Flagstaff 10 NAU Walkup Skydome & VOTE CENTER 1705 S San Francisco St





Flagstaff 15 Coconino County Health & Community Services Bldg. 2625 N King St

Flagstaff 16 Breath of Life Church 3500 N Fourth St


Flagstaff 18 Flagstaff Mall & VOTE CENTER 4650 US Highway 89

Flagstaff 19 Christ's Church of Flagstaff 3475 E Soliere Ave


Flagstaff 21 Church of the Resurrection 740 W University Heights Dr S

Flagstaff 22 Covenant Church 3926 S Walapai Dr




Flagstaff 26 Flagstaff Mall & VOTE CENTER 4650 US Highway 89

Vote Centers are an alternative to the traditional precinct-assigned polling place. Voters from any precinct in the County may vote at one of the Vote Centers regardless of their residential address.

Last Day to Register to Vote 10/09/2018

Early Voting Begins 10/10/2018

Last Day to Request an Early Ballot by Mail 10/26/2018

Last Day to Vote Early 11/02/2018

TO OBTAIN FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Coconino County Elections Office 110 East Cherry Avenue Flagstaff, Arizona 86001

Telephone: (928) 679-7860

6

NOTICE TO VOTERS: The candidates listed below may not appear on your ballot in the same order as shown.

To vote, fill in the oval next to your choices. To vote for an official write-in candidate, print the name in the space provided and fill in the oval. Do not exceed the number to elect. VOTE LIKE THIS: No other marks will be valid or counted.

MAYOR

VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN 1

EVANS, CORAL J.

Write-in

COUNCILMEMBER VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN 3

ASLAN, AUSTIN DEASY, PAUL LAVIN, DENNIS MARTINEZ, ALEX SALAS, REGINA SHIMONI, ADAM Write-in

Write-in

Write-in

7

CANDIDATE STATEMENTS

“The statements in this candidate pamphlet were reproduced as submitted and were not edited for spelling, grammar,

or punctuation. These statements represent the opinions of the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy

of content.”

CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR

Mayor Coral Evans was elected to council in 2008 and mayor in 2016. She is the third generation of her family to

live in Flagstaff. Her family (the Dorseys) have been an active part of the Flagstaff & greater Northern Arizona

community since the early 1900’s.

In addition to serving on council, Ms. Evans is the executive director of a nonprofit organization (the Sunnyside

Neighborhood Association of Flagstaff, Inc.), a small business owner (Destiney’s Creations), and a published

author.

Presently Mayor Evans is pursuing a Ph.D. in education with an emphasis in sustainability. She also holds a

master’s degree in business administration and a bachelor’s degree in business management. Mayor Evans is a

graduate of the Flagstaff Leadership Program, a Flinn-Brown Foundations Fellow, and a Babson College Social

Innovation Fellow.

Her recognitions include the Chamber of Commerce Athena Award, the United Way of Northern Arizona Community

Builder Award, and the Coconino Hispanic Advisory Council Cesar E. Chavez Community Award. In July 2018 the

Arizona Business Magazine recognized Mayor Evans as one of Arizona's most influential women.

Mayor Evans believes in a balanced approach to the stewardship of community resources. She is passionate about

creating opportunities that allow for civic engagement, civil discord, community revitalization, and genuine

sustainability and advancement for Flagstaff citizens.

8

CANDIDATE FOR COUNCIL

Name: Austin Aslan Age: 42 Education: University of Arizona, BS Wildlife Management University of Hawaii, Masters Conservation Biology National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow Occupation: Author Website: www.austinaslanforflagstaff.com E-mail: [email protected] Dear Flagstaff resident,

I’m honored to seek your vote for a seat on Flagstaff’s City Council. I'm a homegrown Northern Arizona local with 20 years of deep ties to Flagstaff. I hold a Masters degree in biology and my wife is an NAU professor in the School of Earth and Sustainability.

I’m running to maintain Flagstaff’s community character and its thriving, small town vibe. Flagstaff faces

accelerating threats to its DNA. Thanks to rising housing costs, the greed of outside developers, NAU’s top-down directive to expand, and a lack of forward thinking, locals are feeling abandoned. From police officers to firefighters, from teachers to hospitality staff—our workforce is struggling to make a living here. Change is always inevitable and often positive, but who should dictate the shape and speed of Flagstaff’s growth? Big Phoenix developers? ABOR (which governs NAU)? Or local residents?

I believe that if you grew up in Flagstaff, you should feel welcome and able to stay. We must improve housing

affordability, and more adequately fund at present levels our worthy public safety personnel, including our police officers and firefighters and other city employees.

We shouldn’t have to whittle away at our forests and dark skies and neighborhood diversity to achieve

economic vitality. I envision Flagstaff becoming a national leader in sustainability, while simultaneously increasing opportunities for local businesses and top-notch job-providers.

I'm attracted to the non-partisan nature of the job. While others shout past each other at the national level,

we are positioned locally to hash out solutions to problems we all share by listening to great ideas from all sides. Your vote will help me to lead a new council toward delivering smarter, more sustainable solutions to our

current problems and those we can already see on the horizon. Thank you for your consideration.

http://www.austinaslanforflagstaff.com/


9

CANDIDATE FOR COUNCIL Name: Paul Deasy Age: 32 Education: MA Economics, MA Political Science, BA Economics, BS Political Science Occupation: Data Scientist/Policy Analyst Website: www.deasyforflagstaff.com Email: [email protected] I moved to Flagstaff when I was 12 years old. My wife and I are now raising our 4 children here. Over time I came to realize that it is not enough to read to my children every night and go to every soccer game. To ensure my children can prosper in life, I have to directly influence the environment and community they grow up in, and I have a unique skillset to offer. As a data scientist specializing in policy analysis I have indirectly influenced government policies, providing the evidence and data to encourage evidence-based decision making. It has become clear though that empirical evidence is not at the forefront of many political decisions. We need elected officials who rely more on evidence than emotion, who rely on proof not preconception, and are proactive not reactive. It is through evidence-based decisions that we build a better future for our children, and I intend to do just that. Flagstaff has the highest educational attainment of any city in Arizona, yet our economy continues to rely on minimum wage jobs. We need middle class careers, particularly in science and technology, and we have the skills here already to do it. Additive manufacturing, app development, informatics and cybersecurity are among them. Not only should we foster more careers in these fields, we need to instill more science and technology into our basic government operations. Other local governments are doing just that, mixing recycled plastic in asphalt to double the longevity of roads, building biofuel generators that create industry demand for forest restoration efforts, and using smart technology, artificial intelligence and advanced road sensors to improve traffic conditions. Government resources should be used more efficiently, and the path to efficiency is paved in innovative technology.

http://www.deasyforflagstaff.com/


10

CANDIDATE FOR COUNCIL Name: Dennis K. Lavin Age: 67 Marriage status: Married with two (2) children Occupation: Audit and Assurance Partner with an International Firm of Certified Public

Accountants – retired status. Affiliated with Flagstaff and Arizona: Flagstaff - Full or part time since 1997. Arizona – Full or part time since 1976.

I have no prior elected or appointed public positions I currently I serve as Chairman of the Audit Committee for a local credit union. This is a volunteer position. Over the years I have volunteered with a service organization; contributed to several community clean up events; and volunteered with youth organizations. I enjoy reading, to include a range of topics. Those topics include history, fiction, and current events. In addition, my wife and I enjoy the museums and theatre scene in our Community. We are blessed to have so much culture available in our Community. I am running for City Council to maintain our financial strength, support smart economic growth and job creation, and focus upon our infrastructure. Our current Flagstaff representatives have provided the community with a solid financial platform. I would offer my experience and skills with corporate governance, strategic planning, budgeting, and mentoring to grow Flagstaff’s financial strength over the next four years. Given the opportunity, I will strive to continue securing our financial stability and working collaboratively with our partners. These partners include federal, state, and county agencies; educational institutions; businesses; health providers; and our community and service organizations. Many of our residents are concerned with our infrastructure and how continued community growth will affect their daily lives. I will try to enhance how the Council’s message and goals are communicated to our community constituencies. Our talented City employees take pride in their contributions to our greater Flagstaff community. I will continue to support their efforts. Finally, I am a strong supporter of our public safety personnel. We as a community must support their vital role.

11

CANDIDATE FOR COUNCIL My name is Alex H Martinez and I am 70 years old. My current position is Executive Vice President for Research and Development at Hyper-Edge Corporation. I am a serving commissioner on the Flagstaff Planning and Zoning Commission. I am a retired Public School Superintendent and retired US Navy Reserve Captain with 36 years of service. My 36 years of military service did not stop with active duty but has let me to volunteer in obtaining services for needy veterans. I am a 7th generation Arizonan whose family has deep roots in the state of Arizona and a strong sense of commitment to its future. I am a product of the Arizona Public Schools and University system. Our family has a strong belief in supporting the public educational system which directed me into the profession of public education. Our daughter and son have their Bachelor of Science Degrees and Master’s Degrees from Northern Arizona University and the University of Arizona. I have earned by Bachelor of Science, Master’s Degree and Doctoral Degree from the University of Arizona in Educational Administration. I am running for Flagstaff City Council as a citizen who want to address issues that cross over from partisan politics and develop comprehensive solutions that effect the safety and quality of life for all of us. It will be my responsibility to be focused on results while using a balanced approach to principles that will give out community peace of mind. The skills that I bring to the table would add to the council leadership. Our council needs to be outwardly focused and committed to issues that are clear and understandable using accurate data that is dedicated to our American culture and relevant to our city. My email is [email protected] and my website is alexmartinezforflagstaffcitycouncil.


12

CANDIDATE FOR COUNCIL Name: Regina Salas Age: 44 Website: https://www.reginasalasforflg.com/ Email: [email protected] Occupation: Local business owner, I own ConnectEdge, a local consulting company helping small business and local nonprofits with business development, revenue development, capacity building and development.

Education: NC State University - National Recreation & Park Association: Revenue Development and Management School, A two-year comprehensive professional development program on proven revenue management and development strategies and techniques, emphasis on marketing and events/program development ASU Lodestar Center for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Innovation: Nonprofit Development and Management training, workshop, and conference University of the Philippines School of Labor & Industrial Relations: Master of Industrial Relations, Thesis: “Industrial Relations Transformation: Philippine Airlines’ Flight to Industrial Peace and Profitability” St. Scholastica’s College, Manila, Philippines: Bachelor of Arts in English, Thesis: “Tolstoy’s Images of Women”, Campus Journalism Award of the Year Recipient I’m the only female and an independent candidate for City Council. I’m a mother, a businesswoman and an immigrant living and thriving in Flagstaff for the last 12 years. I’m running for office to offer my whole being to serve Flagstaff citizens and diverse communities. Born and raised in the Philippines, I bring diverse perspectives and wide worldview to the City leadership. My extensive background and experience in government (Philippine Congress, City of San Fernando and Coconino County), business sector, academe, and nonprofits are uniquely valuable capabilities: community and economic development, policy research and analysis, legislative development, budgeting, fiscal management, resource mobilization, labor dispute mediation, fundraising and friend-raising. Through pragmatic leadership with focus on local issues, I pursue LIVE THRIVE FLAGSTAFF. We live, thrive, grow, and evolve in Flagstaff in spite of the challenges we experience, whether we have lived here since birth, for 2 years or for over 20 years. I have the energy and ability to bring people together, discover, develop and seize opportunities that serve us and our communities. I bring forward the following priorities:

• BUSINESS RETENTION & EXPANSION: LOCAL SMALL BUSINESS, TOURISM, DIVERSIFY ECONOMIC SECTORS

• PLAN, MANAGE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH

• FOSTER SYNERGY AND COOPERATION WITH PUBLIC AGENCIES AND PRIVATE ENTITIES

• SUPPORT LOCAL NONPROFITS

• PROTECT NATURAL AREAS, OPEN SPACE AND DARK SKIES

• PURSUE QUALITY EDUCATION FOR CAREER/ENTREPRENEURSHIP READINESS AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

• IMPROVE EFFICIENCY, TRANSPARENCY AND FISCAL MANAGEMENT OF THE CITY

My passion for community advancement involves: Flagstaff Lodging & Restaurant Assoc., Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce, Flagstaff Independent Business Alliance, Local First Arizona, Flagstaff Communicators, Flagstaff CVB Marketing, Flagstaff Women’s Leadership Network, COCONUTS Robotics Team, United Way VITA, Victim Witness Services. I helped build, organize, fundraise and mobilize volunteers for the nonprofit Friends of Coconino County Parks supporting the County's efforts on land conservation, park development, volunteerism and recreation.

https://www.reginasalasforflg.com/


13

CANDIDATE FOR COUNCIL

Name: Adam Shimoni

Age: 31

Education: Bachelors in High School Special Education & Career Tech Education with a minor in

Business from NAU

Occupation: Business Owner, Teacher, Real Estate Agent, Community Organizer

Website: www.ShimoniforCouncil.com

E-Mail: [email protected]

Flagstaff is a wonderful place to call home. The outdoors, diverse community, and quality of life are what makes our city so special. As Flagstaff grows, we face an increasing number of issues. I hear locals speak to the need for attainable housing, future water resources, economic development, and traffic congestion. I share these concerns, and I look forward to implementing long term solutions to these issues. My website, shimoniforcouncil.com, describes my top priorities and outlines action steps. We need leadership to address these subjects head on, and to plan for the future, collaborating to implement models for sustainable growth. To address our housing crisis, I hope to adjust the zoning code to ensure appropriate development, to negotiate with developers to construct affordable housing, and to advocate for building small homes. I will collaborate with NAU to find a better plan to accommodate their continued growth. To ease traffic congestion, I would support more road connections and a stronger public transit system. Future water resources is a strong concern of mine and one I hope to address through greater education and investment in conservation and re-use techniques. We are strongest when we engage and address these issues together. One of my goals as a candidate is to encourage a culture of political engagement. My years leading "Speak Up: Bridging the Gap between Local People and Local Politics," and serving on the board of Friends of Flagstaff’s Future have developed my passion for community involvement. My first bid for City Council in 2016, while only 59 votes shy from a win, furthered my understanding of engaging local communities and government. Check out my page, facebook.com/ShimoniForCouncil for community events and ways of sharing your voice. I look forward to the opportunity to serve and represent the people of Flagstaff.

http://www.shimoniforcouncil.com/


http://shimoniforcouncil.com/

http://facebook.com/ShimoniForCouncil

14

PROPOSITION NO. 418

INITIATIVE – SUSTAINABLE WAGES ACT


AMENDING TITLE 15, CHAPTER 15-01 OF THE FLAGSTAFF CITY CODE RELATING TO MINIMUM WAGE LAWS

TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT Be it enacted by the People of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona: 15-01-001-0001 Short Title This act may be cited as the "The “Minimum SUSTAINABLE Wages Act." 15-01-001-0002 Definitions A. "City" is the City of Flagstaff.

B. "Office" is the department, division or office that the City shall establish, create or designate to enforce this

chapter. C. "Employ" includes to suffer or permit to work; WHETHER A PERSON IS AN INDEPENDENT

CONTRACTOR OR AN EMPLOYEE SHALL BE DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS OF THE FEDERAL FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, BUT THE BURDEN OF PROOF SHALL BE UPON THE PARTY FOR WHOM THE WORK IS PERFORMED TO SHOW INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

D. "Employee" is any individual who (1) works or is expected to work twenty-five (25) hours or more in any

given calendar year within the geographic boundaries of the City for an employer and (2) is or was employed by an employer; BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY PERSON WHO IS EMPLOYED BY A PARENT OR A SIBLING, OR WHO IS EMPLOYED PERFORMING BABYSITTING SERVICES IN THE EMPLOYER'S HOME ON A CASUAL BASIS.

E. "Employer" includes any corporation, proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, limited liability company,

trust, association, political subdivision of the state, individual or other entity acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee, and shall include the City, but does not include the state of Arizona or the United States.

F. "Minimum Wage" is the minimum wage rate as set under Section 15-01-001-0003 of this chapter. G. "Tip" means a verifiable sum presented by a customer as a gift or voluntary gratuity in recognition of

some service performed for the customer by the employee receiving the tip. H. "Tipped Employee" means an employee who customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in

tips, has been informed by the employer in writing about the tip notice provisions required by this chapter, and retains all tips that he or she receives.

15-01-001-0003 Minimum Wage

A. Employers shall pay employees no less than the minimum wage, which shall be not less than:

15

1. BEFORE JANUARY 1, 2021, $10 an hour or $2 above the state minimum wage as provided for under Section 23-363, Arizona Revised Statutes, OR ITS SUCCESSOR STATUTE whichever is greater, on and after July 1, 2017;

2. ON AND AFTER JANUARY 1, 2021, $11 an hour or $2 FIFTY CENTS PER HOUR above the

state minimum wage as provided for under Section 23-363, Arizona Revised Statutes, OR ITS SUCCESSOR STATUTE. whichever is greater, on and after January 1, 2018;

3. $12 an hour or $2 above the state minimum wage as provided for under Section 23-363, Arizona

Revised Statutes, whichever is greater, on and after January 1, 2019; 4. $13 an hour or $2 above the state minimum wage as provided for under Section 23-363, Arizona

Revised Statutes, whichever is greater, on and after January 1, 2020; 5. $15 an hour or $2 above the state minimum wage as provided for under Section 23-363, Arizona

Revised Statutes, whichever is greater, on and after January 1, 2021. B. The minimum wage shall be increased on January 1, 2022 and on January 1 of successive years, by

the increase in the cost of living. The increase in the cost of living shall be measured by the percentage increase as of August of the immediately preceding year over the level as of August of the previous year of the consumer price index (all urban consumers, U.S. city average for all items) or its successor index as published by the U.S. department of labor or its successor agency, with the amount of the minimum wage increase rounded to the nearest multiple of five cents.

C. In the event that the federal minimum wage is increased above the level of the minimum wage that is in

force under this section, the minimum wage under this section shall be increased to match the higher federal wage, effective on the same date as the increase in the federal minimum wage, and shall become the new minimum wage in effect under this section.

D. Employees entitled to overtime pay under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206,

207, 213 are entitled to overtime pay under this chapter in accordance with federal law and regulations concerning overtime compensation under 29 U.S.C. §206, 297, 213. Such overtime pay shall be calculated based on the employee’s regular rate of pay or the minimum wage rate set forth in this section, whichever is higher.

EC. For any tipped employee who customarily and regularly receives tips or gratuities from patrons or others,

the employer may pay a cash wage up to: $3 per hour less than the minimum wage rate set forth in this section on or after July 1, 2017.

2. $2.50 per hour less than the minimum wage rate set forth in this section on or after January 1,

2022; 3. $2 per hour less than the minimum wage set forth in this section OR on after January 1, 2023; 4. $1.50 per hour less than the minimum wage set forth in this section on or after January 1, 2024; 5. $1 per hour less than the minimum wage set forth in this section on or after January 1, 2025.

Provided, however, that the employer may only pay this lower cash wage if the employer can establish BY ITS RECORDS OF CHARGED TIPS OR BY THE EMPLOYEE'S DECLARATION FOR FEDERAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS ACT (FICA) PURPOSES that when adding tips received and retained to wages paid, the employee received not less than the minimum wage for all hours worked. and the employee has been informed in writing by the employer of the provisions of this Section. All tips received by tipped employees are the sole property of the tipped employee and shall be retained by the tipped employee, except that nothing in this section shall prohibit a valid tip pool under which tips are pooled and distributed among tipped employees, provided that only the amount actually retained by each employee shall be considered part of that employee's wages for

16

purposes of this Section. On after January 1, 2026, an employer shall pay a tipped employee not less than the minimum wage set forth in this section for all hours worked. 15-01-001-0004 Notice and Recordkeeping Requirements A. The Office shall publish and make available to employers all of the following, in English, Spanish and

any language spoken by more than 5% of the workforce in the City: (1) a bulletin announcing the adjusted minimum wage rate for the upcoming year and its effective date no less than two months before its effective date; (2) a template bulletin for employers to post in the workplace informing employees of the current minimum wage rate and their rights to the minimum wage, including information about the right to be free from retaliation and the right to file a complaint and the contact information for the Office; and (3) a template notice suitable for use by employers in complying with subsections B and C of this section.

B. Every employer shall post the bulletin referred to in subsection A in a conspicuous place at any

workplace or job site in English, Spanish and any language spoken by at least 5% of the employees at the workplace or job site.

C. Every employer shall also provide each employee, at the time of hire or by July 1, 2017 whichever is later,

written notice of: the employer's business name, address, and telephone number; the employee's right to earn the minimum wage and the current minimum wage rate; the employee's right to be free from retaliation; AND the employee's right to file a complaint; and the contact information for the Office where questions about rights and responsibilities under this chapter can be answered. If the employee's primary language is one spoken by at least 5% of the employees at the workplace or jobsite, the notice required by this subsection shall be provided in English and in the employee's primary language.

D. Every employer shall maintain payroll records showing the hours worked for each day worked, and the

wages paid to all employees for a period of four years and shall allow the Office access to such records to monitor compliance. Failure to maintain such records and/or allow the Office reasonable access to such records shall raise a rebuttable presumption that the employer did not pay the required minimum wage and the employee's reasonable estimate regarding hours worked and wages paid shall be relied on, absent clear and convincing evidence otherwise. THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS TO INSPECT AND COPY THE RECORDS REQUIRED BY THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 23-364(D) OF THE ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES OR ITS SUCCESSOR STATUTE.

15-01-001-0005 Requirements A. No employer or other person shall discharge or take any other adverse action against any person in

retaliation for asserting any claim or right under this chapter, for assisting any other person in doing so, or for informing any person about their rights. Taking adverse action against a person within ninety days of a person's engaging in the foregoing activities shall raise a presumption that such action was retaliation, which may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that such action was taken for other permissible reasons.

