The Prescott Charter Review Committee is once again considering a proposed charter amendment that would add a new “Declaration of Rights” section. At the Review Committee’s April 20 meeting, committee member Ralph Hess introduced this item, backed by Jim Helbling of the Prescott Martin Luther King Jr. Peace and Justice Committee. They claim it’s straightforward: just take language from the Arizona State Constitution and swap “state” for “city.”

This isn’t new territory. Hess and Helbling have spent years beating the drum that Prescott has a racism problem that requires special fixes. They’ve apparently dropped the earlier idea of making the City Manager the official arbiter of resident “racism,” but the underlying message remains: Prescott needs fixing.

What They’re Actually Proposing

The amendment would declare that the city “shall not enact any law that does not apply equally to all people” and bans the city from giving “preferential treatment or discrimination” based on an expansive list of so-called marginalized people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, religion, spirituality, age, and mental or physical ability.

Jim Helbling argued that simply defending this language “says something about our city’s culture, which is in opposition to its claim to be everybody’s hometown.”

Here’s the clarifying reality they downplay: Discrimination against anyone is already illegal under federal and Arizona state law. You can report it today to the Prescott Police, Yavapai County Attorney, or Arizona Attorney General. No charter change required.

AND, Prescott already has its own clear statement, adopted in the 2026 Legislative Platform on December 9, 2025:

As “Everybody’s Hometown,” the City of Prescott recognizes, welcomes, and supports all residents, businesses, churches, service organizations, and visitors without regard for race, religion, ability, age, tenure in our community, or any other identifying characteristic. Government action should likewise promote equal opportunity and access to services.

That language (page five) is direct, balanced, and sufficient Click Here.

The Real Concern: Selective Free Speech Enforcement

Several committee members and Mayor Rusing raised legitimate red flags. The broad, vague categories, especially “gender” and “sexual orientation,” read like DEI policy inserted into the city’s foundational document. Critics worry this could be weaponized to prioritize ideology over biology in women’s spaces, sports, and shelters. Rusing noted it’s unnecessary, risks overshadowing other ballot measures, and could invite complications with operations and funding. The city attorney advised against it.

But the deeper issue is the glaring double standard on free speech. These same advocates often support, and participate in, local protests and public actions where dissenting voices (especially conservative or MAGA ones) are shouted down, disrupted, or excluded. They demand “safe spaces” from opposing views while pushing charter language that could label disagreement as “discrimination” or creating a “hostile environment.”

This was on full display at the last “No Kings” rally. Click Here.

A “marginalized group” (or marginalized community) refers to a social group that experiences systemic disadvantage, exclusion, or discrimination, resulting in reduced access to power, resources, opportunities, rights, or social participation.

Let’s test the symmetry they claim to want. If this amendment passes and becomes city law:

• When the next courthouse or sidewalk protest erupts against whatever has upset the left that week…

• And organizers start ordering participants not to speak with conservatives, reporters, or anyone not toeing their line… (Click Here)

• Then residents could file complaints under this very “Declaration of Rights,” arguing that MAGA supporters, Trump voters, or classical liberals are now the “marginalized” group having their equal treatment and free speech curtailed…

Just imagine the outrage if the Tuesday Trumpers demanded a MAGA Pride Month!

To pretend this language only cuts one way requires impressive mental gymnastics. Liberal “social justice warriors” want the city to accommodate their viewpoint while insulating themselves from any pushback. They seem to think this amendment would hand them a shiny new tool to try, but conveniently forget the principle works in both directions. Federal and state law already provides equal protection under the law. This city level charter amendment is a minority-touted one-way street designed to silence the majority of our town.

No vote occurred on April 20th (discussion only). The committee plans to vote on forwarding suggested charter amendments at the May 18, 2026 meeting. City Council approval by June 23rd would place it on the November 3, 2026 ballot.

Contact Mayor Rusing and City Council members before this deceptive “rights” declaration gets into Prescott’s charter at city.council@prescott-az.gov.

On April 27, 2026, the Prescott City Council held its first FY2027 budget workshop, reviewing a proposed $311.93 million budget, a 2.7% increase over FY26. Revenue stays frozen while key expenses surge, crushing the budget. The session highlighted the current fiscal squeeze, which would force officials to raise property taxes or adopt other revenue measures to maintain its current service level. Click Here to watch the video.

We’re not accountants or financial experts, but common sense is pretty straightforward here: when more money is going out and roughly the same (or less) is coming in, something has to give. Either spending gets cut, or taxpayer pockets get picked.

Revenue Outlook: Flat Projections with No Built-In Growth

Finance Director Lars Johnson emphasized that the city budgets operating revenues conservatively and expects them to stay flat, with no growth or decline. Sales tax, a major revenue source, is also projected to remain flat, partly because residential rentals were recently removed from the tax base. Staff monitor revenues monthly and make mid-year adjustments if needed, but the baseline budget assumes no expansion in the tax base.

(That should please the no-growthers!)

This approach aligns with a “balanced” budget philosophy where recurring expenses are covered by recurring revenues (one exception noted in Solid Waste). However, without revenue growth, the city relies on fund balances, grants, debt, and potential levy adjustments for capital and other needs.

Rising Costs Create Squeeze

Several expense drivers are pushing the budget higher:

• Health Insurance: 19% premium increase in the Yavapai Combined Trust; the City plans to absorb most of it, with modest employee cost-sharing ($20–25/paycheck on basic plans) and use of reserves for ~$1.04M in replenishment.

• Compensation: 1.2% COLA (cost of living allowance) + up to 5% merit pay.

• Internal Allocations: Liability insurance +13%, facilities maintenance +10%.

• Other pressures include police/fire recruiting, deferred maintenance, IT/cybersecurity, and a new Emergency Manager position.

The operating budget rises 7.1% while capital dips slightly, with a $10M contingency unchanged.

Property Tax Implications

The City has already presented a potential primary property tax-levy increase of up to 6.12% ($141,148 more, exclusive of new construction), raising the total levy from $2.3M to ~$2.49M. This would increase the rate from 0.2329 to 0.2374 per $100 of assessed value, about $1.37 more annually on a $100,000 home or $45 on a $1,000,000 home. Truth-in-Taxation hearings are set for June, with final levy adoption in July.

Economic Development and Growth Discussion

The budget continues funding for initiatives under the Council’s “Dynamic Economic Environment” priority in the City’s Strategic Plan, (Click Here) including BizLink, tourism marketing (via Transient Occupancy Tax), airport improvements, and business attraction in aviation, manufacturing, healthcare, and tech. These aim to broaden the tax base over time, but words on paper are only as good as the actions they produce.

Critics of growth-oriented policies often referred to as NIMBYs (Not in My Back Yard)) argue for stricter limits on development to preserve character and manage resources like water. However, with revenue expected to stay flat and no growth in the tax base, these policies block new revenue from additional residents, businesses, and visitors. This puts heavier financial pressure on existing taxpayers, forcing higher tax rates or service cuts instead of sharing the benefits of growth.

Side Note: Thanks to the Prescott Indivisibles loudly advertising their swelling crowds, staging protests twice a week on the Courthouse Plaza, and planning a full-blown tantrum on May 2nd, we expect a sharp drop in tourism dollars during July 4th Rodeo Week. We have already heard grumblings of Prescott becoming the next Minnesota. These are not peaceful demonstrations for attendees who reject the idea that President Trump is a racist or pedophile supporter. (We have the videos to prove it.)

What Programs Could Be Cut or Ramped Back?

The Prescott Pulse will continue to closely monitor the City of Prescott’s ongoing budget meetings, paying particular attention to the expenditures being proposed by city departments and the City Council’s responses to those requests. While we have noted several areas of interest, we are holding off on detailed commentary until all departmental presentations have been completed. It is important to remember that the budget currently being presented is only a draft and remains subject to change.

Ultimately, it is the City Council that decides whether to adopt the final budget. We will provide updates and analysis as more information becomes available and the process moves forward.

Next Steps

City Budget Workshop #2 is May 11, 2026. Tentative budget adoption, public hearings, and Truth-in-Taxation follow in June. Full documents and slides will be posted at prescott-az.gov.

Watch the full YouTube recording for department details. Click Here.

On April 9, 2026, the Prescott City Council and Commissions had their Annual Open Meeting Law Training led by City Attorney Joe Young, HR Director Brandon Nunez, and City Clerk, Sarah Thornhill. Officials and public commenters discussed best practices for running meetings under Robert’s Rules of Order. The conversation addressed common misunderstandings about motions, the timing of discussion, the Chair’s role in making motions, and the importance of protecting free speech for both the public and elected officials.

Note: We are highlighting this meeting due to repeated inaccuracies circulating on social media regarding City Council procedures. In particular, at the April 14, 2026 City Council meeting, Councilman Gambogi interrupted Mayor Rusing (see video below) while she was making a motion, stating that “the Chair is not supposed to be making motions.” That statement is incorrect.

Public comments at the training session agreed that the Chair (such as the mayor) refrain from making motions, even if technically allowed, in order to preserve impartiality while presiding. We agree. The Mayor has no issue putting her partiality on full display at every meeting, yet this does not directly violate the City Charter.

In the training it was made clear that discussion should not begin until a motion is formally made and seconded. Premature discussion often happens when people begin giving comments before or right after a motion is stated (but before a “second”) or immediately after a second, mistakenly thinking the matter is already decided. In reality, the second simply brings the motion properly before the body for debate. Amendments should generally be offered and voted upon during the discussion phase that follows, and before the vote on the main motion.

More importantly, discussion and debate must remain strictly on topic with the motion at hand, as Councilman Gambogi correctly pointed out while going off topic himself during the April 14, 2026 Voting Session. (see video below)

The April 9th training session wrapped up with practical reminders for new board and commission members: they would receive individual orientations, a new member handbook, forms, and a code of conduct to sign. Councilmen Grady suggested that the application of Robert’s Rules, especially around motion-making and discussion, might merit further conversation at a later date. (Why not now during the training?) The mayor emphasized the meeting’s fundamental purpose: encouraging the public to exercise their First Amendment rights while allowing elected officials to do the same.

We want to remind everyone, including the Mayor, that Open Meeting Laws and the City Charter are not intended to suppress free speech. Their purpose is to ensure full transparency and openness in government. As City Attorney Young correctly stated:

“The intent is to have openness in government. It applies to any official proceedings or deliberations and requires that they be done openly and in public.”

These rules exist to protect the public’s right to know how its government is operating, not to silence discussion.

Key Differences: Prescott City Charter vs. Standard Robert’s Rules of Order

Prescott’s Council Rules of Procedure state that Robert’s Rules of Order (latest edition) govern council proceedings in all cases where they apply, provided they do not conflict with state law, the city’s adopted rules, the municipal code, or the City Charter. The Charter takes precedence where there is any conflict.

Here are the most relevant points of deviation or clarification for Prescott:

• Mayor/Chair’s Right to Make Motions and Vote Under standard Robert’s Rules, the presiding officer (Chair) typically does not make or second motions in order to remain impartial, and in many organizations the Chair votes only to break a tie. Prescott deviation: The City Charter explicitly states: “The mayor shall be the chairman of the council and preside over its deliberations. He may make and second motions and shall have a voice and vote in all its proceedings.” This makes the mayor a full voting member with the same rights as other council members, including the ability to make and second motions without relinquishing the Chair. Individual mayors or Chairs may still choose to refrain from making motions as a personal practice, but the city cannot impose a prohibition that overrides the Charter.

• Order of Motions and Debate Robert’s Rules require a motion to be made, seconded, and stated by the Chair before substantive debate begins. Prescott follows this general framework but operates under its own Council Rules of Procedure for specifics on conduct, debate limits, agenda format, and public participation.

• Other Charter-Based Rules The Charter and Council Rules govern areas such as quorum, journal of proceedings, petition handling, and the council’s authority to set its own order of business (subject to Charter provisions). Executive sessions follow Arizona Open Meeting Law, not purely Robert’s Rules.

These provisions ensure that Prescott’s meetings remain efficient while respecting the city’s home-rule charter authority.

Guidelines for Conduct in Prescott City Council and Public Body Meetings

Arizona’s Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 38-431 et seq.) applies to all public bodies, requiring open meetings with proper notice and agendas. Prescott supplements this with its Charter and adopted Council Rules of Procedure.

During Open Public Meetings (Regular, Study, or Special Sessions)

Can be done:

• Make, second, discuss, amend, and vote on properly agendized items.

• Follow parliamentary order: Motion → Second → Chair states the motion → Debate → Possible amendments during debate.

• Public comment (Call to the Public, if agendized): Speak on matters within the council’s jurisdiction, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner rules (e.g., 3-minute limits, decorum requirements).

• Council members may briefly respond to public comments, request staff review, or ask that an item be placed on a future agenda.

• The mayor may make motions, second motions, debate, and vote as a full member.

• Record meetings (audio/video) without disruption.

• Maintain order through the presiding officer (with advice from the City Attorney as parliamentarian).

Cannot be done:

• Discuss or act on items not properly noticed on the agenda (with narrow exceptions for public comment responses).

• Engage in collective decision-making on off-agenda topics.

• Suppress protected speech through unreasonable or content-based restrictions.

• Disrupt proceedings (shouting, repeated interruptions, etc.).

Outside of Formal Council Meetings

Can be done:

• Individual council members or residents can discuss ideas, gather information, or share opinions (outside of a quorum) informally.

• Staff or single members can follow up on public comments and recommend future agenda items.

Cannot be done:

• Deliberate or reach consensus as a majority (or “serial quorum”) outside a properly noticed public meeting as this violates Arizona’s Open Meeting Law.

• Take official action or vote outside open session.

In Executive (Closed) Session

Can be done:

• Discuss only topics authorized by Arizona law such as specific personnel matters, attorney-client legal advice, pending litigation strategy, real estate negotiations, or certain security issues.

• Give confidential instructions to attorneys or negotiators.

Cannot be done:

• Take final votes, say how they are going to vote, or make decisions. This must return to open session.

• Discuss matters outside the specific authorized executive session agenda topic.

• Allow the general public to attend.

Understanding these rules helps new board and commission members, as well as the public, participate effectively in Prescott’s local government. The city provides orientations, handbooks, and access to the Charter and Council Rules of Procedure for reference.

For the most current documents, visit the City of Prescott website (prescott-az.gov), where the City Charter and updated Council Rules of Procedure are publicly posted. Familiarity with these materials promotes transparent, fair, and productive public meetings.

You can view the April 9 training session by Clicking Here. You can view the April 14 voting session by Clicking Here.

