SignalsAZ.com Prescott News Podcast - Brad Fain and Ron Fain Set the Record Straight on Flooding, Land Sales, and the Amazon Case

Episode Date: July 27, 2026

Send us a text and chime in!Brad Fain and Ron Fain break down what the July 20th rain event really showed about Prescott Valley's flood engineering, and why they say it actually supports a YES vote on Proposition 492. They also set the record straight on a persistent claim that Fain Signature Group only leases land instead of selling it. Plus, an update on the recent Amazon zoning case, including what the court ruled and where the legal challenge could go next. Listen to hear it straight from Brad Fain and Ron Fain.Check out the CAST11.com Website at: https://CAST11.com Follow the CAST11 Podcast Network on Facebook at: https://Facebook.com/CAST11AZFollow Cast11 Instagram at: https://www.instagram.com/cast11_podcast_network

Garbage and garbage out. We appreciate you putting us on the record. That was good. It started off the day on the record. Let's go on the record on FEMA. FEMA. FEMA, floodplains. We had a big week this week.

We've had a lot of good rain. We've had a lot of great rain. The rain is great. The valley looks wonderful. I love seeing all the green grass. But with rain comes in developed areas, water, and drainage. And there was a lot of excitement around what happened Monday here. We got, we had a huge.

rain event, and some say it was even close to maybe a hundred-year event, which doesn't happen very often, but that's just a lot of rain. Well, in theory, once every hundred years. Once every year. But it also stated in the paper, and I'm just saying I got this information from newspaper that it did. You heard it here first. A hundred-year events can happen more than every, you know, they can happen more than every

100 years. But we had a huge rain event, dropped three to four inches within a short period of time and caused a lot of sheet flow and flooding in the area. And, you know, unfortunately, probably some damage to some low-lying areas that are out there. People got to realize that when you have rain that comes down to that volume. So I heard it was like at a volume of three inches per hour. So the ground doesn't have a chance to absorb it where the ground could. You have a lot of hard surface, like streets and sidewalks. And so it's designed to flow. And so it flows into the channels where it's designed to go. But what's unique I think about Prescott Valley is you have areas that are

newly developed, say a Granville, say a Jasper, Stone Ridge, Pronghorn, Quailwood. And those developments, when you compare their design from an infrastructure compared, say, the oldest parts of Prescott Valley that were here first that don't have as much infrastructure. And the infrastructure I'm talking about would be drainage. Whether it be culverts under a road or bar ditches design, curb gutter sidewalk. And so, you know, you look at north of 89A. There's a lot, other than the pronghorn, those developments, there's just a lot of wildcat development where there's no really master plan drainage.

And so when you get water like that, it just goes. It just, you know, Mother Earth takes care of the drain. It just goes to your point, you know, when you look at some of the videos that have been posted online and the ones that are dramatic are open field. The open field videos where there is no formalized engineering or drainage channels, that water sheet flows. That sheet flow could be 100, 200 may. It could be even 300 feet in width and it just fleet sheet flows. But you also see videos where people are peering over their backyard and they're seeing a channel of water full, but it's all in the channel. So in the planned areas like you were talking about, all those areas have, are flood.

engineered. Yep, by design. They're working. By design, yep. Some areas aren't, but those areas are. And it works, and they, and, but some of the, some of the comments are is, is, is that Prescott Valley has a tremendous amount of flood engineering to, to, to stop downstream flooding and to keep the water in particular areas. Right here in downtown, we have two basins that are designed at a hundred years, a hundred year events that if the rain happens right here in downtown at a three to four inch rate per hour, those basins have enough capacity to catch all that and then meter it out slowly. What people need to understand is one of those basins is called Bob Edwards Park.