15-01-001-0006 Implementation, Investigation and Enforcement A. Administrative Hearing Process. To the extent allowable under state law, the City shall have the authority

to coordinate implementation and enforcement of this chapter, including but not limited to establishing a civil administrative hearing process, including procedural rules; whereby the city shall receive employee complaints in writing and by telephone, investigate and prosecute complaints it deems meritorious and keep complainants notified regarding the status of the investigation. An administrative hearing judge shall hear and adjudicate the case and enter appropriate rulings pursuant to this chapter.

A.B. The Office may investigate any possible violations of this chapter by an employer or other person. Any person or organization may file an administrative complaint with the Office charging that an employer has violated this chapter as to any employee or other person. When the Office receives a complaint, it may review records regarding all employees at the employer’s worksite in order to protect the identity of any

17

employee identified in the complaint and to determine whether a pattern of violations has occurred. The name of any employee identified in the complaint shall be kept confidential as long as possible. Where the Office determines that an employee’s name must be disclosed in order to investigate a complaint further, it may do so only with the employee’s consent. SHALL FORWARD THE COMPLAINT TO THE ARIZONA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION FOR INVESTIGATION AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 23-364 OF THE ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES OR ITS SUCCESSOR STATUTE. THE OFFICE SHALL NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE OR PURSUE ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY COMPLAINT THAT ALLEGES CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF TITLE 23, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 8 OF THE ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, OR THEIR SUCCESSOR STATUTES, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER SUCH CONDUCT ALSO WOULD VIOLATE THIS CHAPTER.

B. IF, AFTER INVESTIGATING A COMPLAINT FILED PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER OR STATE LAW,

THE ARIZONA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE EMPLOYER HAS ENGAGED IN CONDUCT THAT VIOLATES TITLE 23, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 8 OF THE ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, OR THEIR SUCCESSOR STATUTES, THE OFFICE MAY NOT ASSESS OR IMPOSE ADDITIONAL CIVIL PENALTIES OR REMEDIES UNDER THIS CHAPTER FOR THE SAME CONDUCT.

C. IF, AFTER INVESTIGATING A COMPLAINT FILED PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER OR STATE LAW,

THE ARIZONA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE EMPLOYER HAS ENGAGED IN CONDUCT THAT DOES NOT VIOLATE TITLE 23, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 8 OF THE ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, OR THEIR SUCCESSOR STATUTES, BUT THAT DOES VIOLATE THIS CHAPTER, THE OFFICE MAY ASSESS OR IMPOSE CIVIL PENALTIES OR REMEDIES UNDER THIS CHAPTER.

C.D. To the extent allowable by law, a civil action to enforce this chapter may be maintained in the Flagstaff

Municipal Court or in any court of competent jurisdiction by the City or by any private party injured by a violation of this chapter.

15-01-001-0007 Civil Penalties and Remedies A. Any employer who fails to pay the wages required under this chapter shall be required to pay the employee

the balance of wages owed, including interest thereon, and an additional amount equal to twice the underpaid wages as liquidated damages.

B. Any employer who retaliates against an employee or other person in violation of this chapter shall be

required to pay the employee a penalty set by THE ARIZONA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, the Office or a court sufficient to compensate the employee and deter future violations, but not less than $250 for each day that the violation continued or until legal judgment is final. In any case where an Employee has been discharged in retaliation for exercising rights under this ordinance, the period of violation extends from the day of discharge until the day the Employee is reinstated, the day the Employee agrees to waive reinstatement or in the ease of an Employee who may not be rehired, from the day of discharge until the day legal judgment is final.

C. SUBJECT TO SECTION 15-01-001-006, Any employer who violates the recordkeeping, posting or

other requirements that the Office may establish under this chapter shall be subject to CIVIL PENALTIES AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 23-364(F) OF THE ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, OR ITS SUCCESSOR STATUTE. CIVIL PENALTIES SHALL BE RETAINED BY THE AGENCY THAT RECOVERED THEM. a civil penalty payable to the City of at least $250 for a first violation, and least $1,000 for each subsequent or willful violation and may, if the Office or Court determines appropriate, be subject to special monitoring and inspections. In order to compensate the City for the costs of investigating and remedying violations under this chapter, the Office may also order a violating employer or person to pay to the City a civil penalty of not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each day and for each employee or person as to ·whom a violation of this chapter occurred or continued. To the extent allowable by law, such funds shall be allocated to the Office and shall be used to offset the costs of implementing and enforcing this chapter. Not less than fifty percent (50%) of such funds, and of any other civil penalties assessed and retained by the City pursuant to this chapter, shall be earmarked for the funding of the community based outreach program provided for in this Section.

18

D. The Office and the courts AND, SUBJECT TO SECTION 15-01-001-006, THE OFFICE, shall have the authority to order payment of such unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and civil penalties and to order any other appropriate legal or equitable relief for violations of this chapter. To the extent allowable by law, civil penalties paid to the City shall be retained by the Office and used to finance activities to enforce this chapter. A prevailing plaintiff shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit from a violating employer.

E. A civil action to enforce this chapter may be commenced no later than two years after a violation last

occurs, or three years in the case of a willful violation, and may encompass all violations that occurred as part of a continuing course of employer conduct regardless of their date. The statute of limitations for bringing a civil action shall be tolled during any investigation of an employer by the Office ARIZONA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION or other law enforcement officer, but such investigation shall not bar a person from bringing a civil action under this chapter. The requirements of this chapter may also be enforced by the City Attorney. In such ease, unpaid wages and damages recovered shall be payable to the individual Employee as to whom the violation occurred. No verbal or written agreement or employment contract may waive any rights under this chapter.

F. The Office shall establish an education and outreach program in partnership with community based

organizations to conduct education and outreach to employees and employers of their rights and obligations under this chapter.

15-01-001·0008 Other Legal Requirements 15-01-001-0009 No Effect on More Generous Policies A. Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted or applied so as to create a conflict with Federal or State

Law. B. This chapter provides minimum requirements and shall not be construed to preempt, limit, or otherwise

affect the applicability of any other law, regulation, rule, requirement, policy, or standard that provides for greater protections to employees.

15-01-001-0009 No Effect on More Generous Policies A. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to discourage or prohibit the adoption or retention of a wage

policy more generous than that which is required herein. B. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as diminishing the obligation of an employer to comply with any

contract, collective bargaining agreement, employment benefit plan, or other agreement providing more generous wages to an employee than required herein.

15-01-001-0010 Savings Clause This act does not affect rights and duties that matured, penalties that were incurred and proceedings that were begun before the effective date of this act. 15-01-001-0011 Severability If a provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable.

19

OFFICIAL BALLOT

PROPOSITION NO. 418

OFFICIAL TITLE: SUSTAINABLE WAGES ACT DESCRIPTIVE TITLE: Amendment to the Flagstaff City Code Chapter 15-01, Minimum Wage, reducing the current minimum wage in Flagstaff to at least the minimum hourly wage imposed by state law and eventually an additional fifty cents per hour; and making other provisions similar to parallel provisions in state law. A YES vote shall have the effect of amending Chapter 15-01, Minimum Wage, of the Flagstaff City Code by reducing the current minimum wage to the state minimum wage until January 1, 2021, after which the minimum wage will be fifty cents per hour above the state minimum wage; and amending other provisions making Chapter 15-01 similar to state law.

YES

A NO vote shall have the effect of not amending Chapter 15-01, Minimum Wage, of the Flagstaff City Code and retaining the existing current minimum hourly wage and provisions approved by the voters in 2016.

NO

AS IT WILL APPEAR ON BALLOT

PROPOSITION NO. 418

Proposed by initiative petition, amending Chapter 15-01, Minimum Wage, of the Flagstaff City Code A YES vote shall have the effect of amending Chapter 15-01, Minimum Wage, of the Flagstaff City Code by reducing the current minimum wage to the state minimum wage until January 1, 2021, after which the minimum wage will be fifty cents per hour above the state minimum wage; and amending other provisions making Chapter 15-01 similar to state law. A NO vote shall have the effect of not amending Chapter 15-01, Minimum Wage, of the Flagstaff City Code and retaining the existing current minimum hourly wage and provisions approved by the voters in 2016.

YES

NO

20



Voting YES on Prop 418 will preserve the character of the town we all love so much. In the last election, we voted to increase the state minimum wage by nearly $4 an hour. Prop 418 will preserve that raise and, recognizing the higher cost of living here, places FLG’s minimum wage 50 cents over the state level. Studies conducted by the University of Washington on Seattle’s minimum wage increase has shown the folks it was meant to help are actually being hurt by a combination of fewer hours, increased cost of living and jobs being cut. The costs to low-wage workers in Seattle outweighed the benefits by a ratio of three to one, according to the study. You have seen the impact of the increased minimum wage on the cost of things like child care, groceries and eating out. Those costs impact the very same low wage folks we had hoped to help the most. Remember, we’re only half way to the unsustainable $15.50 wage and without 418, you’ll see these and other costs continue to make FLG even more unaffordable for all of us. The evidence is clear, without 418, we’re hurting those who can least afford to live here. Flagstaff’s locally owned small businesses can’t afford to pay the highest minimum wage in the country. Your Yes vote on 418 will preserve FLG and ensure everyone is paid a fair wage. Rob Wilson -----

Why is the minimum wage being confused with a livable wage? Minimum wage was never intended to be a livable wage. Minimum wage was created for individuals, like students, who are without the skills to do a job. As they learn the job becoming proficient, then their hourly pay would increase to match that skill. If we are looking at this as a livable wage, then new hires will have to have all the skills to perform the job they are applying for. It does not allow for training, but the job seeker must have all the skills needed to do the job from day one. I question why Flagstaff’s minimum wage needs to be $3.50/hr higher than the rest of Arizona? Prop 418’s $0.50/hr above Arizona is fair. Flagstaff’s City Code 15-01, requires Flagstaff to be $2.00/hr higher than the state’s minimum wage, why? What would occur here if the national objective for $15.00/hr occurs as AZ minimum wage is that Flagstaff’s minimum wage would automatically jump to $17.00/hr. Prop 418 corrects this too with the $0.50/hr above AZ minimum wage. This will adjust the wage to compensate for the increased cost of living without the domino effect of increases across the board in price increases, job loss, and deterring businesses from coming to Flagstaff. Prop 418 is a way to keep Flagstaff a city tourists will visit and spend money. Tourism is a vital part of Flagstaff’s economy and a driver for Flagstaff’s jobs. If our minimum wage hits $3.50/hr above our neighboring cities, our cost for anything will be too high in comparison and tourist and locals will go else ware to shop and jobs will go out of Flagstaff. Join me in voting YES for Prop 418. Steve Finch -----

The Sustainable Wages Act, Prop 418, adjusts Flagstaff’s current $15.50 minimum wage to $12.50 to closely mirror our State minimum wage. A YES vote on Prop 418 will keep Flagstaff livable and affordable for residents, workers, non-profits, the schools and businesses alike. In 2017, the Greater Flagstaff Chamber joined numerous groups and citizens to collect 9000 signatures to qualify the Sustainable Wages Act for the ballot because many voters didn’t understand the effects of two wage laws and

21

the extraordinary negative situations $15.50 creates everywhere you turn. An additional 41% wage hike by 2022 is unsustainable and will cause employees to suffer, families to be disrupted, force people out of Flagstaff and create less services for the developmentally disabled. People everywhere are alarmed at Flagstaff’s higher cost of living the current $11 wage is causing and can’t imagine the inflation that $15.50 will cause. In addition, many employees lost full work weeks; some have lost their jobs entirely; non profits cut back services to the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people among us. The price of goods and services has increased as well as rents so the net benefit to the minimum wage worker is actually negative yet cost of living is escalated. This is a shame and we can turn this around together. The price of daycare has skyrocketed and elderly residents on fixed incomes are having a harder time to make ends meet. Flagstaff deserves better and we DO have a chance to vote again to keep Flagstaff competitive and vibrant. A YES vote on Prop 418 adjusts the minimum wage to closely mirror our state minimum wage, will restore balance to our mountain town and sustain the local quality of life we all value and cherish. Julie Pastrick, CEO Randon Cupp, Chairman Greater Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce -----

What will it mean to vote YES?  A YES vote will make Flagstaff Livable, Affordable, and Workable.  What will it mean if you vote NO? No would mean all Flagstaff students/residents/visitors will see inflated rental prices, increased food costs, business closures, job cuts, and loss of jobs. Construction costs will continue to rise, causing housing cost to go up, and prices will mimic New York and California. Nonprofit care providers will be forced to shut down. Health care cost goes up. Taxes will be increased to subsidize the city government budget. Two large Flagstaff employers will move jobs out of town to offset increased costs. This trend will cause concern for companies looking at Flagstaff to open new businesses here. Flagstaff becomes expensive and a financially undesirable place to be.  This will also negatively impact fixed income citizens. Majority of whom are seniors. NAU student costs will continue to rise, while the 2000 students working for NAU will NOT receive any increase at all to offset the price rise.  They fall under the state minimum wage law. Flagstaff will quickly become uncompetitive with neighboring cities, causing tourism to go to lower-priced neighbors, impacting jobs and the tax base. This will increase the number of homeless citizens similar to California and Washington. Flagstaff cannot afford to continue on this path. We do not have high paying Industry jobs in this city. A NO vote will Negatively impact the future of Flagstaff, our students, businesses, citizens, and visitors. We are thankful to have tremendous support from our community. We are honored to represent this community and to be the voice of so many in Flagstaff to say:  VOTE YES on Prop 418.  Make Flagstaff Livable, Affordable, and Workable. Dhiru Robin Prema & Dino Dullbson Flagstaff Lodging & Restaurant Association -----

Don’t Make People with Intellectual Disabilities Collateral Damage We urge you to vote YES on Proposition 418, Sustainable Wages Act, on behalf of the approximately 850 children and adults in Flagstaff with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD), and their caregivers, who would be devastated if services for these individuals are stopped.

22

These services are funded by Medicaid, mostly through the federal government, and include residential placements (group homes), day programs, employment supports and in-home care. The services are not funded well and providers of these services have been struggling since the higher minimum wage was passed in Flagstaff. Three of the providers have left or stopped operations; several clients have had to move to Phoenix. Of course we believe that the caregivers affected by this increase deserve a higher wage, but the reality is that our funding won’t cover the current Flagstaff minimum wage increases. Amending the Flagstaff minimum wage to $0.50/hour over the State minimum wage accommodates the higher cost of living in Flagstaff, and helps prevent the loss of businesses and jobs, especially in our industry. Service providers for people with I/DD cannot increase prices to make ends meet, but, although it will be difficult, we believe we can survive the extra $0.50/hour. The next scheduled increase (if Prop 418 doesn’t pass) will be $1.00 over the State minimum wage, beginning 1/1/19. This is about a $400,000 increase in costs to Hozhoni and cannot be absorbed. Please join us in supporting Proposition 418. Don’t force people with intellectual and developmental disabilities from the only home many of them have ever known. Don’t “cleanse” Flagstaff of this vulnerable population. Monica Attridge Lex Heerding CEO, Hozhoni Foundation COO, Hozhoni Foundation -----

The Flagstaff disabled community is in crisis. Families are terrified for the future of their loved ones with developmental disabilities. We MUST realize that although well intentioned, Flagstaff’s new minimum wage is doing irreparable damage to the disabled community here in Flagstaff. Since Flagstaff voted to increase the minimum wage, at least 42 disabled people have lost their jobs and continue to struggle finding employment. There has also been a 66% decline in community job placements for disabled workers in Flagstaff. This is not a State funding issue, it is a Flagstaff minimum wage issue. In the last 18 months of increased minimum wage, Flagstaff’s disabled community has experienced:

• 3 Providers have closed or relocated (30% of the Flagstaff Provider Network).

• 2 Day Programs have closed.

• 68 direct care positions have been eliminated.

• 8 Group Homes have relocated out of Flagstaff.

• 26 individuals with disabilities have been forced to relocate. Please keep in mind, the consequences above reflect a $.50 difference between the minimum wage in Flagstaff and the State minimum wage. In January 2019, the difference will double to $1.00, which will accelerate these trends. We will undoubtedly see more relocations of disabled individuals from their communities as more service providers close or leave town. By passing the current minimum wage in Flagstaff, voters did not intend to say that one segment of our working poor is more fit to live here than another. The path to livable wages should not be sought nor attained through the destruction of an entire segment of our community...especially our most vulnerable. I urge you to Vote Yes on Prop 418 and save Flagstaff’s most vulnerable. Quality Connections Inc. Armando Bernasconi Gretchen Povlsen CEO Board Chair

23

Nearly two years ago, Flagstaff voters were asked to increase the minimum wage – twice. Both a statewide law and a local ordinance were enacted on the same ballot. To be fair, without a statewide ballot proposition, it was unlikely that the state would have increased the minimum wage on its own. However, with the combined enactment of the statewide ballot proposition, the minimum wage in Flagstaff will grow to $15.50 by the year 2022, or $2.00 above the state minimum wage, whichever is greater. The Flagstaff minimum wage will be significantly higher than the rest of the state. Given the cost of living in Flagstaff, there is little doubt that proponents of the Flagstaff wage hike in 2016 had the best of intentions. That said, the adverse unintended impacts for various industries in Flagstaff have been significant – particularly for those that provide support services for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Unlike most enterprises, these organizations, many of which are non-profits, do not set their own rates. The current reimbursement rates, set by the state, do not fully cover the increases in personnel costs. Regrettably, the simultaneous combination of the Flagstaff ordinance and the statewide increase in the hourly wage has forced providers to close facilities, reduce remaining services and generally threatens the long-term sustainability of operations in Flagstaff as a whole. Looking forward, a “yes” vote on Prop. 418 will re-establish the hourly wage in Flagstaff to $.50 above the statewide hourly wage (again, which was also increased in 2016). In our view, this a responsible approach to recognizing the cost of living in Flagstaff while minimizing the financial hardships and challenges for those organizations that are struggling to continue serving individuals with disabilities. Please vote yes on Prop. 418. Arizona Association of Providers for People with Disabilities Wendy Shaw, Vice Chair David Schwartz, Executive Director -----

Please vote yes on Initiative 418 to amend the Minimum Wages Act to $0.50/hour over the State Minimum Wage. My name is Gloyes Lemons. My wife and our daughter Sherri who is 60+ years old, and I moved to Flagstaff so that Sherri could get the care that she requires. Sherri is profoundly intellectually and developmentally disabled and requires total care and she is unable to speak. Hozhoni Foundation provides all of this and so much more. Sherri lives in a group home and attends a day program Monday through Friday. We know that this is a very difficult decision for all of us but we urge you to vote yes on Proposition 418, on behalf of the approximately 800 children and adults with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities, and their caregivers who would be devastated if services for these individuals would be stopped. If this is Initiative is approved by the voters of Flagstaff it will help prevent the loss of businesses and jobs and greatly increase the chances of the Non-Profit Service Providers to be able to continue their critical services and care for the most challenged citizens of Flagstaff. We believe that Prop 418 should be passed as proposed by the City Council on March 21, 2017. Again, please vote yes on Prop 418. Gloyes Lemons

24

Please vote yes on Initiative 418 to amend the Minimum Wages Act to $0.50/hour over the State Minimum Wage. My name is Jane Lemons. My husband and our daughter Sherri who is 60+ years old, and I moved to Flagstaff so that Sherri could get the care that she requires. Sherri is profoundly intellectually and developmentally disabled and requires total care and she is unable to speak. Hozhoni Foundation provides all of this and so much more. Sherri lives in a group home and attends a day program Monday through Friday. We know that this is a very difficult decision for all of us but we urge you to vote yes on Proposition 418, on behalf of the approximately 800 children and adults with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities, and their caregivers who would be devastated if services for these individuals would be stopped. If this is Initiative is approved by the voters of Flagstaff it will help prevent the loss of businesses and jobs and greatly increase the chances of the Non-Profit Service Providers to be able to continue their critical services and care for the most challenged citizens of Flagstaff. We believe that Prop 418 should be passed as proposed by the City Council on March 21, 2017. Again, please vote yes on Prop 418. Jane Lemons ARGUMENTS AGAINST PROPOSITION NO. 418


In November 2016, 54% of voters approved a pay raise for minimum wage workers in Flagstaff. Now, with dark money from the Koch brother’s front, American Encore, voters are being asked to overturn Flagstaff’s minimum wage ordinance. But since it went into effect just over a year ago, 14,000 workers in our community have seen their wages go up. That’s a wonderful thing for the poorest workers in our community, many of whom are single moms, struggling to feed and clothe their children on impossible wages. By 2022, the number of workers who will benefit will rise to 30,000. That’s a huge part of our population who, if we roll back the ordinance, will, once again, be trying to make it on starvation wages. It’s the wrong thing to do. And, as it turns out, business has been flourishing under the new law, including in those industries that have the most low wage workers. In the past year, revenue for retail has gone up by 7.3%; for hotel/motel it has gone up 11.7%; and revenue for restaurants is up by 8.7%. (https://www.flagstaff.az.gov/DocumentCenter/View/58534/MAY--2018-REVENUE-). And, according to a City of Flagstaff

Management Services Report, 100 new businesses opened last year. This is all very good news. In November, voters again have the opportunity to do the right thing by the community’s poorest workers. And we now have a years worth of data confirming that it is economically the right thing too. Stand up for fairness and a strong economy. Stop the pay cuts. Vote No on Prop 418. Kim Curtis -----