Disclaimer and Clarification: We’re not lawyers or legal experts. We’re just concerned citizens like many of you who’ve been closely tracking this case to better understand its impact on our community and the standards we expect from our elected officials. To avoid any confusion, note that this ruling comes from Yavapai County Superior Court, not the Arizona Supreme Court. For more details, check out Attorney Ryan Heath’s video update by Clicking Here.

Here’s our best good-faith attempt to make sense of the Yavapai County Superior Court’s decision:

Under Arizona law, specifically A.R.S. 38-503, public officials like city council members must avoid situations where their personal interests could influence official decisions. This statute is part of a broader set of rules, A.R.S. 38-501, designed to promote transparency and prevent self-dealing in government.

In the context of Sherrie Hanna’s case against the City of Prescott, the allegation is that council members (Mayor Phil Goode, Councilman Ted Gambogi, Councilman Brandon Montoya, and Councilwoman Connie Cantelme) had a “substantial interest” in the decision to hire Pierce Coleman, PLLC, because the firm would provide them with legal representation in a prior lawsuit (”Hanna I”), paid for by city funds. A “substantial interest” here means a direct, non-speculative financial or proprietary benefit as defined in A.R.S. § 38-502(11), not something remote or minor.

The Backstory: What Sparked This Lawsuit?

It all started with a previous case (referred to as “Hanna I”) where Hanna sued the city and some of its leaders. In that suit, city council members, including Mayor Phil Goode, Councilman Ted Gambogi, Councilman Brandon Montoya, and Councilwoman Connie Cantelme, along with City Attorney Joseph Young, were named as defendants. To fight back, the city council voted on October 20 and 28, 2025, to hire the law firm Pierce Coleman, PLLC, to represent them. The catch? Hanna argues that these officials had a personal stake in the decision because the city would foot the bill for their legal defense. Under Arizona law, that’s a potential “conflict of interest”. In other words, they shouldn’t have voted on something that directly benefits them financially.

Hanna, acting as a concerned taxpayer and citizen, filed this new lawsuit in December 2025. She’s not seeking money for herself; instead, she’s asking the court to declare the hiring decision invalid and void the contract with the law firm. If successful, she’d also get her legal costs covered by the city. The laws in question (Arizona Revised Statutes sections like 38-503) are designed to keep public decisions clean and free from self-interest, ensuring officials step aside when their own wallet is involved.

The Recent Court Ruling: A Win and a Loss for Hanna

On February 26, 2026, Judge Michael P. McGill of the Yavapai County Superior Court issued a key decision on the city’s motion to dismiss the case. In plain English, the city and the named individuals wanted the whole lawsuit thrown out, arguing Hanna didn’t have the right to sue them personally.

Here’s what the judge ruled:

• Dismissal for Individuals: The claims against the council members, City Attorney Young, and Pierce Coleman, PLLC in their personal capacities were dismissed. Why? Arizona’s conflict-of-interest laws allow taxpayers like Hanna to challenge shady decisions by public agencies (like the city council), but not to go after individuals in civil court. Any personal wrongdoing would have to be handled as a criminal matter by the county prosecutor, not a private citizen. The judge didn’t dive into other defenses like immunity because this standing issue was enough to end those parts of the suit.

• Case Continues Against the City: On the flip side, the judge said Hanna’s claims against the City of Prescott itself can move forward. As a local taxpayer, she has the standing to hold the city accountable. If she proves the officials had a real conflict (a “substantial interest” in getting free legal help) but voted anyway, the court could cancel the contract with Pierce Coleman and award Hanna her attorney fees and costs.

The ruling emphasizes that these laws are about protecting public trust and voiding bad decisions. It’s a nod to a 2021 Arizona Supreme Court case (Welch v. Cochise County) that gives everyday citizens the power to enforce transparency without needing to show direct financial harm. You can read the entire decision by Clicking Here.

Where Does the Case Stand Today?

As of today, March 7, 2026, the lawsuit is still active but narrowed down. The individual defendants are off the hook, and the city has until tomorrow, March 8 (10 days from the ruling) to submit a proposed judgment formally dismissing those claims. Once that’s done, the focus shifts entirely to the city.

What’s next? The case against the City of Prescott proceeds. This means more court proceedings, possibly discovery (where both sides gather evidence), additional motions, or even a trial to determine if there was indeed a conflict. Hanna will need to back up her allegations with facts, like showing the officials’ votes were tainted by personal gain. If she wins, the city’s contract with the law firm gets scrapped, promoting accountability. If not, the hiring stands, and life goes on for city hall.

The judge made it clear this isn’t about relitigating the earlier “Hanna I” case, which involved different issues like open meeting laws. Those don’t affect this one.

Why Should Prescott Residents Care?

This isn’t just legal jargon, it’s about how our tax dollars are spent and whether our leaders play by the rules. Conflicts of interest can erode trust in government, and cases like this remind officials to prioritize the public good. For Hanna, it’s a citizen-led push for ethics; for the city, it’s defending their process. As Prescott grows, keeping an eye on these matters ensures our community stays transparent and fair.

Ryan’s valuable time and expertise come at a cost, so please support Sherrie by donating to the Sherrie Hanna Defense Fund, set up by her sister, to help cover his outstanding work by Clicking Here.

Just when you thought the groundwater “conversation” had gone underground (sorry, we couldn’t resist!).

This article continues Pulse coverage of the Prescott Water Saga. Click here for the first in our Whiskey’s For Drinking, Water’s For Fighting deep dive article series if you are new to the area or topic.

The City of Prescott held a special council study session on Long Term Water Resources Management on February 17, 2026, providing a high-level overview for the new council. All council members were present except Councilman Grady (excused). The session, led by the Water Resources team under the Community Development Department, covered regulatory frameworks, supplies, conservation, policy, the Big Chino Water Ranch, long-term planning, and the Gila River Adjudication. Click here for session presentation document.

Water in Prescott/Yavapai is a complicated and heated issue – we’ve broken this article into a shorter “overview” to start, followed by a detailed review of the full content in the study session. Choose your time commitment!

Short Form

Regulatory and Supply Overview

• Prescott operates in the Prescott Active Management Area (PrAMA), subject to the Fifth Management Plan (5MP), emphasizing conservation, annual reporting, and assured/adequate supply rules.

• The city holds a 100-year Designated Assured Water Supply (DAWS) Designation & Order [D&O] from 2009, currently under modification/review with ADWR since 2021 filing.

• Active allowed supplies total 16,500 acre-feet/year (afy), primarily groundwater from the Little Chino Aquifer (7,000+ afy average pumped volume), plus alternative sources (reclaimed effluent, surface water from lakes like Watson/Willow/Goldwater, and long-term storage credits).

• The city manages four jurisdictional dams (Watson Lake, Willow Lake, Goldwater Upper/Lower) and over 110 wells (7 active production wells).

• ADWR deficiency letters (now up to #5 as of early 2026) question aspects like demand projections, reclaimed supply math, surface water data updates, financial capability, and notably Big Chino Water Ranch (BCWR) physical availability — suggesting it may not qualify in the updated designation.

Prescott Water Conservation Efforts – Through the Years

• Long-standing program (formal since 1992, enhanced in 2000s/2006 via City Code 3-10-8).

• Rebates for turf removal, drip irrigation, leak repairs, efficient toilets/fixtures (over 4,500 applications approved since 2006, ~285 rebates in recent year saving ~6.5 afy).

• Outreach includes website (PrescottWater.com), social media, PSAs, newspaper ads, public events, free kits (via Water-Use It Wisely/SRP partnership), and Eye on Water leak detection (13,000/25,000 meters smart-converted; ~12% enrolled, revealing leaks in ~5% of users).

• Focus on targeting commercial/non-residential users, multifamily/HOAs/seniors, hotels/apartments, and potential code updates (e.g., lower-flow fixtures beyond current 1.6 gpf standard).

• Emphasis on demand management, stormwater capture, and partnerships to reduce per-capita use.

Big Chino Water Ranch and Related Agreements

• Acquired in 2004 (~6,000 acres, shared with Prescott Valley via IGA; Prescott ~54%, PV ~46%).

• Statute allows up to 8,068 afy importable groundwater (added to 2009 assured supply but infrastructure absent: ~30-mile pipeline, wells, pump station needed).

• Estimated construction cost (2024 update): $261.5 million baseline (~$141.5M Prescott share, excluding PV’s cost share and any PV infrastructure).

• No significant pumping since 2004; current focus on grassland rehabilitation (Nature Conservancy MOU/pilot projects).

• Comprehensive Agreement #1 (CA1 signed in 2012, with SRP and Prescott Valley) funds monitoring/modeling (~$5.6M budget, largely spent; base model nearing completion mid-2026, followed by scenario analysis).

• Mitigation could be required for potential Verde River impacts; ongoing modeling to assess effects.

Prescott Water Policy and Service Allocation

• Current policy (2022 base, amended 2025) tracks allocations, hazardous materials, and service requests.

• Water Issues Subcommittee (WIS - 3 council members) recommends budgets (~25 afy each residential/non-residential semiannually) and larger applications; full council must approve larger projects.

• Administrative approvals for small uses; obligations (e.g., tribal settlements, development agreements like Deep Well) tracked separately (>700 obligations, including large commitments).

Prescott Long-Term Water Management Plan

• Phase 1 underway (target council approval ~December 2026).

• Assesses supplies/demands, conservation, infrastructure leaks (via AMI/smart meters), growth projections, drought/climate variability.

• Aims for broader vision beyond assured supply rules, guiding sustainable growth and avoiding over-allocation.

Gila River Adjudication (Upper Verde Watershed)

• Decades-long process determining surface water/subflow rights/priorities (tribal claims first).

• City monitoring rulings; compiling/reviewing statements of claimants (with Brown & Brown legal consultants).

• Subflow zone issues for BCWR (initially deemed ephemeral, not subflow; SRP objections ongoing).

• Preliminary hydrographic survey reports expected: Sycamore Basin (2027), Lower Verde (2027), Big/Little Chino area (~2029).

• Potential long-term implications for groundwater pumping/well placement.

Broader Context and Challenges for Prescott Service Area

• Ongoing cyclical drought reduces recharge and increases demand.

• PFAS contamination issues (e.g., well closures).

• Question: how should water policy manage growth? To avoid outstripping supplies/infrastructure.

• Calls for state legislative support on resources/ADWR staffing.

Long Form, Deep Dive

Leslie Grazer, Water Resources Manager - Overview of Department Activities

The department operates under Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) Prescott Active Management Area (PrAMA) Fifth Management Plan (5MP), which focuses heavily on conservation. The state regulatory framework guides the department through the Active Management Area (AMA) annual reporting. Arizona Revised Statues (ARS) regulate groundwater use including laws, rules, the Arizona Administrative Code, Section 12, and official policy statements. Each year this department pulls together all the data regarding Prescott’s supply and demand, including grandfathered irrigation rights.

Prescott pumps from the Little Chino aquifer, and Prescott Valley pumps predominantly from and also recharges to the Upper Agua Fria aquifer. Prescott pumps just over 7,000 acre fee per year (afy) out of the allotted 16,500 afy.

• Track water rights adjudications and have about 33 statements of claimants. The City has one Designation & Order (D&O) dated 2009 for an assured and adequate water supply program (DAWS), and it’s currently being modified with ADWR for the next 15 years.

• Report on the community water system.

• Manage 4 jurisdictional dams with oversight by the state. Watson Lake, Willow Lake, and Goldwater Lake Upper and Lower.

• Collect hydrologic data on city wells, used for water level understanding. City production wells are monitored by the state as well as several others entities.

• Submit and maintain permits for

  • the underground storage facility (recharge): that entails 7 different permits, with connectivity through an aquifer protection permit with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and also ADWR permits.

  • Surface water has 42 different documents, including groundwater wells permitting. The city has over 110 wells, currently using 7 to provide water service. The city acquired land over the years, and so owns other wells, some exploratory, most very small.

Tracy Beasley: Water Resource Project Manager

The overall goal within this program is to reduce the per account or per person water use based on improving efficiency. The department’s focus is “Big C” versus “Medium C,” Big C being conservation beyond day-to-day conservation efforts with water customers. The department is asking what efforts should be made after moving from the 4MP to the 5MP, and what long-term management planning, potential code adjustments, and sustaining resources opportunities exist.

• As of last year, 285 rebates with an estimated 6.5 acre feet water saving annually.

• By the end of June, about 25 public programs and events will have been completed.

• The city has a partnership with SRP this year to mail free water efficiency idea kits.

• There are 1,500 customers on the Eye on Water Program, about 12%. Of the customers who have the leak detection, 5% of them have leaks. The department is encouraging as many customers as possible to sign up for the leak detection program to increase usage efficiency and save money.

• About 52% percent of water customers have been converted over to smart meters. The smart meters are not having an effect on the percentage of unaccounted water (loss): 8.5% per year.

• The online rebate application has received very good feedback. The Water-Use It Wisely program has three partners in northern Arizona.

Prescott Water Conservation History

In the 1977 the Arizona Groundwater Management Study Commission was created by the legislature and directly informed the landmark Arizona Groundwater Management Act of 1980, which in turn created the AMAs. The commission noted central Yavapai as a critical groundwater basin.

The city of Prescott began thinking about water conservation back in the 1980s. Initially there were task forces and the initial round of city codes. The AMAs began in 1980 and clarified things across the state. The city kicked off the first official conservation program in 1992, giving Prescott almost 35 years of water conservation mindset.

In the 2000s, the council took a whole year to plan strategically what a more successful water conservation program might look like. A big chunk of Prescott water conservation is inside city code 3-10-8, started in 2006. Around 2010, Prescott expanded strategies to meet state requirements. In 2015 the city started the watersmart.com website to enhance the ability of customers to get information. 2022 was the launch of the current website, thanks to some Northern Arizona Municipal Water Users Association (NAMWA) funding. The city’s current official Water Policy was amended in May of 2025 to add some information about hazardous materials tracking. The Water Policy helps track water service requests and use.

Prescott City Council Water Issues subcommittee

The Water Issues subcommittee (WIS) is chosen by the whole of council every two years in November, and the members serve two-year terms. Comprised of three council members, the WIS approves water budget recommendations to be voted on in full council. This includes the overall water budget to be allocated every 6 months for residential and non-residential overall new service, and recommendations on water service applications that are not administratively approved by city staff. Traditionally but not set in stone, the 6 month budgets are 25 acre feet each for non-residential and residential.

Existing water obligations are the one thing not tracked in the water budget. Currently it’s well over 700 obligations, going back to the 1940s, including water service agreements, development agreements, groundwater subdivisions, Yavapai Prescott Indian tribe, and big development agreements like Deep Well and Arizona Eco Development, LLC (AED). The Prescott long term water management plan will take these obligations into account.

