Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022.1101.TCRM.Packet       NOTICE OF MEETING REGULAR MEETING FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL      Mayor Ginny Dickey Vice Mayor Peggy McMahon Councilmember Sharron Grzybowski Councilmember Alan Magazine Councilmember Gerry Friedel Councilmember Mike Scharnow Councilmember David Spelich    TIME:5:30 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING WHEN:TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2022 WHERE:   FOUNTAIN HILLS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 16705 E. AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS, FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Councilmembers of the Town of Fountain Hills will attend either in person or by telephone conference call; a quorum of the Town’s various Commission, Committee or Board members may be in attendance at the Council meeting.   Notice is hereby given that pursuant to A.R.S. §1-602.A.9, subject to certain specified statutory exceptions, parents have a right to consent before the State or any of its political subdivisions make a video or audio recording of a minor child. Meetings of the Town Council are audio and/or video recorded and, as a result, proceedings in which children are present may be subject to such recording. Parents, in order to exercise their rights may either file written consent with the Town Clerk to such recording, or take personal action to ensure that their child or children are not present when a recording may be made. If a child is present at the time a recording is made, the Town will assume that the rights afforded parents pursuant to A.R.S. §1-602.A.9 have been waived.    REQUEST TO COMMENT The public is welcome to participate in Council meetings. TO SPEAK TO AN AGENDA ITEM, please complete a Request to Comment card, located in the back of the Council Chambers, and hand it to the Town Clerk prior to discussion of that item, if possible. Include the agenda item on which you wish to comment. Speakers will be allowed three contiguous minutes to address the Council. Verbal comments should be directed through the Presiding Officer and not to individual Councilmembers. TO COMMENT ON AN AGENDA ITEM IN WRITING ONLY, please complete a Request to Comment card, indicating it is a written comment, and check the box on whether you are FOR or AGAINST and agenda item, and hand it to the Town Clerk prior to discussion, if possible. TO COMMENT IN WRITING ONLINE: Please feel free to provide your comments by visiting  https://www.fountainhillsaz.gov/publiccomment and SUBMIT a Public Comment Card by 3:00 PM on the day of the meeting . These comments will be shared with the Town Council.      NOTICE OF OPTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the Town Council, and to the general public, that at this meeting, the Town Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for legal advice and discussion with the Town's attorneys for legal advice on any item listed on the following agenda, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3).        1.CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Mayor Dickey     2.MOMENT OF SILENCE     3.ROLL CALL – Mayor Dickey     4.REPORTS BY MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS AND TOWN MANAGER     A.PROCLAMATION: Declaring November 1, 2022, as Dementia Friendly Community Awareness. PRESENTED   B.RECOGNITION: Outgoing Board and Commission member Honorable Enrique Melendez, for his service on the Sister Cities Advisory Commission. PRESENTED   5.SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS     A.PRESENTATION: Extension of Proposition 400 by: Audra Koester Thomas, Transportation Planning Program Manager, Maricopa Association of Government. PRESENTED   B.PRESENTATION: First Quarter FY23 Revenue Update PRESENTED   6.CALL TO THE PUBLIC Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.01(H), public comment is permitted (not required) on matters NOT listed on the agenda. Any such comment (i) must be within the jurisdiction of the Council, and (ii) is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The Council will not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during Call to the Public unless the matters are properly noticed for discussion and legal action. At the conclusion of the Call to the Public, individual councilmembers may (i) respond to criticism, (ii) ask staff to review a matter, or (iii) ask that the matter be   Town Council Regular Meeting of November 1, 2022 2   placed on a future Council agenda.   7.CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS All items listed on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine, noncontroversial matters and will be enacted by one motion of the Council. All motions and subsequent approvals of consent items will include all recommended staff stipulations unless otherwise stated. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a councilmember or member of the public so requests. If a councilmember or member of the public wishes to discuss an item on the Consent Agenda, he/she may request so prior to the motion to accept the Consent Agenda or with notification to the Town Manager or Mayor prior to the date of the meeting for which the item was scheduled. The items will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.     A.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 4, 2022. APPROVED   8.REGULAR AGENDA     A.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of System 4 of Phoenix Contract 2023-039.2. APPROVED   B.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Acceptance of public art for the Motor Vault Fountain Hills LLC APPROVED   C.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: To establish an in-house fire department staffed with town fire personnel, provide proper notice of ending agreement with Rural Metro in twelve or eighteen months, and to direct staff to develop a transition plan.   APPROVED   D.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION: Presentation of findings and recommendations on the Town's Law Enforcement Services by Matrix Consulting Group. DISCUSSION ONLY   9.COUNCIL DISCUSSION/DIRECTION to the TOWN MANAGER Item(s) listed below are related only to the propriety of (i) placing such item(s) on a future agenda for action, or (ii) directing staff to conduct further research and report back to the Council.     10.ADJOURNMENT   Town Council Regular Meeting of November 1, 2022 3   10.ADJOURNMENT         CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF NOTICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing notice was duly posted in accordance with the statement filed by the Town Council with the Town Clerk. Dated this ______ day of ____________________, 2022. _____________________________________________  Linda G. Mendenhall, MMC, Town Clerk   The Town of Fountain Hills endeavors to make all public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities. Please call 480-816-5199 (voice) or 1-800-367-8939 (TDD) 48 hours prior to the meeting to request a reasonable accommodation to participate in the meeting or to obtain agenda information in large print format. Supporting documentation and staff reports furnished the Council with this agenda are available for review in the Clerk's Office. Town Council Regular Meeting of November 1, 2022 4   ITEM 4. A. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 11/01/2022 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting Agenda Type: Reports                  Submitting Department: Community Services Prepared by: Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant Staff Contact Information: Rachael Goodwin, Community Services Director Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language):  PROCLAMATION: Declaring November 1, 2022, as Dementia Friendly Community Awareness. Staff Summary (Background) Mayor Dickey will be issuing a proclamation declaring Dementia Friendly Awareness for the Town of Fountain Hills on November 1, 2022. Attachments Proclamation - Dementia Friendly Community Awareness 2022  Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Town Manager Grady E. Miller 10/20/2022 03:01 PM Form Started By: Patti Lopuszanski Started On: 10/18/2022 10:01 AM Final Approval Date: 10/20/2022  ITEM 5. A. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 11/01/2022 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting Agenda Type: Public Appearances/Presentations                   Submitting Department: Administration Prepared by: Linda Mendenhall, Town Clerk Staff Contact Information: Grady E. Miller, Town Manager Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language):  PRESENTATION: Extension of Proposition 400 by: Audra Koester Thomas, Transportation Planning Program Manager, Maricopa Association of Government. Staff Summary (Background) Audra Koester Thomas, Transportation Planning Program Manager, Maricopa Association of Governments, will provide an update to the Mayor and the Town Council on the Governor's veto of HB 2685, and the impact on the regionally supported projects in Fountain Hills and other municipalities around the state. In addition, Ms. Thomas will provide details on enabling legislation that needs to occur expeditiously to extend proposition 400.  Attachments Presentation  Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Director Linda Mendenhall 10/24/2022 09:11 AM Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 10/24/2022 09:19 AM Town Manager Grady E. Miller 10/24/2022 10:37 AM Form Started By: Linda Mendenhall Started On: 10/24/2022 07:56 AM Final Approval Date: 10/24/2022  © 2022, All Rights Reserved© 2022, All Rights Reserved EXTENSION OF PROPOSITION 400:HB 2685 VETO AND THE NEED FORENABLING LEGISLATION 1 Fountain Hills Town Council November 1, 2022 © 2022, All Rights Reserved MARICOPA COUNTY: 40-YEAR LEGACY OF REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS 2 © 2022, All Rights Reserved 3 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION NETWORK:PRE-1986 © 2022, All Rights Reserved 4 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION NETWORK:PROPOSITION 300(1986 – 2005) © 2022, All Rights Reserved 5 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION NETWORK:PROPOSITION 400(2006 – 2025) ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS: •252 miles of new/improved roads •7.6 million bus transit revenue miles in FY 2022 •Funding for ADA Paratransit •Widened/improved freeways •Improvements in active transportation (bicycle/pedestrian), signal technology, and air quality improvements © 2022, All Rights Reserved REGIONAL AND STATEWIDE ECONOMIC IMPACTS 6 © 2022, All Rights Reserved WHY IT MATTERS: GPEC LOCATES NEAR FREEWAY CORRIDORS: FY90 – FY22 Source: GPEC © 2022, All Rights Reserved WHY DOES IT MATTER: COMMUNITY FEEDBACK 8 “Consistency is key because it gives me confidence to not drive to work some days and take alternate means of transportation. If transportation was not consistent I wouldn't even consider any other options except driving my car in each day. I have a 9-5 so being on time is very important and consistency in the schedules gives me comfort that I can use it and I will get where I need to be when I need to be there.”-Denzel B. “I agree that investing in regional transportation is a very important priority for the region. Especially in a large city, transportation affects daily life of everyone. Not only is it important for safety while traveling, but also to limit frustration by maintaining the flow of traffic.” -Jayme S. “I've been to and lived in places that have a poor regional transportation system. It ends up costing more in the long run because of accidents, the need for greater safety patrol, more freeway closures to fix roads, insurance rate increases etc. I'll put my tax dollars in regional transportation to make our roads more desirable and safer.” -Chris G. © 2022, All Rights Reserved REGIONAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM HISTORY 9 Proposition 300 Proposition 400 Extension of Proposition 400 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 © 2022, All Rights Reserved 10 Investment Plan Projects 11 Scenario Revenues Proposed Investment Plan: By the Numbers Draft | Illustrative Purposes Only Program Investments Active Transportation $1,000,000,000 Air Quality $200,000,000 Arterial Intersection $500,000,000 Arterial Rehabilitation $625,000,000 Arterial Widening $375,000,000 Emerging Tech $312,500,000 ITS $750,000,000 Safety $250,000,000 TDM Expansion $312,500,000 Transit Programs Arterials Freeway/ Highways 45 new or improved traffic interchanges 4 new or improved system interchanges 12 new DHOV or system interchange DHOV ramps 36.8 miles of BRT (bus rapid transit)186 new HOV lane miles 1,300 new or improved arterial lane miles 11.9 miles of new light rail 6.9 miles of new streetcar 367 new freeway/ highway lane miles Funding Source 25 years Sales Tax (1/2 Cent)$19.5 b ADOT HURF $2.5 b MAG FHWA Formula Funds $3.7 b MAG FTA Formula Funds $3.1 b ADOT FHWA Formula Funds $7.9 b Total $36.7 b12 Regionally Supported Projects in Fountain Hills Palisades Boulevard Reconstruction: $17,094,000 regional share Saguaro Boulevard Reconstruction: $6,650,000 regional share Shea Boulevard Widening: $32,459,000 regional share 13 © 2022, All Rights Reserved 14 MORE THAN HALF OF THE TOTAL REVENUES REMOVED © 2022, All Rights Reserved© 2022, All Rights Reserved MOBILITYIMPLICATIONS 15 © 2022, All Rights Reserved ARTERIAL INVESTMENTS 16 Freeways 57% Transit 32% Arterials/Regional Programs 11% Proposition 400 Allocations (all revenues) Freeways 49% Transit 33% Arterials/Regional Programs 18% Proposition 400 Extension Allocations (all revenues) © 2022, All Rights Reserved POPULATION GROWTH OUTPACESHIGHWAY USER REVENUE FUND (HURF) 17 $1.71 $1.66 $1.70 $1.72 $1.79 $1.83 $1.89 $1.90 $1.78 $1.66 $1.57 $1.54 $1.51 $1.49 $1.50 $1.53 $1.58 $1.59 $1.59 $1.61 $1.54 $1.63 - 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 - 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 State population in millionsHURF in billions (2021$, inflated) Population (millions)HURF (Billions, $2021) CONTROLLING FOR INFLATION, 2021 HURF COLLECTIONS WERE LOWER THAN IN 2000 WHILE THE STATE GREW MORE THAN 40 PERCENT OVER THAT SAME PERIOD © 2022, All Rights Reserved ARTERIAL IMPACTS ►The Proposition 400 extension investment plan increases the total allocation to arterials/regional programs, reflective of: ►Diminishing HURF revenues ►Changes in regional transportation priorities ►Importance of these projects to the quality of life for residents. ►A failure to extend Proposition 400 will result in regionwide impacts to arterial roadways, including: ►Fewer new and improved roadways. ►Limitations in agency’s ability to respond to economic development opportunities. ►Decaying condition and operational effectiveness of the region’s roadways. 18 © 2022, All Rights Reserved 19 © 2022, All Rights Reserved ADDITIONAL IMPACTS ►Reductions to transit service quality and coverage, not expansion. ►Discontinuation of funding for federally required ADA Paratransit Service. ►Limited opportunity for transit service expansions in the future unless funded wholly locally. 20 © 2022, All Rights Reserved 2121 © 2022, All Rights Reserved NO SALES TAX:THE FUTURE OF FREEWAY EXPANSION ►The future of freeways in Maricopa County without an extension of the dedicated half-cent sales tax is bleak. ►Funding would be focused on existing infrastructure to meet federal performance targets. ►The region will be unable to build new freeways. ►There will be limited or no expansion on existing facilities. ►State and federal resources by themselves are insufficient relative to need. 22 © 2022, All Rights Reserved© 2022, All Rights Reserved ECONOMICIMPLICATIONS 23 © 2022, All Rights Reserved PROP 400 EXTENSION: ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Analysis conducted using TREDIS model. Compared two scenarios MAG partnered with EBP US, Inc. Relied on transportation model data; futures with and without the extension of Proposition 400. Quantified travel impact on regional society and economy Local Operations and Spending;Increased Supplier-Based Spending; Increased Consumer Spending. 