Prop 418 Deserves a ‘No’ vote Thankfully, voters like me across Arizona overwhelmingly agreed in 2016 to increase the state’s minimum wage, and the state is seeing economic growth because of this. In Flagstaff, however, because of the high cost of living, we needed to raise the wage even higher, to give working individuals the living wage they need to be able to live in our mountain town. Simply put, to lower Flagstaff’s wage, as proposed by Prop 418, will lower the standard of living for thousands of hard working people trying to live in Flagstaff, many of whom have families to support. I respect the businesses that must slightly alter their business model to accommodate higher wages of their employees, and will continue to patronize those businesses that treat their employees in a manner that allows them to live and work in Flagstaff.

https://www.flagstaff.az.gov/DocumentCenter/View/58534/MAY--2018-REVENUE-

25

Even in our public schools, the Flagstaff minimum wage ordinance, combined with additional state revenue, has enabled us to raise the wages of the lowest paid support professionals that work for our children, without any adverse impact on the district budget. Lastly, with a teenager eyeing the workforce who likely will work part of his life in Flagstaff, maintaining the scheduled minimum wage increases will benefit him as well as the thousands of other hard working low wage workers in Flagstaff. Keep Flagstaff healthy now and into the future – vote no on 418! Matt Nicholls -----

Flagstaff and Arizona voters approved two separate minimum wage measures at the last election. Because of the interaction between the two, Flagstaff’s minimum wage would have increased to $12.00/hour in 2017. To soften the impact to local businesses and non-profits, the Flagstaff City Council amended the ordinance to have the minimum wage be $10.50 that year, while the state minimum wage was $10.00. “Both sides of the aisle” came together to approve this common-sense agreement, which required a council supermajority. The existing law is that our minimum wage gradually increases from 50-cent above the state minimum wage, to $15.00 total by January 2021. If Proposition 418 passes, our minimum wage would be reduced to the state minimum wage until then, but would be 50-cent higher after that. (That year, the state minimum wage will be $12.00 plus the one-year increase in the consumer price index.) The proposition would have other implications. For instance, it would remove the protection that the tips you leave at restaurants belong to the waiter or waitress, and not to the management. It would prevent the city from enforcing the minimum wage laws. Because of the higher cost of living in Flagstaff, the state minimum wage is inadequate here. Yes, many adults have to live on what they can make on the minimum wage! All workers, including those in the service industries, deserve a reasonable wage. Flagstaff businesses have thrived under the new law, including those sectors that employ the most low-wage workers. Workers now have more money to spend. The higher minimum wage has had negligible impact on consumer prices, but has significantly improved the life of our low-wage workers. To keep the current law, vote NO on Proposition 418. Jim McCarthy The views of Mr. McCarthy do not necessarily reflect those of the Flagstaff City Council. -----

I am a voting resident of Flagstaff, AZ and am writing this statement AGAINST Proposition 418, the attempt to

repeal Flagstaff’s minimum wage law, which passed with 54% of Flagstaff vote. This proposition goes against the

wishes of local citizens, and is designed to only maintain the status quo for the wealthiest, and often, out-of-town

business owners. The facts are that the Minimum Wage Law is working: 14,000 Flagstaff workers have received

raises. While trickle-down economic theory has been shown repeatedly to NOT work, trickle-up theory does. The

results of our minimum wage law is that permanent, salary-based jobs (not a part of the wage law) have also

increased wages in town, to compete with the hourly-wages. Additionally, once fully implemented, the minimum

wage law will have an economic impact of $90 million annually. When citizens are paid a livable wage, they are

able to buy services and further contribute to our local economy. The impact to our businesses has been

misrepresented; our Flagstaff business have continued to thrive, with all tourism sectors (most of the hourly-wage

businesses) showing a 7% to 11% increase in 2017-2018. Finally, we should all be concerned about propositions

and campaigns funded by single-interest groups. This repeal effort is largely funded (59%) through a Koch-brothers

26

front; this organization is designed to keep wealth with the top 1% of Americans, while harming the American public.

We need Flagstaff laws to come from Flagstaff citizens.

Amy Waltz

-----

I urge you to vote no on Proposition 418. Our local economy depends on thousands of workers who provide warm

meals and clean beds to the Flagstaff tourist, care for both the elders and the youngest among us. Our best

American value supports the idea that if you work hard, you can make it and improve your life. Flagstaff voters have

supported this value by increasing the minimum wage.

In 2016, 54 percent of Flagstaff voters approved increasing the local minimum wage to $15 by 2021, increasing the

sub-minimum wage for tipped workers to the full minimum by 2026, protecting workers’ tips, and establishing local

enforcement to prevent wage theft. The Flagstaff City Council later amended the law to bring the wage to $15.50 in

2022, with cost-of-living increases in subsequent years.

I remember years ago working as a carpenter celebrating a $2 an hour raise from a great boss. As a young person,

it was a big deal to me and I worked harder because I knew that I was valued. As a voter, you can show Flagstaff

workers that support our economy that we value their work by voting no on Proposition 418.

Raising the minimum wage works. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, since Flagstaff voters approved

increasing the minimum wage, Flagstaff’s unemployment rate is its lowest in nearly 10 years, since May 2008.

Flagstaff’s economy has grown while 14,000 Flagstaff workers have received raises. Many who were working at

$8.05 an hour just a year-and-a-half ago are now up to the more livable $11 an hour.

Use your vote to help grow our local economy by voting no on Proposition 418.

Sources: https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.az_flagstaff_msa.htm

https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_22380.htm#00-0000

Andy Bessler

-----

Vote NO on Proposition 418 to protect working families.

In the General Elections of 2016 nearly 54% of voters in a record turnout voted to raise the minimum wage in

Flagstaff to $15 an hour by 2021 and eliminate the much lower tipped wage. The local initiative that passed

establishes a law enforcement process at the local level and enables the City to work with Community partners to

educate employers and employees.

Proposition 418 would repeal all these provisions and limit the minimum wage to be no more than $0.50 above the

state minimum wage.

According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, Flagstaff average wages are 14% less than the rest of the state and

national averages. It has been well documented for decades that the cost of living in Flagstaff is 20% more than

national averages. With a 34% wage gap, $15 an hour is still not a livable wage. One in four children rely on our

local food banks for the meals they need and 20% of our labor force earns less than $10/hour and 40% are working

for less than $15 an hour.

The City of Flagstaff reports show economic growth in 2017—after the new wages went into effect. Comparing 2016

with 2017, sales tax revenue from sectors that primarily employ minimum wage workers has increased by 6.5% in

https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.az_flagstaff_msa.htm%20/

https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_22380.htm#00-0000

27

restaurants and bars, 4% in retail, and 13.4% in hotels and motels. Additionally, the number of new businesses—

as evident by new business licenses that have a Flagstaff address—increased by 5% in 2017.

Misinformation funded with dark money from the billionaire Koch brothers front American Encore will contradict the

facts and convince people to vote against their own best interests. Keep the local economy growing and our

workforce out of poverty.

Vote NO on Proposition 418.

Eric Souders

-----

I’ll be voting NO on Prop 418, the misleadingly-labeled “Sustainable Wages Act.” We must honor the democratic

process and respect the will of the voters from 2016, in which they decisively declared their support for raising

Flagstaff’s minimum wage. The 2016 measure has been working. Wages have increased for the lowest paid

workers in town, new businesses have opened, and sales tax revenues for restaurants and hotels are up. Why fix

what is not broken?

A higher minimum wage greatly benefits Flagstaff’s workforce. It increases the sub-minimum wage for tipped

workers, it protects workers tips, and it establishes local enforcement mechanisms to protect workers’ rights and

prevent wage theft. These undeniably positive outcomes for Flagstaff residents would disappear if Prop 418 were

to pass.

I hope you will join me in voting NO on Prop 418.

Austin Aslan

-----

Flagstaff has a higher cost of living than the rest of the state, and therefore needs a higher minimum wage. It is the

responsibility of both large and small businesses to pay workers a living wage. Vote NO on 418!

Dara Marks Marino

-----

Over the past 10 years, I worked closely with Latino community members working in the service industry. In that

time, community members told me about the wide spread practice of wage theft. From their accounts, wage theft

occurs in different ways, including people fired and not getting money owed, getting paid in cash and below the

minimum wage, and being refused sick leave or compensation for vacation time. Currently, the City of Flagstaff has

the ability to investigate minimum wage theft. If Prop 418 passes, it will kill local enforcement, thus rendering it much

easier for some businesses to take advantage of workers. I urge you to vote no on Prop 418.

Luis Fernandez

-----

We should all be very proud that a majority of Flagstaff voters chose to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr. by 2021.

That decision speaks volumes about our sense of fairness and our desire to address economic insecurity in our

community. It changed the lives of 14,000 Flagstaff residents for the better.

We are living at a time when the economy is robust, when revenues in our local community are up almost 11% on

average, when over 100 new businesses have been established in the last year. And yet, even in this period of

economic prosperity, those backing Prop. 418 want to take money away from our lowest paid workers.

28

We did the math: Flagstaff voters chose to increase minimum wage so that a person working 40 hours/week will

finally earn about $32,000/year (before taxes). Prop. 418 would reduce this income by $6,000/year, pushing salaries

back down to $26,000/year. It is just plain cynical to call Proposition 418 the “sustainable wages act.” It is anything

but that.

We are proud to live in a community that recognizes that the best way to address economic insecurity is through

structural change. The working poor need decent wages, not charity. We urge you to vote no on 418.

Marcus P. Ford & Sandra Lubarsky

-----

VOTE NO on Proposition 418. Thanks to the #MeToo movement, the world has opened its eye to the prevalence

and pervasiveness of sexual violence. The restaurant industry is a breeding ground for sexual harassment to occur

as workers are reliant on tips to survive. Women make up the largest percentage of subminimum wage earners and

are forced to comply with the desires of their customers to make a living, no matter how lurid or objectifying. This

has led to more instances of sexual harassment in restaurants than any other industry. Our current minimum wage

ordinance eliminates the sub-minimum tipped wage over time, enabling tipped workers to earn the full minimum

wage plus tips. Prop 418 keeps the lower tipped wage in place, thus keeping these workers dependent solely on

tips to earn a living. Workers should be able to make a living without the dependence on the whims of their

customers. In the states that have one minimum wage for all workers, like California and Alaska, the rate of sexual

harassment is HALF of what it is in states like Arizona. If Prop 418 passes, then tipped wage workers will remain at

risk for experiencing sexual harassment in the workplace. VOTE NO on Prop 418.

Thanks so much,

Bonn Baudelaire

-----

VOTE NO ON PROP 418. This supposed “sustainable wages act” is a farce. It was created under the pretense that

a livable wage is bad for Flagstaff businesses and the community. That is not true. 14,000 workers have received

raises, many of whom were working for $8.05 an hour are now making a more livable wage at $11 an hour. What

this means is that these people are now able to put more money into the local economy. In just one year, all

industries in Flagstaff have gone up in revenue by 10.89%. Working families in Flagstaff deserve to be able to go

out to eat and shop local retail, and Flagstaff business owners will be able to thrive because more money in the

hands of consumers means more business for everyone. Vote NO on PROP 418.

Julia Collier

-----

I find it unconscionable that wealthy people (billionaires, in fact!) would fight to keep poor people poor. In our little

town of Flagstaff we have voted openly and democratically to set minimum wage requirements for the most needed,

not so that can buy land or travel abroad. No! So that the poor among us can begin to live healthy lives by minimizing

the chronic stress of not having enough, by allowing nutritious food to become a real part of their lives, and by

getting off government assistance and start living with a sense of dignity and personal accomplishment. With this

approach we can truly build our town in a much needed way. If we authentically desire to make America great again,

we can do this here in our mountain town. Let us start with the PEOPLE FIRST! And all their CHILDREN!

Most people do our best to catch and capture the goal and dream of being self-sufficient, providing for our children,

and building a future based on individual independence. With the individual's hard work and a livable wage WE

CAN DO IT! YES WE CAN!

29

Please do not deny this world of opportunity by taking money AWAY FROM THOSE WHO NEED AND DESERVE

IT THE MOST!!

Vote NO ON 418!!

John Viktora

-----

I was lied to by a paid circulator who tried to get me to sign the petition to get 418 on the ballot. He told me that 418

wouldn’t lower the minimum wage, that it would just exempt some small businesses. I knew this was false and I told

him. He responded: “That’s what they’ve been telling us to say.” Prop 418 people had already been gathering

signatures for weeks when this paid circulator lied to me about the initiative. Before that time, other voters had

already complained about circulators lying to them. Why was this lying allowed to continue? How many voters were

lied to about what is in Prop 418? Prop 418 should never have made it onto the ballot because we can’t trust that

the signatures were gathered honestly. Please don’t reward the deceptive tactics the 418 people used. Vote No on

418.

James Taylor -----

Raising wages raises the economy. When people have more money to buy things, they buy more things. Businesses make more money when people buy their products. When we raise workers wages, workers have the money to buy products. This increases business profits and businesses spends more. For example, a bartender whose wages increase will have the extra money to go out for coffee, the increase in business to the coffee shop means the barista has the money to spend at a restaurant, the increase in business to the restaurant means the waiter has the money to go to the pub. Everyone wins. Multiply this by 14,000 workers who have received a wage increase and you can see how raising wages raises the economy. Lowering wages means people have less money to spend at local business and local businesses suffer. Proposition 418 will lower wages in Flagstaff and hurt our local economy. Please join me in voting no on proposition 418. Walter Yuhl Adjunct Professor at Clark University, Faculty of Economics -----

I am writing to urge my fellow citizens to oppose Proposition 418. By voting NO, we will keep our 2016 minimum wage law on the books. We need to recognize the impact of this law. 14,000 Flagstaff workers have received a raise. We need to recognize that Flagstaff has a high cost of living. We are a tourist destination and tourists help bear the cost of this wage increase. Despite the dire predictions of some business owners, we have not seen an economic disaster for local businesses. In fact, businesses have thrived with substantial increases in revenues. For example, all industries had a 10.89% increase in revenues for the year ending in May 2018, when compared to the same period the previous year. Further, our unemployment rate is the lowest in nearly 10 years. We need to keep on track with our 2016 minimum wage law. All work is valuable and workers should be paid a living wage. Poverty is devastating to individuals and families. Our area has a high rate of children living in poverty—almost ¼ of the child population. The Flagstaff rate of child poverty is 18.3% of persons under 18.

30

Keep Flagstaff growing by supporting our minimum wage law. Vote NO on Proposition 418, which would repeal our minimum wage law. Dorothy Renstrom -----

I am writing to urge a NO vote on Proposition 418. Prop 418 not only reduces the minimum wage approved by Flagstaff voters in November of 2016, but it eliminates worker protections against wage theft that are built into our minimum wage law. Nationally, workers are robbed of $15 billion dollars annually by employers who fail to pay legally earned wages. In Flagstaff to date, nearly two dozen complaints have been filed with the local Office of Labor Standards by workers claiming that they were not paid properly by their employer. Prop 418 removes the provision in the law for local enforcement of wage disputes and forces housekeepers, servers, cooks, car wash attendants, retail employees and others in the lowest paid occupations to appeal to distant, unaccountable state or federal agencies for a resolution of their claim. The current law is working for Flagstaff's hard-working employees. It is also working for the many law-abiding employers who pay their employees properly. Why should they be forced to compete with employers who violate the law and steal wages from their employees? That is exactly what will happen if Prop 418 is passed and workers have no local protections against wage theft. Let's support Flagstaff's workers and law-abiding employers. Join me in voting NO on Prop 418. Joseph Bader -----

I will vote NO on Proposition 418. In November 2016, 54 percent of Flagstaff voters approved a new minimum wage ordinance that raised our local minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2021. The City Council subsequently increased that to $15.50 per hour by 2022. This was an effort to address stagnant wages and increasing poverty in Flagstaff, affecting 1 in 4 children. In response, the corporate lobby and a dark-money group in Phoenix connected to the billionaire Koch bros empire, launched a petition to overturn the will of Flagstaff voters. They called it the “Sustainable Wages” Act because the only way they can get people to support their phony initiative to decrease the wages is to confuse the voters. Prop 418 REPEALS the Flagstaff minimum wage law almost entirely. It lowers the minimum wage, repeals the provision for increasing the sub-minimum tipped wage to the full minimum wage, and eliminates all local enforcement of the law. Flagstaff has prospered since our new law went into effect. Wages are increasing for those who need it most. By 2021 almost 30,000 workers will have received wage increases that they would not have received otherwise. New businesses are opening, unemployment is at its lowest point since May 2008, sales tax revenue is up, and “Help Wanted” signs are displayed everywhere, indicating a demand for labor. Prop 418 threatens our current prosperity and economic growth. Let's not go backwards. Send a message to the business lobby that their anti-worker program isn't welcome here. Please join me in voting NO on Prop 418. Eva Putzova The views of Ms. Putzova do not necessarily reflect those of the Flagstaff City Council. -----

Proposition 418 does not have the interests of our community at heart. I moved to Flagstaff sixteen years ago, in 2002, to take a faculty position at NAU. I was struck by the low standard of living of too many city residents compared to the other university towns of comparable size in which I've worked and studied. It’s disgraceful, especially when one learns how many people in Flagstaff are working two jobs to survive because the wages are so low relative to

31

the cost of living. Despite the unsubstantiated arguments for Prop 418, evidence shows that higher wages stimulate the economy. When people have a disposable income, they can afford to patronize establishments that need business. This is self-evident, and our minimum wage increase has proven it, with Flagstaff industries boasting an average revenue increase of 10.89% as of May 2018. A number of businesses have expanded, and last year over 100 new ones opened their doors in Flagstaff. Moreover, Prop 418 would remove many employee protections such as those relating to overtime pay, which are currently based on federal law. It would also end protections against wage theft, a huge problem for service industry workers, especially those in hotels and motels. Employers could once again expect them to work off the clock. Prop 418 would also dissolve the important Office of Labor Standards, which received eighteen claims in the first two months of 2018 alone. Flagstaff relies on tourism, and we must take care of the people who are the backbone of this industry. Greta Murphy -----

Please vote ‘NO’ on Proposition 418, and protect the minimum wage increase that Flagstaff voters passed in 2016. No one who works a full time job should be living in poverty. The minimum wage has not kept up with inflation, and because of that, workers earning minimum wage are less and less able to support themselves as time goes on. Increasing the minimum wage to $15.50 by 2022 goes a long way toward putting minimum wage workers on a more solid footing. Businesses and business owners have a moral responsibility that is more than just maximizing their own profits. A business should be a public good where everyone benefits: workers earn enough to make a living, consumers pay a fair price for goods and services, and the owners and/or shareholders make a fair profit. Having a living minimum wage just ensures that the workers’ part of the equation does not get lost in the competition of the “free market.” Paying workers a living wage is not only the right thing to do, it is the right thing to do to improve the economy as a whole. If people living paycheck to paycheck have more money to spend, more will be spent and go back into the community. Flagstaff voters approved the increased minimum wage in 2016, and now outside interests are pouring money into this effort to undo that decision; we should not allow that to happen. The state’s minimum wage law is also under attack, so it is crucial that we do what we can as a city. Vote ‘NO’ on Proposition 418, defend workers’ rights and help establish a living wage for all. Phil Dudas -----

In 2016, despite the dire warnings of the Chamber of Commerce, Flagstaff's citizens passed Proposition 414, raising the local minimum wage to a level more in keeping with Flagstaff's high cost of living. In the two years since Flagstaff has seen both an increase in the number of new businesses as well as a decrease in unemployment. Unfortunately, Flagstaff has also seen the introduction of Proposition 418, the falsely named “Sustainable Wages Act” whose only goal is to maintain Flagstaff's status as “Poverty With a View.” If you were to stand on any street corner in Flagstaff, the sheer number of “Now Hiring” signs might lead you to think that the proponents of Prop 418 haven't even been to Flagstaff lately—and you'd be right. The fact is that well over half of the money used to fund Prop 418 came from a Phoenix-based group—including the money paid to the out-of-town petition circulators who collected the signatures necessary to get Prop 418 on the ballot in the first place. I am tired of Phoenix telling Flagstaff how we should run our city, and of the dire predictions that come out of Phoenix every time we act to make our city an even better place to live and work. Phoenix complained when we became an

32

International Dark Skies City that they wouldn't be able walk the streets at night. They complained when we banned smoking in restaurants that they couldn't enjoy their meal. They even complained when we passed the BBB tax, because the money they spent in Flagstaff would only be used to fund Flagstaff parks. And now they're complaining that we want our workers to be paid a fair wage. Don't let Phoenix decide how we run Flagstaff. Vote “NO” on Prop 418. Kelly Poe Wilson -----

As a successful small business owner in Flagstaff, I am writing to urge you to join me in voting NO on Proposition 418. Prop 418 would lower Flagstaff's minimum wage, reduce the tipped wage earned by our hard working tipped workers, and eliminate local worker protections against wage theft. It would also harm our local economy. Since the passage of our minimum wage ordinance in November of 2016, the increased wages have fueled healthy economic growth in Flagstaff. Over 100 new businesses have opened, and sales tax revenues have increased 10.89% over the previous year. I started my cleaning company TRUE SHINE, LLC 1.5 years ago. I have seen my business grow since the minimum wage increased and I already pay my staff $15 per hour. I have plans to expand and continue to grow as the minimum wage increases and people have more money to spend. If Proposition 418 passes it will have an adverse impact on both workers and local businesses. Even though Prop 418 would not directly affect the people who work for me (because we already pay more than the minimum wage), we stand in solidarity with those who would be affected. We have a moral, as well as an economic imperative, to VOTE NO on Proposition 418. Lorena Zeilman

-----

Flagstaff voters already decided what they want their wages to be, and local businesses have listened. 14,000 Flagstaff workers have received raises, with many going from $8.05 to $11.00 per hour – a significant amount. In addition, Flagstaff has added over 100 new businesses despite the alarmist cries from those that have so much fear and so little regard for the American worker. Speaking of which, American Encore, the Koch Brothers funded, Phoenix based group behind Proposition 418 has a history of laundering money. It makes sense that a large corporate empire like the Koch empire, would do everything they can to keep money out of the pockets of the hourly wage earner. If 418 passes, you can expect that even if the Federal minimum is raised, Flagstaff wouldn’t see that raise. In addition. The current rule that say tips belong to the employees would go away, paving the way for wage theft by restaurants. These and many other reasons are why we can’t let 418 pass. Don’t let ANYONE take away our raises in Flagstaff – remember unemployment is at the lowest it’s been in 10 years. Don’t believe the hype. Flagstaff can, and will continue to improve the quality of life for all residents, as long as dark money and fear mongers stay out of the way. ‘Raising wages doesn’t kill jobs. It’s just a thing rich people say to poor people.’ – Nick Hanauer, self-made billionaire Vote NO on Proposition 418 Naima Schuller -----

I urge you to vote NO on Proposition 418. Prop 418 would repeal all the major provisions of our local minimum wage ordinance passed by 54% of the voters in November of 2016. Over 14,000 workers in our town have received a raise to date, including many of our poorest residents. Most low wage workers are women and people of color. It would be ethically reprehensible to lower their wages and once again make them vulnerable to wage theft like they were before we passed our minimum wage law.