Modifying the 2009 Decision & Order (D&O) - Timeline

The 2009 D&O is Prescott’s most recent Designated Assured Water Supply (DAWS) approval from the state. Every 15-20 years, DAWS holders must apply again using updated information. This is typically a two year process, but the many Arizona cities are experiencing significant delays due to low ADWR manpower and time spent on Colorado River/CAP supply issues. Prescott has not gotten any notification as to when the DAWS is going to be approved for the 2021 filing.

• December 2021 - the city filed its application to modify the 2009 decision order.

• 2022 - the city received its 1^st deficiency letter and was notified that a “supplemental deficiency letter” would be coming. The city responded to both of those.

• 2023 - the city received the 3rd deficiency letter.

• 2025 - the city responded to the 3rd deficiency letter, and received deficiency letter #4. Communications ensured relating to the groundwater model submitted through the consultant matrix. After discussion with ADWR, and they decided to reimburse the city’s application fee of $2,000.

• January 13, 2026 - received the 5^th deficiency letter, noting 9 items they wanted to address regarding:

1. A non-existent “satellite service area.”

2. The term of the Designation (DAWS), which they limited to 15 years (filed for a 20-year due to previous D&O precedent).

3. Demand estimates, which had to be adjusted after the DAWS term was changed to 15 years.

4. The groundwater flow model associated with the application.

5. Reclaimed supply availability math, no continuing issue.

6. Surface water information encompassed in our reservoir study needed to be updated to include 2020 -2024 data (filed in 2021, so there was no way to provide that at the time).

7. Financial capability, which involves our five-year Continuing Improvement Plan (CIP).

8. Groundwater allowance, remains under review.

9. ADWR determined BCWR was not physically, continuously, or financially available. Pending during communication with our three consultants: groundwater (Matrix New World), supply and demand analysis (Herb Dishlip (P.E.) Consulting), and outside attorney (Brown & Brown). The BCWR is not included in city water portfolio at this time because the city still operates under the 2009 D&O.

Long-Term Water Management (LTWM) Planning

Mayor Rusing stated the following, and we think it’s a good snapshot of her thinking about growth:

“You’re talking about demand analysis and how important it is. But as we know, it’s water that manages growth... We don’t wanna get labeled as anti-growth or stagnant or anything like that. But we need to manage our water, which will manage our growth because we don’t want our growth to outstrip our ability to supply water, supply the infrastructure, supply all the services that we need to deliver if we are going to continue to grow sustainably and grow wisely.”

The Water Resource Management Model, the WRMM, is a tool built to help aid in understanding Prescott’s assured water supply. The city has to work within the 5MP PrAMA framework (the rules of the state). But the city has a broad range of ability to determine how, where, and how much growth will happen, according to the city’s strategic plan. The WRMM has about 57 variables and drought is NOT one of them. It does have an ability to adjust the assumptions made on the demand side, which could account for more water use based on certain climate conditions.

The city has three planning horizons for the LTWM: 10-year, 25-year, and 50-year. The 10-year horizon is significantly about demand management, meaning conservation efforts. Regarding infrastructure, the department must identify areas where there are leaks, why breaks happen in certain areas, and where spillage/loss is occurring. Optimal demand management means getting those losses as low as possible. When infrastructure prone to breaks and loss areas are identified, mitigation efforts can be added to city capital improvement plans.

Big Chino Water Ranch (BCWR)

The BCWR adds water supply to the existing D&O, which now allows 16,500 afy. There has been no significant pumping from the BCWR since purchased in 2004. The IGA with Prescott Valley allocates 46% of the BCWR water to PV, so approximately 4,357 afy could be used in Prescott. The BCWR water is not connected by infrastructure (pipelines) at this point. To connect, 30 miles of pipeline infrastructure must be built, up to 11 wells drilled, and a pump station constructed because the BCWR is at a lower elevation than the Chino Valley water production facility. By 2007, the city significantly completed plans to allow the construction of the infrastructure for the BCWR. In 2009, the city decided to put the project on hold.

In 2024, the engineer of record did an updated cost based on the infrastructure needed. The baseline cost is $261.5 million, and breaks down to approximately $141.5 million for Prescott and $120 million for Prescott Valley. Infrastructure that Prescott Valley needs to get the water to their customers is not included in this cost, nor is any Verde River mitigation infrastructure.

• The city is not allocating the water of BCWR water supply in any of its water management portfolios, although it is considered part of our DAWS.

• The city has lease agreements with ranchers in the BCWR area to be eyes and ears.

• About a year ago, the city executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and joint project with the Nature Conservancy (NC) to help rehabilitate some of the BCWR native grassland area and reduce some of the erosion potential, and find out what works efficiently to help restore some of the Big Chino wash back to its more native condition. NC says that agriculture and other human uses caused some of the degradation of the stream, moving its path or making it more incised, causing the floodplain to not perform as it would normally. NC produced a report for the city and will develop three alternative plans and search for funding. Ruiz: “We might pick up to two of them to try and do some pilot programs to see what we can do out there.”

The Pulse wonders if Prescott residents know we are in partnership with the radically far left environmental activist group Nature Conservancy? We all should be keeping our eye on budget allocations in the future.

Councilwoman Frederickson has trouble understanding:

“I’m hoping you can finally squish it into my brain, because I have a hard time grabbing onto this. The idea that the alternative water, theoretically, that would be coming at some point from Big Chino, if that in fact happens, is nonetheless included within our water portfolio, but it’s not actually there. We’re not using it. How does that impact the decision-making, the fact that this alternative water from Big Chino is in our portfolio? Alternative water related to the Big Chino is influencing decision-making as far as water budgeting or agreements. It is an impactful element of our portfolio.”

Grazer answered Frederickson: The alternative water here is different from the alternative water that is in the BCWR, although the water in BCWR is legally, physically, and continuously available in this 2009 portfolio. Demand from growth projections since 2009 include BCWR water.

Verde River Effects, and SRP Being the Gorilla in the Room (since the Verde helps feed the SRP lakes chain that waters the Phoenix Metro area)

Comprehensive Agreement #1 (CA1)

Executed in 2010, CA1 is a three party agreement between the cities of Prescott and Prescott Valley, and SRP. It has language regarding mitigation in case pumping from the BCWR negatively affects the headwaters of the Verde River, one of the sources of SRP’s lake chain, which provides potable water to the Phoenix metropolitan area. SRP initiated the BCWR mitigation discussions. There is a separate intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between Prescott and Prescott Valley for the distribution of the BCWR water supply.

CA1 created the framework to provide a scientific study to determine the possible impacts of pumping from BCWR, and therefore how existing water rights around the Verde River could be impacted.

When pumping begins, a cone of depression could be created and the aquifer could start to recede (or it may not). How does that affect the Verde downstream? CA1 offers choices for mitigation strategies and has components of modeling and monitoring. CA1 is a sensitive agreement, born out of litigation. It’s a model that has to satisfy all three parties as to its accuracy, and stand up in a court of law as being legally defendable.

The initial study budget of $5.6 million has been largely spent: monitoring wells, cameras, and gauging stations provide data to be incorporated into “the groundwater model.” The cost for the study is split among the three parties of CA1, with approximately $300,000 remaining in the original budget. Prescott is the fiduciary for CA1, paying all the bills and invoicing the partners for reimbursement. The city contracted WSP to start creating the groundwater model that would be used for this process. Click here for the WSP 2024 Annual report.

Scenario development occurs after the model parameters are complete. Scenarios include projections on pumping, possibly projections on recharge, and might also determine where more or better monitoring locations should be installed. All parties need to agree upon the scenario approaches as they will be the first time the model is used for projections. Completion of the BCWR base model is slated for mid 2026. The city of Prescott kept actual findings on the groundwater modeling details determined by the CA1 study from public purview. According to Ruiz:

“Until the three parties come to a conclusion that this model accurate, there’s no reason to put it out to the public, CA1 stipulates that the three parties have to agree that this model is ready before we move on with either usage or moving it out to public.”

How the Gila River Adjudication Will Affect the Big Chino Water Ranch Operations

The Gila River Watershed Adjudication (GRWA) includes almost all the surface water of Northern Arizona as it encompasses all the tributaries of the Gila River, including the Verde River. The GRWA is a judicial process that will determine who has water rights, how much water they’re entitled to, and the priority of those water rights. If you’re first in right, then you have higher priority. In times of need, drought, or not enough water, higher priority rights take precedent over lower priority rights.

A Hydrogeographic Survey Report (HSR) is being produced for this adjudication, and it delineates “subflow basins.” Subflow zones are very, very important. Subflow can be loosely translated as the groundwater that is connected to a surface water source in a close enough way that it is basically considered surface water from an adjudication standpoint. In other words, it’s approbriable (something that can be legally taken, claimed, allocated, or set aside for exclusive use by someone under applicable laws or rules). Water from wells within a subflow zone are probably approbriable from the adjudication standpoint and subject to water rights and priorities set by the adjudication. Ruiz stated:

“In an initial HSR for the BCWR, a subflow zone was not created because it was determined that that particular wash did not meet the criterion for requiring a subflow zone to be created for it...it’s being labeled as ephemeral and not intermittent. That was objected to by SRP.”

The Pulse says, we are not hydrogeologists, but in simple words, it seems that pumping from the BCWR does NOT affect subflow to the Upper Verde Watershed. If the Upper Verde is not affected, there is no need for extra, costly mitigation infrastructure, and the radical environmentalists trying to drive water policy in the Prescott AMA and City of Prescott can be shown the door.

ADWR produced another report for the Special Master who oversees this process, who will make another decision. Not a final decision, but another decision. That decision can have another objection period before the model goes through the final procedure.

At this point, what the city doing about the Gila adjudication?

• reviewing and compiling the statements of claimants and giving them to city legal consultants who specialize in Gila adjudication, Brown and Brown, who would be ready to present findings to council in April or May.

• monitoring court activities in other parts of the Gila watershed to understand rulings and potential impact to Prescott. The city’s representative for the CA1 technical advisory committee is Leslie Grazer, along with Brian Ruiz when available. Information goes to Chelsea Walton, Director of Water Resources, and ultimately it goes to the city manager, the principal for CA1.

• monitoring the final HSR for the Sycamore Basin, which is part of the Verde River, expected to be finished by March of 2027. HSR for Cottonwood, Sedona, and all of those communities south by September 2027. HSR for the BCWR and the Little Chino is due March 2029.

Rusing: “What is the state doing to legislate for water? And they haven’t been making it a priority, I guess. We’re just not getting any of the legislation we need to protect our groundwater resources. We have caps on how much we can pump from the Big Chino and also from the Little Chino.”

Pulse notes: there are 88+ bills in the 2026 AZ Legislature concerning groundwater as of early march 2026.

This session underscored Prescott’s proactive water future: strong conservation and existing supplies provide stability. Fact-based, common sense water conservation should drive future water policy, not radical environmentalist groups angling for NGO and SRP money. The city remains the only PrAMA provider with 100-year assured designation.

In a stunning display of misplaced priorities, the Prescott City Council voted 6-1 on February 24, 2026, to reject widening State Route 89 (SR89) through the Narrows of the Granite Dells. This decision stands as a phenomenally bad mistake, one that prioritizes scenic boulders over human safety and ignores consultant advice to widen (which cost taxpayers a cool $1 million). Prescott taxpayers will also be on the hook for about $1 million PER YEAR (when we finally have to pay for it) for every year we delay the widening.

The meeting itself was a chaotic affair, dominated by a monologue from Mayor Cathey Rusing filled with fear-mongering, unsubstantiated predictions and hyperbole about “bending the knee to developers.” But wait a minute! Aren’t those same “horrible” developers the ones who generously donated that land to the city, over 460 acres in total? Land given in an agreement that Prescott has failed to honor, now sparking a $150 million lawsuit from Arizona Eco Development LLC for breach of contract. The irony was thick enough to cut with a knife. Listen for yourself:

Our Assessment:

• Councilman Ruby showed up completely unprepared, spouting what he likely considered profound ideas, only to learn quickly that his proposal to reroute the SR89 project along the Peavine Trail had already been thoroughly debated and rejected. The same went for his grandstanding on “this is our money” and questioning the rush to spend it, referring to state funds allocated for the rodeo. Thankfully, Councilwoman Fruhwirth, who actually had to read the bill to him, outlined strict instructions that must be followed, or Senator Finchem would reclaim the money back to the state. In a face-saving pivot, Ruby claimed his explanation was mainly for residents’ understanding. But honestly, what else do you expect from someone whose thesis is titled “Election as Ceremony: Politics and the Art of Transformational Dialogue“?

• Councilwoman Frederickson played her hand in a letter to the editor in the Prescott Courier a day before the voting meeting. She wrote “By this point, I know my vote.” Then why waste everyone’s time with questions and grandstanding? Her pre-vote letter, while cloaked in calls for civility, is nothing short of offensive maneuvering to stifle legitimate speech and debate. By preemptively branding any pointed criticism as “mudslinging” that “reflects badly on the mud-slinger,” she’s attempting to shame residents into silence if the vote doesn’t go their way, effectively saying critics are at fault for daring to question influences like developer interests or environmental priorities.

• Councilman Grady also had a pre-written monologue, signaling he had already made up his mind as well. To his credit or exhaustion, he realized the late hour, and the dwindling crowd wasn’t worth whatever he had written.

• Councilman Garing seems to be a man of few words, and they are mainly to agree with what another council member has said.

• Councilman Gambogi was frustrated as usual, because like us, he knew everyone had made up their minds and this was nothing but a dog and pony show taking up everyone’s time.

• Fruhwirth stood out as the only council member offering business-savvy and practical insights for most of the voting meeting. The real shocker? After initially voting in favor of the highway widening project, she flipped and voted for the non-widening option. So disappointing.

The epic hypocrisy on display added to the absurdity on the dais. The same folks who championed Prescott’s Vision Zero initiatives in the General Plan Draft were the most vocal opponents during public comment, insisting on preserving rocks at all costs. You know, the “vision for zero deaths” that pushes for bike-friendly streets over cars in a city where the average resident is 62 years old? The same plan that’s led our streets to be littered with faded white paint markings that look trashy after three months, and excessive traffic signs cluttering our beautiful neighborhoods every 30 yards. Yet, when it comes to actual safety enhancements like widening a congested highway to prevent accidents, as urged by professionals? No way, keep your hands off our rocks!

This vote isn’t just shortsighted, it’s dangerous. If we spot anyone online griping about traffic backups or safety woes on SR89, expect a screenshot of that infamous 6-1 council tally dropped right in your comments. We believe all six council members will regret this decision; it’s the kind residents won’t forget because the reminder will arrive with every traffic delay caused by it.