1 2 3 © 2022, All Rights Reserved PROP 400 EXTENSION: INVESTMENT PLAN OVERVIEW 250 corridor miles of freeway/highway projects 285 corridor miles of arterial projects 80 corridor miles of transit projects = Societal Travel Benefits Travel Time Savings Travel Reliability Savings Vehicle Operating Cost Savings Freight Logistics Cost Savings © 2022, All Rights Reserved PROP 400 EXTENSION: SOCIETAL TRAVEL BENEFITS Travel Impact ►Decrease in congestion across all modes and purposes. ►Increases in speeds across all modes: 1-2 mph ►Increases in transit trips: 100k+ annually Societal Benefit ►Total Travel Benefits (25-year period): ~$73 billion ►Business Time and Reliability Savings: ~$40 billion ►Shipping and Logistics savings: ~$4.4 billion © 2022, All Rights Reserved PROP 400 EXTENSION: ECONOMIC IMPACT Societal Travel Benefits Cost Savings Reinvested Income Growth Spending Growth Job Growth Market Growth Time Savings Reinvested Supply Growth Productivity Growth Regional Competitiveness Regional Competitiveness © 2022, All Rights Reserved PROP 400 EXTENSION: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Net New Economic Activity (GRP): ~$60 billion Net New Business Sales: ~$113 billion Net New Income: ~$40 billion Net New Jobs: ~31,600 annually Economic value added nearly DOUBLES original investment © 2022, All Rights Reserved© 2022, All Rights Reserved TAKEAWAYS 29 © 2022, All Rights Reserved KEY TAKEAWAYS The loss of the dedicated half-cent sales tax will be detrimental to the region’s transportation network Investments in the regional transportation network have led to the economic prosperity we see today. Without continued investment, our region will lose its competitive edge and: ►The cost of doing business will increase; ►Local business sales will be reduced; ►High-quality jobs will be eliminated. Timing is critical; enabling legislation is needed as quickly as possible. © 2022, All Rights Reserved© 2022, All Rights Reserved (602) 254-6300akthomas@azmag.gov THANK YOU Audra Koester Thomas Transportation Planning Program Manager June 22, 2021: Unanimous recommendation to approve investment strategy.Transportation Policy Committee For more information, visit: OurMomentumPlan.com ITEM 5. B. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 11/01/2022 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting Agenda Type: Public Appearances/Presentations                   Submitting Department: Administration Prepared by: David Pock, Finance Director Staff Contact Information: David Pock, Finance Director Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language):  PRESENTATION: First Quarter FY23 Revenue Update Staff Summary (Background) Staff will provide a summary of Transaction Privilege Tax (TPT) and State shared revenue as of the fiscal quarter ended 9/30/2022. The presentation will include summarized and detailed collection information for local TPT and State shared revenue sources, as well as comparisons of budgeted and actual amounts for the fiscal quarter. Attachments Presentation  Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Director (Originator)David Pock 10/25/2022 01:08 AM Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 10/25/2022 08:31 AM Town Manager Grady E. Miller 10/25/2022 09:20 AM Form Started By: David Pock Started On: 10/24/2022 07:49 AM Final Approval Date: 10/25/2022  TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV/BUDGET Q1FY23 Revenue Update David Pock, Chief Financial Officer November 1, 2023 WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV/BUDGET FY22 Year-End Summary •General Fund revenues exceeded expectations by a total of $1.8M •General Fund expenditures were below budgeted amounts by a total of $5.7M, which includes $4.2M in savings from using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds for public safety contracts •Audited year-end fund balances will be available in the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report that will be presented to Council on November 15th •After reserve requirements are met and budgeted FY23 transfers are made, a total of $3.7M will be transferred to the Capital Project Fund •$4.2M of FY23 General Fund revenues will be transferred to the Streets Fund, as directed by Council TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV/BUDGET FY23 Revenue Update First Quarter WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV/BUDGET First Quarter Revenue Update •Overall TPT revenue collection for the 1st quarter is encouraging and has exceeded budgeted expectations across all categories •Total Net Taxable Activity has increased by 10.2% since FY22 •Modest year-over-year increases seen in all categories •State shared income tax revenue is up significantly due to timing of 2021 state income tax collections but will not meet the League’s estimate •Other state shared revenues are mixed; however, the most notable is weaker than expected Highway User Revenue Fund receipts. Higher fuel prices have reduced overall demand resulting in fewer gallons being sold. This tax is calculated on gallons not price. WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV/BUDGET •Total Net Taxable Activity for Q1FY23 was $138.7M •Increased by $12.8M from the same period in FY22 First Quarter Revenue Update Net Taxable Activity $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 Jul 1 Aug 2 Sep 3 Oct 4 Nov 5 Dec 6 Jan 7 Feb 8 Mar 9 Apr 10 May 11 Jun 12 Mi l l i o n s Net Taxable Activity by Fiscal Year & Period 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV/BUDGET •Includes all TPT reporting categories for all funds •Budgeted $3.65M •Collected $4.48M •$830K more than expected •$450K from one-time audit collection •$380K from increased activity •Increase of $850K compared to FY22 First Quarter Revenue Update Total TPT Collections $- $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 $2,000 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Th o u s a n d s TPT Collections by Fiscal Year & Period All Categories 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV/BUDGET •Includes Local and Online Retail Sales and Use Tax •Budgeted $2.08M •Collected $2.21M •$130K more than expected •Increase of $280K compared to FY22 First Quarter Revenue Update Retail Sales $- $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Th o u s a n d s TPT Collections by Fiscal Year & Period Retail Sales 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV/BUDGET •Includes Prime Contracting and Speculative Builders •Budgeted $480K •Collected $939K •$450K from audit •$489K from current activity •$9K more than expected •Increase of $47K compared to FY22 First Quarter Revenue Update Construction $- $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Th o u s a n d s TPT Collections by Fiscal Year & Period Construction 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV/BUDGET •Includes Water, Sewer, Electricity, Cable, Natural Gas, Phones, and Internet Services •Budgeted $313K •Collected $484K •$171K more than expected •Increase of $7K compared to FY22 First Quarter Revenue Update Utilities and Communications $- $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 $180 $200 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Th o u s a n d s TPT Collections by Fiscal Year & Period Transportation/Communications/Utilities 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV/BUDGET •Includes Long-term Residential and Commercial rentals •Budgeted $239K •Collected $258K •$19K more than expected •Increase of $39K compared to FY22 First Quarter Revenue Update Real Estate $- $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 $180 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Th o u s a n d s TPT Collections by Fiscal Year & Period Real Estate 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV/BUDGET •Includes local Restaurants (drive thru, sit-down, and delivery) and Bars •Budgeted $246K •Collected $268K •$22K more than expected •Increase of $5K compared to FY22 First Quarter Revenue Update Restaurants and Bars $- $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 $180 $200 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Th o u s a n d s TPT Collections by Fiscal Year & Period Restaurants & Bars 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV/BUDGET •Includes Hotels, Golf, Tours, and Vacation Rentals •Budgeted $290K •Collected $317K •$27K more than expected •Increase of $21K compared to FY22 First Quarter Revenue Update Services $- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Th o u s a n d s TPT Collections by Fiscal Year & Period Services 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV/BUDGET First Quarter Revenue Update State Shared Revenue $350 $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 Jul 1 Aug 2 Sep 3 Oct 4 Nov 5 Dec 6 Jan 7 Feb 8 Mar 9 Apr 10 May 11 Jun 12 Th o u s a n d s State Shared Revenue -Sales Tax 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 $400 $375 $350 $325 $300 $275 $250 $225 $200 Jul 1 Aug 2 Sep 3 Oct 4 Nov 5 Dec 6 Jan 7 Feb 8 Mar 9 Apr 10 May 11 Jun 12 Th o u s a n d s State Shared Revenue -Income Tax 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 •Budgeted $852K •Collected $836K •Budgeted $1.45M •Collected $1.13M WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV/BUDGET First Quarter Revenue Update State Shared Revenue •Budgeted $472K •Collected $417K •Budgeted $282K •Collected $287K $350 $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 Jul 1 Aug 2 Sep 3 Oct 4 Nov 5 Dec 6 Jan 7 Feb 8 Mar 9 Apr 10 May 11 Jun 12 Th o u s a n d s Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 $150 $125 $100 $75 $50 $25 Jul 1 Aug 2 Sep 3 Oct 4 Nov 5 Dec 6 Jan 7 Feb 8 Mar 9 Apr 10 May 11 Jun 12 Th o u s a n d s State Shared Revenue -Vehicle License Tax 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV/BUDGET Questions ITEM 7. A. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 11/01/2022 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting Agenda Type: Consent                  Submitting Department: Administration Prepared by: Linda Mendenhall, Town Clerk Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language):  CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 4, 2022. Staff Summary (Background) The intent of approving meeting minutes is to ensure an accurate account of the discussion and action that took place at the meeting for archival purposes. Approved minutes are placed on the Town's website and maintained as permanent records in compliance with state law. Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle N/A Risk Analysis N/A Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) Staff recommends approving the minutes of the Regular Meeting on October 4, 2022. SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting on October 4, 2022. Attachments 2022.1004.TCRM  2022.1004.TCRM.Verbatim Transcript  Form Review Form Started By: Linda Mendenhall Started On: 10/25/2022 08:32 AM Final Approval Date: 10/25/2022  TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL October 4, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Dickey called the Regular Meeting of the Fountain Hills Town Council held on October 4, 2022, to order at 5:34 p.m. and led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. MOMENT OF SILENCE A moment of silence was held. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Mayor Ginny Dickey: Vice Mayor Gerry Friedel; Councilmember David Spelich; Councilmember Sharron Grzybowski; Councilmember Alan Magazine; Councilmember Peggy McMahon Attended Telephonically: Councilmember Mike Scharnow Members Absent: None Staff Present: Town Manager Grady E. Miller; Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson; Town Clerk Linda Mendenhall Audience: Thirty-eight members of the public were present. 4. REPORTS BY MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND TOWN MANAGER A. PROCLAMATION: October 16 -22, 2022, as Arizona Cities & Towns Week. Mayor Dickey issued a proclamation for October 16 through 22, 2022 as Arizona Cities & Towns Week. B. PROCLAMATION: October 9 – 15, 2022, as Fire Prevention Week. Mayor Dickey issued a proclamation for October 9 through 15, 2022 as Fire Prevention Week. David Ott, Fire Chief, accepted the proclamation and mentioned they will do some fire education at McDowell Mountain Elementary School the week of the 17th. C. PROCLAMATION: October 2022, as Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Mayor Dickey issued a proclamation for the month of October as Breast Cancer Awareness month. D. PROCLAMATION: October 2022, as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Vice Mayor Friedel read a proclamation issued on behalf of Mayor Dickey recognizing the month of October as Domestic Violence Awareness month 5. SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS 6. CALL TO THE PUBLIC Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.01(H), public comment is permitted (not required) on matters NOT listed on the agenda. Any such comment (i) must be within the jurisdiction of the Council, and (ii) is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The Council will not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during Call to the Public unless the matters are properly noticed for discussion and legal action. At the conclusion of the Call to the Public, individual councilmembers may (i) respond to criticism, (ii) ask staff to review a matter, or (iii) ask that the matter be placed on a future Council agenda. The Following residents addressed the council under the Call to the Public. Crystal Cavanaugh, a Fountain Hills resident, addressed the council regarding the passive neighborhood park at the corner of Desert Canyon and Sunridge Drive mentioning the funds slated for this project would be better served elsewhere. Barry Wolborsky, a Fountain Hills resident, addressed the council questioning the “no parking” signs in the Fountain Hills Community Center parking lot. 7. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS All items listed on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine, noncontroversial matters and will be enacted by one motion of the Council. All motions and subsequent approvals of consent items will include all recommended staff stipulations unless otherwise stated. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a councilmember or member of the public so requests. If a councilmember or member of the public wishes to discuss an item on the Consent Agenda, he/she may request so prior to the motion to accept the Consent Agenda or with notification to the Town Manager or Mayor prior to the date of the meeting for which the item was scheduled. The items will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. MOVED BY Councilmember Alan Magazine to approve the Consent Agenda, SECONDED BY Councilmember Sharron Grzybowski. Vote: 7 – 0 passed – Unanimously Councilmember Grzybowski Aye Councilmember Magazine Aye Councilmember McMahon Aye Councilmember Scharnow Aye Councilmember Spelich Aye Vice Mayor Friedel Aye Mayor Dickey Aye A. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 6, 2022; Approval of the minutes for the Work Session of September 6, 2022. B. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTING RESOLUTION 2022-42, An Intergovernmental Agreement with Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community. . 8. REGULAR AGENDA A. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Site Plan and building elevations for the International Dark Sky Discovery Center to be located next to the library at 12845 N. La Montana Dr. Joe Bill, President of the International Dark Sky Discovery Center presented the site plan and building elevations for the International Dark Sky Discovery Center and answered councils’ questions. Mayor Dickey opened the item up for public comment. The following residents submitted a comment card in support of the agenda item. Vicky Derksen Jeff Esposito MOVED BY Councilmember Sharron Grzybowski to approve site plan SIT22-13 subject to staff receiving complete final plan, SECONDED BY Councilmember Peggy McMahon. Vote: 6 – 0 Passed – unanimously Councilmember Grzybowski Aye Councilmember Magazine Recused Councilmember McMahon Aye Councilmember Scharnow Aye Councilmember Spelich Aye Vice Mayor Friedel Aye Mayor Dickey Aye B. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of Contract 2023-034 with Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. MOVED BY Councilmember Peggy McMahon to approve Contract 2023-034 with Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. SECONDED BY Councilmember Sharron Grzybowski. Vote: 7 – 0 Passed – unanimously Councilmember Grzybowski Aye Councilmember Magazine Aye Councilmember McMahon Aye Councilmember Scharnow Aye Councilmember Spelich Aye Vice Mayor Friedel Aye Mayor Dickey Aye C. CONSIDERATION AND POSSBLE ACTION: Extension of a Special Use Permit to allow residential uses on a 0.58 acre property in the Community Commercial (C-C) zoning district at 17134 E. Kingstree Blvd., generally located at the northwest corner of Saguaro Blvd. and Kingstree Blvd. ITEM WAS CONTINUED TO THE OCTOBER 18, 2022, COUNCIL MEETING. D. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Resolution 2022-40 approving an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) for design and construction of drainage improvements at the Grande Boulevard/Rosita Drive Drainage Channel. MOVED BY Vice Mayor Gerry Friedel to adopt Resolution 2022-40 and authorize capital project D6062, SECONDED BY Councilmember David Spelich. Vote: 7 – 0 Passed – unanimously Councilmember Grzybowski Aye Councilmember Magazine Aye Councilmember McMahon Aye Councilmember Scharnow Aye Councilmember Spelich Aye Vice Mayor Friedel Aye Mayor Dickey Aye E. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Resolution 2022-41 approving an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) for design and construction of drainage improvements at Deuce Court. MOVED BY Councilmember Peggy McMahon to adopt Resolution 2022-41 and authorize capital project D6063, SECONDED BY Councilmember Alan Magazine. Vote: 7 – 0 Passed – unanimously Councilmember Grzybowski Aye Councilmember Magazine Aye Councilmember McMahon Aye Councilmember Scharnow Aye Councilmember Spelich Aye Vice Mayor Friedel Aye Mayor Dickey Aye F. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Approving Professional Services Agreement 2021-039 with NFRA, Inc. for Engineering Design Services for Drainage Improvements. MOVED BY Vice Mayor Gerry Friedel to approve the Professional Services Agreement 2021-039 with NFRA, Inc. for the design of drainage improvements associated with the two capital projects D6062 & D6063 for Grande Blvd/Rosita Drive and Deuce Court, for the correct amount, SECONDED BY Councilmember Sharron Grzybowski. Vote: 7 – 0 Passed – unanimously Councilmember Grzybowski Aye Councilmember Magazine Aye Councilmember McMahon Aye Councilmember Scharnow Aye Councilmember Spelich Aye Vice Mayor Friedel Aye Mayor Dickey Aye G. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Town Council discuss and provide direction to staff on preferred service delivery options for fire and emergency medical services based on the recently completed Fire Services Evaluation. MOVED BY Councilmember Sharron Grzybowski for Option B, that the Town of Fountain Hills consider bringing fire and emergency medical services completely inhouse with Town personnel and bring forth a recommendation to Council at a later date directing staff to develop a transition plan to implement an in-house fire department, SECONDED BY Councilmember David Spelich. Vote: 7 – 0 Passed – unanimously Councilmember Grzybowski Aye Councilmember Magazine Aye Councilmember McMahon Aye Councilmember Scharnow Aye Councilmember Spelich Aye Vice Mayor Friedel Aye Mayor Dickey Aye 9. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/DIRECTION to the TOWN MANAGER Item(s) listed below are related only to the propriety of (i) placing such item(s) on a future agenda for action, or (ii) directing staff to conduct further research and report back to the Council. 10. ADJOURNMENT Having no further business, Mayor Ginny Dickey adjourned the Regular Meeting of the Fountain Hills Town Council held on October 4, 2022, at 8:06 p.m. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS _________________________ Ginny Dickey, Mayor ATTEST AND PREPARED BY: __________________________ Linda G. Mendenhall, Town Clerk CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills in the Town Hall Council Chambers on the 4th day of October 2022. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 18th day of October 2022. _____________________________ Linda G. Mendenhall, Town Clerk TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 1 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 1 of 62 Post-Production File Town of Fountain Hills October 4, 2022 Town Council Meeting Transcription Provided By: eScribers, LLC * * * * * Transcription is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. * * * * * TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 2 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 2 of 62 MAYOR DICKEY: Good evening, everyone. Sorry for the late start. Please stand for the pledge and remain standing. ALL: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which is stands, one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. Please remain standing for a moment of silence. Thank you, all. Roll call, please? MENDENHALL: Thank you, Mayor. Mayor Dickey? MAYOR DICKEY: Here. MENDENHALL: Vice Mayor Friedel? FRIEDEL: Present. MENDENHALL: Councilmember McMahon? MCMAHON: Here. MENDENHALL: Councilmember Scharnow? SCHARNOW: Here but not present. MENDENHALL: Councilmember Magazine? MAGAZINE: Here. MENDENHALL: Councilmember Spelich? SPELICH: Present. MENDENHALL: Councilmember Grzybowski? GRZYBOWSKI: Present. MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you so much. A couple of changes to item 8-C is going to be postponed until the 18th -- meeting on the 18th. And I'm going to change the order of a couple of these proclamations. So that's all. Our first item, as always, are reports from our town manager, Mayor, and Council. MILLER: Thank you, Mayor -- Mayor and Council. I just wanted to report, as the public is aware, last night we had quite a bit of a windstorm -- high, gusty winds. And I'm pleased to report that other than a few trees that went down and some minor damage, which we are still compiling, it looks like we sustained very little damage. But we are in the process of gathering information just in case we need to submit a claim to our insurer. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 3 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 3 of 62 That's all I had to report at this time. MCMAHON: Mayor. Good evening, everybody. I attended the pedestrian and traffic safety committee. And I want to thank Justin Weldy and the staff for accomplishing all the check list and the boxes to make our town safer with all the improvements. So thank you everybody. And we attended the Fort McDowell annual foundation town conference. And that was really great too. After all COVID to be in person and meet all the stakeholders and collaborate and look forward to future collaboration. Excuse me. And also, Saturday night I attended the International Dark-Sky moon viewing. Thank you, Ted (ph.). It was really a great evening. And ASU was there recording the events. So we had a few telescopes out there -- or they did. And it was really a nice evening. And today I attended the Maricopa County Association of Government's economic development committee meeting. And it's -- MAG leads the regional transportation planning for the County. And we are experiencing unprecedented growth and economic prosperity in our region and state which is going to continue for years to come. And MAG is diligently working to bring proposition 400 dedicated half-cent sales tax extension to the voters so that we will retain billions of dollars into our economy, improve our infrastructure, and -- and be able to handle all this growth. So thank you. FRIEDEL: Thanks, Mayor. Recently we all attended town branding session. So that was interesting to hear everybody's input on that as a town works to rebrand their image. I had the privilege of attending the homecoming parade for our Falcon football team with counsel-elect Brenda Kay (ph.). And they won the game, by the way, 52 to 14. And their record right now is 3-2. So they have a couple of games left. So let's get everybody out there and cheer them on. I also did attend the joint session with Fort McDowell. And it's interesting to me that they have so many things going on over there. And we worked on some issues with communication and that kind of thing. So we'll be better prepared from both sides to help with that. And this month is domestic violence month. And the Town, as it has in the past, will be coloring the fountain purple on Wednesday nights so -- in acknowledge of domestic violence. And I'll also be reading a proclamation a little bit later on that. And then, on a sad note, we lost a valued member of our society today. Not today but TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 4 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 4 of 62 this past week. Judy Rutkowski who served two terms on our school board here in town and taught religious ed and sang in the choir for one of our churches, passed away. So I just wanted to make sure I mention that. She will be missed on the school board as well. So thank you, Mayor. MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mike, did you have anything to report? SCHARNOW: No. No report, Madam Mayor. MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you, sir. Councilman? MAGAZINE: Like most of us, I attended the joint meeting with the leadership of the Yawapai Nation. And I just want to tell people and tell the public that they have a very good website that's worth looking at with a lot of activities. SPELICH: Thank you. Madam Mayor, an hour-and-a-half ago the Council, and some citizens, and the fire department, MCSO showed up to the corner of El Pueblo Boulevard and Dull Knife on what would've been Dr. CT Wright's 80th birthday. And we -- I sponsored a street sign to be named after CT. Him and his