33

Why should housekeepers and their children be kept in poverty while hotel owners take advantage of their inexpensive labor? The economy of Flagstaff has benefited, and will continue to benefit, from a more just minimum wage. Many of us are tired of Flagstaff being described as “poverty with a view,” as if our community's poverty were somehow a badge of honor. Flagstaff's high cost of living provides no comfort to the people who work in this town struggling to pay rent. Everyone deserves a livable wage. Let’s tell the Chamber lobby and the billionaire Koch brothers that Flagstaff is not for sale. Vote NO on Proposition 418. Robert Neustadt -----

Everything the Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce and their dark money campaign told us as they whipped up fear about Flagstaff’s minimum wage increase was a lie, plain and simple. Same with the AZ Chamber’s fearmongering about the statewide increase. Flagstaff is booming. Arizona is booming. And both are booming *especially* in the sectors of the economy most affected by higher minimum wages: food service, retail, and lodging. The lost jobs that the Chamber floated like bogeymen above our heads have instead turned out to be… more jobs. And thanks to Flag’s minimum wage campaign, more and more of those jobs are offering greater dignity to those who work them, as they earn more livable wages. While it is true that minimum wage alone can’t solve all of Flagstaff’s economic problems, that’s not an excuse to avoid doing what’s right: using one powerful tool in the toolbox for addressing inequality by giving fair pay for a day’s work. Some have blamed rising rental costs on the higher minimum wage, but the data actually shows that the largest increase in rental prices over the past several years came between 2013 and 2015, months before the higher minimum wage came into effect. We will always struggle with high rental and housing costs because of our highly desirable location and difficulty expanding, combined with the fact that Arizona law prevents us from mandating affordable housing on developers. But keeping our higher minimum wage schedule is a no-brainer for our town’s future vitality as well. Once all of the increases have kicked in, these higher wages will generate $90 million annually in Flagstaff, money that will be spent mostly locally to stimulate our economy, generating still further economic activity and growth. So vote no on Prop 418 and stop the pay cuts! Derek Born -----

The Coconino County Democratic Party OPPOSES Proposition 418. Prop 418 repeals all the essential provisions of the Flagstaff minimum wage law passed by 54% of the voters in November 2016. Prop 418 would reduce Flagstaff’s minimum wage to only $0.50 an hour above the state minimum wage and remove the gradual increase in the tipped wage to the full minimum wage thereby maintaining the wage for tipped workers at $3 per hour below the minimum wage. It would also remove the clause stating that tips received by tipped employees are their sole property, and remove the provision for the Office of Labor Standards and the city attorney to coordinate implementation, investigation, and enforcement regarding the minimum wage law. A survey of our precinct committeepersons who make up the voting membership of the party has demonstrated majority opposition to Proposition 418 and in addition, the City Council has already adopted amendments to the minimum wage law which further the purposes approved by voters while also giving businesses time to adjust to the combined impact of state and local minimum wage increases. In light of these developments, and after careful deliberation, the Coconino County Democratic Party urges the voters of Flagstaff to vote NO on Proposition 418. Nathan Jones Chair of Coconino County Democratic Party

34

No on 418 Vote No on Prop 418. Inequality of wealth is skyrocketing. The situation is now so bad that the USA is back to levels of inequality worse than at any time since the 1920’s. The very richest Americans have taken virtually all of the gains of economic growth in the last ten years. They were also just granted massive tax cuts by Congress. By voting no on 418, you can give poor people a chance to survive in a society where inequality means shorter life spans, more emotional and psychological problems, less exercise, higher rates of smoking, higher crime rates, higher high school dropout rates, higher rates of employee turnover and absenteeism at work, higher rates of federal spending on public assistance programs and decreasing tax revenue. As ordinary people can barely consume, it even cuts back on economic growth. Raising the minium wage benefits exactly those workers most likely to put their additional wages straight back into the economy. If approved, Prop 418 will:

• Reduce Flagstaff's minimum wage immediately • Kill any increase in the tipped wage • Overturn local protection of workers' tips from employer misuse • Abolish local enforcement of minimum wage laws • Allow some shady businesses to get away with wage theft

Don’t vote for a Koch brothers funded poison pill designed to turn Flagstaff into the latest victim of the 1%. Steve Zavodnyik -----

Friends of Flagstaff’s Future has long been a supporter of economic prosperity in this community, which is why we strongly oppose Proposition 418. The quality of work from employees and the overall quality of our community suffer when there is high turnover. It is more costly for businesses in the long-term for employees to leave Flagstaff for communities with better financial livability. Our cost of living is 15-20% higher than other metropolitan areas in Arizona; our wages should reflect that to keep trained workers here. F3 supports our local businesses and their contribution to the unique character of Flagstaff. We want them to be able to provide the best customer service to establish repeat business; this comes from skilled employees who know their jobs well, who can more fully participate in Flagstaff activities, and who are able to focus on their jobs. A living wage, by reducing the stress of high rents and other expenses, allows employees to be full members of our community. As soon as our living wage law was passed by voters in 2016, it was attacked by outside groups. Those who predicted economic catastrophe with any increase in minimum wage have been proven wrong. Instead of boarded-up shops, we have over 10% growth in all industries -the largest gains coming from service industries that pay the higher minimum wage. Instead of long unemployment lines, we have the lowest rate in over a decade. 20% of Flagstaff employees have already received a raise and a substantial improvement in their quality of life. Within the next four years, many more are expected to see the benefits of an increased minimum wage. Friends of Flagstaff’s Future wants this economic prosperity for both employees and businesses to continue. Don’t let its name fool you, vote NO on 418. Friends of Flagstaff’s Future Emily Melhorn Michael Caulkins Vice President President -----

For decades we've been told that if we give money to the rich, they will invest the money, and it will trickle down, and we will all prosper. On this theory round after round of tax cuts have gone to those at the top, and handouts to corporations have exponentially increased.

35

It hasn't worked. Inequality is increasing; the middle class is vanishing. Once upon a time, people with minimum wage jobs could buy a modest home and raise a family. No more. Now people work two or three jobs just to make ends meet. They tell us we haven't gone far enough, that the job creators are still hobbled by their tax burden. Just give the rich a little more, and surely they will finally be sated, and the excess will overflow back to the rest of us. Turns out if you give more to the wealthiest, they have no reason to spend it; they already spend as much as they want. In contrast, when the poorest earn more money, they spend. First they buy food, healthier and in greater variety. They buy their kids new clothes and books and bicycles. They finally go for that checkup. The money spreads through the community. We are already seeing the effects in Flagstaff: revenue reported to the city tax office is up nearly 11% compared to last year. Many businesses are expanding and opening new locations. Unemployment has dropped and “now hiring” signs are everywhere. Business owners forget that employees are also customers, that if they want their customers to spend money, those customers need to make money first. They fixate on the expenditure side of the balance sheet, and don't notice that revenues are increasing. They see one side of the equation, and scare themselves. Remember this when you vote. Jody Clements

36

PROPOSITION NO. 419

CONTINUATION OF SALES TAXES – ROADWAY, PEDESTRIAN,

BICYCLE, AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS

SUMMARY ANALYSIS (For more information see Frequently Asked Questions below)

Since 2000, the Flagstaff City Council has collected City Transportation Sales Taxes for roads, pedestrian, bicycle,

and safety improvements at a combined rate of 0.426% or 42.6 cents on a $100 retail purchase. That combined

sales tax is scheduled to end on June 30, 2020.

History of City Road Funding

Historically, the City of Flagstaff funded all road projects with state-shared monies from the Highway User Revenue

Fund (HURF). These state-shared revenues, as well as federal transportation revenues are generated primarily

from taxes on gas and diesel fuel. The buying power of these taxes has been declining for several decades. At the

same time, transportation project construction and repair costs have been increasing. Additionally, cars and trucks

have become more fuel efficient, so fuel tax revenues have not kept pace with the increasing overall miles of travel

on the roads. The State has also diverted some highway monies from road projects to pay for other state services

that have directly reduced the City’s annual revenues from HURF.

• Adjusted for inflation, the buying power of a dollar in fuel taxes today is only 54% of what it was worth in

1990. The steady decline of these major funding sources is straining street and road budgets for all levels

of government (city, county and state), including the City of Flagstaff.

• Arizona ranks among the lowest states in combined federal and state gasoline tax rates.

• Over that last 15 years, the State has diverted over $4 million in state-shared highway revenues that would

otherwise come to Flagstaff due to transfers to other state purposes.

• The City is not authorized to collect its own gas tax.

Recognizing the importance of a good transportation system to City residents and the pending expiration of the

current City Transportation Sales Taxes, the City Council voted to place a question on the November 6, 2018

election ballot seeking authority to continue the current City Transportation Sales Taxes, at the existing rate of

0.426% (42.6 cents on a $100 purchase), for roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, and safety improvements. The estimated

costs of these improvements and more-detailed descriptions of the proposed projects are as follows:

Project Description:

If Proposition 419 is approved by the voters, the City Transportation Sales Tax will fund new streets, widened

streets, pedestrian and bicycle projects, safety improvements, and street operations, including but not limited to,

traffic signal technology. To accommodate vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, and buses, new and widened streets will

be proposed to be built as “complete streets” that incorporate:

• Adjacent curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bicycle paths;

• Pedestrian safety projects, transit facilities; and

• Utilities under or near streets being constructed or repaired using City utility program funding. This ensures

efficiency so that the City’s Water Services Division (water, wastewater, and storm water) does not have to

cut into recently improved streets.

The costs listed below are estimates only, based on City staff projections. Spending priorities for all transportation

projects are established annually by the City Council based on regular public input, debate, and consideration as a

part of the City’s annual budget process.

37

New Streets Projects

Several new streets will be added, if Proposition 419 is approved. These new streets will allow traffic to balance

across the city to help improve circulation and manage congestion. They will also provide alternate routes for many

reasons, such as accidents, major events, and construction. Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit movements will be

provided for on or along the new streets.

Some of the new streets will include John Wesley Powell Boulevard from I-17 to Lake Mary Road and John Wesley

Powell Boulevard from Lone Tree Road to Fourth Street at Butler Avenue. These streets have been identified as

needed in the City’s and region’s major plans and by various City commissions.

This alternate route allowing east-west travel south of I-40 and connecting I-17 to Lone Tree Road and Fourth Street

will support access to employment at the airport. Travelers to and from downtown, including winter tourists, will be

able to better access Lone Tree Road. Long distance bicyclists may access Lake Mary Road and US Highway 89A.

Traffic from residential and commercial development south of I-40 and east of I-17 can be distributed to multiple

north-south routes.

If Proposition 419 is approved, approximately $61 million is proposed to be spent on new streets. Private funding

is expected to pay a significant portion of the cost of John Wesley Powell Boulevard and Fourth Street between

Lone Tree Road and Butler Avenue. It is also expected that the City will negotiate with private partners along these

corridors for partial funding of other public improvements along and near those corridors, such as parks, fire stations,

and police stations.

Street Widening Projects

A number of possible street widening projects will add two new lanes to several current two-lane roadways. Many

locations will be landscaped with center medians and parkways between the street curb and sidewalk. Some

intersections will be improved to be more efficient. Some streets that are part of the permanent transit network, will

have transit related improvements.

Some of the streets that will be widened include Lone Tree Road, Butler Avenue between I-40 and Fourth Street,

and West Route 66. The street widenings will correct some existing bottlenecks and challenging or unpredictable

traffic merges. Capacity will be added at intersections to improve efficiency and operational improvements like traffic

signals added where warranted.

If Proposition 419 is approved by the voters, approximately $96 million is proposed to be spent on street widening

projects. Additional funding through public-private partnerships is expected to help complete some of the projects.

Partnerships with adjacent land owners, Arizona Department of Transportation, and Northern Arizona University

will be pursued where appropriate.

Pedestrian & Bicycle Projects

Improvements to bicycle and pedestrian pathways are important to make Flagstaff a more livable community.

Various sidewalks, bike lanes, and Flagstaff Urban Trails System (FUTS) trails may be built where there are

currently gaps in these systems and additional, enhanced street-level street crossings will be added for safety.

Some pedestrian/bicycle bridges and tunnels will be added to improve travel times and safety. These projects will

occur across the city.

Continuous, uninterrupted, and safe travel encourages more pedestrians and bicyclist travel. The improvements

will also make it easier to get to some bus stops.

If Proposition 419 is approved by the voters, approximately $54 million is proposed to be spent directly on pedestrian

and bicycles facilities. This is beyond the new sidewalks, bike lanes, and crossings that will also be built in

conjunction with new and widened streets.

38

Street Operations

Safe and efficient street operations require constant monitoring and technology upgrades. If Proposition 419 is

approved by the voters, funds may be used to partner with agencies like the Arizona Department of Transportation

and Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority, the transit authority, on mutually beneficial

projects. Developers building new subdivisions and commercial buildings will contribute their fair share to nearby

transportation improvements like traffic signals and the City will use these monies to complete street improvements.

Traffic signals will be added, older signals will be enhanced with new technology, and new street lights will be

installed to maintain the City’s commitment to maintaining Flagstaff’s “Dark Skies”. Improved traffic light technology

allows better traffic management at intersections and quickly identifies problems in the signal system. Neighborhood

and corridor plans will be developed with public input on new or improved facilities.

The City’s Street Section will respond to the changing needs and pressures over the life of the City Transportation

Sales Tax. Having funding available for partnership opportunities allows the City to respond immediately to

opportunities when they occur and allows local tax dollars to do more.

If Proposition 419 is approved by the voters, approximately $55 million will be spent on street operations.

The information provided in this document reflects the best information available to the City of Flagstaff at the time





City Council, and no monies may be expended except for the purposes described in such ballot question.

City Transportation Sales Tax Facts

• Rate – If approved, the City Transportation Sales Tax rate will remain 0.426%, which is the equivalent of 42.6

cents on a $100 purchase. Because the City Transportation Sales Tax will be a continuation of the existing

tax at the existing rate, the City’s total sales tax rate for general and transportation purposes will not increase.

• Length – If approved, the continuation of the City Transportation Sales Tax will be for a period of 21 years

from July 1, 2020 until June 30, 2041, if approved.

• Revenue generation – The City Transportation Sales Tax is projected to generate approximately $266 million

over the 21-year period, including anticipated inflation. The amount actually generated will be dependent on

economic conditions during the period.

• Borrowing – If approved, the City may borrow to fund some projects secured by the City Transportation Sales Tax revenues. The financing proceeds will be used to expedite some of the larger projects. This way, critical projects can be completed sooner and will cost less.

40

Frequently Asked Questions (For more information see Summary Analysis above)

Questions about Proposition 419 – Continuation of Sales Taxes – Roadway, Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Safety Improvements

1. Why is the City of Flagstaff sending this proposition to the voters?

Flagstaff’s City Transportation Sales Taxes, first approved by voters in 2000, expires on June 30, 2020. These taxes provide most of the funding for roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and safety projects in the City as well as general transportation system operations. If the taxes are not continued, most transportation projects in the City will stop. Additionally, the proposed projects that will be funded, if determined by the City Council, have been identified in the Flagstaff’s voter approved General Plan, Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030: Place Matters. The City Charter requires voter approval to levy a city sales tax, such as the City Transportation Sales Tax.

2. What is the City Transportation Sales Tax?

The City of Flagstaff imposes a dedicated sales tax rate for general transportation purposes. This tax rate is referred to as the City Transportation Sales Tax. First approved by City voters in 2000, it has funded a significant number of roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian projects, including the Fourth Street Railroad Overpass, the connection of Soliere Avenue to Fourth Street, and the improvements to West Street. The City Transportation Sales Taxes originated when City voters passed three separate transportation sales tax ballot questions in 2000. The three ballot questions concerned Safe to School and Pedestrian and Bike Projects, the Fourth Street Railroad Overpass, and Traffic Flow and Safety Projects. The combined sales tax rate for the three ballot questions was 0.426%, or 42.6 cents on a $100 purchase. If approved, Proposition 419 would continue the City Transportation Sales Tax at that same rate through 2041. The City’s sales tax is a transaction privilege tax on the gross revenues generated by retail sales and other taxable activities. If approved, Proposition 419 would continue the City Transportation Sales Tax at the existing rate of 0.426% or 42.6 cents on a $100 purchase.

3. Why is the City sending this proposition to the voters now?

The City Transportation Sales Taxes, first approved by voters in 2000, expires on June 30, 2020. The Flagstaff Citizens’ Transportation Tax Commission met through the last winter and spring and recommended to the Flagstaff City Council that a question to continue the City Transportation Sales Tax at the current tax rate level be placed on the November 6, 2018 election ballot. The Commission met numerous times and

• Received public comment;

• Reviewed, analyzed, and discussed the existing conditions of the City’s street, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle systems;

• Reviewed, analyzed, and discussed the anticipated future conditions of the City’s street, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle systems;

• Reviewed and discussed the Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Blueprint 2040 Regional Transportation Plan;

• Reviewed a wide range of proposed transportation projects and needs in the city;

• Reviewed and discussed plans and policies frequently used in transportation planning;

• Reviewed and discussed the funding and financing of the City’s transportation systems and projects;

• Reviewed, discussed, and initially prioritized a range of transportation needs within the city and possible transportation solutions; and

• Discussed and prioritized specific alternative solutions to meet the transportation challenges confronting the City.

The work of the Flagstaff Citizens’ Transportation Tax Commission relied on the Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Blueprint 2040 Regional Transportation Plan that was an extensive transportation planning effort

41

over 24 months. The Blueprint 2040 Regional Transportation Plan was supported by a steering committee of community leaders, presentations to numerous City and County commissions, and several surveys.

4. Who will pay for the proposed transportation projects and what will they cost?

If Proposition 419 is approved by the voters, any person, resident or non-resident, purchasing taxable goods

within the city limits would continue to pay the City Transportation Sales Tax during the life of the tax extension.

It has been estimated, that as much as fifty percent (50%) of City sales tax collections are on purchases made

by non-residents.

5. Why is the City considering issuing bonds for these proposed transportation projects?

Bonds will allow the City to accelerate some of the larger projects, so they can be completed sooner, rather than

later. Without the bonds, it could mean waiting up to 15 to 20 years for the completion of some projects.

6. Has the City considered raising the gas tax to pay for proposed roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, and safety

improvements?

State law prohibits cities from levying a gas tax; only state and federal governments can do that in Arizona.

7. Isn’t there State funding for transportation projects like these?

There has not been a significant increase in state highway user taxes in over 25 years and over that time the

“buying power” of state shared highway revenues has significantly declined. That is one of the reasons that the

original City Transportation Sales Taxes were submitted to Flagstaff voters in 2000.

8. Why is the City considering continuing to use a sales tax to fund transportation?

If Proposition 419 is approved, every person and business purchasing taxable goods or engaging in taxable

activities within the city would continue to pay the sales tax. This includes visitors to Flagstaff as well as people

who live outside the city limits and come into Flagstaff to work, shop, and socialize and who all use city streets.

Many Arizona cities rely on sales taxes to pay for a portion of their transportation costs.

9. How much will City sales taxes increase if Proposition 419 is approved?

Proposition 419 is to continue the existing City Transportation Sales Tax, so the sales tax rate will not increase

if Proposition 419 is approved. The current total City retail sales tax is now 2.051%. It will remain 2.051% if

Proposition 419 is approved and no other sales tax increases are approved.

10. How much will City sales tax total if Propositions 419, 420, and 421 are all approved?

If only Proposition 419 – Continuation of Transportation Sales Tax is approved, the overall City sales tax will

remain 2.051%. If Proposition 420 – Lone Tree Overpass Sales Tax is also approved, the overall City sales tax

will increase to 2.281%. If both Proposition 420 – Lone Tree Overpass Sales Tax and Proposition 421 –

Increasing Transit Services are also approved, the overall City sales tax will increase to 2.431%.

The City also levies a dedicated Bed, Board, and Beverage sales tax of 2.0%. If Proposition 419 is approved

the total City tax on lodging, restaurants, and bars will remain 4.051%.

11. What would the total state, county, and city sales tax rate on lodging, restaurants, and bars be, if

Propositions 419, 420, and 421 are all approved?

If Propositions 419, 420, and 421 are all approved, the total state, county, and city sales tax rate (with the City’s

2% BBB tax) in Flagstaff on lodging, restaurants, and bars will increase from 10.951% to 11.331%.

12. Why can city residents only vote on this increased tax when county residents will also pay?

State law does not allow citizens who reside outside city limits to vote in city elections. County residents will

only pay this tax on goods purchased within the city limits.

42

13. What will ensure that the new tax money is being spent on these proposed transportation projects?

The ballot language is legally binding. By law, the City may only spend the voter-authorized revenues for the

improvements stated in the ballot question.