Yes. So it has a dual purpose. It's a park, 364 days out of the year most years. And one day of a year, it might need to be a catch-all for rain. But that is the design of it. And so I think the reason why it's important to bring this up because our, you know, team of misinformation. Their well-researched misinformation team that's out there is now posting that the flooding

we saw on Monday is proof why we need to vote no on the annexation. And they couldn't be further from the truth. And they're saying, we're designing to build houses in FEMA floodplain. And this just proves how in-up the staff is at Prescott Valley. And they couldn't be further from the truth because the statement alone, if they knew what they were talking about and they weren't working so hard on misinformation. FEMA is a federal government agency and that agency controls what can be built in a FEMA floodplain, which is nothing. And Lake Shore does have a FEMA area and it's the Awafria River and a bench of land on each side

of the Awafria, which is about 300 feet wide. And nothing is planned to be built on that bench. And that bench will be improved for water to flow under Lake Shore. and continue on down the ala free and eventually make its way down to the valley. And so I just think it's interesting that our misinformation cast is out there, already saying that, see, this is just proof why we should vote no on 492. But the truth is, if you're concerned about that kind of flooding, you should vote yes on 492 because the code today requires improved drainage, higher standards that were done 20 years ago. they're going to get the latest and the greatest code to protect them.

That's right. All that property that is in 492, the requirement will be to have engineering to handle all the flood events that occur and get that water channeled away from the homes, away from the streets, and into the Alwafria where it belongs. Exactly. And it's also designed to slow it down. So there'll be catchment basins and ponds that'll pool it a little bit and then meter it out slowly into the ultimate destination, which is the Alwafria down into

Lynx Creek and Lake Pleasant. And the topography of that land is perfect because the houses will be set up higher. And the Alwafria is naturally lower, which is great because it'll make the drainage design better. Mother Nature will take care of a good part of it for us. And the misinformation group, I believe they know that's the truth. They've probably seen the the initial pre-plans on that project. And if you look at the pre-plans, it shows open space and flood area. It does. So they know it. So they know. But so here's what's interesting that I've kind of been putting this together. The misinformation group, because of social media, the design of it, it keeps like-minded people gathered together, corralled up. And what that creates in this,

in our market, especially politically, is kind of a dictator mentality. So they're all on next door or Facebook or wherever they like to gather. They're corralled up. They're working on their misinformation. Now they're saying it's well-researched misinformation. And they won't take any outside information. If it contradicts what they believe and you present new data to them, they won't accept it. And there's like, no, we are the experts.

This is how it is. And you cannot do this. And that's how they're running all their campaigns. And it's unfortunate because there are different opinions out there. And there's different facts. out there. We need to put them all together and work together and not have this such polarization of information. It is. You know, we wouldn't, Brad, you and I, we wouldn't oppose anybody who doesn't want growth. I mean, people are allowed to not want growth. That's their right.

They can take that position. But what we're opposing is that they shouldn't be allowed to invent their own facts. And in this case, with the misinformation, they're inventing their own facts or they're making claims that none of these issues are being addressed, which is just farthest from the truth. Absolutely. They say, hey, I just moved here and thank God I arrived, because I'm going to say Prescott Valley, because you guys have been doing it wrong. And this is the fact. And it's like, well, we grew this far without you. I think we're fine. And I think we need to keep growing and build a really robust community, which requires growth and less misinformation. Yeah. You know, at the end of the day, we all want the rain.

We all want the moisture. And, you know, in those planned areas where the engineering is required, I think the community handled it quite well, you know, and all the developed planned area developed communities. And, you know, when you see the water and you see those pictures of that sheet flow out in open grazing land, that's that there's no engineering there. That's just the way God created it and it's just flowing in that open channel the way it is. But if development comes in there,

I guarantee you're not going to put a house in where that sheet flow is unless there's a lot of engineering that goes along with it. That's right. And so a yes on 492 with the annexation is local control, better engineering, designed to handle events like that, keep people safer, keep the water in the olive free of. It's community insurance that nothing bad's going to happen. That's right. You know, if you want to make sure that your future fellow citizen that you haven't met who will move here and live in this community won't live in a home that's new and going to be flooded out, then you need to have this property annexed because the guidelines are going to require that these properties be engineered. Absolutely. So we can say it here.