wife, Mary, lived at the corner of -- or lived on El -- sorry -- on Dull Knife. Just briefly, for those of you who didn't know CT or you never had the pleasure of meeting him, he was just an amazing human being. He relocated here to Fountain Hills in 1999 with his wife. Dr. Wright had a doctorate from Boston University and was the executive director -- he was appointed by Gov. Jan Brewer to be the executive director of the Governor's Executive Clemency Board where he served on that all the way up until his time of passing. And he was also on the school board for, I don't know, fourteen years -- fourteen -- we tried figuring that out -- forever. And so anybody that met Dr. Wright, I mean, I can truly say that he absolutely never had a bad word to say about anybody. And he was an amazing human being. And we honor him today. And thank you. GRZYBOWSKI: I was invited -- the National Parks and Recreation Association had their national conference here in Phoenix. And I was attended [sic] to go play on the exhibit hall. All of our businesses have conferences. And we all have exhibits where you get to see vendors that do whatever it is that you do. Let me tell you, the National Parks TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 5 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 5 of 62 and Recreation Exhibit Hall was way fun. I am a little bummed I didn't get to play on the playground equipment that was out there. But I did manage to break Musco Lightings monitor that they had out. I call it quality control. I didn't break it. I helped them understand that there was a software glitch that they needed to work on. He's not here today, is he? That's good because that was embarrassing. Anyway, it was super cool. They're not in Phoenix very often. Obviously it's a national conference so they're all over the County. So I was really pleased that I got invited. I also attended the Leadership Academy's (ph.) Know Your Government day. And with most of the other council, I attended the joint tribal and town council's meeting. And I also virtually attended the Greater Phoenix Economic Council ambassador meeting on affordable housing. Before I talk about it, a quick reminder that affordable housing does not mean Section 8 housing. What the discussion was was about attainable housing, less expensive housing, maybe density -- bigger density so that the teachers, and the retail workers, and your restaurant workers have a place to live. The people that work in our town need to be able to live in our town. These people are needed to keep our community prospering. Even our own children can't afford to live here right now. So that was what this particular meeting was about. We didn't have any resolutions. It was just a joint meeting to help us realize how important affordable housing it. Thank you. MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you very much. Again, I want to thank David for initiating and sponsoring the -- the naming of the street for CT Wright. And again, to the family and friends of school board member Judy Rutkowski, we hope they accept our sympathy and our appreciation for her service to our community and our school board and in other ways. I met with the superintendent of the school district. We will be holding regular meetings. We had recently had our joint meeting here with Judy and others. And it's a very collaborative partnership. I recently learned at the league about something called the Arizona Mayors Roundtable. I had no idea -- I really am embarrassed that I didn't know about it. It's really mayors wanting to collaborate with school districts all through the State. I'm going to be joining that meeting. Grady agreed and the superintendent have agreed to be part of that. And I'll find out more about it tomorrow, it'll be my first meeting. Again, we talk about the schools all the time being our largest employers. And TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 6 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 6 of 62 you know, it really is an economic development driver. So we're going to be looking at that. The Chamber and others are graciously thanking us for our participation with Octoberfest, which I hope everyone got to go to. It was a wonderful evening. I'm sorry to miss the homecoming. But I was happy to see the score. MAG Regional Council, again, that Prop 400 is just so important. And we heard air quality -- I think we heard it also in air quality report which is -- there's work to be done in the valley. Also, the Know Your Government with leadership class is just a very productive day. We started out -- you know, we all had our presentations. And then it was -- the part I liked at the lunch was when Brenda was there to have people speak and ask questions, whatever, kind of open forum. So that was really awesome. Pedestrian Traffic Safety Committee will be reporting to us soon at a meeting. And last, obviously Fort McDowell, they talked about the FAA. You know, we always talk about these flight path items. Prop 200 which is where they grant us a lot of help for mostly tourism. And also they help with the school district. They have Orme Dam days coming soon. So just keep an eye on that. You know, this is our wonderful time of year. So -- anyway, we will move on now. You can see we have a lot of proclamations. I'm going to just switch the order because the first two I'll just read from up here. The last one I'll present to our Chief Ott. And then hand it over to Gerry because he's on our MAG Regional Domestic Violence Council. And I would love for our Vice Mayor to be able to read that. So the first one is that it is Arizona City and Towns week. Whereas the citizens of Fountain Hills rely on the town to experience a high quality of life in our community and whereas cities and towns in Arizona work twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week to deliver vital services such as fire, police, and emergency medical response to ensure safe committees -- not committees, communities. Whereas cities and towns in Arizona also provide services and programs that enhance the quality of life for residents such as parks, utilities, street maintenance, sanitation and recycling services, libraries, community centers, and recreational programs and whereas it's important for Fountain Hills to continue to provide the excellent delivery of services and programs that our citizens have TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 7 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 7 of 62 come to expect in our community, it's one of the responsibilities of town officials to ensure open and accessible government through frequent communication with the citizens using various avenues and means. And whereas through participation and cooperation citizens, community leaders, local businesses, and municipal staff work together to ensure that services provided by the town can remain exceptional elements of the quality of life in our community. Therefore I, Ginny Dickey, proclaim the Town of Fountain Hills joins with the League of Arizona Cities and Towns and fellow municipalities across the State in declaring October 16th through the 22nd as Arizona Cities and Towns week. So, thanks. We recommend that you take a look all the website -- our websites for of the wonderful things happening in town. And as Grady pointed out, taking care of storms and some of this stuff is, like he said, twenty-four hours. The next one is this is also breast cancer awareness month. I don't believe we have anybody here to accept the proclamation so I'm just going to read that. Whereas Breast Cancer Awareness Month is a worldwide annual campaign in October involving thousands of organizations to highlight the importance of breast cancer awareness, education, and research and whereas according to the Center for Disease and Prevention, breast cancer is the most common cancer among women. One in eight women in the United States will be diagnosed in her lifetime. And whereas an estimated 287,850 new cases will be diagnosed in women in the US this year and 43,250 women will die; and although rare, 2,710 men will be diagnosed this year in the US and approximately 530 will die, and whereas there are over 3.8 million breast cancer survivors in the United States. Thus, increasing the public's knowledge about the importance of early detection, regular screening, followed by timely treatment upon diagnosis can significantly improve a patient's chance of survival. And whereas breast cancer awareness month is an opportunity to unite all citizens in our community to prevent deaths and recognize survivors, those currently battling the disease, the friends and families of a diagnosed patient, and applaud the efforts of our medical professionals and researchers working to find a cure. I declare October 2022 as Breast Cancer Awareness Month and call upon everyone to publicly reaffirm our Nation's strong and continuing commitment to controlling and finding a cure. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 8 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 8 of 62 The next to last proclamation is Fire Prevention Week. And I've come down and present this to our Chief. This is our Chief Ott right up here. So whereas the Town of Fountain Hills is committed to ensuring the safety and security of all those living and visiting Fountain Hills, whereas fire is a serious public safety concern, both locally and nationally, and homes of locations where people are at the greatest risk from fire. And home fires caused 2,580 civilian deaths in the United States in 2020, fire departments in the United States responded to 356,500 home fires. And whereas smoke alarms sense smoke well before you can, alerting you to danger in the event of fire in which you may have as little as two minutes to escape safely, working smoke alarms cut the risk of dying in reported fires in half. Fountain Hills residents should be aware and know that everyone in the home understands the sound of their smoke alarm and knows how to respond. And whereas Fountain Hills residents who have planned and practiced a home fire escape plan are more prepared and will therefore be more likely to survive a fire, Fountain Hills residents will make sure their smoke and carbon monoxide alarms meet the needs of all their family members, including those with sensory or physical disabilities. And whereas the Town first responders are dedicated to reducing the occurrences of home fires and home fire injuries through prevention and protection education, and residents that are responsive to public education measures are better able to take personal steps to increase their safety from fire, especially in their homes. Whereas 2022 fire prevention week theme is "Fire won't wait, plan your escape" effectively serves to remind Town residents it's important to have a home fire escape plan. Therefore, I do proclaim October 9th through 15th as Fire Prevention Week throughout this Town. I urge the people of Fountain Hills to plan and practice a home fire escape for fire prevention week and support the many public safety activities and efforts of our Town's fire and emergency services. You want to say something there, Dave? OTT: Thank you, Mayor. And we are planning on doing some education over at McDowell Mountain Elementary School the week of the 17th. So we -- if -- Fire Prevention Week kind of falls during fall break. So we decided to give them that week off. But we'll be back with them when they come back. Thank you very much. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 9 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 9 of 62 FRIEDEL: Thanks, Mayor. So the Town of Fountain Hills proclamation for Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Whereas home should be a place of warmth, unconditional love, and tranquility, for most of us home and family can indeed be counted among our greatest blessings. And tragically, for many Americans, these blessings are that -- are tarnished by violence and fear. And women, men, young children, and the elderly are all counted among the victims of domestic violence. And physical injury and deaths occur. And emotional scars are often permanent. Law enforcement officials, shelters, hotline services, healthcare providers, the clergy, and concerned citizens are all helping in the effort to end domestic violence. And we must recognize the compassion and dedication of these volunteers and professionals, applaud their efforts, and increase public understanding of this important problem. And whereas the Town Council approved a resolution, 2013-44, on August 15th, 2013, expressing support for the Start By Believing campaign through the End of Violence Against Women International organization, now therefore, I, Ginny Dickey, Mayor of the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona, do hereby proclaim the month of October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month in Fountain Hills and urge all citizens to observe this month by becoming aware of the tragedy of domestic violence and supporting community efforts in working towards its end. Thank you. MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you, Vice Mayor. We really appreciate you serving on the committee -- on the Regional Council. Our next item, public appearances. We don't have any, correct? Call to the public. Do we have any speaker cards? MENDENHALL: Yes, Mayor. We do. MAYOR DICKEY: Thanks. When you come up don't say your actual address, but please say if you're from Fountain Hills. MENDENHALL: First we have Crystal Cavanaugh. CAVANAUGH: I'm Crystal Cavanaugh, Fountain Hills resident. Good evening to all of you. With so many other costs that Fountain Hills may be experiencing, such as lawsuit consequences, extensive community center repairs, street repairs, and other park TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 10 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 10 of 62 maintenance costs, why does the Town continue to push for the development of five acres for a passive neighborhood park at corner of Desert Canyon and Sunridge Drive? Many living in our Sunridge community either know nothing about this plan or do not want it. And it is irrelevant to me that the Town recently gathered a few neighbors who live across from it, called them a focus group, and tried to reduce their opposition. Our HOA has been provided with very little information regarding where this currently stands except to say that there are plans for another community survey after sending out the previously flawed one in the past. The bottom line is that it is unnecessary spendings. It seems like you just look for ways to spend, spend, spend, which includes the current pursuit of an unaffordable roundabout at Saguaro and Avenue of the Fountains. I also find it offensive that the Town's response to opposition of this unneeded passive park is to make statements such as, "Well, you know this was originally slated to be a fire station; this is better than that, right", almost like a threat as to what could be placed there if we didn't support the passive park. Why push to develop this town-owned land at all just for the sake of developing? Could it not just as easily remain a small patch of natural preserve at less cost? Originally our parks department listed this in a previous budget as trailhead access. But once the HOA opposed the crossing of their property to assess the nonexistent trailhead, this apparently was dropped back to just the passive park, no restrooms or amenities, with a walking path, and now with a possibility of a scaled down parking lot. There is a very nice sidewalk that goes from the corner of Palisades all along Sunridge Drive up towards North Heights. There is plenty of paved walking available in the Sunridge Canyon neighborhoods with sidewalks available on at least one side of all the streets. Spend a few dollars to place some nice benches along the way, if warranted. Again I ask, why is there such a strong push to spend more money for something as unnecessary as this passive neighborhood park that most of the Sunridge neighbors oppose when they are made aware of it? Golden Eagle Park is nearby and has much more to offer the community and could likely use the funds. There are other neighborhoods that may want or need such a park. There are plenty of opportunities to use this money to improve existing park projects. Direct this money to where it is needed, or wanted, or where it will be more beneficial. As with other issues, I encourage TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 11 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 11 of 62 the new Council to revisit this project, if it is not too late by them. Thank you. MENDENHALL: Is Barry or Kimberly (ph.) Wolborsky here? WOLBORSKY: I'm not Kimberly. MENDENHALL: So is it just going to be you, Mr -- WOLBORSKY: Yep. MENDENHALL: -- Wolborsky? Okay. WOLBORSKY: I'm Barry Wolborsky. And I am a resident of Fountain Hills. And I want to talk about