If Proposition 419 is approved, future City Councils will review, consider, and determine which projects proposed

by City staff and commissions will be approved and receive necessary allocations for completion. This process

will occur both at regular City Council meetings where public comment will be received, as well as through the

budget process which includes a public hearing and City Council consideration/debate. Ultimately it will be future

City Councils that determine which proposed projects will be approved, which real estate will be acquired, and

how the money from the continuing sales tax will be spent.

14. How can we be sure there is enough money to complete these proposed projects?

In its projections, City staff has used conservative estimates of future revenue collections and inflation. The City

has also been conservative in their proposed project cost estimation. The City will report to the public regularly

to discuss transportation spending priorities. Any differences between expected revenue and actual revenues

will be discussed by the Council and with the public regularly when reports are given at City Council meetings.

15. Does a “yes” vote on one proposition require a “no” vote on the other propositions?

No, each ballot item is a separate question. Voters may vote either “yes” or “no” on each proposition. The several

potential projects and programs described in Propositions 419, 420, and 421 are designed to work together to

improve the overall transportation system. But each proposed project that would be funded by Propositions 419,

420, and 421 is also designed to stand on its own. In this election, voters have the opportunity to decide whether

it is important to undertake all, some, or none of these projects at this time.

16. Have City voters previously supported additional expenditures for transportation?

Yes. In 1988, City of Flagstaff voters approved bonds for several transportation improvements.

In 2000, City voters approved several sales tax increases to fund general street improvements, pedestrian and

bicycle improvements, safety projects, the Fourth Street Railroad Overpass, and the start of the City’s transit

system.

In 2008 and 2016 voters approved an expansion and then extension of transit sales tax.

In 2014, voters approved a sales tax for road repair and street safety improvements.

The City Transportation Sales Taxes, approved by voters in 2000, for general street improvements, pedestrian

and bicycle improvements, safety projects, and the Fourth Street Railroad Overpass expire in less than two

years.

17. What is the purpose of the proposed projects?

The roadway, pedestrian, bicycle and safety improvements projects are designed to address bottlenecks,

needed connections, and facilities for pedestrians, and bicycles. If approved, Proposition 419 will also fund for

a number of smaller projects designed to improve traffic flow and safety citywide.

18. The City is asking for an extension, what do these taxes currently fund?

The 0.426% City Transportation Sales Tax, approved in 2000 that ends in 2020, funded the Fourth Street

Railroad Overpass, Traffic Flow & Safety improvements, Safe-to-School improvements, and other Pedestrian

and Bike Projects.

19. Which proposed projects will be built first?

That will ultimately be a decision made by the City Council. If Proposition 419 is approved, those proposed

projects for which engineering has been completed and that are already identified in City-adopted plans will

likely be started first. A possible example of this is the Butler Avenue widening project between I-40 and Fourth

Street. Smaller projects like new traffic signals and safety improvements will likely be built on an as-needed

basis.

43

OFFICIAL BALLOT

PROPOSITION NO. 419

Purpose: Continuation of Sales Taxes for Roadway, Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Safety Improvements Shall the City Council have the authority to amend the Tax Code of the City to continue the levy of three existing transaction privilege/sales taxes expiring in 2020 as a single “transportation” transaction privilege/sales tax rate of 0.426% ($0.00426), to be in effect for a period of 21 years beginning July 1, 2020, to be used for the following purposes:

• design, construction, reconstruction, improvement, and maintenance of roadways;

• construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of walkways, bike paths, pedestrian and bicycle crossings;

• technology and signing;

• acquisition of necessary real estate and related interests;

• all incidental costs including relocation costs;

• debt service on debt incurred for such purposes and authorizing the incurrence of debt to accelerate such purposes?

A YES vote shall have the effect of approving the continuation of a levy of a transportation sales tax at the same cumulative rate of 0.426% as the current taxes to be in effect for a period of 21 years beginning July 1, 2020, for roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, and safety improvements, and authorizing the incurrence of debt to accelerate such purposes.

CONTINUATION OF SALES TAXES, YES

A NO vote shall have the effect of disapproving a levy and allowing the existing transportation sales taxes to expire on July 1, 2020.

CONTINUATION OF SALES TAXES, NO


PROPOSITION NO. 419

A measure referred to the people by the Flagstaff City Council relating to continuation of a Sales Tax for Roadway, Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Safety Improvements A YES vote shall have the effect of approving the continuation of a levy of a transportation sales tax at the same cumulative rate of 0.426% as the current taxes to be in effect for a period of 21 years beginning July 1, 2020, for roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, and safety improvements, and authorizing the incurrence of debt to accelerate such purposes A NO vote shall have the effect of disapproving a levy and allowing the existing transportation sales taxes to expire on July 1, 2020

YES

NO

44



Renewal of the transportation tax at the current rate is needed. This will provide continued system wide improvements to reduce congestion, extend elements of a transportation grid that has grown and affects all modes of transportation, and continue the expansion of bicycle/pedestrian and safety measures throughout the City. I sit on many regional transportation organizations and am aware of the need. The improvements fit long-term plans that started with the Transportation element of the 2001 Regional Plan. A yes vote will allow plans for corridors to move up and be funded, roads to be part of a much-needed grid, and for pedestrian and bicycle improvements which are an attribute Flagstaff provides for its residents and visitors. Safety is also at the forefront of consideration as modifications are planned for the system. Please vote yes on question 419. Matt Ryan Coconino County Supervisor ARGUMENTS AGAINST PROPOSITION NO. 419


I urge you to vote NO on Proposition 419. While I am fully supportive of investing in our transportation infrastructure in order to improve our system, I do not feel that this tax renewal was developed in a way that will ensure our transportation system meets the needs and desires of Flagstaff citizens, and yet we will be locked into this tax for 21 years, while transportation systems and options will be changing rapidly. The commission that evaluated the projects that this tax money would be used for did not take into consideration greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) nor vehicle miles traveled (VMT), two metrics that will greatly impact your quality of life. The process also excluded the Sustainability Section at the City, meaning that it was siloed in the transportation department and did not take into account the developing Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP). If this proposition was to be defeated, we would have an opportunity to restart the process with greater input from the Sustainability Section and the directive of the CAAP and place it on the ballot in the next election. A different proposition could provide clear direction and actions on transportation that aim to reduce GHGs and VMTs, rather than continue to build more and wider roads and continue our reliance on single passenger vehicles. Dara Marks Marino -----

We urge a NO vote on Proposition 419. We recognize transportation planning is not only a key function of the state and federal government, but also local government. However, we contend that the process the city used to determine whether to put this sales tax on the ballot was flawed for several reasons. First and foremost, the City staff didn’t bring forward any information to the Citizen’s Transportation Tax Commission about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change despite the fact that the City Council has directed the City to produce a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. Second, we know from surveys that the people in Flagstaff strongly support bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure, yet the amount of the sales tax that will be used to address these needs is woefully inadequate. Third, we believe that if this sales tax is approved, it will actually create MORE TRAFFIC congestion and not less because of the City’s failure to engage in the difficult, yet very important, transportation planning conversations with City and County residents.

45

Because this is a 20-year tax, we urge voters to think carefully about whether doing things the way we’ve always done them, just because we’ve always done them that way, is the right approach. We believe that Flagstaff faces unprecedented transportation challenges and a NO vote will ensure that our community will get the chance it deserves to craft a real plan that incorporates important sustainability values BEFORE we vote to continue to collect the transportation sales tax. Let’s engage in smart transportation planning and then the City could ask the voters to approve this tax in 2020. Flagstaff-Northern Arizona Group Sierra Club Joseph Shannon Marcia Burns Bob Baldwin Chair Treasurer Conservation -----

I oppose Proposition 419 because the sales tax in Flagstaff is already too high (currently 8.951% for most goods and 10.951% for the privilege of eating out). If the three city sales tax propositions on this ballot pass, our new sales tax will be 9.331% for most goods and 11.331% for eating out (fast food, restaurant, bar, etc.). Flagstaff's restaurant sales tax rate already is one of the highest in the country. Do not fall for the City's, "it's only $0.46 on a $100 purchase." That's how we got to our currently high sales tax rate. Pennies add up. The City states that every new sales tax will end in "x" number of years, but they never expire. They always come back up for renewal and/or an increase. Renewals are increases. Further, the City states in this "information" pamphlet (prepared by City staff with the help of a $350/hour Phoenix consultant) that 50% of the City sales tax is paid by non-residents. Even if true, that does nothing to lower the tax burden on Flagstaff residents. In addition to Prop. 419, there are at least six other tax increases on the ballot. Not mentioned in this information pamphlet is the City's $100 million unfunded Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS) liability as well as the Rio de Flag project. The City will likely put these on the 2020 ballot thus increasing our sales tax another 1% or more. This is irresponsible and inexcusable. Sales tax is regressive and disproportionately impacts the poor and those on fixed incomes. Flagstaff is already an expensive place to live and the City/Council is on track to continue making it even more unaffordable. I urge you to vote no on Proposition 419. Robert Miller Retired CPA

46

PROPOSITION NO. 420

SALES TAX – LONE TREE RAILROAD OVERPASS

FROM BUTLER AVENUE TO ROUTE 66


Since 2000, the Flagstaff City Council has collected City Transportation Sales Taxes for a range of transportation

purposes, including the construction of the Fourth Street Railroad Overpass that connects East Route 66 and Fourth

Street to Butler Avenue. Those City Transportation Sales Taxes are scheduled to end on June 30, 2020.

Recognizing the importance of a good transportation system to City residents, the City Council voted to place a

question on the November 6, 2018 election ballot seeking authority to increase the City sales tax by 0.23%, or 23

cents on a $100 purchase and authorize the issuance of bonds to finance the completion of the Lone Tree Railroad

Overpass. If approved, the 0.23% sales tax would be referred to as the Lone Tree Overpass Sales Tax. The

estimated costs of these improvements and more detailed descriptions of the projects are as follows:


If Proposition 420 is approved by the voters, the Lone Tree Railroad Overpass – a bridge connecting Butler Avenue

to East Route 66 over the railroad tracks at Lone Tree Road – will be constructed. A new traffic signal will be located

at the connection with East Route 66. The Overpass will have multiple lanes, sidewalks, bike lanes, and a Flagstaff

Urban Trail System (FUTS) trail. Connections to the pedestrian and bicycle Santa Fe Trail along East Route 66 will

also be made. Local street connections under the Overpass will also be completed.

The City is proposing to issue bonds to be repaid with the dedicated 0.23% City Lone Tree Overpass Sales Tax.

By issuing bonds, the City will be able to complete the Overpass in six to eight years rather than possibly more than

18 to 20 years.

The Lone Tree Railroad Overpass would connect Lone Tree Road to East Route 66 over the railroad tracks starting

from Butler Avenue. The connection at East Route 66 would be at the top of the hill between Downtown and Switzer

Canyon Drive.

The Lone Tree Railroad Overpass will help traffic flow better throughout the city. Significant amounts of traffic are

expected to shift from South Beaver Street and South San Francisco Street to Lone Tree Road and the new

Overpass. Travelers will be able to use Lone Tree Road instead of Milton Road to access Downtown or medical

facilities via nearby Switzer Canyon Drive. If John Wesley Powell Boulevard is extended to the Flagstaff Airport,

peak traffic may be redirected to I-17 via the Overpass, Lone Tree Road, and John Wesley Powell Boulevard.

If Proposition 420 is approved by the voters, all monies generated by the 0.23% sales tax rate will be dedicated for

the Lone Tree Railroad Overpass design, construction, right of way acquisition, and financing.

Description of the proposed City Lone Tree Overpass Sales Tax and specific restrictions on use of proceeds

If Proposition 420 is approved by the voters, the City Lone Tree Overpass Sales Tax will be restricted to specific

uses related to the construction of the Overpass. Further, if approved, the City Council through policy establishment

in the regular course of regular City Council meetings, public comment, and City Council consideration and

determination, will ensure that these dedicated, City sales tax revenues are applied to the purposes set forth in the

ballot question through annual monitoring by the City Council as a part of the City’s existing budget process that

47

requires a public hearing and annual City Council approval. The City Lone Tree Overpass Sales Tax will fund the

development and construction of the Lone Tree Railroad Overpass, related right of way acquisition, relocation costs,

and other project related costs.

In addition, proceeds from the dedicated City Lone Tree Overpass Sales Tax may also be used for financing-related

costs, including interest and borrowing related costs.







City Lone Tree Overpass Sales Tax Facts

• Rate – If approved, the Lone Tree Overpass Sales Tax rate will be 0.23%, which is equivalent of 23 cents on

a $100 purchase. The current City retail sales tax is 2.051%. If Proposition 420 is approved, the City retail

sales tax will increase to 2.281%.

• Length – If approved, the City Lone Tree Overpass Sales Tax will be for a period of 20 years from

July 1, 2019.

• Revenue generation – If approved, the City Lone Tree Overpass Sales Tax is projected to generate

approximately $131.5 million over the 20-year period, including anticipated inflation. The amount actually

generated will be dependent on economic conditions during the period.

• Borrowing – If approved, the City may borrow funds secured by the dedicated City Lone Tree Overpass

Sales Tax revenues. The financing proceeds will be used to expedite the construction of the Overpass. This

way, the project can be completed sooner and will cost less by avoiding years of inflation. It is estimated that

the project cost saving, by avoiding future inflation, will largely offset the borrowing costs.

48


Questions about Proposition 420 – Sales Tax – Lone Tree Railroad Overpass


The City Charter requires voter approval to levy a city sales tax, such as the dedicated City Lone Tree Overpass Sales Tax.

2. What is the City Lone Tree Overpass Sales Tax?

The City of Flagstaff has imposed dedicated sales taxes for transportation purposes since 2000. The City Transportation Sales Tax, was first approved by City voters in 2000, and funded a variety of projects including the Fourth Street Railroad Overpass. Since 2000, City voters have approved additional dedicated sales taxes for specific transportation purposes. If approved, the Lone Tree Overpass Sales Tax would be another dedicated City sales tax for a specific transportation purpose. The City’s sales tax is a transaction privilege tax on the gross revenues generated by retail sales and other taxable activities. If approved by voters, Proposition 420 would increase the overall City Sales Tax by 0.23% or 23 cents on a $100 purchase and dedicate the revenues from the increase to completing the Lone Tree Railroad Overpass.


The Flagstaff Citizens’ Transportation Tax Commission met through the last winter and spring and recommended to the Flagstaff City Council that a question to approve constructing a Railroad Overpass connecting East Route 66 and Butler Avenue at Lone Tree Road be placed on the November 6, 2018 election

49

ballot. The Commission met numerous times and





• Reviewed a wide range of proposed transportation projects and needs in the city;


• Reviewed and discussed the funding and financing of City’s transportation systems and projects;

• Reviewed, discussed, and initially prioritized a range of transportation needs within the city and possible transportation solutions;

• Discussed and prioritized specific alternative solutions to meet the transportation challenges confronting the City; and

• Identified the Lone Tree Railroad Overpass as an integral part of the City’s overall transportation plan.

The work of the Flagstaff Citizens’ Transportation Tax Commission relied on the Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Blueprint 2040 Regional Transportation Plan that was an extensive transportation planning effort over 24 months. The Blueprint 2040 Regional Transportation Plan was supported by a steering committee of community leaders, presentations to numerous City and County commissions, and several surveys.

4. How does Proposition 420 – the proposed Lone Tree Railroad Overpass – work with Proposition 419 –

Roadway, Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Safety Improvements?

The projects that will be funded by both propositions are intended to work together seamlessly to improve the City’s overall transportation system. Some of the road improvement projects that will be funded by Proposition 419, such as widening Lone Tree Road from Butler Avenue to John Wesley Powell Boulevard, extending John Wesley Powell Boulevard west to the Airport and I-17 and east to Fourth Street (with significant expected developer funding), directly connect to the Lone Tree Railroad Overpass. These connections would provide important alternate routes to congested areas and help residents get to and from places to work, shop, and play.

5. Who will pay for the proposed Lone Tree Overpass and what will it cost?

If Proposition 420 is approved by the voters, any person, resident or non-resident, purchasing taxable goods

within the City limits would pay the additional sales tax during the life of the tax increase. It has been estimated,

that as much as fifty percent (50%) of City sales tax collections are on purchases by non-residents.

6. Why is the City considering issuing bonds for the Lone Tree Railroad Overpass?

Bonds will allow the City to accelerate the construction of the Overpass so that it could possibly be completed

within six to eight years, rather than possibly more than 18 to 20 years. By issuing bonds for the Lone Tree

Railroad Overpass there will be interest expense associated with the borrowing. There could be approximately

$41 million in interest expense over the life of the bonds. However, by constructing the Overpass sooner the

City will avoid significant construction cost inflation that likely exceeds the cost of interest expense.

7. Has the City considered raising the gas tax to pay for the proposed Lone Tree Railroad Overpass?

State law prohibits cities from levying a gas tax; only state and federal governments can do that in Arizona.

8. Isn’t there state funding for transportation projects like these?

There has not been a significant increase in state highway user taxes in over 25 years and over that time the

“buying power” of state-shared highway revenues has significantly declined. That is one of the reasons that the

original City Transportation Sales Taxes were submitted to Flagstaff voters in 2000.

9. Why is the City considering using a sales tax to fund transportation?

Every person and business purchasing taxable goods or engaging in taxable activities within the City will pay

the sales tax. This includes visitors to Flagstaff as well as people who live outside the city limits and come into

50

Flagstaff to work, shop, and socialize and who all use city streets. Many Arizona cities rely on sales taxes to

pay for a portion of their transportation costs.


The current City retail sales tax is 2.051%. If Proposition 420 is approved, the City retail sales tax will increase

by 0.23% to 2.281%, if no other sales tax increases area approved.

11. How much will City sales taxes total if Propositions 419, 420, and 421 are all approved?


remain 2.051%. If Proposition 420 – Lone Tree Overpass Sales Tax is also approved, the overall City sales tax

will increase to 2.281%. If Proposition 419 – Continuation of Transportation Sales Tax is approved, Proposition

420 – Lone Tree Overpass Sales Tax is approved, and Proposition 421 – Increasing Transit Services is

approved, the overall City sales tax will increase to 2.431%.

The City also levies a dedicated Bed, Board, and Beverage sales tax of 2.0%. If all three propositions are

approved the total City tax on lodging, restaurants, and bars will be 4.431%.

12. What would the total state, county, and city retail sales tax rate be, if Propositions 419, 420, and 421 are

all approved?

If Propositions 419, 420, and 421 are all approved, the total state, county, and city retail sales tax rate in Flagstaff

will increase from 8.951% to 9.331%.





14. Why can only city residents vote on this increased tax when county residents will also pay?

State law does not allow citizens who reside outside the city limits to vote in city elections. County residents

will only pay this tax for goods purchased within the city limits.

15. What will ensure that the new tax money is being spent on the proposed Lone Tree Railroad Overpass?



If Proposition 420 is approved, future City Councils will review, consider, and determine if a Lone Tree Railroad

Overpass project will be approved and receive necessary allocations for completion. This process will occur

both at regular City Council meetings where public comment will be received, as well as through the budget

process which includes a public hearing and City Council consideration/debate. Ultimately it will be future City

Councils that approve the specifics related to a proposed railroad overpass project and how the money from

the sales tax would be spent for that purpose.

16. How can we be sure there is enough money to complete the proposed Lone Tree Railroad Overpass?




will be discussed by the Council and with the public regularly when reports are given at City Council meetings.


No. Each ballot item is a separate question. Voters may vote either “yes” or “no” on each proposition. The

several projects and programs described in Propositions 419, 420, and 421 are designed to work together to

improve the overall transportation system. But, each project to be funded by Propositions 419, 420, and 421 is

51

also designed to stand on its own. In this election, voters have the opportunity to decide whether it is important

to undertake all, some, or none of these projects at this time.




bicycle improvements, the Fourth Street Railroad Overpass, and the start of the City’s transit system.

In 2008 and 2016 voters approved an expansion and then extension of transit sales tax.

In, 2014, voters approved a sales tax for road repair and street safety improvements.

The City Transportation Sales Taxes, approved by voters in 2000, for general street improvements, pedestrian

and bicycle improvements, and the Fourth Street Railroad Overpass expires in less than two years.

19. Why construct the proposed Lone Tree Railroad Overpass?

The Lone Tree Railroad Overpass could provide 1) an additional north-south route between Butler Avenue and

Route 66; 2) another route near the heavily congested Downtown that will not be interrupted by trains; and 3)

an alternative route to Milton Road for peak winter traffic and for many daily commuters to locations like Northern

Arizona University, the Aspen Place at Sawmill Shopping Center, and Southside.

20. Why not make improvements to Milton Road?

Milton Road improvements are also needed. However, the Arizona Department of Transportation owns Milton

Road and is currently working with the City, other partners, and the public to determine exactly what

improvements should be made. Until the study is completed, it cannot be determined what each partner’s share

might be and what, if any, city taxes will be needed. The Lone Tree Railroad Overpass would allow Lone Tree

Road to serve as an alternative route to Milton and planners consider it part of the long-term solution for

Downtown and Milton Road traffic congestion.

21. Why is the Lone Tree Railroad Overpass so expensive?

In order to get the roadway high enough over the railroad, the railroad tracks need to be lowered and East Route

66 needs to be raised. Much of the ground under and around the Overpass is developed and will be more costly

to acquire than if it were vacant.