Prescott deserves better leadership, one that prioritizes human lives over landscapes or political votes. This, our loyal readers, is yet another example of the liberal ideology permeating our town. We’ve dubbed it the “monster” that Prescott has foolishly let in and continues to romance as it eats us alive. Fortunately, every two years we have an opportunity to judge the council members by how they voted in their term, and decide whether or not to support them at the polls. You can watch the entire 5 hours, 18 minutes and 59 seconds of the City Council meeting by Clicking Here.

Further reading - Opinion: Prescott Let In Frankenstein’s Monster

Action Alert!

SR89 widening is a topic for the City Council meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 10th at 3:00 pm. Click here for agenda and here for livestreaming link. Go to the council meeting or watch online!

The Council will vote on an amendment to the Kimley-Horne contract for one of the options presented last year for the Effluent & Wastewater Pipelines & SR89 Improvement Project, which you can access by Clicking Here, and read the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) by Kimley-Horne, by Clicking Here. Their analysis was reported to cost the taxpayers $997,000.

The Pulse thinks we should listen to the independent consultant we hired and not waste that money!! We love the Dells corridor and its beauty should be protected, but not when it could cost lives.

As Previously Reported

2 Pulse Articles:

The July 8th City Council Meeting Should be Rowdier than Whiskey Row on a Saturday Night!
Opinion: Just Widen 89A Already!

The Kimley-Horne TIA evaluates the proposed widening of a 2.3-mile segment of State Route 89 (SR 89) from Phippen Trail to Willow Lake Road Roundabouts, encompassing the Granite Dells corridor, alongside necessary effluent and wastewater pipeline upgrades. We’ve put together a short summary of the 161-page report, highlighting data-driven reasons for expanding SR 89 to address traffic congestion and safety concerns, while leveraging the pipeline project to minimize construction disruptions in this ecologically sensitive area.

The TIA argues that widening SR 89 through the Dells corridor is necessary due to:

• Present Severe Congestion: It’s current Level of Service (LOS) is E, (operating at or very near its capacity), will degrade to LOS F, (when demand exceeds capacity), by 2034 without action, with 2050 projections showing demand far exceeding capacity.

• Need for Moderate Congestion: Widening will pull most segments back to LOS D (busy but manageable), with delays of 25–35 seconds at intersections and a follower density of 10.0 -15.0 (two-lane) or 26 - 35 (multilane) vehicles per mile per lane. You’re moving, but it’s crowded, and delays are noticeable.

• Safety Risks: High crash rates (117 in five years) from congestion and limited lanes, which widening can reduce.

• Sewer Project Synergy: Pipeline upgrades require road reconstruction, making widening cost-effective now.

• Growth Pressures: Deep Well Ranch and regional growth will add significant traffic, needing more capacity.

• Intersection Delays: Widening, with roundabouts and access controls, improves LOS at key intersections.

• Lack of Alternatives: Nearby roads can’t handle diverted traffic, making SR 89’s capacity critical.

Alternative plans in the TIA of five lanes and four lanes in the Dells Narrows are recommended for further evaluation to balance capacity, safety, and environmental concerns by 2034. The sewer pipeline work provides a practical window to implement these changes, avoiding future disruptions. And we can’t help our fiscal conservative side from showing…this will save taxpayers money combining these projects.

Progressive Rural Organizing Initiatives Driving Public Comment

Save the Dells, a Prescott-based organization focused on preserving the Granite Dells area, opposes widening SR 89A through the Dells corridor primarily on environmental, scenic, and practical grounds. Their key arguments are the widening would require blasting rocks (in fact, it doesn’t) in the Dells Narrows, and harm ecosystems, wildlife habitats, and cultural sites. They also dismiss the issues of congestion in the Kimley-Horne analysis.

The voices of the silent, common-sense majority need to be heard on this, loud and clear, to counter the one-note environmental activists in our midst who shoved their progressive “Woke Wishlist” into our failed General Plan Draft. Take Action: Click here on the City's webpage to enter an official comment, which will become part of the public record for the project.

Additionally or alternatively, send thoughts to the Courier’s Rants & Raves. Your submission must be 40 words or less and sent to editors@prescottaz.com. Sample Rant & Rave wording:

89 widening - Hopefully the City Council will vote to widen 89 per the professional consultant's recommendation and put public safety first. Losing half a percent of the Dells acreage is nothing compared to the safety and lives of our families and neighbors.

What do you think, Prescott? We welcome your thoughts and comments!

We recently received an email from two dedicated Prescott residents, Linda Nichols and Cathy Messinger, who are passionate about ensuring conservative perspectives are represented in local governance. They have started an email campaign that serves as a timely reminder to fellow conservatives about upcoming City Council meetings, including exact dates, times, locations, and the important issues on the agenda.

This recent email reminder is about Council’s Tuesday, January 27th, Study and Voting Sessions, highlighting the importance of showing up to make voices heard amid concerns over progressive-leaning discussions (something our Republican leadership should be doing). With permission, we’re giving them a shout out, a thank you, and sharing their message below to encourage broader participation and engagement in our city’s decisions.

Hello Concerned Conservatives,

This is a reminder that the next Prescott City Council meeting is Tuesday, January 27th. Mark your calendars and plan to have a presence if at all possible so the council can see and hear from both factions of our city! Here is the schedule:

• Study Session - 1:00 (agenda attached here) - Discussions about: 1) Automated License Plate Readers in Prescott, 2) Road to Centralization for the City’s Wastewater Treatment and, 3) the Watson Woods Riparian Preserve. No voting takes place in this meeting...it is mainly presentations and discussion.

• Voting Session (most important and the agenda is attached here) 3:30 (Note it is usually at 3:00 but the online agenda says 3:30...FYI) The agenda includes but is not limited to: 1) Open call to the public, 2) Consent Agenda, 3) Discuss a purchase agreement regarding land at the airport to be negotiated with ERAU for the future site of the new traffic control tower.

In addition, I am including a link to the KYCA interview with Ryan Heath regarding the current on-going lawsuit brought by Sherrie Hanna and her lawyer, Ryan Heath. This is an on-going issue and one to keep an eye on: Click here: Morning Report with Ryan Health

Keep in mind, the more you can attend the more you will understand moving forward...become an engaged citizen! Get involved in the decision-making process within your city! Hope to see you there!

For Questions, contact: Linda K. Nichols - lknichols360@yahoo.com or Cathy Messinger - cathym1950@gmail.com

A Little Reminder of Our Own:

If you would like to speak to Council regarding the License Plate Reading Cameras (ALPR)s in Prescott on January 27, you may address Council regarding matters that are not included (which ALPRs are not) at the 3:30pmVoting Session when agenda item #6, the Open Call to the Public, is called. Remember to complete a green speaker card and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting being convened.

The Prescott Police Department will be giving a presentation at the Study Session which you can review by Clicking Here. If you can, please take the time to hear what they have to say either in person or by watching it livestreamed by Clicking Here. The public is generally not allowed to speak orally during City Council Study Sessions. Public comments for Council may be submitted through the City website by Clicking Here.

Lastly, at the January 20 City Council Voting Session, we were deeply disturbed with the lack of decorum, clapping and loud outbursts even after warned, by our residents who came to passionately support the March 25, 2025 General Plan Draft. At Prescott City Council meetings, audience members are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that promotes order, respect, and efficient proceedings. These guidelines are outlined in the city’s Rules of Procedure and key expectations include:

• General Conduct: Attendees must observe rules of propriety, decorum, and good conduct at all times. This includes refraining from any disorderly or boisterous behavior, such as loud utterances or interruptions.

• Audience Reactions: Clapping, booing, or other audible reactions from the audience are prohibited in the council chambers. Any outbursts will prompt the presiding officer (typically the mayor) to use the gavel to restore order.

• Disruptive Behavior: Continued disruptions can result in removal from the meeting. The presiding officer has authority to preserve decorum for audience members, staff, and city employees.

So let’s keep it classy, Prescott. “Sometimes, it’s not the loudest voice in the room that carries the most weight, it’s the one that speaks with grace, with clarity, with care.” -Anonymous

For those of you who didn’t attend the Prescott City Council’s January 13th voting meeting or watch it online, you missed learning that racism is a serious problem in our city. You may not have seen discrimination and hate yourselves, and there may have been no complaints filed with the city, county, or state regarding Prescott, but several residents who spoke before the City Council assured us racism is alive and well in our historic town.

What’s the remedy these residents say will fix these injustices? It’s the March 25th draft of Prescott’s General Plan and its anti-discrimination clause. Thirteen residents out of the twenty-four who spoke were in favor of putting this version of the plan on the August Primary ballot specifically because that clause is needed to send a welcoming message to visitors and a threat to racists. What? Is the General Plan going to be required reading for everyone who lives or visits here? Realistically, this will probably be the least read document on the city’s website.

Forget about the fact that even members of the General Plan committee called their March 2025 version a “bloated Christmas list of progressive policies.” Never mind that it will create a massive additional workload for city staff and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to implement because:

Prescott residents are racist water and energy wasters that need to be told how to speak and act.

But rest assured, Council Member Ted Gambogi says none of those policies, except the future land map, are enforceable and the General Plan will collect dust on the shelf somewhere in City Hall for the next 10 years. That this land use document which requires a super majority approval vote from the City Council to get on the ballot, and a majority of Prescott voters to be ratified is really a nothing burger.

Does he think we’re stupid?

Gambogi was adamant that the council move forward from discussion and let the public speak about what version of the General Plan they want on the ballot before council votes. Most of us would find that admirable, but what Gambogi knew—as per usual—was that the room was filled with the progressive activists in town and no one from Republican leadership would speak against it.

Gambogi continues to refer to a “group of people that keep saying there’s a DEI or woke agenda in the General Plan” and he assures us the plan has no such verbiage. Well, that’s not the opinion of Arizona State Senator Mark Finchem. In a letter dated December 19, 2025 (Click Here), to the Mayor and City Council, the Senator made it very clear his objection to bringing back the March 25th draft for a vote and made this pledge:

“I renew my objection to ‘the Plan’ under consideration; it does not keep Prescott, Prescott, but instead undermines the personal freedoms and rights we already have. If the Council moves forward with the March 2025 version of the plan, I will dedicate the full energy of the LD1 Senate office to defeating what amounts to social engineering by a small group of government busybodies when the plan—for what I see as the destruction of Prescott as we know and love it—is presented to the voters.”

Senator Finchem, in sending this letter to the Prescott Pulse, stated:

“While I am asked to fight the battle to get local zoning authority over VRBOs and AirBnB properties back under control by political subdivisions—municipalities and counties—from the state, my efforts are undermined by the very same people as they inject DEI, ESG, and radical special interest agenda items into the General and Comprehensive plans. It is such things that caused the state to seize control over zoning in the first place.”

We can only imagine what US Congressman Eli Crane’s comments and reaction would be on this issue, as he, like Senator Finchem, is 100% on board with President Trump’s agenda to rid this country of these destructive ideologies.

Another voice who is not afraid to speak out about protecting conservative values is the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. In a May 29, 2025, article, they wrote: Prescott Should Follow Trump by Expelling Woke Green Scam Policies from Their General Plan (Click Here). We agree with their opinion that:

“The majority Republican city in rural Arizona should be safe from net-zero, anti-car, 15-minute city goals. However, it seems that these bad ideas have seeped into even the reddest of areas.”

And these bad ideas seeped into Prescott because our city council, which at one time all claimed to be Republicans, allowed them in. But thankfully, we dodged another bullet and the motion to put the March 25^th draft with the June version of the Future Land and Water Use map failed 4-3, with Mayor Cathey Rusing, Mayor Pro Tem Lois Fruhwirth, Council Members Mary Frederickson and Jim Garing voting no.

But this is not about politics; it’s about economics. A 2025 City Journal report (Click Here) argued that Republican-led states have stronger overall economies due to tax cuts and deregulation, leading post-COVID recovery. A Moody’s study in the Wall Street Journal (Click Here) cited in the report showed red states outperforming in economic revival by 2022, with southeastern red states surpassing northeastern blue states in GDP. This was linked to policies like tax reductions in 11 red states during 2021, contrasting with tax hikes in blue states like California and New York. A Bloomberg analysis (Click Here) reinforced this, noting that Texas and five southeastern states overtook northeastern GDP in 2020, a gap that widened due to migration and business relocations to enjoy a red state’s sanity.

And let’s look at the very blue state of Colorado and their once-iconic resort towns that are in free-fall collapse mode (Click Here). What is the common denominator in each city’s collapse? The median home prices are double what the median income can afford. Families have fled, along with wealthy investors. Sounds like Prescott’s dilemma doesn’t it?

Due to progressive no-growth policies, no effort to bring in companies paying six-figure incomes, and treating developers like the enemy, Prescott’s home prices have increased to 45% over the national average. Some analysts predict that Prescott will be one of 10 Arizona cities where housing prices will collapse in 2026 because of these unsustainable conditions (Click Here). But these progressive activists that come to the city council meetings or get bussed in to protest around our historic courthouse don’t care about economic outcomes; they want their social justice and climate change initiatives and they want them now.

Another article we’ve posted in conjunction with this report is an article that regular Pulse contributor Kelly Kading originally published in the Prescott Courier on April 27, 2025, “The Science of Activist Groups” (Click Here). In it, he wrote:

“These groups act to bring about some kind of change by influencing opinion. Like a lobbyist group paid by an industry sponsor to influence legislators, activist groups are paid by donations (and sometimes our tax dollars). Activist groups are usually public-facing (although many also lobby legislators). Activist groups have become very good over the years at masking their true intentions with careful wording and by manipulating the emotions of the public.”

There was definitely a valiant effort by several residents that spoke at the January 13 voting session to manipulate feelings through accusations of racism and hurting the feelings of those who worked so hard on the March 25th draft. Frankly, most of us have grown tired of these tactics and we desperately need adults on the dais who will do what we elected them to do, and that is to plan for a bright economic future, spend our tax dollars wisely, and to protect our freedoms over our feelings.

Our freedom of speech—that same freedom that allows these activists to call us racists—also gives us the right to tell them to put their big kids’ pants on because the world isn’t fair. We will never condone and always call out any individual or group that purposely discriminates against anyone. But if that happens, we say, report them to the city police, county attorney, or the attorney general. It’s free, and there’s a mountain of legislative protections available.

Please, all you conservative Prescottonians, speak up and speak out before it’s too late to turn this train wreck around. Write to the Mayor and City Council if you can’t make the meetings. Look at the agenda and meeting packet (Click Here) so you know what they’re voting on before it smacks you in the wallet or devalues your largest asset, your home. Together we can keep Prescott, Preskitt, before it turns into Anytown, California.

To watch the entire city council meeting, Click Here.

