The Open House with the Amusement Park consultants was largely a failure

At a recent open house on Glassford Dells Park, about a hundred local residents and one councilwoman from Prescott showed up to see what the heck the town wants to build on the hill. staff, consultants and volunteers were trying to persuade all comers to buy into an enormous park on the east side of Glassford Hill. Prescott and the county are in an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Prescott Valley and own part of the hill. But writer Bill Williams points to language in the IGA urging passive recreation not splash pads, multiple ramadas (including the top of the mountain), asphalt parking lots galore, a ropes challenge course, frisbee golf course, new plants and trees that will need water, cutting new trails, liability insurance policies and new staff to run the amusement rides, bathrooms everywhere – including the top of the hill, and other things not singled out in town surveys as necessary, he said. We don’t know anything about the cost and it probably violates the IGA (see first page of IGA).

If the citizens “get legal”, here are the hurdles…

An injunction and/or a temporary restraining order require both a legal theory (e.g., the violation of a state or federal law or a local ordinance) and a showing of irreparable harm to the person/entity seeking the injunction. Sworn declarations/affidavits from experts identifying the types of harms at issue, e.g., impairment of a breeding habitat or the potential destruction of native artifacts are needed.

Research before the lawsuit would ask… is the proposed Glassford Hill project consistent with the General Plan 2035 — that is, will the General Plan need amendment. The logical place in the General Plan to look is Chapter 10 (Arts, Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element). Glassford Hill is mentioned on page 146. That section references the Glassford Hill Open Space Acquisition Plan. “The Plan would allow public access and uses in the Preserve that are compatible with the existing grazing and conservation activities, as well as protect Glassford Hill as a gateway attraction of natural beauty.” “Future plans include the Town of Prescott Valley, the City of Prescott, Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe and the Arizona State Land Department working together to expand and upgrade the Preserve to met [sic] future needs.”

I’m not seeing splash pads, ramadas and bathroom on top of the hill or multiple asphalt parking lots, or ropes courses, IN EITHER DOCUMENT I AM REFERENCING.

If the people petition for a referendum so they can actually vote on this… we must ask… if the petition process in Chapter 2.3.1 (Major Amendments) would apply — “A proposal against which a written petition has been submitted, signed by qualified electors of the Town . . . equal to 10% of the total number of votes cast at the Town election last preceding the submission of the petition at which a Mayor or Councilmember was chosen.” After the StopLakeshore650 decision, we know that the magic number of signatures is 1,455.

Common sense should prevail, but legal action is ALWAYS IN THE PEOPLE’S HIP POCKETS.

Recorded in Yavapai County
9/12/2022. Rece ption 2022-0054463

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT GLASSFORD HILL OPEN SPACE

THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between the CITY OF PRESCOTT, a municipal corporation of Arizona (“Prescott”), the TOWN OF PRESCOTT VALLEY, a municipal corporation of Arizona (“Prescott Valley”), and YAVAPAI COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona (“Yavapai County”). These entities are sometimes referred to herein collectively as “Parties” and individually as “Party.”

This Agreement shall become effective as of the date it has been executed by all Parties and recorded in the Official Records of Yavapai County.

WHEREAS, in 1998 Prescott and Prescott Valley filed with the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) a joint petition asking the Commissioner to nominate 1893 acres of Trust Land (ARS $37-311(4)) on Glassford Hill as suitable for conservation purposes (open space) per ARS §37-312(C)(3) and AAC R12-5-2501. On June 9, 1998, a public hearing was held with the Governor’s Conservation Advisory Committee to consider that nomination. At the conclusion, the Committee voted to recommend classification for conservation purposes; and

WHEREAS, Prescott and Prescott Valley are authorized by ARS §9-276(A)(1) and $9-240(B)(9) (respectively) and ARS $9-494(A) (jointly) to acquire, hold, and improve real property to establish and maintain public parks (synonymous with public recreation facilities, including public trails, per Maricopa County v. Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No, 1, 171 Ariz. 325, 330 (App. 1991 )); and

WHEREAS, Yavapai County is authorized by ARS §11-932(A) to work with municipalities to acquire real property for public park purposes, expend funds for improvements thereon, and enter into contracts for operation thereof; and

WHEREAS, the Arizona State Parks Board (ASPB) is authorized by ARS $41•
511.05 to (among other things) acquire real property for state park purposes, appropriate grants from the land conservation fund under ARS $41-511.23 to fund acquisition of Trust Lands identified as conservation areas, and enter into necessary agreements for those purposes; and

WHEREAS, the ASLD Commissioner is authorized by ARS §37-132(A)(2)&(3) to make long-range plans for future use of state lands in cooperation with other state agencies, local planning authorities, and political subdivisions (including Trust Lands conveyed as suitable for conservation purposes pursuant to ARS §37-314(A)); and

WHEREAS, ARS $11-952 authorizes these entities to contract for services or jointly exercise any powers common to them, if the agreement otherwise meets requirements set forth in ARS $11-952;

Bill Williams