52

OFFICIAL BALLOT

PROPOSITION NO. 420

Purpose: Sales Tax for Lone Tree Railroad Overpass from Butler Avenue to Route 66 Shall the City Council have the authority to amend the Tax Code of the City to levy a transaction privilege/sales tax at a rate of 0.23% ($0.0023) to be in effect for a period of 20 years beginning July 1, 2019, to be used for the Lone Tree Railroad Overpass from Butler Avenue to Route 66, including the following purposes:

• design, construction, reconstruction, improvement and maintenance of bridges and overpasses, adjacent streets, highways, walkways, trails and bike paths;

• lighting, landscaping, technology and signing;

• acquisition of necessary real estate and related interests;

• all incidental costs including relocation costs;

• debt service on debt incurred for such purposes

and authorizing the incurrence of debt to accelerate such purposes? A YES vote shall have the effect of approving a levy of a sales tax at a rate of 0.23% to be in effect for a period of 20 years commencing July 1, 2019, for the design, construction and maintenance of the Lone Tree Railroad Overpass from Butler Avenue to Route 66, and authorizing the incurrence of debt to accelerate such purposes.

SALES TAX INCREASE, YES

A NO vote shall have the effect of not approving a levy of a sales tax at a rate of 0.23% to be in effect for a period of 20 years commencing July 1, 2019, for the design, construction and maintenance of the Lone Tree Railroad Overpass from Butler Avenue to Route 66.

SALES TAX INCREASE, NO


PROPOSITION NO. 420

A measure referred to the people by the Flagstaff City Council relating to a sales tax levy for Lone Tree Railroad Overpass from Butler Avenue to Route 66 A YES vote shall have the effect of approving a levy of a sales tax at a rate of 0.23% to be in effect for a period of 20 years beginning July 1, 2019, for the design, construction and maintenance of the Lone Tree Railroad Overpass from Butler Avenue to Route 66, and authorizing the incurrence of debt to accelerate such purposes A NO vote shall have the effect of not approving a levy of a sales tax at a rate of 0.23% to be in effect for a period of 20 years beginning July 1, 2019, for the design, construction and maintenance of the Lone Tree Railroad Overpass from Butler Avenue to Route 66

YES

NO

53



The Lone Tree Avenue proposal will provide mitigation of traffic congestion on Milton Avenue as a parallel corridor. This is especially important as Milton and the areas west experience more intensified traffic due to higher densities of approved subdivisions to the west. The Lone Tree overpass is a critical element needed for the Lone Tree corridor. A yes vote for the overpass will provide relief for downtown traffic as an additional alternative to cross the tracks and access the south. This also includes Hwy 180 and snow play traffic that goes through downtown. The proposed corridor provides secondary relief for the east side of the University, which currently acts as a barrier to traffic flow, as well as relief for the Community College. It will provide broader access and alternatives north, south, east and west, as it aligns with JW Powell and 4th street improvements and alternate routes developed through a broader grid. I sit on many regional transportation organizations that have made recommendations to mitigate congestion, while considering multimodal options and improvements. Lone Tree overpass is a critical piece of the grid and is needed to create corridors that have been recommended since the Transportation element of the 2001 Regional Plan. Please vote yes on question 420. Matt Ryan Coconino County Supervisor ARGUMENTS AGAINST PROPOSITION NO. 420


I strongly urge you to vote NO on Proposition 420. Building a new overpass at Lone Tree will effectively dump more vehicles right into the most congested part of downtown, while costing you more on every purchase you make for the next 20 years. This overpass will increase greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled and will not improve your quality of life. There are definitely ways to solve our transportation problems, but building more and wider roads is not the answer. If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got. In this case: if you keep building more and wider roads, you will keeping getting more and more traffic and congestion. Dara Marks Marino -----

I oppose Proposition 420 because the sales tax in Flagstaff is already too high (currently 8.951% for most goods and 10.951% for the privilege of eating out). If the three city sales tax propositions on this ballot pass, our new sales tax will be 9.331% for most goods and 11.331% for eating out (fast food, restaurant, bar, etc.). Flagstaff's restaurant sales tax rate already is one of the highest in the country. Do not fall for the City's, "it's only $0.23 on a $100 purchase." That's how we got to our currently high sales tax rate. Pennies add up. The City states that every new sales tax will end in "x" number of years, but they never expire. They always come back up for renewal and/or an increase. Renewals are increases. Further, the City states in this "information" pamphlet (prepared by City staff with the help of a $350/hour Phoenix consultant) that 50% of the City sales tax is paid by non-residents. Even if true, that does nothing to lower the tax burden on Flagstaff residents. In addition to Prop. 420, there are at least six other tax increases on the ballot.

54

Not mentioned in this information pamphlet is the City's $100 million unfunded Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS) liability as well as the Rio de Flag project. The City will likely put these on the 2020 ballot thus increasing our sales tax another 1% or more. This is irresponsible and inexcusable. Sales tax is regressive and disproportionately impacts the poor and those on fixed incomes. Flagstaff is already an expensive place to live and the City/Council is on track to continue making it even more unaffordable. I urge you to vote no on Proposition 420. Robert Miller Retired CPA

55

PROPOSITION NO. 421

SALES TAX – INCREASING TRANSIT SERVICES

SUMMARY ANALYSIS

(For more information see Frequently Asked Questions below)

Since 2000, the Flagstaff City Council has collected a dedicated City Transit Sales Tax, frequently referred to as

the Mountain Line Transit Sales Tax, for the funding of the Mountain Line system.

History of City Transit Funding:

In 2000, City voters approved a ten-year sales tax dedicated for public transportation – the Mountain Line Transit

Sales Tax – that funded the initiation of the Mountain Line transit system.

In 2008, voters approved an extension of the sales tax for Mountain Line operations and four sales tax increases

for four additional Mountain Line improvements, including the purchase of hybrid-electric vehicles, establishing the

Mountain Link high-capacity transit route connecting NAU to Woodlands Village and Downtown, and service to new

areas.

Proposition Rate Cents per $100

Purchase 2008 Increase per

$100 Purchase Improvement

Prop. 401 .00175 17.5 cents None Existing Service Prop. 402 .00020 2.0 cents 2.0 cents Hybrid Vehicles

Prop. 403 .00020 2.0 cents 2.0 cents Additional Areas Prop. 404 .00040 4.0 cents 4.0 cents Additional Areas

Prop. 405 .00040 4.0 cents 4.0 cents Increased Frequency

The 2008 election increased the Mountain Line Transit Sales Tax rate to .0295% or 29.5 cents on a $100 purchase.

In 2016, City voters approved an extension of the Mountain Line Transit Sales Tax at the existing rate of 0.295%

for an additional ten years through June 30, 2030.


Based on Mountain Line’s Five-Year Transit Plan, public outreach and surveys, greater bus frequency and

expanded service hours are the most requested transit enhancements. If Proposition 421 is approved by the voters,

it will provide funding for a cross-town bus approximately every 15 minutes during business hours and reduce wait

times by one-half to approximately 30 minutes or less at most locations. In addition, buses would run later on

weekdays and weekends. Proposition 421, if approved, will also fund improvements to keep transit moving

efficiently by building bus-only lanes and providing traffic signal prioritization in select areas.

The full range of transit improvements will be made possible by leveraging the transit tax revenue with a $1 million+

per year commitment from Northern Arizona University to fund a Universal Access Pass (UPASS) program. The

UPASS would provide free transit for all NAU students, which could help address congestion and parking

challenges.

If Proposition 421 is approved by the voters, bus ridership is expected to increase due to increasing bus frequency,

extended hours of service, and implementing the UPASS program. An enhanced transit system can lead to a more

robust multimodal community and may have a positive impact on congestion.

56

If Proposition 421 is approved by the voters, all monies generated by the 0.15% sales tax rate will be dedicated to

increasing bus frequency, extending hours of service, and transit related capital improvements. Over the past 14

years, Mountain Line has leveraged the existing transit tax monies to secure nearly $56 million in federal funding.

It is expected that similar leverage may be possible in the future.

Description of the Proposed Mountain Line Transit Sales Tax Increase and specific restrictions on use of

proceeds

If Proposition 421 is approved by the voters, the Mountain Line Transit Sales Tax will be restricted to specific uses

related to the operations of the Mountain Line system. Further, the City will ensure that these dedicated Mountain

Line Transit Sales Tax revenues are applied to the purposes set forth in the ballot question through annual

monitoring by the City Council as a part of the City’s existing budget process that requires a public hearing and

annual City Council approval. The increase in the dedicated Mountain Line Transit Sales Tax will fund increased

frequency of busses, expanded hours of service on many Mountain Line routes, and important capital

improvements.







Mountain Line Transit Sales Tax Facts

• Rate – If approved, the increase in the Mountain Line Transit Sales rate will be 0.15%, which is equivalent of

15 cents on a $100 purchase. The current City retail sales tax is 2.051%. If Proposition 421 is approved, the

City retail sales tax will increase to 2.201%.

• Length – If approved, the increase in the Mountain Line Transit Sales Tax will be for a period of 11 years from

July 1, 2019, until June 30, 2030. June 30, 2030 is when the existing Mountain Line Sales Tax expires.

• Revenue generation – If approved, the Mountain Line Transit Sales Tax is projected to generate approximately $40.7 million over the 11-year period, including anticipated inflation. The amount actually generated will depend on economic conditions during the period.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (For more information see Summary Analysis above)

Questions about Proposition 421 – Sales Tax – Increasing Transit Services


The City Charter requires voter approval to levy a city sales tax.

2. What is the City Transit Sales Tax?

The Mountain Line Transit Sales Tax is dedicated to supporting the Mountain Line public bus system and the Mountain Lift van services for people with disabilities. The Mountain Line Transit Sales Tax was first approved by City voters in 2000 and funded the initiation of the Mountain Line transit system. City voters approved rate increases in 2008 and extended the Mountain Line Transit Sales Tax in 2016. The current Mountain Line Transit Sales Tax rate is 0.295%. Proposition 421, if approved, would increase the existing City Transit Sales Tax of 0.295% by 0.15% or 15 cents on a $100 purchase to a total of 0.445% or 44.5 cents on a $100 purchase.

57


The Flagstaff Citizens’ Transportation Tax Commission recommended to the Flagstaff City Council that a separate question to increase the Mountain Line Transit Sales Tax by 0.15% be placed on the November 6, 2018 election ballot. The Commission met numerous times, and





• Reviewed a wide range of proposed transportation projects and needs in the City;


• Reviewed and discussed the funding and financing of City’s transportation systems and projects;

• Reviewed, discussed, and initially prioritized a range of transportation needs within the City and possible transportation solutions;

• Discussed and prioritized specific alternative solutions to meet the transportation challenges confronting the City; and

• Identified the Mountain Line System as an integral part of the City’s overall transportation network.

The work of the Flagstaff Citizens’ Transportation Tax Commission relied on the Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Blueprint 2040 Regional Transportation Plan that was an extensive transportation planning effort over 24 months. The Blueprint 2040 Regional Transportation Plan was supported by a steering committee of community leaders, presentations to numerous City and County commissions, and several surveys. The Governing Board of the Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority (NAIPTA), referencing NAIPTA’s 5-Year Plan, also recommended to the Flagstaff City Council that a transit sales tax proposition be placed on the November 6, 2018 election ballot. Mountain Line transit services are an integral part of the City’s overall transportation plan and are intended to work seamlessly with many of the projects that will be completed if Propositions 419 and 420 are approved.

4. What will the Mountain Line Transit Sales Tax cost?

If approved by voters, Proposition 421 would increase the current Mountain Line Transit Sales Tax of 0.295% by 0.15% or 15 cents on a $100 purchase. Because there is an existing Mountain Line Transit Sales Tax of 0.295%, if Proposition 421 is approved the total Mountain Line Transit Sales Tax for all purposes would increase to 0.445% or 44.5 cents on a $100 purchase.

5. What will happen to Mountain Line if Proposition 421 is not approved?

If Proposition 421 is not approved, the existing Mountain Line Transit Sales Tax of 0.295% will continue to support Mountain Line.

6. Why are taxes used to pay for the Mountain Line system?

The Mountain Line system, like roads, bridges, and airports, is supported with tax dollars. NAIPTA, the operator of the Mountain Line system, also leverages the local transit tax to secure federal grants and funding to help fund the Mountain Line system operations and improvements. Northern Arizona University has committed to paying more than $1 million per year to fund a Universal Access Pass (UPASS) program to open up free transit for all students, if Proposition 421 is approved, which could help address congestion and parking challenges. While Mountain Line passengers pay a fare to ride, that revenue is not enough to fund the system.

7. Why is the City considering using the sales tax to fund Mountain Line bus service?

Mountain Line bus service impacts everyone, including visitors and people from neighboring communities who are working or shopping in Flagstaff. A sales tax means all would contribute to paying for the system.

If Proposition 421 is approved, every person and business purchasing taxable goods or engaging in taxable activities within the city will pay the Transit Sales Tax. This includes visitors to Flagstaff as well as people who live outside the city limits and come into Flagstaff to work, shop, and socialize. Many Arizona cities rely on sales taxes to pay for a portion of their transit costs.

58

8. Has the City considered raising property taxes or increasing fares to pay for the transit system?

Yes. However, the Transit Advisory Committee, the Governing Board of NAIPTA, and the Citizens’ Transportation Tax Commission all recommended increasing the Mountain Line Transit Sales Tax. Fares are reviewed, adjusted, and increased by the NAIPTA Board as needed. An increase in fares usually decreases ridership. The Mountain Line Transit Sales Tax is dedicated to funding the Mountain Line system. State law does not authorize NAIPTA to levy a property tax.

9. Who will pay for the Mountain Line Sales Tax, if Proposition 421 is approved?

If Proposition 421 is approved, any person, resident or non-resident, purchasing taxable goods within the city

limits would pay the additional sales tax during the life of the tax increase. It has been estimated, that as much

as fifty percent (50%) of City sales tax collections are on purchases by non-residents.


The current City retail sales tax is 2.051%. If Proposition 421 is approved, the City retail sales tax will increase

to 2.201%, if no other sales tax increases are approved.

11. How much will City sales tax total if Propositions 419, 420, and 421 are all approved?


remain 2.051%. If Proposition 421 – Increasing Transit Services is also approved, the overall City sales tax will

increase to 2.201%. If Proposition 419 – Continuation of Transportation Sales Tax is approved, Proposition 420

– Lone Tree Overpass Sales Tax is approved, and Proposition 421 – Increasing Transit Services is approved,

the overall City sales tax will increase to 2.431%.

The City also levies a dedicated Bed, Board, and Beverage sales tax of 2.0%. If all three propositions are

approved the total City tax on lodging, restaurants, and bars will be 4.431%.

12. What would the total state, county, and city retail sales tax rate be, if Propositions 419, 420, and 421 are

all approved?

If Propositions 419, 420, and 421 are all approved, the total state, county, and city retail sales tax rate in Flagstaff

will increase from 8.951% to 9.331%.





14. Why can only city residents vote on this increased tax when county residents will also pay?

State law does not allow citizens who reside outside city limits to vote in city elections. County residents will

only pay this tax for goods purchased within the city limits.

15. What will ensure that the new tax money is being spent on increasing the amount of buses and

frequency of buses?



If Proposition 421 is approved, future City Councils will review, consider, and determine if the funding provided

to increase the frequency of buses, extend hours of service, and transit related capital improvements will be

approved and receive necessary allocations of funding from this proposed increase. This process will occur

both at regular City Council meetings where public comment will be received, as well as through the budget

process which includes a public hearing and City Council consideration/debate. Ultimately it will be future City

59

Councils that approve the specifics related to how the money from the sales tax would be spent to accomplish

the purpose as stated in the ballot question. By law, the City may spend the voter-authorized revenues only for

the improvements stated in the ballot question.

16. How can we be sure there is enough money to increase the number of buses and frequency of buses?




will be discussed by the Council and with the public regularly when those reports are given at City Council

meetings.


No. Each ballot item is a separate question. Voters may vote either “yes” or “no” on each proposition. The

several projects and programs described in Propositions 419, 420, and 421 are designed to work together to

improve the overall transportation system. But, each project to be funded by Propositions 419, 420, and 421 is

also designed to stand on its own. In this election, voters have the opportunity to decide whether it is important

to undertake all, some, or none of these projects at this time.




bicycle improvements, safety projects, the Fourth Street Railroad Overpass, and the start of the Mountain Line

transit system.

In 2008 and 2016 voters approved an expansion and then extension of Mountain Line Transit Sales Tax.

In, 2014, voters approved a sales tax for road repair and street safety improvements.

19. Why increase Mountain Line transit services in Flagstaff?

Mountain Line serves a growing population and helps reduce the number of cars on the roads. Between 2001

and 2018 Mountain Line system ridership grew from 114,274 to more than two million riders.

20. What level of Mountain Line service will Proposition 421 fund, if approved?

Mountain Line’s current service level is 363 days annually, with eight bus routes traveling the City from 6:00 a.m.

to 10:15 p.m. on weekdays and from 7:00 a.m. to 8:15 p.m. on weekends and holidays. It also supports special

services for people with disabilities in handicapped equipped vans and in taxis at current levels.

If approved by voters, Proposition 421 will fund more buses, more often. It will fund a cross-town route bus every

15 minutes during business hours and reduce wait times by one-half to 30 minutes or less at most locations. It

also provides weekday service until 11:00 p.m. and weekend service until after midnight. These increases are

designed to make transit a more viable option for Flagstaff residents and visitors to access jobs, community

events, social activities, and medical appointments.

21. Why are no new routes being considered as a part of Proposition 421?

Mountain Line’s five-year planning process revealed that the current routing system was efficient and showed

the advantages of increasing frequency and hours of service on those existing routes.

60

OFFICIAL BALLOT

PROPOSITION NO. 421

Purpose: Sales Tax for Increasing Transit Services Shall the City Council have the authority to amend the Tax Code of the City to levy a transaction privilege/sales tax at a rate of 0.15% ($0.0015) to be in effect for a period of 11 years beginning July 1, 2019, for increasing public transportation including constructing, acquiring, operating, and maintaining equipment and facilities for more frequent transit service within the City of Flagstaff? A YES vote shall have the effect of approving a levy of a sales tax at a rate of 0.15% to be in effect for a period of 11 years beginning July 1, 2020, for increasing transit services within the City of Flagstaff.

SALES TAX INCREASE, YES

A NO vote shall have the effect of not approving a levy of a sales tax at a rate of 0.15% to be in effect for a period of 11 years beginning July 1, 2020, for increasing transit services within the City of Flagstaff.

SALES TAX INCREASE, NO


PROPOSITION NO. 421

A measure referred to the people by the Flagstaff City Council relating to a Sales Tax Levy for Increasing Transit Services A YES vote shall have the effect of approving a levy of a sales tax at a rate of 0.15% to be in effect for a period of 11 years beginning July 1, 2019, for increasing transit services within the City of Flagstaff A NO vote shall have the effect of not approving a levy of a sales tax at a rate of 0.15% to be in effect for a period of 11 years beginning July 1, 2019, for increasing transit services within the City of Flagstaff

YES

NO

61



Public transit in Flagstaff serves a critical need: mobility for NAU students and staff, flexible travel options for residents, and support of business, cultural, and recreational needs for everyone. Everyone wins with transit. Proposition 421 will expand and improve transit options. The highest rated improvements by residents will include extending bus service along West Route 66 to Woody Mountain Road, extending Mountain Line service hours later in the evening, and improving bus frequency throughout the service area. Additional improvements will include later night service, and better weekend service. Overall, this additional funding will improve services by nearly 50%! Everyone wins. Transit is a solution to gridlock, while providing better access along Milton through downtown, along 4th Street, and services to Flagstaff Mall and Woodlands Village. And in so doing, it will address the growing challenges of parking and congestion throughout Flagstaff. It's a win-win. Also, by approving Proposition 421, it leverages additional dollars for the next 11 years from federal and local sources. The funding ensures that buses, technology, on-street facilities including enhancing the Downtown Connection Center, and specialized services -- will improve. Everything wins. And approval of Proposition 421 supports other regional transportation solutions, too, as the improvements proposed are part of a larger community planning effort. These transit solutions are coordinated with local, regional, and state planning programs. This proposition ensures a coordinated solution. Everyone wins. By supporting Proposition 421, you win. Vote yes on Proposition 421. Christopher Bridges Rebecca J Miller AzTA Vice President AzTA Executive Director -----

Frequency and dependability are key factors leading to a successful transit system. NAIPTA has exceeded 2,000,000 annual ridership systemwide. NAIPTA needs to expand its frequency and routes to broaden its dependability. A successful transportation system includes all modes of transportation and our transit system is one of those modes that assists additional modes including roads! NAIPTA is serving visitors, commuters/workforce, our elderly and youth, schools and the full range of our socioeconomic structure. It transports commuters to small businesses, larger department stores and supermarkets. Whether it’s carrying workforce or consumer, NAIPTA has a positive effect on our economy. They have also provided a reduced carbon footprint for the region. As a County Supervisor, I have been a part of the incremental growth of this system since it began as a small system the County ran. A yes vote will allow for the next step in improving and insuring that we have a system that can help absorb additional growth, as well as provide a needed piece to our regional transportation system. Please vote yes on question 421. Matt Ryan Coconino County Supervisor

62

ARGUMENTS AGAINST PROPOSITION NO. 421


I urge you to vote NO on Proposition 421. While I am a huge proponent of investing in public transportation as well as a frequent user of the bus system, there are two problems with this proposition. 1) There are no plans in place to improve our transportation system in a way that prioritizes the flow of buses. The passing of this proposition will effectively put many more buses on roads that do not have dedicated bus lanes, resulting in buses that are stuck in traffic with the rest of us. 2) Jeff Meilbeck (from NAIPTA) specifically told the Transportation Tax Commission that NAIPTA had enough funding coming in from the last tax increase. So I am unclear why they are asking for a second tax increase when they just received one in the last election. Instead, voting no on this proposition will improve the odds that in the next election cycle we can better fund NAIPTA while at the same time providing funding for a better-functioning transportation system in Flagstaff. There absolutely are ways to improve the system, but a tax increase right now before the City’s transportation department has been given clear direction on real solutions simply means higher taxes, rather than developing true solutions. Dara Marks Marino -----

I oppose Proposition 421 because the sales tax in Flagstaff is already too high (currently 8.951% for most goods and 10.951% for the privilege of eating out). If the three city sales tax propositions on this ballot pass, our new sales tax will be 9.331% for most goods and 11.331% for eating out (fast food, restaurant, bar, etc.). Flagstaff's restaurant sales tax rate already is one of the highest in the country. Prop. 421 is a transit tax on top of an existing transit tax. The City seems unable to operate within its budget or properly prepare long-range forecasts. The City states that every new sales tax will end in "x" number of years, but they never expire. They always come back up for renewal and/or an increase. Renewals are increases. Further, the City states in this "information" pamphlet (prepared by City staff with the help of a $350/hour Phoenix consultant) that 50% of the City sales tax is paid by non-residents. Even if true, that does nothing to lower the tax burden on Flagstaff residents. In addition to Prop. 421, there are at least six other tax increases on the ballot. Not mentioned in this information pamphlet is the City's $100 million unfunded Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS) liability as well as the Rio de Flag project. The City will likely put these on the 2020 ballot thus increasing our sales tax another 1% or more. This is irresponsible and inexcusable. Sales tax is regressive and disproportionately impacts the poor and those on fixed incomes. Flagstaff is already an expensive place to live and the City/Council is on track to continue making it even more unaffordable. I urge you to vote no on Proposition 421. Robert Miller Retired CPA

63

PROPOSITION NO. 422

SECONDARY PROPERTY, AD VALOREM TAX – GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS IMPROVING HOUSING AFFORDABILITY


Background on Housing Affordability in Flagstaff The City has recognized the issue of the high cost of housing in Flagstaff for many years. As long ago as 1959, City planning documents identified the need for additional housing units that residents could afford. The 2016 Arizona Department of Housing Study 2016 Housing At-a-Glance recognized Flagstaff as one of the high-priced housing areas in the state. Of major Arizona cities, Flagstaff’s median home price was second highest only to Scottsdale. The study also recognized that Flagstaff was one of only a handful of Arizona cities where a police officer, making the median salary for that city’s police department, could not afford a median priced home. A 2016 survey of the largest employers in the Flagstaff area and their stakeholders, conducted for the Economic Collaborative of Northern Arizona (ECoNA) by the Northern Arizona University W. A. Franke College of Business, showed that half of all respondents were considering leaving Flagstaff because of high housing costs. Of those “considering leaving”, a large majority (67.8%) were renter households. For the approximately 5,900 respondents to the survey, housing and housing affordability were critical issues. “Almost four-fifths of respondents also indicated that affordable workforce housing was a personal concern to them,” as reported in ECoNA’s 2017 Housing Attainability for the Flagstaff Workforce Report. The Report also summarized the analysis and findings of Werwath & Associates on behalf of ECoNA. Those findings include:

• Flagstaff’s cost of living is 14.1% above the national average, driven by housing costs 36% above the national average.