Prescott residents, take note: In a contentious and sometimes dysfunctional December 9 City Council voting session, a slim majority voted to revive the controversial March 25 version of the 2025 General Plan draft, setting the stage for a potential “moonshot” push to place it on the November 2026 ballot. Councilmembers Ted Gambogi, Jay Ruby, and Patrick Grady led the charge, emphasizing the “hard work” of the General Plan Review Committee and dismissing calls for a more streamlined, community-aligned document.

Sorry, council members—we agree a lot of hard work went into the March 25 draft, but much of it was driven by liberal progressive activist groups who slipped in expensive, time-consuming, and ultimately useless “Green New Scam“ policies while our Republican leaders sat idly by. The conservative majority in Prescott has hopefully learned that we can no longer assume our elected and appointed Republican officials will have our backs or live up to their campaign promises. Hard work doesn’t automatically yield a quality product—no participation trophies here. This draft represents a bent-knee to a progressive wish list far beyond a simple land use plan. In our opinion, the General Plan Committee should have worked harder at saying “no.”

Council member Gambogi mistakenly seemed to think he could simply make a motion to place the item on the November ballot during the meeting. However, City Attorney Joe Young corrected him, explaining that state or local law requires the proposal to be publicly posted (or agenized) for at least 30 days before the council can vote on it.

This isn’t the first rodeo for the General Plan. As detailed in our post, Prescott’s “Woke” General Plan Crashes and Burns, the council deadlocked 4-3 in June 2025, failing to approve it for the fall ballot amid public pushback over its “woke” elements. Critics, including the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, dubbed it the “Green New Scam” and slammed it for trying to turn Prescott into a mini-San Francisco with policies misaligned with our values.

Here’s How the December 9 City Council Voting Meeting Went Down

The session stretched into a marathon discussion, exposing deep divisions on the dais. Mayor Cathey Rusing started with a major truth bomb—a majority on the previous council believed none of the three proposed drafts would have passed if put on last November’s ballot. We couldn’t agree more.

Rusing then proposed starting with the 2015 General Plan (which we’re still operating under), appointing a three-member council subcommittee, and hiring a consultant to craft a new plan as required by law every 10 years. We’re on board with that idea, but her ambitious “moonshot” timeline to the November 2026 ballot was quickly shot down by Community Development Director Chelsea Walton and City Clerk Sarah Thornhill, who outlined how that might not be a realistic schedule to meet deadlines. Basically, a moonshot would be a long shot.

A big shout-out to Chelsea and Sarah for keeping this council on track—they were professional while herding the new and old cats on the dais.

Council member Gambogi kicked off his comments with a folksy reference to college football analyst Lee Corso: “Not so fast.” He argued for resurrecting the March 25 version, praising the input from “way over 200 people” and three years of work. He also jabbed at the mayor’s latest controversy, implying a “war on boards, commissions, and city staff,” and called the plan’s rejection “her Fort Sumter,” urging the council to “retain the General Plan Committee.”

As a reminder, Ted’s campaign slogan was “Come together Prescott,” and he pledged to “find where we can agree and see if our areas of disagreement can be overcome for the greater good of Prescott.” Guess he forgot that.

Council member Jay Ruby echoed Gambogi statement, stressing that citizens’ efforts should be “valued” and comparing the process to the founding of the country: “When this country was founded, we didn’t send it off to consultants. People took time to work through the details.” Hey Jay, the founders actually drew on many great consultants—their ideas of freedom were shaped by enlightened thinkers like John Locke (natural rights and government by consent), Baron de Montesquieu (separation of powers), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (the social contract and popular sovereignty).

Please see our candidate review of Jay Ruby to understand why we feel his statement is disingenuous by Clicking Here. His thesis titled, “Election as Ceremony: Politics and the Art of Transformational Dialogue, which explores how ensemble theater practices can inform and improve political campaigns. In it, there are zero mentions of our founding fathers and instead aligns with “performative approaches” to democracy. No, we aren’t making this s**t up, you can read his thesis by Clicking Here.

Council member Grady added his support, noting the plan’s public process and suggesting a council subcommittee for compromise, while dismissing consultants as unhelpful and time-consuming. Interesting aside-question: why in the heck is Gambogi in agreement with far left Ruby and Grady? Isn’t Gambogi a registered Republican?

As a reminder, the March 25 draft is a laundry list of liberal ideologies and government overreach that would have our founders rolling in their graves. Terry Sapio, the former General Plan Chairman, admitted the original draft was “very big, very bloated” and had become a progressive “Christmas wish list.” Council member Lois Fruhwirth reinforced this, calling it “365 more things to do in the next 10 years” on top of existing plans, and urged a “bare bones” approach compliant with state statutes like ARS 9-461.07, which requires annual reports on progress. Did you hear that, Ted? General plans don’t just “collect dust on the shelf.”

Council member Mary Frederickson, a former member of the General Plan Review Committee, also confirmed that the March 25 draft was a bloated mess. She expressed relief that the prior council had attempted to pass a streamlined “skinny version.” Meanwhile, Council member Jim Garing remained silent.

As usual, voices from the Martin Luther King Peace and Justice Committee resurfaced to advocate for the non-discrimination statement. As we’ve reported, this group has repeatedly labeled Prescott as racist—based solely on their feelings—pushing for clauses that could cost taxpayers millions in lost federal grants due to their DEI characterizations. Please read our Is Prescott Racist post for our evidence against that claim.

We hate to keep Gambogi bashing, but frankly, he has it coming from his actions at this particular meeting. When Fruhwirth clarified, “So we're sending the March version that doesn't meet all the statute criteria and also risks all of our federal funding for the airport. Is that the version we're voting on today?” Ted’s reply was “That's your interpretation about federal funding. Yes. That's not held by the rest of the council.” To quote Ted, “Not so fast.” How does Ted know what’s held by the rest of the council? Is this another confession to violating the Open Meeting Law?

Ultimately, in a 4-3 vote, the council agreed to bring the March 25 version back for a potential final vote at the January 13, 2026, meeting. Ted seems set on making this happen, but we believe and hope Rusing and Fruhwirth will push back hard for a doable and winnable proposition. The session also included a 6-1 vote to hire a consultant as a “catalyst” for revisions and another 6-1 vote to dissolve the old General Plan Review Committee, so Ted has his work cut out for him.

We’d like to give Council member Fruhwirth some kudos for delivering a dose of sanity with realistic expectations and strategies. She suggested waiting until the 2027 ballot, stating: “And the good news is that if we have a general plan on the summer of 2027 ballot, we actually will have a new mayoral candidate and three more council members up for election. So, they’re going to have to say something about where they stand on it. And that would be very informative, too, for the public, because you’re going to be electing 4 more people that have to make it happen per state statute.” Good advise in our opinion.

Prescott residents, don’t let a bloated wish list dictate our future! Stay engaged, contact your councilmembers, and demand a plan that is a proper land use document that truly keeps Prescott, Prescott. The next discussion and vote at City Council will be on January 13, 2026. And to our elected and appointed Republican officials, please rally your members to stand up and speak out at these council meetings. The Democrats are motivated, why aren’t you?

To watch the entire December 9th voting session, Click Here.

We hope you and your families enjoyed a wonderful Thanksgiving holiday. The Prescott Pulse took a brief pause to celebrate with family and friends last week, but we are back to work and out of our food comas to bring you the latest news regarding the Patrick Grady controversial appointment that has turned into the biggest local government soap opera since…well, ever.

While many of us stepped away from the news, two key figures in Prescott’s ongoing council vacancy litigation did not: Yavapai County Superior Court Judge Michael P. McGill and the plaintiff’s attorney Ryan L. Heath. We will say again, we aren’t lawyers but we have been covering these proceedings from day one. This post is our best endeavor to sift through the legal jargon to keep our readers up to date.

Over the Thanksgiving week, Judge McGill issued a denial against an emergency Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that would have immediately frozen Patrick Grady from exercising the powers from his City Council seat to which he was appointed on May 20, 2025.

Heath wasted no time and on November 26, he filed a second Petition for Special Action with the Arizona Court of Appeals, asking the appellate court to accept jurisdiction, reverse Judge McGill’s latest denial, and direct the superior court to enter the requested TRO pending a full hearing on the merits.

You can read about the First Petition for Special Action with the Arizona Court of Appeals by Clicking Here.

You can read the Second Petition for Special Action with the Arizona Court of Appeals by Clicking Here.

You can see the Exhibits for Second Petition for Special Action with the Arizona Court of Appeals by Clicking Here.

You can see all the Yavapai County Court Case Files for Hanna v. City of Prescott including Judge McGill’s denials by Clicking Here.

To date, neither of Judge McGill’s rulings has addressed whether Mr. Grady’s appointment was lawful or not. Both denials have been limited to the question of whether Mr. Grady should be temporarily restrained from acting as a council member while the underlying claims are fully litigated, and determine who is paying the city council members attorney’s fees.

Let’s be crystal clear, because a lot of people are mixing this up:

• To our knowledge, there has been no ruling on whether Patrick Grady’s May 20 appointment was legal or illegal.

• The full trial on the merits of the original lawsuit (Open Meeting Law violations, secret vote-rigging in executive session, Charter violations, the Gambogi email) has not happened yet.

• All Judge McGill has ruled on so far is that Grady gets to keep his seat on the dais for the time being and did not stop the individual council members from using the same taxpayer-funded lawyers as the City.

In other words, the core issue of whether the May 20, 2025 appointment process complied with the law has not yet been decided by any court.

The Court of Appeals has already granted expedited treatment in the first special action. We should expect similarly swift handling of the second petition, given the overlapping legal issues and the public’s strong interest in the lawful composition of the Prescott City Council.

Why This Matters to You

Every day Grady sits on the council and votes, the hole gets deeper. Close votes become harder to unwind. On November 18, Grady even administered the oath of office to new Mayor Cathey Rusing. Yes, the same Cathey Rusing who resigned and created the vacancy in the first place and the same Cathey Rusing who implored other Republican City Council members to vote for Democrat Patrick Grady, to ensure her “four-vote majority”. Many saw the swearing in as a poor choice in judgement, but we see it as the start of more to come.

If the appointment is ultimately thrown out, every decision Grady touched could be challenged. And Prescott taxpayers are footing the bill for private attorneys to defend what Heath calls an illegal appointment and an illegal use of public funds.

And the Meter is Running.

We’ll keep you posted the moment the Court of Appeals rules on either (or both) of these emergency petitions. Because right now, the only thing growing bigger than the legal bills is the frustration of citizens who just wanted a fair, open process.

The Prescott Pulse will continue to provide timely updates as this significant local governance matter progresses through the appellate process.

Ryan’s valuable time and expertise come at a cost, so please support Sherrie by donating to the Sherrie Hanna Defense Fund, set up by her sister, to help cover his outstanding work by Clicking Here.

As the November 4^th Prescott City Council election approaches and early voting is underway, voters face a critical decision in selecting three candidates for the at-large seats. The Prescott Pulse has rigorously evaluated all five candidates—Henry Ebarb II, Greg Lazzell, Jim Garing, Jay Ruby, and Mary Frederickson—based on their records, campaign promises, and community engagement. Our deep dive reveals stark contrasts in experience, integrity, and vision.

In case you missed them, here are the links to our full deep dive into each candidate:

• Henry Ebarb II

• Mary Frederickson

• Jim Garing

• Greg Lazzell

• Jay Ruby

If you want the short version: We strongly endorse Henry Ebarb II and Greg Lazzell for their proven leadership, commitment to fiscal responsibility, and dedication to Prescott’s unique character. These independent thinkers are essential to counter the risk of a council dominated by incoming Mayor Cathey Rusing’s agenda where she urged our present council to appoint Democrat Patrick Grady to her vacant seat to “secure her four vote majority.” We have to assume the other two are Garing and Frederickson as she’s been campaigning for them all year.

We didn’t endorse Jim Garing in our initial review, but we will be voting for him. We feel Garing is better positioned to beat a candidate like Jay Ruby, whose radical left-leaning rhetoric and inflammatory social media presence during his Arizona House run mirror the divisive tactics that fueled dangerous political extremism, including assassination attempts on President Trump and the murder of Charlie Kirk.

Your vote for 3 Republicans is crucial to ensure Prescott’s future reflects the will of its people, not a predetermined voting bloc or the ideology of Jay Ruby. LET US REPEAT THIS AT THE TOP OF OUR LUNGS…VOTE FOR 3 (THREE) REPUBLICANS IF YOU DON’T WANT JAY RUBY ELECTED! Not one, not two, but three.

Deep Dive, Short Version, Now the Condensed Version

Greg Lazzell: Prescott City Council Candidate Recap

• Background: Long-time Prescott resident since 1997, originally from Illinois, moved to Arizona in 1972; graduated from Prescott High School; registered Republican since 1980; age 60, married with two adult daughters; known for no-nonsense, direct style and preference for face-to-face interactions.

• Professional Background: Carpenter by trade; owns Lazzell Construction; experience in construction, facilities management, loss prevention, and risk management; Director of Facilities at Prescott College (2006-2017); currently Facilities Manager at the Club at Prescott Lakes.

• Community Involvement: Extensive volunteer and leadership roles including Vice Chair of Prescott Board of Adjustments and Planning & Zoning Commission; board member/volunteer for Prescott’s World’s Oldest Rodeo, Celtic Society, Sacred Heart Pastoral Council; member of Yavapai County Mounted Sheriff’s Posse, 100 Men Who Care, Republican Precinct Committeeman; former chair of Yavapai Regional Medical Center District Hospital Board (five years); volunteers for Prescott Highland Games and Fire Prevention Week.

• Prior Council Service (2013-2017): Elected with 53% vote; served as liaison to Community Development Block Grant, Prescott Downtown Partnership, Chamber of Commerce, and Planning & Zoning; focused on fiscal responsibility; key votes include opposing $40,000 GPREP membership due to budget concerns, supporting PR contract with bed tax funding, and denying Yavapai Hills cell tower to protect property values.

• Campaign Priorities: Good Governance (fiscal responsibility, essential services over discretionary spending); Regional Cooperation (on roads, transportation, public safety); Economic Development (supporting new and established businesses); emphasizes efficiency in services like water to balance growth and small-town character, not viewing Prescott in a water crisis.

• Endorsements: The only candidate endorsed by both Prescott Police and Fire Associations; limited social media presence but active on X (@LazzellGreg) showing love for Prescott and first responders. Backed by the Prescott United PAC organized by conservative businesses owners to counter the liberal progressive Save the Dells dominance.

• Strengths: Most experienced candidate with prior council service; straightforward, authentic approach; deep community ties; equipped to contribute immediately with practical solutions.