For those of you that are listening to the misinformation, you heard it here first. FEMA will not allow you to build in a floodplain. There you go. So there will be no houses in the FEMA floodplain. You heard it here first, I think. I think it's been known for a long time, but we'll see. I just want to tack one small item onto that is, you know, I hear a lot of misinformation out there regarding the fact that we don't sell land,

that all we do is lease it and how unfair is that. And the reality of the situation is 99.9% of all the transactions we've ever done through all the generations have been fee simple land sales. That's right. Yeah, no, we're not a wholesaler of land. We sell the end users that fit into the master design of a community. But you're right. Most businesses that come to town, they want to own their land. Most of the land is sold.

And it's just another piece of misinformation that's out there. A lot of the residents, 99% of the single family homes that exist in Prescott Valley are on Fee Simple land. They're owned by an individual, either the occupant of that house or somebody else that's leasing it to their nephew. And then businesses. Yeah. And so commercial, residential, industrial, most of it is on. It's owned. It's owned.

It's owned by them, not by us. Yep. Good point. Thanks for bringing that out. Oh, yeah. Let's talk about our friend who has lost a couple court cases and not like close, lost big, but won't give up. So we have the Citizens for Sensible Development, I think is what they're called. That's correct.

Mr. Hathaway is representing them as their attorney, volunteer. He is an attorney, retired, but he is representing them. and the Amazon case, the Amazon zoning case. So they took out a petition and they filled out the forms wrong. And Mr. Evans challenged him in court and the court listened to all the facts. And the judge in Prescott ruled that yes, in fact, they did it incorrectly. And in Arizona, it's been tried at the Supreme Court many times. And I know there's at least six cases of where the court has come back.

and said, yes, when you run a referendum challenge, you must have strict compliance with the rules. So you must dot every eye, you must cross every T. And the reason why the court has been so strict on strict compliance and upholding that high standard, it is a very high standard, is because a minority of the people are asking the courts to stop what the majority has voted for. And people might not agree with me on that terminology, so you want to help them understand how the majority voted in that case when there was only seven council members? It is the Democratic representation of our council members who voted to approve that case. They represent the entire community democratically. So all the voters that they've been elected into office, they got there because people voted them into office.

So the majority of the voters put them in office. Yeah. And then the minority who got this petition signed only needed about 1,400 signatures, which is 10% of the 14,000 that voted. So that's the difference is a minority can take an item to a referendum and put it to a public vote. And if you're going to do that, the course require that you meet a very high standard because they're banking on the idea that, hey, you are a small part of the community. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong. But if you're right, you've got to do this completely correctly. And then we'll put it on the ballot for the general population, the 14,000 in this case, to vote on it. So a couple things are working there. The courts are saying it should be a rare case that you try to do a referendum. It should be a rare case that you see your elected officials doing something so wrong or they missed a very fundamental step that you need to refer it. Today we're seeing it as almost common standard. Everything gets referred. which is not what I think the intent in the spirit of a referendum is about.

But that's where we're at today. But this one case, he lost the local court here in Prescott, Yampi County. He appealed it up to the appellate court, which was a three-judge panel. They swiftly came back and said, no. In fact, the lower court was correct and upheld the standard and actually enforced what was argued there factually. And then Mr. Hathaway asked that court. to reconsider their opinion. And they quickly came out and said, no, we stand by our opinion. It stands. And so now we have zoned and entitled land out there. But Mr. Hathaway is now

in the public taking it and saying he wants to go to the Arizona Supreme Court on this. And so I think we've gone from citizens exercising their right to do a referendum to just pure obstruction and really trying to delay, stall, put as much friction in the economic system that hopefully that any deal gets killed, but we're beyond like the voice of the public and the citizen being heard here. Yeah, I agree. You know, the misinformation crowd will claim that it's their constitutional right to do this. And it is.