• 43% of households (which includes renters) in Flagstaff are cost burdened and paying more than 30% of their incomes for housing.

• 60% of renter households in Flagstaff are cost burdened.

• 22% percent of the population in Flagstaff is considered “extremely low income.”

• The 2016 median sales price for a single-family home was $350,000, requiring an income over $90,000 a year to purchase.

• The 45% homeownership rate is strikingly low compared to the statewide average of 63% and national average of 64%.

• Sales of single-family homes below $250,000 shrunk by more than 50% between 2014 and 2016.

• Sales of single-family homes below $200,000 decreased by 60% between 2014 and 2016.

• There were only 15 homes listed under $250,000 citywide and only six listings below $200,000 in May of 2017; 1% of all single-family listings. The cost and availability before or after this date may be different.

• Only 2.6% of market rate rental units were available to rent and no income restricted units were vacant in February-March 2017.

• Reported rental rates exceed what is considered Fair Market Value for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by between $200 and $400 a month depending on unit size.

64

The ECoNA study recommended (among other things):

• Create dedicated local funding sources, both public and private, that can support more workforce housing creation and create mechanisms such as a workforce housing trust fund to recapture and recycle this funding.

• Create locally funded down payment assistance programs that serve a broader range of incomes than current sources.

• Engage the business community to proactively advocate for new housing developments that meets workforce needs, in addition to direct investment of resources.

Program Description: Current City Housing Programs The City of Flagstaff’s Housing Section works to improve local housing affordability, in conjunction with several non-profits and agencies, by supporting:

• Affordable home ownership opportunities;

• Down payment assistance programs;

• An owner-occupied housing rehabilitation program for health and safety repairs; and

• The creation of new affordable rental and ownership units though development incentives.

The Homebuyer Assistance Program provides qualified, first time home buyers down payment and closing cost assistance that must be repaid at the time the house is a) sold, b) refinanced for cash out, or c) no longer owner occupied. The Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation Program funds health and safety repairs, accessibility improvements, and efficiency/weatherization improvements for qualified, low-income homeowners. Rehabilitation projects can range from furnace replacement to large multi-system projects addressing issues throughout the home. The majority of rehabilitation costs are paid with a zero-interest rate loan funded by the City with Community Development Block Grant funds. The loan does not have to be repaid until the home is a) sold, b) refinanced for cash out, or c) no longer owner occupied. The Incentive Policy for Affordable Housing and the Flagstaff Zoning Code offer financial and regulatory incentives through reimbursement and/or waivers of City development fees to assist private development of affordable housing units. The financial incentives and waivers lower the cost of development and thereby allow a percentage of units to be more affordable. Future Housing Affordability Programs, if Proposition 422 is approved. The ballot language of Proposition 422 is very broad and speaks generally to why the City wants to borrow $25 million to address housing affordability issues. The ballot language identifies three specific areas to be addressed through the issuance of bonds:

• Increasing the number of housing units affordable for more residents in the City by construction, rehabilitation, redevelopment, and acquisition of land for housing units; and the related infrastructure;

• Assisting more Flagstaff residents to afford housing by making loans and grants for the construction, rehabilitation, redevelopment, and acquisition of housing units; and the related infrastructure;

• To pay all costs and expenses properly incidental thereto and to the issuance and sale of bonds.

A Housing Bond Committee will be established to advise the Council on the best ways to respond to changing market conditions to meet the legal obligations described in the ballot question. The initial programmatic solutions described in this document could change as the Flagstaff City Council considers these and other programmatic recommendations as developed through the City budget process to implement policy direction. The City Council will likely continue the existing housing programs, described above, if Proposition 422 is approved by City voters. Additional programs may be added and may include programs such as the following:

• An Affordable Housing Units Development Assistance Program that will provide financial support to builders/developers of new housing units (home and apartment) to lower the cost of construction/development and thereby allow the units to be more affordable for more households in Flagstaff. The assistance to builders/developers will take a number of forms, including, but not limited to: gap funding for costs directly incurred in construction or rehabilitation of housing units; assistance to both for-profit and non-profit developers, contractors, builders, governmental agencies, and partnerships; assistance for both rental and

65

owner occupied housing units; and assistance in the acquisition, development/redevelopment, and rehabilitation of existing housing and housing infrastructure.

• A Homeownership Assistance Program that will provide expanded eligibility for qualified, first time home buyers down payment and closing cost assistance. The down payment and closing cost assistance will be provided in the form of a repayable loan. The new program will expand on the City’s current programs to permit households with incomes above 80% of the area median household income to be eligible. Currently, the 80% of area median household income standard is set by HUD and prevents many Flagstaff working families, like those of teachers and firefighters, from qualifying for the down payment and closing cost assistance.

Because the down payment and closing cost assistance is eventually repaid, the monies can be reused for future homebuyers and the program could effectively become a revolving fund.

The Importance of Program Flexibility and Adaptation Over Time The City’s response to housing affordability must be flexible to respond to changing conditions in the housing and mortgage markets. A program or approach that is effective at one point in time, with one set of market conditions, may be less effective as market conditions change. Therefore, different approaches must be used to assist households with housing affordability at different times. It is important to note that the ballot language allows the City, at the direction of the City Council, with advice from the Housing Bond Committee, to modify the particular programs being offered to assist with changing market conditions and housing affordability over time. Housing Bond Committee If Proposition 422 is approved, the City Council will appoint a Housing Bond Committee to advise the Council on the programs funded by Proposition 422. It is anticipated that the Housing Bond Committee will be composed of a variety of community members representing different interests and different areas of housing and housing market knowledge. Possible committee members could include: an at-large member, a realtor, a mortgage lender, a subject matter expert, a low-income community member, a moderate-income community member, a developer/builder, and a Flagstaff Housing Authority Board member. The ultimate responsibility for the Housing Affordability Programs funded by Proposition 422 will rest with City Council. The programs will be monitored annually as a part of the City’s existing budget process, which requires a public hearing and annual City Council approval. The information provided in this document reflects the best information available to the City of Flagstaff at the time of its preparation. The descriptions of future programs and expenditures are based on currently available information and expectations. All such programs and expenditures are subject to future decisions and actions of the City Council. As such, the actual future programs and expenditures may vary from the descriptions herein. The actual ballot language, of any ballot proposition that is approved, is legally binding on the future actions of the City Council, and no monies may be expended except for the purposes described in such ballot question. City Secondary Property Tax Facts

• Tax Rate – Even with the approval of Proposition 422, the total secondary property tax rate for the City is expected to remain $0.8366 per $100 of assessed value if property values remain stable. It is estimated that the Housing Affordability portion of the total $0.8366 secondary property tax rate for the City will require a projected average annual secondary property tax of $0.2360 per $100 of assessed value over the estimated twenty-year life of the bonds. The average home in Flagstaff was assessed at $200,859 (10% residential assessment rate = $20,086) in the current tax year and the owner of such a home would continue to pay approximately $168 per year in total secondary property taxes for the general obligation debt of the City based on the $0.8366 secondary property tax rate. The Housing Affordability portion will be approximately $47 per year based on the $0.2360 portion of the secondary property tax rate.

• Length – The City secondary property tax for the Housing Affordability portion is projected to be for 20 years, from tax year 2020.

• Borrowing Amount – The City may borrow an amount not to exceed $25 million secured by the City secondary property tax to fund the Housing Affordability programs.

66


Questions about Proposition 422 – Improving Housing Affordability


Arizona law requires that bonds, like the bonds that pledge City property taxes for repayment, be voter approved. These bonds will be repaid with secondary ad valorem property taxes and are commonly called “general obligation bonds”. A general obligation bond is a contract between a bondholder, who, in effect, lends the City money, and the City, which pledges to repay it. It is a “general obligation” of the City. Repayment is by secondary property taxes levied on all taxable property in the City. Legally, the tax is unlimited in rate and amount.

2. How do General Obligation Bonds work? If Proposition 422 is approved by the voters, the bonds will be issued and sold periodically. The bonds will be issued when funds are needed for a specific project or purpose, in the actual amount needed for such specific project or purpose, but the total amount of bonds issued may not exceed the amount approved by voters, in this case $25 million. Money received from the issuance and sale of the bonds may only be used for the purposes specified in the bond ballot question. Some of the costs may be paid from other City sources that will reduce the amount of property taxes required. Present and future residents’ property taxes will be used to repay the bonds over a period of time - usually 20 years - in the same manner that homeowners pay off a home mortgage over time. The total amount of general obligation bonds the City may have outstanding at any one time is limited by the State Constitution. The limit is based on a percentage of the value of all taxable property, within the City and is described in more detail below. The remaining, available, constitutional bond capacity of the City, for all permitted purposes is almost $200 million.

3. What are primary and secondary property taxes? The City collects two types of property taxes. Primary property taxes are generally used to support the maintenance and operation budgets for local governments, such as cities, counties, school districts, and community college districts. Secondary property taxes assessed by cities must be voter approved and are generally used pay for bond issues, budget overrides, and special districts. Each year’s property tax bill has a separate primary and secondary property tax rate for the City as well as most other local governments.

4. What is the City Secondary Property Tax? The City collects a secondary property tax to repay City general obligation bonds. The current City secondary property tax rate is $0.8366 per $100 of assessed value of property. That rate is currently repaying the principal and interest on the City’s outstanding general obligation bonds that total $40,579,560 in principal amount.

5. Is my secondary property tax rate expected to increase if Proposition 422 is approved? No. The City’s secondary property tax rate is expected to remain $0.8366 per $100 of assessed value, if property values remain stable. Some existing City general obligations bonds will be fully repaid before the bonds are issued and the portion of the existing secondary property taxes that was repaying those existing general obligation bonds will be redirected to repaying the bonds. While Arizona Revised Statutes require the City to make a disclosure that the issuance of the bonds will result in a property tax increase sufficient to pay the annual debt service on the bonds, the City intentionally established the amount of the bonds and the timing of bond sales such that the City’s secondary property tax rate would not need to be increased, if property values remain stable. The City has consistently timed the issuance of new bonds with the full repayment of prior bonds in order to keep the secondary property tax rate constant.

67

6. Will my total secondary property tax increase if my property value goes up? Property owners whose property value, for tax purposes, increases will experience higher taxes even with the City’s constant secondary property tax rate. It is important to note that other local governments also collect secondary property taxes that property owners pay. Whether the total of all secondary property taxes goes up depends in part, on the actions of other local governments and other questions that may be on the ballot. The City cannot speak to the impact of changes in primary property tax rates or in secondary property tax rates as a result of other ballot questions. The City’s secondary property tax rate has remained constant at $0.8366 per $100 of assessed valuation since the 2006 tax year.

City of Flagstaff

Secondary Property Tax Rate

Tax Year Tax Rate

2004 $0.9801

2005 $0.8766

2006 to 2018 $0.8366


The City has recognized the issue of the high cost of housing in Flagstaff for many years. As long ago as 1959, City planning documents identified the need for increased amounts of housing that residents could afford. The 2016 Arizona Department of Housing Study 2016 Housing At-a-Glance recognized Flagstaff as one of the high-priced housing areas in the state. Of major Arizona cities, Flagstaff’s median home price was second highest only to Scottsdale. The study also recognized that Flagstaff was one of only a handful of Arizona cities where a police officer, making the median salary for that city’s police department, could not afford a median priced home. A 2016 survey of the largest employers in the Flagstaff area and their stakeholders, conducted for ECoNA, by the Northern Arizona University W. A. Franke College of Business showed that half of all respondents were considering leaving Flagstaff because of high housing costs.

8. Who will pay for the new Housing Affordability programs and what will they cost? For the current tax year, the City levied a $0.8366 per $100 of assessed value secondary property tax to repay existing, outstanding bonds. The average home in Flagstaff was assessed at $200,859 (10% residential assessment rate = $20,086)in the 2017 tax year and will pay approximately $168 per year in total City secondary property taxes based on the $0.8366 secondary property tax rate for such year.

9. Why is the City considering issuing bonds for these Housing Affordability programs? Proposition 422 asks the voters to give the City authority to issue bonds to be repaid with secondary property taxes, so it will have a dedicated funding source for Housing Affordability programs. The City does not have many ways to raise large sums of money to address important needs. Bonding is one method available, with voter approval.

10. Aren’t there state and federal funds for Housing Affordability programs like these? Both the state and the federal government have programs for affordable housing, both rental and owned. However, in many cases Flagstaff residents who need affordable housing are not eligible because of the federally established income qualification limits.

68

11. Why is the City considering using a property tax to fund Housing Affordability programs? The City has chosen to fund Housing Affordability programs with general obligation bonds, if approved. The City’s general obligation bonds are repaid with secondary property taxes. For additional information, see “CERTAIN REQUIRED INFORMATION ABOUT GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS” below.

12. Will City property taxes increase if Proposition 422 is approved? No. The City’s secondary property tax rate is expected to remain $0.8366 per $100 of assessed value, if property values remain stable. Some existing City general obligations bonds will be fully repaid before the Bonds are issued and the portion of the existing secondary property taxes that was repaying those existing general obligation bonds will be redirected to repaying the bonds. The City will time the issuance of new general obligation bonds as old general obligations bonds are completely repaid and in order to keep the tax rate constant.

13. What will ensure that the new tax money is being spent only on Housing Affordability programs? The ballot language is legally binding. By law, the City may only spend the voter-authorized revenues for the purposes stated in the ballot question. If approved, funds under Proposition 422 will only be spent after public City Council meetings are held where public comment is received, and decisions are ultimately made by the City Council to appropriate the funds for housing affordability purposes. The monies may not be used for any other uses. Future City Councils will make ultimate decisions on which programs are created, which housing programs are implemented, and how the money from the Bonds will be spent. The City Council will also name a Housing Bond Committee, if Proposition 422 is approved, that will make recommendations on how the money should be used according to the purposes stated in the ballot question. The Housing Bond Committee will assist the City Council to make sure the housing programs established are consistent with the purposes stated in the ballot question and that such purposes are accomplished effectively despite variations in the economy, housing, and rental markets. It is important to note that the ballot language allows the City, at the direction of the City Council, with advice from the Housing Bond Committee, to modify the particular programs being offered to assist with housing affordability over time. Such programs must be flexible to respond to changing conditions in the housing and mortgage markets. Programs that are very effective in some time periods and circumstances can be ineffective during different market conditions and therefore different approaches must be used to assist with housing affordability.

14. How will the Flagstaff City Council be involved with Proposition 422, if it is approved? The City Council, with advice from the Housing Bond Committee and City staff, will be responsible for making the policy decisions regarding the expenditure of the funds in public meetings about how the Proposition 422 monies will be spent and for appropriating the funds through the annual budget process. These decisions by City Council will be made through the normal process of public Council meetings where the public may comment.

15. How can we be sure there is enough money to achieve the goals of the Housing Affordability? In its projections, the City has used conservative estimates of future revenue collections and inflation. The City will adjust the Housing Affordability programs to the amount of funding available over time. The City will report back to the public regularly to discuss the Housing Affordability priorities. The City Council will routinely discuss publicly any differences between expected revenue and actual revenues.

16. Does a “yes” vote on one proposition require a “no” vote on the other propositions? No, each ballot item is a separate question. Voters may vote either “yes” or “no” on each proposition.

17. What is the purpose of potential Housing Affordability programs that could be created if Proposition 422 is approved? The City’s Housing Affordability programs, and any potentially additional programs that may be established by future City Councils, are intended to: help Flagstaff residents become home owners; address health and safety

69

problems with homes; and incentivize builders and developers to increase the number of housing units that are affordable for Flagstaff residents.

18. Will the Housing Affordability programs impact homes only in Flagstaff? The programs will affect housing units throughout all areas of the City. The programs will only operate within the city limits.

19. Are there other communities with similar projects? Yes, Denver, Colorado and Santa Fe, New Mexico have similar programs. These programs have been underway for several years and both are successful.

20. Can the City require developers to include affordable housing in their developments? The State of Arizona prohibits mandatory inclusionary zoning by law, meaning that it is illegal to require developers to include affordable housing within their development. Instead, the City of Flagstaff provides both regulatory and policy incentives to developers who are voluntarily willing to contribute to increasing affordable housing in Flagstaff.

21. What is the City Council’s role? If Proposition 422 is approved, the Flagstaff City Council will make all policy decisions about how the Bond money is expended through the budget. The City’s Housing Section would be responsible for implementing the Council’s directives and the Housing Bond Committee would provide advice to the City Council.

22. Where can I find additional information on this Question? For more detailed information on the Housing Affordability programs and Proposition 422 contact the Flagstaff Housing Section at (928) 213-2743.

CERTAIN REQUIRED INFORMATION ABOUT GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS

Requested Bond Authorization/Purpose for which the Bonds are to be Issued: On June 19, 2018, the Mayor and City Council of Flagstaff (the City) passed and adopted a resolution calling a special bond election to authorize the sale and issuance of not to exceed $25,000,000 principal amount of general obligation bonds. The proceeds of the sale of the bonds will provide money for improving housing affordability in the City and for paying all necessary costs in connection therewith, as described herein. Maximum Interest Rate on the Bonds: The maximum interest rate on the Bonds will not exceed 10% per annum. Plan of Finance: If the bond question (Proposition 422) is approved by the voters, it is expected that the bonds will be sold in phases conducted over several years. The interest rate to be borne by the bonds would be determined by the market conditions that prevail at the time of sale, but in no event would the bonds be sold at an interest rate greater than 10% per annum. Average annual interest on the bonds is assumed herein at 5.0% for a 2019 sale and 5.5% to 6.0% for sales thereafter for purposes of estimating the tax impact. These rates are used because it is assumed that the interest on the bonds will be taxable. Repayment of both principal of and interest on each series of the bonds would occur over a period of not to exceed 20 years from their date of issuance. If authorized and all sold, the bonds would be repaid from a levy of ad valorem taxes on all taxable property within the City. It is estimated that the bonds would require an estimated average annual secondary tax rate increase of $0.2360 per $100 of assessed valuation over the life of the bonds, if property values remain stable. The issuance of the bonds is projected to not impact the City's current tax rate of $0.8366 per $100 of net assessed limited property valuation. The following is an estimated debt service schedule for the Bonds and the estimated impact to the secondary tax rate of the City given the assumptions described therein.