• Website: HOME | lazzell4prescott

Henry Ebarb II: Prescott City Council Candidate Recap

• Background: Third-generation Prescott native, age 38, youngest candidate for one of three at-large seats in the November 4, 2025 election; emphasizes sustainable growth and community preservation; stood out in public forums as a dynamic speaker with charisma, Daily Courier spotlight, and social media (Facebook).

• Education: Attended Washington Traditional Elementary, Mile High Middle School, Prescott High School (2005); Associate of Arts in Business Administration (Yavapai College); dual BS in Music Theory and Political Science (NAU); Master’s in Digital Marketing and Finance (Thunderbird School).

• Professional Experience: Co-founder/CEO of Eightfold IT (2018, created ~12 tech jobs in web development/AI); CEO of Open Road Shipping (2023, tech-driven logistics platform); owns Lariat Landscape Co. (focus on arid-climate solutions like xeriscaping); featured in Prescott Living’s 2022 Men of Vision.

• Community Involvement: Applied for Yavapai College District Governing Board (2024, not appointed); demonstrates commitment to local service.

• Campaign Priorities: Water security, strategic economic growth (high-paying jobs/startups), open space preservation, fiscal responsibility; leverages data-driven decision-making for complex issues like water and economic development.

• Endorsements: Backed by the Prescott United PAC organized by conservative businesses owners to counter the liberal progressive Save the Dells dominance.

• Website: Henry for Prescott City Council

Jim Garing: Prescott City Council Candidate Recap

• Background: Robert “Jim” Garing, age 81; U.S. Marine Corps veteran; recently relocated to Prescott from California; secured strong showing in August 5, 2025 primary and presents as seasoned civil engineer focused on sustainable growth and water management.

• Professional Experience: Career in California civil engineering and water resources; started at Garing Taylor & Associates (GTA, family firm founded 1962) around 1970 as chainman/soils tech (not janitor as claimed in LinkedIn post); Engineer in Training at GTA (1972-1976); City Engineer for Grover Beach, CA and District Engineer for Avila Beach, Nipomo, and Oceano (1976-2000); Water Resource Management and Advisory roles in San Luis Obispo County (2000-2020); President of GTA (1992-2006), then senior consulting engineer until 2016; co-authored 2010 water symposium presentation; website claims 44+ years on committees unverified by public records.

• Local Involvement: Limited civic roles in Prescott; active in advocacy groups like Save the Dells and Friends of the Lakes pushing conservation; no service on local boards/commissions such as Water Resources or Planning & Zoning.

• Campaign Priorities: Sustainable growth, responsible water management (e.g., educating voters on resources/projects/financing, protecting supply for future generations), smart infrastructure; supports science-based policies, transparency, and balancing development with conservation; concerned about water-hauling properties and business water usage.

• Endorsements: Strongly backed by the liberal and left-leaning Save the Dells; supported by incoming Mayor Cathey Rusing ($1,500 donation to her campaign) who is also strongly backed by the liberal and left-leaning Save the Dells. This mutual alignment with her and the Save the Dells agenda raises questions about a voting bloc formation and his ability to think and act independently.

• Why Garing is included: Prescott Pulse did not initially endorse Garing due to inconsistencies in records and transparency issues, but we would rather see him on city council than the very radically left Jay Ruby or squishy Republican Mary Frederickson, who allowed Save the Dells and other liberal progressive ideologies into the general plan, and showed her subjective values with her recent votes on the Board of Adjustments. Jim Garing offers experience and is a better choice than Frederickson to beat Jay Ruby.

• Website: HOME | Jim Garing for Prescott City Council

Conclusion: Vote for Independent Leadership

Prescott stands at a crossroads, and the November 4, 2025 election will shape its future. Henry Ebarb II and Greg Lazzell embody the independent, results-driven leadership needed to prioritize fiscal responsibility, public safety, and sustainable growth while preserving our small-town character. Their proven records and community ties stand in sharp contrast to Jay Ruby’s divisive, radical rhetoric and Mary Frederickson’s alignment with Save the Dells’ agenda, which risks entrenching a council beholden to Mayor Rusing’s four-vote majority.

We urge voters to Vote Ebarb, Lazzell, and Garing to break the cycle of groupthink and ensure a council that serves all Prescott residents. Every vote counts, don’t waste yours on candidates who fuel division or prioritize special interests over individual and property rights!

At the Prescott Pulse, our mission is to hold elected officials accountable and equip voters with clear, verified information about candidates. Through thorough research spanning websites, social media, public records, interviews, and forums, we aim to confirm candidates’ backgrounds, achievements, and platforms to foster informed voting. If you know what they’ve done, you have a great indicator of what they’ll do!

In this posting we spotlight City Council candidate Mary Louise Frederickson, a 69-year-old Prescott resident, living here since 2013. Her campaign site, mary4prescott.org, highlights her Navy service, legal career, and community involvement, but some aspects of her pre-Prescott background remain unverified. Her local record, however, offers insight into her decision-making, revealing a consistent adherence to regulations that may limit flexibility.

Candidate Background (as found on her website):

Born in October 1955, Mary Frederickson presents a compelling personal story:

• Upbringing: Raised as one of nine children by Depression-era parents who emphasized integrity.

• Navy Service: Enlisted after high school, serving at NAS Fallon, Nevada, operating radar for pilot training.

• Personal Life: Married Gene Walter Frederickson around 1979 at Fallon. Between 1980 and 1981, Gene was severely injured by a drunk driver in a hit-and-run, canceling their planned assignment abroad.

• Education and Career: Earned a Business Administration degree and a law degree, practicing law for 15 years with a focus on defending hospitals, schools, businesses, and homeowners in cases involving personal injury and medical malpractice.

This narrative resonates with Prescott’s appreciation for perseverance, but as a publication committed to “trust but verify,” we sought to confirm these claims.

Verification Challenges

Despite extensive research, we could not independently verify key elements of Frederickson’s pre-Prescott background:

• We searched legal databases (UniCourt, Justia, Google Scholar, FindLaw, Leagle) for Riverside County Superior Court filings and statewide records from 1999 to 2013 under “Mary Louise Frederickson” but found no records. This could be due to out-of-court settlements, limited digital record-keeping before the mid-2000s, or privacy protections under HIPAA and VA regulations for medical malpractice cases.

• Frederickson’s campaign website does not specify where she earned her degrees. Avvo, a legal directory sourcing public bar records, lists her as earning a Bachelor of Arts from California State University, Northridge in 1995, and a Juris Doctor from the University of San Francisco School of Law in 1999, with no mention of honors.

• Avvo lists her practice areas as Personal Injury, Health Care, Medical Malpractice, and Wrongful Death, but provides no reviews, law firm affiliations, or case records, as is the case with every online legal resource we researched. Although, all of them were up to date with Frederickson’s current address in Prescott.

The absence of records does not disprove Frederickson’s claims, as sealed cases or limited digitization may explain the gaps. Voters must decide whether to accept her narrative based on the available evidence, or the lack thereof.

Local Involvement

Frederickson’s Prescott record is more concrete. Since moving to the city in 2013, she hasn’t maintained an active California Bar membership, even though legal websites still have her as practicing for 26 years. Instead, Mary has volunteered with organizations including People Who Care, CASA, and the Citizen/Police Academies. Her most significant roles have been on the City of Prescott Board of Adjustment and the 2025 General Plan Review Committee.

Reviewing her decisions on while serving Prescott in the past has given us an insight into how she may serve on city council in the future:

Judgments on the Board of Adjustment: Frederickson’s vote to revoke Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 24-004 for Exceptional Healthcare’s helipad at the June 19, 2025, Prescott Board of Adjustment hearing prioritized procedural rigidity over public safety. Despite the helipad’s use for four life-saving evacuations (March–June 2025) without required masonry wall and landscaping, she rejected a 90-day compliance proposal, citing eight months of inaction, and pushed for revocation, undervaluing its critical role for patients needing urgent transfers.

Similarly, at the September 18, 2025, hearing on appeal APL 25-001, Frederickson advocated for applying Land Development Code Section 6.8 to protect Prescott’s hillsides, aligning with residents’ environmental concerns but focusing on legal intent over their emotional appeals. Her motions to deny the director’s interpretation failed (2-3, 1-4), reflects her rule-driven stance over flexibility.

The 2025 General Plan Draft: Then there is her acceptance, as a member of the General Plan review committee, of other leftist special interest groups’ demands for inserting Agenda 2030 type policies in the General Plan. These non-traditional lifestyle policies which ultimately led to the Plan’s failure to pass out of council, which in turn prevented the Prescott public the opportunity to vote on the plan.

By riddling non-traditional lifestyle polices into a strictly ‘Land Use’ document, it led to unnecessary time and money spent, division and confusion, and the ultimate failure of the General Plan to pass the council’s vote. Read our Prescott’s “Woke” General Plan Crashes and Burns article as a reminder.

Mary Frederickson’s Endorsements

Frederickson secured endorsements from Mayor Phil Goode, Councilmembers Connie Cantelme, Lois Fruhwirth, and newly elected Mayor Cathey Rusing, as well as the liberal advocacy group Save the Dells. (Not everyone will see that as a good thing.)

Side Note: Let’s not forget that Save the Dells played a key role in electing our current city council and look at how that turned out, it’s been fiasco after fiasco. Too often we’ve asked who’s really running this city, the council or Save the Dells itself? We, at the Pulse, believe the City Council should be the ones to create and drive policy, not city staff or special interest advocacy groups.

While these endorsements reflect her community ties, they raise questions about her independence. Particular concern stems from Mayor Rusing’s endorsement in public venues and on her website where she urges readers to vote for Frederickson and Garing. Documents obtained through a public information request by Linda Gray revealed emails and texts from Rusing urging council members to support Democrat Patrick Grady to secure her four-vote majority as mayor.

These communications, dated May 19th, and Rusing’s website confirm a coordinated effort to align council votes. That’s a nice way of saying “Rusing is stacking the deck” to her way of thinking on city council. We have a problem with that, because it’s politics at its worst. When we combine that with the left-of-center Save the Dells’ endorsement, we see too much influence in shaping local environmental policy, which may limit Frederickson’s ability to challenge established interests and fairly represent all her constituents.

Conclusion:

Mary Frederickson’s dedication to Prescott is evident through her service on the Board of Adjustment and General Plan Review Committee. However, her close ties to Save the Dells and endorsements from Mayor Cathey Rusing and other council members raise concerns about her ability to offer an independent perspective. Documents showing Rusing’s coordinated efforts (aka collusion) to influence council votes, including support for Frederickson, risk creating a council dominated by aligned interests rather than individual voices.

At the Prescott Pulse, we believe the city council needs independent and flexible thinkers who challenge the status quo to drive innovative solutions for the betterment of Prescott. For this reason, we cannot endorse Mary Frederickson for Prescott City Council, as voters deserve candidates who prioritize fresh perspectives over conformity.

In our ongoing assessment of the five city council candidates on the November 4th ballot, we present our findings on Greg Lazzell, drawn from newspaper articles, social media, and firsthand observations at candidate forums and meet-and-greets. We feel Lazzell may be the least-known to the local politicos but has the most experience for the job compared to the other candidates. His no-nonsense style (a nice way to say he doesn’t believe in being politically correct) and preference for face-to-face conversations over big crowds make him a unique voice in the race. So, join us as we take a look at Lazzell’s background, priorities, and record.

A Long time Prescott Resident

Greg Lazzell has called Prescott home since 1997, when he relocated to help open the local Home Depot store as a manager. Originally from Illinois, Lazzell moved to Arizona in 1972 at age seven, grew up in Phoenix, and graduated from Prescott High School. For 28 years, he has been an engaged community member. He met his wife shortly after arriving in Prescott, and together they raised two now adult daughters. A registered Republican since 1980, Lazzell’s commitment to the city is evident through his extensive volunteer work and leadership roles. At 60, he is one of the two youngest candidates in the race, bringing both energy and experience to the table.

Professional Background

A carpenter by trade, Lazzell owns Lazzell Construction and has built a robust career in construction and facilities management. His professional experience spans loss prevention, risk management, and facilities oversight. From 2006 to 2017, he served as Director of Facilities at Prescott College, managing campus operations. Currently, he is the Facilities Manager at the Club at Prescott Lakes, one of the city’s premier communities.

Community Involvement

Lazzell’s dedication to Prescott is reflected in his extensive community involvement. He serves on numerous boards and organizations, including:

• Vice Chair, Prescott Board of Adjustments and Planning & Zoning Commission

• Prescott’s World’s Oldest Rodeo (board member and volunteer)

• Celtic Society Board

• Sacred Heart Pastoral Council

• Yavapai County Mounted Sheriff’s Posse (current member)

• 100 Men Who Care (philanthropy group)

• Republican Precinct Committeeman

• Yavapai Regional Medical Center District Hospital Board (former chair, five years)

• Prescott Highland Games and Fire Prevention Week volunteer

Lazzell is the only candidate endorsed by both the Prescott Police and Fire Associations, a testament to his strong support among public safety professionals. Unlike many candidates, Lazzell is not active on social media, preferring old-fashioned, face-to-face conversations over large online or in-person forums, which aligns with his direct, “what you see is what you get” approach. Greg was active on X, formerly known as Twitter, and which you can find here: https://x.com/LazzellGreg. His posts show a true love of Prescott and our first responders. His last post on X is so Greg Lazzell.

Prior Council Service (2013–2017)

Elected in November 2013 with 53%,Lazzell served a four-year term on the Prescott City Council. He acted as a liaison to key groups, including the Community Development Block Grant program, Prescott Downtown Partnership, Chamber of Commerce, and Planning and Zoning Commission. His tenure was marked by a focus on fiscal responsibility and resident-oriented decision-making.

While comprehensive vote-by-vote records are not centralized online, local news reports highlight key stances:

• Fiscal Restraint: Lazzell voted against a $40,000 annual membership in the Greater Prescott Regional Economic Partnership (GPREP) due to budget concerns but supported a $48,000 PR contract funded by bed tax revenue, emphasizing legal funding constraints.

• Yavapai Hills Cell Tower Proposal: He prioritized resident concerns, supporting the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation to deny a 55-foot cell tower, citing potential negative impacts on property values.

These examples showcase Lazzell’s pragmatic, tell-it-like-it-is style, prioritizing community needs and careful financial oversight over politically correct rhetoric.

Campaign Priorities

Greg Lazzell’s 2025 campaign focuses on three core pillars:

• Good Governance: Prioritizing fiscal responsibility and essential services over discretionary spending, such as costly open-space purchases that don’t generate revenue.

• Regional Cooperation: Advocating collaboration on critical issues like roads, transportation, and public safety.

• Economic Development: Supporting both new and established businesses to foster a thriving local economy.