We would agree with that. No one's going to take that way. But what they're opposing is a public body's vote. representing all of community. That they make it sound like they're opposing you and I. And the mayor and the council and the staff and that aren't listening to anybody. Right. And that's the misinformation.

That is the misinformation. That there's, you know, in order for a case to get to where it is before council hears, we talked a lot about this with Bruce Evans says all the engineering has got to be complete on flood and drainage. All the traffic engineering has got to be done. All the studies and ordinances have to be met in order for the zoning case to move forward before it gets to counsel. And the misinformation at the very beginning said, well, these are supposed to be houses. This facility won't mix in out there, but it's planned to go next to the Alpine County Morg. I don't know of many houses that are going to look to the morgue.

There's a racetrack out there that they're talking about putting like a motorcross out there. there's the old Pepsi distribution centers out there. So it's in a neighborhood of what you would call its friends. And it kind of will mix in nicely with its neighbors. But that was part of the misinformation that got the ballot started. And in the general plan, part of that would be, hey, the general plan says this is to be residential. And prior to the morgue going in and prior to Pepsi going in and prior to the racetrack going in, all that property was in that catch-all residential zoning. Well, the zoning was residential, but the general plan actually called out for the used to be industrial. Right there.

Today's new general plan, yes. The general plan that's enforced today says it could happen. It could happen. But the zoning has never been, well, it's never been applied for until now. Applied for. And my point being is that all those other uses applied for zoning from residential into industrial. Absolutely. And so it's all, anytime, all that.

property anywhere has a basic residential classification. And that's the confusing part I think about people is that a statehood occurred and counties were formed and they had to they had to overlay a zoning in there. And so they overlaid this, you know, two acre minimum zoning across all of Yopai County and maybe across the whole state. And so anywhere you look, any city, any town, any industrial park where there is something other than a residential house was zoned for that because it's all started with residential. It's your basic right. It was the basic right inherent with the land that came with it. So that's, so you had, you don't have to go through any process, just submit your permit. You can build your one house per two acres. And you look at some parts of Yopai County,

and that's exactly what's happened. And that's the right. That's right. And so that's part of the misinformation that's out there is that we're rezoning at this. And it really, we're not rezoning it. We're zoning it for the first time. from what our basic rights are to a higher and better use based on how the community is maturing. Exactly. Not based on your will or your opinion or your desire. It's based on how the community is maturing, the needs and services, the community is demanding. Whether or not everybody has the same demand, those uses are coming here because people are demanding those types of services.

And so when you get a collection of people and resident population like we have here in Prescott Valley, they attract more industrial jobs. It attracts more retail. It tracks more groceries. All those things start to come to the area because the rooftops are here and there's a demand from the community. And why is Amazon needing a bigger facility? Because we all order. I'd like to blame it only on my wife, but I can't. She contributes.

She contributes. She contributes because she loves the eating. ease of just I'll get it on Amazon. It'll be here tomorrow. So we the people, this is America, we the people have created a demand that we like our package is delivered to our doorstep. And Amazon is responding to that demand saying, well, we need a bigger facility to handle this. And the benefit to the community is you get a bigger facility for the county. That's a new property that will be tax, create new tax revenue for the county coffers. Paid by Amazon. There was 150 new jobs that were going to be created by the bigger facility, not to mention all the construction jobs

that would be temporary. And so it's a big win for the community if that would have gone through. And the misinformation was trying to make it seem like it was being forced. But really, even the people that were opposing it are part of the reason why Amazon wants to expand because they're probably shopping online at Amazon. Don't know that for a fact, but I'm just going to go out on a limb and say maybe they're trying to. You heard it here first from Mr. Bradfane.

You Amazon shopper, you. What else is on your mind today? Well, that was it. Those were the burning embers in the wet field down there. Well, it's good talking to you again today. Until next time. You heard it here first from Ron Fain. Cut that.