70


Estimated Debt Service Requirements and Projected Impact on Secondary Tax Rate*

Projected

Net Limited Bonds Currently Outstanding Authorized, but Unissued

Bonds

Bond Proposed to be Issued (b)

Projected Combined

Fiscal

Year

Assessed

Value (a)

Principal

Interest

Combined

Tax

Rate Estimated

Debt Service

Tax

Rate (d)

Principal

Estimated

Interest

Combined

Tax

Rate

Combined

Tax

Rate (d)

2018/19 $804,836,851 $5,685,068 $1,532,023 $7,217,091 $0.84 (c) $7,217,091 $0.84 (c)

2019/20 804,836,851 5,682,592 1,337,699 7,020,291 0.84 (c) $250,000 $250,000 $0.03 7,270,291 0.84 (c)

2020/21 804,836,851 4,385,432 1,128,783 5,514,216 0.68 $1,077,200 $0.13 250,000 250,000 0.03 6,841,416 0.84

2021/22 804,836,851 1,781,298 958,968 2,740,266 0.34 2,046,575 0.25 $750,000 525,000 1,275,000 0.16 6,061,841 0.75

2022/23 804,836,851 1,853,822 888,444 2,742,266 0.34 2,082,075 0.26 750,000 486,250 1,236,250 0.15 6,060,591 0.75

2023/24 804,836,851 1,936,423 812,043 2,748,466 0.34 1,043,750 0.13 1,400,000 747,500 2,147,500 0.27 5,939,716 0.74

2024/25 804,836,851 2,009,106 738,510 2,747,616 0.34 1,049,750 0.13 1,475,000 671,000 2,146,000 0.27 5,943,366 0.74

2025/26 804,836,851 2,081,872 662,194 2,744,066 0.34 1,055,075 0.13 1,250,000 890,250 2,140,250 0.27 5,939,391 0.74

2026/27 804,836,851 2,154,724 586,968 2,741,691 0.34 1,064,725 0.13 1,325,000 822,000 2,147,000 0.27 5,953,416 0.74

2027/28 804,836,851 2,242,664 509,027 2,751,691 0.34 1,053,475 0.13 1,050,000 1,049,500 2,099,500 0.26 5,904,666 0.73

2028/29 804,836,851 1,340,695 427,871 1,768,566 0.22 2,042,225 0.25 1,100,000 993,125 2,093,125 0.26 5,903,916 0.73

2029/30 804,836,851 1,393,821 375,145 1,768,966 0.22 2,035,975 0.25 1,150,000 934,000 2,084,000 0.26 5,888,941 0.73

2030/31 804,836,851 1,447,043 320,323 1,767,366 0.22 2,027,475 0.25 1,225,000 872,000 2,097,000 0.26 5,891,841 0.73

2031/32 804,836,851 1,395,000 263,400 1,658,400 0.21 2,041,725 0.25 1,100,000 805,875 1,905,875 0.24 5,606,000 0.70

2032/33 804,836,851 1,455,000 207,600 1,662,600 0.21 2,027,600 0.25 1,200,000 741,875 1,941,875 0.24 5,632,075 0.70

2033/34 804,836,851 1,510,000 149,400 1,659,400 0.21 2,036,225 0.25 1,250,000 672,000 1,922,000 0.24 5,617,625 0.70

2034/35 804,836,851 1,090,000 89,000 1,179,000 0.15 2,491,475 0.31 1,125,000 598,500 1,723,500 0.21 5,393,975 0.67

2035/36 804,836,851 1,135,000 45,400 1,180,400 0.15 2,498,100 0.31 700,000 531,000 1,231,000 0.15 4,909,500 0.61

2036/37 804,836,851 2,725,225 0.34 1,675,000 489,000 2,164,000 0.27 4,889,225 0.61

2037/39 804,836,851 2,617,725 0.33 1,875,000 388,500 2,263,500 0.28 4,881,225 0.61

2038/39 804,836,851 4,600,000 276,000 4,876,000 0.61 4,876,000 0.61

$40,579,560 $11,032,798 $51,612,358 $33,016,375 $25,000,000 $12,993,375 $37,993,375


* Tax rates stated per $100 of assessed value and exclude earnings, rebate and delinquency adjustment.

(a) Fiscal year 2018/19 is provided by the Arizona Department of Revenue. Assumes annual assessed value change of zero percent.

(b) Assumes sale phases through 2023 and average annual interest at 5% for a 2019 sale and 5.5% to 6.0% for sales thereafter. (c) Assumes use of accumulated reserves of past secondary property tax collections to reduce rate to $0.8366. (d) Excludes first 12 months of interest expected to be paid from proceeds of the bond sale.

71

Estimated General Obligation Bond Issue Cost to Taxpayers The Bonds would be repaid from a levy of ad valorem taxes on all taxable property within the City which would impact the taxpayers in the form of an estimated average annual secondary tax rate increase of $0.2360 per $100 of assessed valuation. The tax impact over the term of the bonds on an owner-occupied residence valued by the County Assessor at $250,000 is estimated to be $59 per year for 20 years, or $1,180 total cost. The tax impact over the term of the bonds on commercial property valued by the County Assessor at $1,000,000 is estimated to be $425 per year for 20 years, or $8,500 total cost. The tax impact over the term of the bonds on agricultural or other vacant property valued by the County Assessor at $100,000 is estimated to be $35 per year for 20 years, or $700 total cost. Assessor’s value for tax purposes is the value of property as it appears on a tax bill and does not necessarily represent the market value. Cost based on the projected average annual tax rate over the life of the bond issues and a number of other financing assumptions which are subject to change. Cost assumes the net assessed valuation of the property increases annually at the lesser of five percent or fifty percent of the projected total annual increase in net assessed valuation shown on the Projected Debt Service Schedule. Estimated average net assessed valuation of owner-occupied residential properties, commercial and industrial properties, or agricultural and vacant properties, as applicable, within the jurisdiction as provided by the Arizona Department of Revenue. Estimated Total Cost: Should the bonds be authorized and issued, the City estimates that the total cost of the bonds, including principal and interest will be $37,993,375. Estimated Issuance Costs: Should the bonds be authorized and issued, the City estimates that the cost of issuance with respect to each series the Bonds will be approximately $150,000. Current Outstanding General Obligation Debt and Constitutional Debt Limitation: The City currently has $40,579,560 general obligation debt outstanding. The constitutional debt limit of the City is $241,059,225, being twenty-six percent (26%) of the net assessed full cash valuation of the taxable property in the City.

The Arizona Constitution limits the outstanding property tax secured bonded indebtedness of cities and towns. For

combined water, sewer, light, parks, open space preserves, playgrounds and recreational facilities, outstanding

bonded debt may not exceed 20% of net full cash assessed valuation. In addition to the 20% limitation, for all other

purposes outstanding bonded indebtedness may not exceed 6% of a city’s net full cash assessed valuation. Unused

borrowing capacity for the 20% and 6% debt limitations is shown below based upon the fiscal year 2018/19 Net Full

Cash Assessed Valuation.

Water, Light, Sewer, Open Space & Park Bonds All Other General Obligation Bonds

20% Constitutional Limitation $185,430,173 6% Constitutional Limitation $55,629,052

Net Direct General Obligation Net Direct General Obligation

Bonds Outstanding (40,579,560) Bonds Outstanding (0)

Reduction for Original Reduction for Original

Issue Premium (1,866,052) (a) Issue Premium (0)

Unused 20% Limitation Unused 6% Limitation

Borrowing Capacity $142,984,561 Borrowing Capacity $55,629,052

(a) This amount reduces in equal amount the borrowing capacity of the City under State statutes and the Arizona Constitution and the principal amount authorized at the elections for the City from which bonds were sold based on changes in law. The amount is net original issue premium with respect to the bonds sold less the amounts of premium used to pay certain costs of issuance of, and interest on, the bonds sold.

72

OFFICIAL BALLOT

PROPOSITION NO. 422

Purpose: Improving Housing Affordability Amount: $25,000,000 To address the high cost of housing in Flagstaff, shall the City of Flagstaff be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds in a principal amount up to $25,000,000:

• for the purpose of increasing the number of housing units affordable for more residents in the City by construction, rehabilitation, redevelopment and acquisition of land for housing units; and the related infrastructure;

• for the purpose of assisting more Flagstaff residents to afford housing by making loans and grants for the construction, rehabilitation, redevelopment and acquisition of housing units; and the related infrastructure; and

• to pay all costs and expenses properly incidental thereto and to the issuance and sale of bonds?

The bonds may be issued in one or more series, will not mature more than 20 years from the date or dates of their issue, will bear interest at a rate or rates not to exceed 10% per annum, and will have such other provisions as are approved by the City Council. If the bonds are approved, the City Council will create and appoint a Housing Bond Committee to advise the City Council on the use of the proceeds of the sale of the bonds and related matters. The following sentence has been included on this ballot as required by Section 35-454(C), Arizona Revised Statutes: The issuance of these bonds will result in a property tax increase sufficient to pay the annual debt service on the bonds. A YES vote shall authorize the governing body of the City to issue and sell $25,000,000 of general obligation bonds of the City to be repaid with secondary property taxes.

BOND APPROVAL, YES

A NO vote shall not authorize the governing body of the City to issue and sell such bonds of the City.

BOND APPROVAL, NO

73


PROPOSITION NO. 422

A measure referred to the people by the Flagstaff City Council relating to the issuance of bonds in a principal amount of $25,000,000 to improve housing affordability A YES vote shall authorize the governing body of the City to issue and sell $25,000,000 of general obligation bonds of the City to be repaid with secondary property taxes A NO vote shall not authorize the governing body of the City to issue and sell such bonds of the City

YES

NO



My name is Stacy Fobar and as a citizen of Flagstaff, I support Question 422. The need for affordable housing for Flagstaff families is preventing our city from prospering. The cost of housing has grown far higher and faster than wages and the dream of owning a home is quickly fading for working professionals such as myself. The market is simply not providing decent, affordable housing options to the workforce where we can raise our families securely. Passage of this housing bond would not raise our secondary property tax rates and works to address the supply-side and the demand-side of the housing problem. The majority of funds would be used to create housing units – both homeownership and rental – that are more affordable. Developers would “opt in” to using the funds and be held accountable to the community to create those rental and homeownership units through development agreements. A portion of the bond will be used to help provide down payment and closing cost assistance – working on the demand side of the housing issue. Down payment assistance can be in the form of loans that will be repaid to help additional families in the future. The one-time investment of bond funds can generate a revolving fund to help homebuyers today and in the future. I know that this is something that my family would love to use, and I’m sure many other middle-class families could benefit from a program like this as well. This strategy helps the entire community, not just a handful of homeowners or renters. It keeps teachers, firemen, nurses, social workers, lunch aides, baristas, maintenance personnel, dispatch operators, bank tellers and other workers in our community. This investment in housing is an investment in community and workforce development. Stacy Fobar -----

Proposition 422 is cost effective investment to begin to address the housing needs of local families, creating homes

for workers in education, health, public safety, community businesses.

Communities that prosper are those that invest in their neighbors, small businesses and the local workforce.

74

Healthier and more reasonable housing is possible in Flagstaff when public and private sectors, nonprofits and

business in our community strategize and invest in solutions together.

Proposition 422 is an investment in our community. This proposal does NOT increase the property tax rate because

the proposed bond amount is within the existing tax rate. We can help neighbors find decent, reasonable housing

with the property taxes we are already paying. It’s win-win.

The need for homes affordable for working families in our community affects us all. Flagstaff is a place where we

care about our neighbors and where we work collectively to ensure our small- and medium-size businesses can

thrive, creating a vibrant, strong economy.

Investing in homes for local working families will make our community stronger. The $25 million housing bond will

be leveraged with private-sector investment, grants and national resources ensuring local funding is optimized to

meet the greatest need. The creation of a revolving fund to provide down payment assistance loans is critical as

this one-time investment can be repaid and loaned again – over and over to help families today and in the future.

Accountability is built in to the Proposition, with the creation of a Housing Bond Committee to make expert

recommendations to Council about program design and bond expenses.

Housing is the foundation for healthy and strong families. It’s the foundation for a resilient workforce and strong

local economy. It’s time we finally invest in local solutions and strategies so we all benefit. Please vote YES on

Proposition 422.

Devonna McLaughlin

-----

As 42% of Flagstaff pays more for housing than is considered affordable, F3 supports Proposition 422, a $25M bond that is expected to increase affordable housing by over 1,000 homes. Council will have final authority on how the bond is spent, based on recommendations from an appointed citizen committee. Proposition 422 funds will be made available as other city bond obligations are paid off, and home-owners will not see a change in property tax rate.

Proposition 422 is written broadly in order to have flexibility over the 20-year period (the community’s specific housing needs will change over time). Down payment assistance loans and development incentives to increase below-market housing are two expected programs through Proposition 422. These types of programs have a proven track record of success through the years. They have just been sorely underfunded in Flagstaff.

Proposition 422 will also have the advantage of helping middle-class people who otherwise cannot receive federal or state funds with homebuyer assistance. By moving these long-term renters into home ownership, it will also help affordability by increasing the housing stock for rentals.

Proposition 422 is a bold move towards more attainable housing that will increase the quality of life for all Flagstaff residents. The revolving door of talented people leaving Flagstaff because of a lack of affordable housing costs us in many ways. It affects the healthcare we receive with a 33% turnover rate of nurses at our hospitals; it affects the education of our future voters; it affects the city’s bottom line as we continue to train employees who quickly choose to leave for more affordable pastures. A vote for Proposition 422 will make Flagstaff more accessible for people struggling to make ends meet who help make Flagstaff a more vibrant and diverse community.

Friends of Flagstaff’s Future

Emily Melhorn Michael Caulkins Vice President President -----

75

The term “affordable housing” has come into question because most people automatically assume the term is associated with only the low-income members of our community. Recent studies conducted by the city clearly indicate that is not the case. We are losing nurses, police officers, firefighters, teachers, mid-level managers, highly skilled construction workers and others to communities that can offer them more reasonably priced housing. The cost of replacing employees who leave is a direct burden to every employer in Flagstaff, and an indirect burden to every citizen. Another study shows it costs more to own a home in Flagstaff than it does in Scottsdale, Portland or Denver. Some say we simply need to focus on attracting higher paying jobs, but Flagstaff can never compete with larger communities to attract those higher paying companies. In this past decade we have lost Walgreens distribution, SCA Tissue and WL Gore is downsizing in Flagstaff & expanding in North Phoenix. We have the highest rents in Arizona, and our rents have now exceeded those of Boulder, Colorado. Housing, both rental and home ownership, that is affordable to those earning up to 125% of the median income is critical to the long-term stability of our community and to our employers who depend on a quality work force. This bond measure is vague on purpose. Within any given year we don’t know what the housing needs may be., where the largest gaps exist, and what or where the best opportunities may present themselves. A strong independent advisory committee to sort through that and make the best recommendations possible to the city council for funding will be critical. A committee consisting of industry professionals, both private and non-profit, that clearly understand our housing market. If not this, What? If not now, When? Rick Lopez ARGUMENTS AGAINST PROPOSITION NO. 422


I urge a no vote on Prop 422 because: 1. Borrowing $25 million will use up too much of the city's bonding capacity for general obligation bonds that are repaid with the secondary property tax at the current rate. We have many other important and expensive needs, including paying for the city's share to finish the construction of the Rio de Flag flood control project, and the city should have the ability to bond for them. 2. The bond question doesn't have any parameters on how the $25 million will be spent so we don't have any idea who the winners and losers will be. 3. There's good reason to believe that the City Council will go down the path of exercising the right of eminent domain and 'take' private property from property owners for affordable housing from property owners who DO NOT want to sell their property and use the bond money to compensate them. The bond language should've made it clear that the city won't use the public money for this. Al White Flagstaff -----

Don’t be fooled by Proposition 422: it will not truly make Flagstaff a more affordable place to live. Affordable housing is a complicated, nuanced problem, but this is a huge bond that will mostly go to putting money in the pockets of outside corporations and to paying the interest on money borrowed. To solve our affordable housing problems, save Flagstaff citizens millions of dollars, and keep local money local, landlords should simply reduce their rent to reasonable rates, rather than asking everyone in Flagstaff to pay outside interests to develop a modicum of almost-

76

affordable housing. Additionally, this bond does not guarantee that the housing will remain affordable permanently. Vote NO on Proposition 422. Dara Marks Marino -----

I oppose Proposition 422 because approval of this $25 million bond would mean that for the next 20 years the City can issue only $25 million in general obligation bonds at the existing tax rate, which is worrisome. Also, the measures purpose is too vague to be of any use to voters as there aren't any limitations or parameters to ensure such things as permanent affordability for the housing built with the bond money. Not only will Proposition 422 increase our property taxes for years to come, voters are now being asked to consider seven tax increases (including Prop. 422). There are two proposed increases in our sales tax, one sales tax renewal (because we can never let them expire), one FUSD property tax override, one new FUSD $75 million bond issue, and the CCC property tax override. I consider tax "overrides" and "renewals" a new tax increase because if they expired (as originally promised) our taxes would go down. The City of Flagstaff also has a $100 million unfunded Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS) liability. It doesn't have a dedicated source of revenue to pay this off so I think it very likely the City Council will ask the voters to raise the sales tax (yet again) in November 2020. And where is the City going to get the money to finally finish the Rio de Flag flood control project? Another stormwater fee increase? Another sales tax increase? It's no surprise Flagstaff is such an expensive place to live and we may well be on track to continue making it even more unaffordable. I urge you to vote no on Proposition 422. Robert Miller Retired CPA -----

Vote NO on Proposition 422, the $25 million Affordable Housing Bon. Proposition 422 may render Flagstaff unable to fund future critical projects such as ensuring our water supply or finishing Rio-de-Flag Flood Control project. The City also may not be able to fund predicted emergencies such as wildfire or infrastructure failure. Another red flag is the local realtor association brought this $25 million bond to City Council with no plan and no qualified management committee. The future Housing Bond Committee, likely to include realtors and developers, will recommend how to spend the bon. We have no assurances they won’t have a direct conflict of interest or benefit personally from the bond money. Proposition 422 is an ill-advised City plan to increase our property tax money. Affordable housing projects need responsible, transparent plans. Citizens recently stopped an affordable housing plan at Shultz Pass Rd and Highway 180 because the land had more value to remain undeveloped due to its historic and conservation values. However, our City, lacking adequate public input and foresight, had already spent over $500,000 (years ago) of our tax dollars on infrastructure for this land. Another ill-advised City plan. No parameters exist in the bond that protect the public money. There’s no guarantee the housing built with the $25 million will be put in city land trust and kept permanently affordable. Future buyers of this housing could increase their resale price for a large profit, thus rendering the housing unaffordable. The City will likely consume millions on new City staff to administer the bond money. Note that voters were NOT told before they approved the (currently failing and overdue) $10 million FWPP Bond for forest thinning that the City would spend 1.2 million on staff salaries.

77

Vote NO on Proposition 422, an expensive, non-transparent, and dubious plan. Emma Benenati I’m voting NO on Proposition 422. I hope you will also. A $25 million bond that doesn’t even tell us what ‘affordable housing’ means and will increase property taxes is bad for Flagstaff. It’s way too much money to give the city at one time and will mean that the city won’t be able to borrow the large amounts of money it will need for other important city projects for at least another 25 years. I don’t think bonding is a good idea, but if the city does borrow money then a smaller amount of money for the bond would make much more sense. Developers like those who build monstrous projects like Mill Town and The Hub and who don’t want to voluntarily give us affordable units will probably be just the kind of developers who will show up at City Hall for the public money and build us more of what they’re known for – monstrous projects! And the city council will approve them just because they want the affordable housing. If you think we’re headed in the wrong direction now, just wait and see what happens if the city hands out $25 million for so-called affordable housing. It’s a big problem that the bond question doesn’t promise the property taxpayers that all of the housing built with the bond money is permanently affordable and put in the city land trust. The property taxpayers should only subsidize permanently affordable housing otherwise it just doesn’t make any sense. We know affordability and the high cost of living in Flagstaff are big problems and now we’re going to make it even more expensive with all of the sales tax and property tax increase questions on the ballot. The left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. Vote no on Proposition 422. Kathryn Jim -----

This vague legally-binding bond question is the only information we have. I cannot support bond language that does not address permanent affordability. Why are we not guaranteed every unit built under this program is permanently affordable? Without permanency, the public investment in affordability is short-lived. Instead, after some period or after the life of the bond (20 years), the affordability would vanish and units would revert to the open market. This does not address permanent affordability which is needed for any such program to be truly successful. This would not be fail to City taxpayers who foot the bill for the bond and associated interest and deserve the assurance of affordability that lasts into perpetuity.

As presented, this housing bond is for the purpose of assisting more Flagstaff residents to afford housing by making loans and grants for the construction, rehabilitation, redevelopment, and acquisition of housing units and related infrastructure. Grants are a give-away without something of value in return, i.e. permanent affordability. This vague bond language could allow a for-profit developer to apply for public taxpayer money to build high-occupancy housing (think The Hub, Mill Town, The Standard, etc.). This is unacceptable.

The bond question is vague. Until we can get it right by ensuring permanent affordability please vote NO on Proposition 422.

Charlie Silver Flagstaff

CITY CLERK OF FLAGSTAFF

211 W ASPEN AVE

FLAGSTAFF, AZ 86001-5359

YOUR PRECINCT IS: SU PRECINTO ES: Prec.

SEE PAGE 5 FOR YOUR POLLING PLACE INFORMATION

VEA LA PÁGINA 5 PARA INFORMACIÓN DE SU LUGAR DE VOTACIÓN OFFICIAL VOTING MATERIALS - ONLY ONE PAMPHLET HAS BEEN MAILED TO EACH HOUSEHOLD CONTAINING QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF

THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF. PLEASE MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO ALL QUALIFIED ELECTORS IN THE HOUSEHOLD.

MATERIALES OFICIALES ELECTORALES - SOLAMENTE UN FOLLETO SE HA ENVIADO A CADA DOMICILIO EN CUAL RESIDEN ELECTORES CALIFICADOS DEL MUNICIPIO DE FLAGSTAFF. FAVOR DE COMPARTIRLO CON TODOS LOS ELECTORES CALIFICADOS EN SU DOMICILIO.

PRSRT STD U.S. Postage

PAID Phoenix, AZ

Permit No. 43

notice of codification of taxes 12-3-18 sc final combined

Documents