Lazzell doesn’t take the “Prescott is in a water crisis” stance as some of the other candidates have, a position he expressed at an August 2013 candidate forum hosted by the Citizens Water Advocacy Group (CWAG). He prioritizes efficiency in public services like water service to preserve the city’s small-town character while accommodating growth.

Why Would the Pulse Endorse Greg Lazzell?

Despite being less known to the general public, Greg Lazzell’s prior council experience equips him to contribute immediately, navigating council operations with ease. His straightforward, what you see is what you get approach, sets him apart in a field of polished campaigners. Lazzell’s preference for personal engagement over social media or large forums reflects his authentic, community-focused leadership style. With endorsements from the Prescott Police and Fire Associations, deep community ties, and a proven track record, he is a compelling choice for voters seeking practical solutions.

For more information on Greg Lazzell, please visit his website Lazzell4Prescott.com

As early voting for Prescott’s city council general election nears, readers have flooded the Pulse Collaborative for our take on the candidates (some were even pushing for endorsements before the primary). As steadfast conservative Republicans, we held firm to our commitment to support all Republican candidates until the primary’s end, unlike some GOP peers who played favorites early. Bluntly, we found several Republican mayoral and council candidates lacking the substance or integrity to earn our backing. Rather than break our pledge, we stayed silent, prioritizing principle over expediency.

Now, with the primary behind us, we’re ready to lay it all bare, delivering unfiltered, brutally honest assessments of the five city council candidates on the November 4, 2025 ballot. Our evaluations won’t be swayed by slick campaign rhetoric or empty promises but will be rooted in cold, hard facts from each candidate’s public statements, track record, successes, failures, and experience. Past actions and character are the truest predictor of future performance, and we’ll dissect what each has done (or failed to do) to earn or lose our vote. We’ll be fair, giving credit where it’s due, but unflinching in calling out shortcomings. Stay tuned for our deep dive. We start with the lone non-Republican candidate in the field.

Jay Ruby Enters Stage Right

Jay Ruby, a 28-year resident of Prescott, is widely regarded by those we’ve spoken to as a genuinely kind and approachable individual, a sentiment we once shared. He earned a bachelor’s degree from Antioch College in 1989 and a master’s degree in humanities from Prescott College in 2021, both very liberal progressive institutions. His thesis, titled “Election as Ceremony: Politics and the Art of Transformational Dialogue,” explored how ensemble theater practices can enhance political campaigns.

Side Note: While Jay Ruby’s background in theater and his thesis on ensemble theater practices in political campaigns may be a creative approach to civic engagement, we view this as a red flag. Many in the community are weary of performative politics and prefer straightforward honesty, integrity, and transparency.

Ruby is a theater director, performer, and cultural event organizer. He founded the Tsunami on the Square Arts and Culture Festival, which ran for 15 years on Prescott’s courthouse plaza. He also established the Carpetbag Brigade Physical Theater Company and the Global Stilt Congress. Are you wondering how his professional career makes him ready to help run a city with a budget of approximately $122 million? Well, we don’t think it does.

Jay Ruby’s campaign centers on water security, transparent governance, civic engagement, and fostering a balance between growth and sustainability. His slogan, “Vote for Water,” reflects his focus on developing constructive (restrictive?) water policies for Prescott’s future. Again, this all sounds good, but the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), already regulates water management within the Prescott Active Management Area (PrAMA), where Prescott is located. Arizona’s Assured Water Supply (AWS) Program, established under the 1980 Groundwater Management Act (GMA), requires developers in Active Management Areas (AMAs), including the Prescott AMA, to prove a 100-year water supply before subdividing land into six or more lots for residential, commercial, or industrial use.

Basically, the only thing a city council can do to regulate water is by regulating development even if a 100-year water supply is proven.

Jay Ruby’s Election Challenge is Another Red Flag

In our August 16, 2025 article, As Prescott Voters, We’re Scratching Our Heads, we explained Jay Ruby’s challenge to the Prescott City Charter’s election rules. If he won this challenge, it would have secured him a win in the 2025 Primary and reflects an unacceptable “win at all costs” mentality. By advocating for Arizona’s A.R.S. § 9-821.01 over the City Charter’s majority requirement (including blank ballots), Ruby tried to lower the win threshold from 8,809 to 6,533 votes, as noted in his August 15, 2025, press release claiming the Charter causes “unnecessary repeat elections.” This attempt to retroactively change voter-approved rules, in place since 2010, undermines the democratic process and disregards the intent of voters who cast ballots under the Charter’s clear guidelines.

Ruby’s “unnecessary repeat elections” initiative, which he is still pushing, would impose logistical and financial burdens, as the county does not have the infrastructure in place to track ballots by individual contest. This was spelled out in the August 14, 2025 memorandum from Pierce Coleman. This opportunistic push, rejected in favor of upholding the Charter, feels like moving the goalposts mid-election. Changing rules post-facto to secure a win erodes trust, and Ruby’s dismissal of the voter-approved system raises concerns about his commitment to fair representation. Did he stop to think that under-voting is our way of sending messages to the candidates that they just weren’t worth the ink?

Will the Real Jay Ruby Please Come Forward?

Jay Ruby’s fear-mongering rhetoric on “climate change” and water policy during his Prescott City Council campaign is less concerning than the far-left radical positions he expressed on social media while running for Arizona State House of Representatives, District 1, in 2024, and his support for progressive Democratic candidates in prior elections. Posts on X and web sources indicate Ruby aligned with radical far-left ideologies, including calls for policies associated with cutting the Empowerment Scholarship Award (ESA), removing the federal electoral college, implementing Rank Choice Voting, supporting Corporation Commissioners who support Green New Scam policies, and supporting the medical violence and child abuse inherent in transgendering minors.

Going through Jay Ruby’s X account @JayRuby_PAZ, the nice affable man known around Prescott seems to take on a different personality. No prominent Republican legislators who served or are presently serving the Yavapai constituents are immune from vile comments and name calling, with the hashtag #ExtremistAF, #FossilFuelFascist or #FacistAF frequently used (We’ll let you look up what the AF stands for). But the praise Ruby gives the likes of Ruben Gallegos, Barack Obama, Adrian Fontes, and Chris Mayes is nauseating.

He goes on to call Senator Mark Finchem a “J6 seditionist,” Congressman Eli Crane and then Gubernatorial Candidate Kari Lake “insurrectionists,” and all Republicans “fascists.” Truly, this man is one of the original rhetorical flamethrowers along with many others on the left who drove the two assassination attempts on President Trump, the murder of Charlie Kirk, and the daily ongoing leftist violence directed toward ICE facilities and agents.

We could go on about Jay Ruby, but we think you should see for yourself through these screen grabs of his social media because his own words paint a vivid picture. From his attempt to rewrite Prescott’s election rules to secure a win, to his far-left rhetoric on X, including attacks on Republican legislators with hashtags like #ExtremistAF and praise for progressive Democrats like Ruben Gallego and Barack Obama, Ruby’s actions betray a willingness to sidestep principles for political gain. As conservatives, we value integrity and adherence to voter-approved rules, and Ruby’s track record, marked by opportunism and radical positions, falls far short.

Not for all the water in the Big Chino Aquifer would we give Ruby our vote! Check his X account @JayRuby_PAZ and decide for yourself.

Ruby For Rank Choice Voting

Ruby Bashing Republicans

Ruby Thinks ESAs Should Be Cut

Ruby Backs the Destruction of Capitalism and Private Property Ownership

Here’s a link to the thread: https://x.com/SolidarityEcon/status/1648009084581322762

Here’s a link to the X Account: https://x.com/SolidarityEcon

Ruby’s Praise for the Democrats

And the Grand Finale, White People are Bad

Watch the full video here: https://x.com/JayRuby_PAZ/status/1621855633036251136

Hey folks, this is the Prescott Pulse speaking, your everyday neighbors, coffee shop chatters, and kitchen table philosophers here in Prescott. We're not engineers, pricey consultants, or anyone with a fancy degree in transportation planning. But we do listen and we can read.

We have been following the Effluent & Wastewater Pipelines & SR89 Improvement Project, which you can access by Clicking Here, and read the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) by Kimley-Horne, by Clicking Here. Kimley-Horne claims to be one of the nations premier engineering, planning, and design consultants who presented their analysis, reported to cost $997,000, to City Council on July 8th, 2025.

The Kimley-Horne TIA evaluates the proposed widening of a 2.3-mile segment of State Route 89 (SR 89) from Phippen Trail to Willow Lake Road Roundabouts, encompassing the Granite Dells corridor, alongside necessary effluent and wastewater pipeline upgrades. We’ve put together a short summary of the 161-page report, highlighting data-driven reasons for expanding SR 89 to address traffic congestion and safety concerns, while leveraging the pipeline project to minimize construction disruptions in this ecologically sensitive area.

The TIA argues that widening SR 89 through the Dells corridor is necessary due to:

• Present Severe Congestion: It’s current Level of Service (LOS) is E, (operating at or very near its capacity), will degrade to LOS F, (when demand exceeds capacity), by 2034 without action, with 2050 projections showing demand far exceeding capacity.

• Need for Moderate Congestion: Widening will pull most segments back to LOS D (busy but manageable), with delays of 25–35 seconds at intersections and a follower density of 10.0 -15.0 (two-lane) or 26 - 35 (multilane) vehicles per mile per lane. You’re moving, but it’s crowded, and delays are noticeable.

• Safety Risks: High crash rates (117 in five years) from congestion and limited lanes, which widening can reduce.

• Sewer Project Synergy: Pipeline upgrades require road reconstruction, making widening cost-effective now.

• Growth Pressures: Deep Well Ranch and regional growth will add significant traffic, needing more capacity.

• Intersection Delays: Widening, with roundabouts and access controls, improves LOS at key intersections.

• Lack of Alternatives: Nearby roads can’t handle diverted traffic, making SR 89’s capacity critical.

Alternative plans in the TIA of five lanes and four lanes in the Dells Narrows are recommended for further evaluation to balance capacity, safety, and environmental concerns by 2034. The sewer pipeline work provides a practical window to implement these changes, avoiding future disruptions. And we can’t help our fiscal conservative side from showing…this will save taxpayers money combining these projects.

Prescott Pulse encouraged residents to speak up to widen SR 89A at the July 8th City Council in our article titled, The July 8th City Council Meeting Should be Rowdier than Whiskey Row on a Saturday Night!, when it was on the agenda along with the TIA by Kimley-Horne. We love the Dells corridor and its beauty should be protected, but not when it could cost lives.

Save the Dells, a Prescott-based organization focused on preserving the Granite Dells area, opposes widening SR 89A through the Dells corridor primarily on environmental, scenic, and practical grounds. Their key arguments are the widening would require blasting rocks (in fact, it doesn’t) in the Dells Narrows, and harm ecosystems, wildlife habitats, and cultural sites. They also dismiss the issues of congestion in the Kimley-Horne analysis.

At the August 26th City Council's study session, the widening of the Dell Narrows was on the agenda again. The Daily Courier ran an article regarding the discussion on August 27th and once again, the public comment section of the meeting was dominated by the Save the Dells activists, who want to keep the road two lanes.

Another public hearing that was originally set for September 9, 2025, for the SR 89 improvements was rescheduled to allow for a 30-day extension of the public comment period. The Prescott City Council agreed to hold the hearing at a future meeting following the close of this extended comment window, ensuring broader community input on the proposed project. Really? You spend almost a million dollars of taxpayer money for a lengthy data driven analysis and don’t have enough information? Instead you give more airtime to armchair engineers, and as Councilman Ted Gambogi stated, “If we’re going to argue, let’s argue on facts, not on innuendos.”

The voices of the silent, common-sense majority need to be heard on this, loud and clear, to counter the one-note environmental activists in our midst who shoved their progressive “Woke Wishlist” into our failed General Plan Draft. Take Action: Click here on the City's webpage to enter an official comment, which will become part of the public record for the project.

Additionally or alternatively, send thoughts to the Courier’s Rants & Raves. Your submission must be 40 words or less and sent to editors@prescottaz.com. Sample Rant & Rave wording:

89 widening - Hopefully the City Council will vote to widen 89 per the professional consultant's recommendation and put public safety first. Losing half a percent of the Dells acreage is nothing compared to the safety and lives of our families and neighbors.

What do you think, Prescott? We welcome your thoughts and comments!

Hey folks, this is the Prescott Pulse speaking—your everyday neighbors, coffee shop chatters, and kitchen table philosophers here in Prescott. We're not lawyers, judges, or anyone with a fancy degree in constitutional law. We're just regular voters like you, trying to wrap our heads around this whole mess with the 2025 Primary Election results. We've been following the news, talking it over with friends, and honestly, it feels like someone's trying to change the rules of the game after we've all already played.

• First, we are told there were two outright city council winners, and two candidates would be in a run-off. Take those pesky signs down! View Here.

• Then we were informed there were no winners, and all five council candidates needed to stay in the ring until the general election in November. Put those signs back up! View Here.

• But don’t celebrate yet, candidate Jay Ruby has challenged the results and could result in three outright winners by a majority votes cast based on the formula set forth in A.R.S. § 9-821.01 rather than the Prescott’s City Charter. Signs on hold again.

• As of this writing, the Ruby legal challenge seems to be lost, and all five council candidates are back in the race. View Memorandum Here

Is your head exploding yet? This is the fourth fiasco coming from city hall this year and it’s only August.

Jay Ruby’s legal challenge for this race doesn't sit right with us, and we are pleased that, for now, our Charter is being upheld. The City Charter, our local rulebook, has been clear for years, and a memorandum from the outside law firm of Pierce Coleman, dated August 14, 2025, backs that up: our votes should count as we cast them, not be reinterpreted after the fact. But Jay Ruby isn’t backing down and has issued a press release on August 15, 2025, pushing for a Citizen’s initiative to align with state law and bypass the Charter that we voted for.

When we went to the polls or mailed in our ballots by August 5, 2025, we did so under the Prescott City Charter, which says a candidate needs a majority of all valid ballots cast—17,696 minus 81 overvotes, divided by two, plus one, rounded to 8,809—to win outright in the primary. That includes blank ballots, where some of us (pleading guilty) might’ve skipped a race on purpose to send a message or because we weren’t buying what some candidates were selling. That opportunity could be taken away with Ruby’s initiative.

Ruby’s press release claims the Charter’s method forces “unnecessary repeat elections that drain resources” and proposes a citizen initiative to adopt the state’s A.R.S. § 9-821.01 formula (votes cast, yielding a lower 6,533 threshold), which would’ve declared Ruby a winner in this race. In the Pierce Coleman opinion, (wonder how much that cost taxpayers) we read it’s Ruby’s Initiative that creates unnecessary demands and costs:

“it is defensible for the City to use the total ballots cast in the entire election, particularly because it is our understanding that the County does not track ballots by individual contest. Recovering, extrapolating, or computing this figure would likely be logistically impossible, especially now, after the election is held, and it is questionable whether this is practically feasible for the County in any election scenario. Additionally, the City would likely incur additional costs for election programming required for this level of specificity since it may not be required under state law. Based on our understanding of the County’s capabilities, extraordinary measures would be required to derive a count of valid ballots cast that exclude the mayoral office.”

The Pierce Coleman memorandum confirms the Charter controls, citing City of Tucson v. State (2012), which ruled that local election methods are matters of “strictly local municipal concern.” We feel changing to state law now or later would mess with our intent and feels like moving the goalposts mid-kick. Ruby’s push to sidestep the Charter and give him an outright win raises red flags. How can he properly represent us in the future if, as a candidate, he’s already dismissing the voter-approved rules we’ve used since 2010?

There’s a City Council’s meeting on August 18 to discuss this, but we say: stick to the Charter, and let all five council candidates duke it out in November. That honors our votes and decades of precedent. Ruby’s initiative to change the Charter might be worth a conversation but pushing it now to win smacks of opportunism.

Candidates who don't know or can’t respect our local rules should think twice about how that looks to us voters. Want a new system? Put it to a vote for future elections—don’t retrofit this one.

What do you think, Prescott? We welcome your thoughts and comments!

Prescottonians, this City Council election is crucial if we are to maintain traditional, rural, conservative values in our city’s governance. With the recent appointment of Democrat Patrick Grady to the council, progressive ideology within the ranks of city staff may go unchecked by the now left-leaning voting record of the current council members.

Look into the 2025 Prescott General Plan fiasco, and you will see the direction liberal-leaning special interest groups and council members want to take our city. Thanks to your efforts, that disastrous plan was defeated!

Now it’s time to ensure our small-town lifestyle continues.

If you are a resident of the City of Prescott, you received a ballot in the mail for this election. Bring it to the County Recorder’s Office at 1015 Fair Street in Prescott and place it in the drop box any time, day or night, before August 5, 2025, at 7:00 PM.

You may also vote in person on the second floor in Room 228 of the Recorder’s Office from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM this Friday, or Monday and Tuesday of next week.

DO NOT MAIL YOUR BALLOT, it’s to late to ensure delivery. Arizona is NOT a “postmark” state, meaning ballots must be received by the end of the business day on August 5, 2025, not just postmarked.

Current Election Results:

Ballots returned as of the evening of July 29 are as follows:

• 10018 ballots returned

• 5351 Republican (53%)

• 2314 Democrat (23%)

• 2354 all others (23%)

Republicans and right leaning Independents – fill out your ballots, get on your horses (or maybe in your cars), and mosey on down to Fair Street to vote! Swing by Whiskey Row on your way home and reward yourself with a sarsaparilla or something stiffer!

In the wake of our recent investigative reporting on the Prescott City Council's controversial appointment of Democrat Patrick Grady to a seat vacated by registered Republican Cathey Rusing—who actively advocated for the Democrat to replace her—we've received numerous questions from readers about how party politics play into local elections. This event has highlighted the nuances of Arizona's nonpartisan election system, where ballots remain party neutral, but campaigning and behind-the-scenes advocacy can still reflect partisan leanings. As part of our commitment to transparency and informed citizenship, Prescott Pulse breaks down the true meaning of nonpartisan elections and why candidates can openly express party allegiances without legal repercussions.

Adding to the discourse, many readers have inquired about a specific aspect uncovered in our FOIA investigations: Why did Republican party leaders pressure council candidate finalist Rex Mason to change his party registration from Independent to Republican just a day before the May 20, 2025, vote? Why would that matter in a nonpartisan context, and what does it mean that by not doing so, Mason reportedly "made his own bed"? We'll address this below, drawing from emails and statements revealed in our reporting.

What Is a Nonpartisan Election?

A nonpartisan election is one in which candidates for office are listed on the ballot without any labels identifying their political party affiliations, and they are not officially nominated or elected as representatives of a political party. This stands in stark contrast to partisan elections, where candidates run as nominees of specific parties—often selected through party primaries—and party labels prominently appear on the ballot. Nonpartisan elections are commonly used for local offices such as city councils, school boards, and judgeships. The primary goal may be to minimize party influence in these races, shifting voter focus toward individual candidate qualifications, experience, and policy positions rather than blind party loyalty. The Pulse doesn’t think it’s working out too well.

This system claims to foster more collaborative governance at the local level, where issues like infrastructure, public safety, and community development often transcend national partisan divides. However, as seen in Prescott's recent council vacancy appointment, the absence of party labels on ballots doesn't eliminate politics altogether—it simply moves it off the official voting document and into the realm of campaigns, endorsements, and even last-minute pressures on candidates.

Ask any candidate running in a non-partisan race, “What is the one question you get most often?”, and they will tell you, it’s “Are you a Democrat or a Republican?”

Nonpartisan Elections in Arizona: The Local Landscape

Arizona state law requires that city and town elections for candidates be nonpartisan, ensuring no indication on the ballot of a candidate's party affiliation or source of support. Campaign materials are governed by ARS § 16-925, which requires disclaimers (e.g., "paid for by" statements and authorization details) but does not prohibit mentioning party affiliation on campaign signs and other collateral. This rule applies directly to municipal offices, including Prescott's City Council, where candidates file to run as individuals without undergoing formal party nomination processes. Similarly, school board elections across the state are nonpartisan, requiring party labels be omitted from all ballots.

In contrast, Arizona's statewide and federal elections—such as those for governor, state legislature, or U.S. Congress—are generally partisan, featuring party primaries and clear labels on the ballot. The state's primary elections are semi-open, allowing independent voters to select a party ballot, but this flexibility does not impact the nonpartisan structure of local races since all registered voters receive a ballot

Prescott's City Council exemplifies this system: Our seven-member council, including the mayor, is elected at-large in nonpartisan contests. Yet, as our FOIA investigations have revealed, underlying party dynamics can still influence decisions, such as the May 20, 2025, appointment where a predominantly Republican council selected Democrat Patrick Grady for the seat left by Republican Cathey Rusing. Rusing, who resigned to run for mayor, reportedly advocated for Grady despite her Republican registration, sparking allegations of collusion and betrayal among local GOP circles.

Why Can Candidates Openly State Party Allegiances?

One of the most common questions arising from our coverage is why candidates like those in Prescott's council races can publicly declare their party affiliations—or even advocate for cross-party appointments—without facing legal consequences. The answer lies in the narrow scope of the "nonpartisan" label: It applies strictly to the ballot and official election mechanics, not to candidates' speech or campaigning activities.

Arizona law prohibits party labels on the ballot but the Pulse could not find restrictions on candidates disclosing their affiliations through advertisements, debates, websites, or endorsements. These actions are protected under First Amendment free speech rights, allowing voters to informally gauge a candidate's political leanings even as the official ballot maintains neutrality. In practice, this means candidates often highlight their party ties to rally support from aligned voters, and political parties can offer unofficial endorsements or non-financial resources—as long as they don't compromise the ballot's neutrality.

This dynamic was evident in the Grady appointment. Despite the nonpartisan nature of the council, FOIA documents covered by Prescott Pulse revealed discussions of party affiliations among council members, including recusals by Mayor Phil Goode and Councilwoman Lois Fruhwirth due to potential biases tied to their Republican precinct commitments. Rusing's advocacy for Grady, a Democrat, while registered as a Republican, fueled perceptions of betrayal and raised questions about whether the process truly honored the nonpartisan intent.

Addressing Reader Questions: Pressure on Rex Mason to Change Party Registration

Many readers have asked about the revelations from our "Oathgate" FOIA bombshell, specifically why Republican leaders like Phil Davis—precinct captain and husband to the Republican Women of Prescott President—knew finalist Rex Mason had been urged to switch from Independent to Republican registration before the May 20th vote and that Mason declined. This incident has sparked debate about hidden partisan pressures in nonpartisan processes.

According to former Arizona Senator Linda Gray, who initiated the FOIA request on June 20, 2025, raised "serious red flags" about potential backroom deals and collusion. The purpose appears to have been to align Mason with the Republican Party, ensuring he could be supported by council members who, as elected precinct committeemen, had taken oaths to vote only for Republican candidates. In a nonpartisan election, party registration doesn't appear on the ballot, but for party loyalists, it matters internally—it could influence endorsements, resources, and votes in appointments, helping maintain a perceived Republican majority on the council.

By not changing, Mason remained an Independent, which complicated matters for Republican council members bound by their oaths, leading to recusals and an eventual vote for Democrat Grady that Gray argues violated the city charter's majority requirement. An email exchange between Councilwoman Fruhwirth and Yavapai County GOP (YavGOP) Chairman Kristin Baumgartner, uncovered in the FOIA, starkly noted that Rex Mason "Made his Own Bed." In our opinion, this implied his refusal sealed his fate, diminishing his chances amid the partisan undercurrents and contributing to the selection of Grady over a more aligned candidate like Republican Sherrie Hanna. This shows just how informal party pressures can override nonpartisan ideals.

Lessons for Prescott Voters

The Grady appointment—where a Republican-led council chose a Democrat over other finalists like Republican Sherrie Hanna and Independent Rex Mason—underscores that nonpartisan elections don't erase partisanship; they simply require voters to dig deeper. As Prescott heads into its August 5, 2025, primary election, including the mayoral race featuring Rusing, residents should research candidates' backgrounds, endorsements, and public statements to understand their true alignments.

At Prescott Pulse, we continue to advocate for accountability in local government. Our reporting on this issue, including the "Oathgate" FOIA revelations, aims to empower voters with the facts. Stay tuned for more updates, and remember: In nonpartisan races, the power lies with informed citizens.

For more on the appointment process and ongoing investigations, visit our archives at prescottpulse.substack.com.

Prescott has one of the oldest resident demographics in Arizona. The average age here exceeds 60, compared to 38.8 statewide. More than 40% of Prescott's population is over 65, and many are retired—that's more than twice Arizona's average. This isn't just a statistic; it influences how our city operates, funds essentials like roads and parks, and plans for the future. If voters overlook these realities, it could lead to serious financial challenges for the city.

The average year-over-year inflation rate under the Biden administration (January 2021 to January 2025) was approximately 4.95%, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Cumulative inflation during this period reached around 21.2%, peaking at 9.1% in June 2022—the highest in about 40 years. By contrast, Prescott's average year-over-year growth rate has been about 1.35% since 2010.

These figures put Prescott in a position similar to a household living on a fixed income in a home built in the early 1900s. Costs keep rising—including home maintenance, food, insurance, and healthcare—while income stays flat. Over time, the household cuts corners, skips repairs, pinches pennies, and forgoes quality-of-life improvements. Without new revenue, the city may need to raise taxes on a shrinking resident base or cut essential services. That's the risk if we halt new growth—and it's already materializing.

This explains why the Prescott City Council placed Proposition 478 on the ballot in November of 2024: a 0.95% sales tax increase to address funding shortfalls for our fire and police departments. The measure passed overwhelmingly even though a recent poll found that 61% of local voters support funding city services through growth instead of raising taxes. But this wasn't the first time taxpayers had to step up. In 2017, Prescott voters approved Proposition 443, a 0.75% sales tax increase dedicated to reducing the city's unfunded pension liability for police and firefighters under the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS). At the time, the city faced a $78 million unfunded liability.

By 2019, city officials reported progress, boosting the PSPRS funding ratio from 33% to 46% and projecting the tax could end by December 2025, two years ahead of schedule. But they were wrong—it sunsetted in 2022. “The passage of Proposition 443 and the results it delivered in five years are a true testament to what can be accomplished when a community unites.”— Prescott Living Magazine.

Despite gains from Proposition 443, recent reports show Prescott's pension debt for the Police Department rising again. In a mid-year budget report on February 25, 2025, Budget and Finance Director Mark Woodfill noted that the unfunded pension liability for the Prescott Police Department grew by approximately $941,000 in fiscal year 2023-24, rising from $672,998 to $1,615,717. This partially reverses the downward trend in pension debt over the past seven years.

How about discussing the much-needed repairs to Prescott's aging water infrastructure? We just experienced another major water main break last Saturday afternoon, July 20th, closing Sheldon Street between Alarcon and Cortez. This city experiences an estimated annual loss of 230–235 million gallons systemwide, a substantial share of which stems from leaks and breaks in aging PVC and cast-iron pipes installed before the 1980s. For instance, in the Mountain Club neighborhood, nearly 5 million gallons were lost to leaks between 2022 and 2024, highlighting ongoing infrastructure challenges. By comparison, neighboring Prescott Valley conserved 8.7 million gallons in 2024 through enhanced flushing methods that recirculate water instead of discharging it.

The estimated cost to replace around 25–50% of Prescott’s network of aging PVC water pipes with ductile iron or high-density polyethylene (HDPE) would likely range from $150 million to $300 million. This figure is based on the city's total water system comprising approximately 562 miles of pipeline, with an estimated 140–280 miles consisting of PVC installed from the mid-1980s to 2021, when it was banned for new mains due to durability issues in rocky terrain. Prescott's challenging geology could push costs toward the higher end, as evidenced by over $4 million already spent repairing more than 14,700 linear feet (about 2.8 miles) of failed PVC since the 1980s. The replacement would be phased over many years, aligning with the city's ongoing capital improvement program that allocates roughly $1.2 million annually for main line replacements.

Are you getting a clearer picture of the financial pressures facing this aging city? Are you beginning to see the implications of a "no growth" approach?

For comparison, cities like Queen Creek and Maricopa have seen growth rates exceeding 5% per year. Even Arizona as a whole has outpaced Prescott. Residents here don’t want or need explosive growth like those areas, but "no growth" isn't viable. In reality, stagnation means decline.

Some claim Prescott can't grow due to a "shortage of water," but the facts don't back this up. Three separate studies, funded by the City of Prescott and approved by the Arizona Department of Water Resources, confirm a water supply sufficient for responsible growth over 100 years. If those studies are flawed, where's the counter-evidence? Currently, "we don’t have the water" is merely a talking point—often raised by fearmongering special interest groups and residents eager to limit access, with little regard for the long-term harm to our town's future.

In fact, such anti-growth rhetoric echoes sentiments from outside influences more than the practical, community-focused spirit Prescott is known for. Our city has always prioritized collaboration over alarmism, using common sense and resolve to solve problems and sustain operations for all.

Cities that resist growth don't remain static—they deteriorate, facing higher per-person costs, workforce shortages, school closures, and crumbling infrastructure. This isn't hypothetical; it's occurred in aging towns nationwide. Prescott could follow suit without a sustainable economic strategy.