the parking -- no parking signs that are in front of the Community Center. My wife and I do a lot of walking around town. And we walk -- like to walk downtown. And it's sometimes convenient to park in that parking lot over there. But now there's no parking lot signs in there that say -- and I have a video -- or I sent a video. Do you have that? MENDENHALL: It was-- WOLBORSKY: Okay. So you have a copy of it? And it's basically pretty clear. It says nobody can park there except on Community Center business. In other words, it specifically says you can't park there for the businesses on the Ave (ph.). You can't park there for the bus stop. You can park there only for Community Center business. And I have a problem with that because, like, we have a bus stop that's totally unusable unless people are within walking distance because there's absolutely nowhere to park near the bus stop, number one. Number two, you'll not be able to legally use the lot for events on the Avenue or at the Fountain. Now I've been told, well, police may not enforce it. But as I understand the law, it's not up to the police to enforce or not to enforce. It's up for the politicians to make laws that establish what the police do. Number three, barring cars to shop in the businesses -- at the businesses, which I don't think many do, but it still seems pretty business unfriendly to me. Number four, there are never events in the city center on Sunday. Why does the sign say every day? If the sign's going to say anything, it should say Monday through Saturday. Are people not wanted to park there on Sunday for some reason? And last but not least, as many times as I drive past there -- which is quite frequently because the mailbox is across the street -- I've only ever seen that lot full maybe three or TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 12 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 12 of 62 four times. Most of the time I drive by there it's either empty or almost empty. Is this really necessary? And is this friendly to the citizens of this Town? MILLER: Madam Mayor, I'm going to have the Public Works follow Mr. and Ms. -- WOLBORSKY: Wolborsky. MILLER: -- Wolborsky. I'm sorry. I was trying to pronounce your name correctly. We had a chance to talk about this. These signs were updated and there was an error made on the signs. They are intended really to be no overnight parking in the parking lot so that cars could cited. Would you mind kind of explaining what you're going to do to correct the signs that -- it's not on the agenda so we really can't get into it. WELDY: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Councilmembers. Obviously we have a minor typo. I did not catch that. We will make correction to it. The intent is that there is no overnight parking allowed on the Town Hall Campus. And that error will be corrected as soon as possible. MILLER: Thank you very much for bringing that to our attention because that was never the intent, sir. MENDENHALL: That's it for our speaker cards for -- WOLBORSKY: Thank you. MENDENHALL: -- our call to the public. MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you very much. Next is our consent agenda. Does anybody want to take anything off? Oops. That's okay. You can -- MAGAZINE: (Indiscernible). GRZYBOWSKI: Second. MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. All in favor, please say aye. ALL: Aye. MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. SCHARNOW: Aye. MAYOR DICKEY: Thanks, Mike. Our first item on our regular agenda -- I don't know why all these dudes are here -- but it's Dark Sky Discovery Center discussion. Grady, are you going to start off? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 13 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 13 of 62 MILLER: Yes. I'm going to have our Development Services Director, John Wesley, give a staff report. And he'll give the presentation on this and then the applicant will have an opportunity to come up to the podium. WESLEY: Evening, Mayor and Council. I have a brief background report to give you some of the information on the plans that have been submitted today. And then I think Joe Bill from the Discovery Center has also got some information to present. So back in 2019 the Town Council agreed to allow the land to the south of the library area to be used for Dark Sky Discovery Center. And so that group has been working over the last several years to prepare plans for that and secure some funding for that. They have submitted to the Town the site plan that they propose to construct on that property. And so staff is reviewing that. As part of that process, because it's on Town property, we wanted the Council to be involved in giving us feedback so that we can then complete the process of the site plan review. So that's what we're here for this evening, is to get your comments, if you have any, on this. And we will provide those comments back as part of our overall staff process. Then, as this moves forward, again they'll continue to raise funds. We'll be back to Council with a lease agreement when we get to that point in the process. And that will be necessary before we actually then get into the building permit phase. So there are several steps to go yet on this. This is kind of a first opportunity to get Council input and direction. So again, we'll get to the plans here in just a minute. But this is a process that's normally done just on the staff level. But because this is Town property, we are seeking your input. Once we get your input, we'll combine it with other Town comments. And if everything -- unless something comes up again, though, that we think Council needs to look at, staff will finish that review process. So again, the hatched area shows where the site is proposed, to the south of the library and across from the Community Center. Another view of it -- so this does include properties currently part of the Community Gardens. And so that will be relocated. And we'll show that here in a minute. Here's a outline of the proposed plan for the Center. The main entry into the Dark Sky Discovery Center will be in this location, right off Centennial Circle. Again, Mr. Bill will be able to give better explanation of the -- what I believe this is the -- everything's wrong in there. I just jumped a bunch ahead. A TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 14 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 14 of 62 bunch -- the -- okay. I don't want to do that anymore. I will quit trying to use the pointer to -- I will quit trying to use the pointer to highlight the areas. It's just if I do that if I do this, the people at home can -- MAGAZINE: John -- John, I'm having a little trouble hearing you. WESLEY: Okay. I'll try to get just a little bit closer. But the main entry, the -- a theatre, the telescope, and then a planetarium make up some of the main functions of this. There's the outside patio. To the east side here we'll have some telescopes also for use. So this is the elevation again, looking from that front, off of the Centennial Circle. And you can see some of the materials and shapes proposed. And this is from the parking lot, looking to the east, of what the site will look like. That's really my presentation, pretty high level overview because I know Mr. Bill has more extensive information showing some of the interior of the site. So do you have any questions of me at this time? MAYOR DICKEY: Any questions for John? Yes. Councilwoman? MCMAHON: Hi, John. I want to know about the parking. You know, the Community Center is really busy. The library can be. I know you -- they're moving the garden, et cetera. But you have slated a hundred -- about 138 parking spaces. Is this sufficient for the anticipated amount of visitors, et cetera? And is there any plans for overflow or where school buses are or anything will be? WESLEY: Mayor and Councilmember, yes. They have employed a professional traffic engineer to look at the site to do that traffic and parking analysis on this. The parking lot to the west of the community garden and south of the library, I think it's about 138 spaces as they have looked at it, to combine usage, as I recall, from the different uses. They're anticipating on a regular basis about, as I recall, sixty-seven spaces being needed to meet the -- meet peak demands of the different uses. I believe it's still seventy spaces or so for additional parking. So there is still quite a bit of space available for larger events that may occur at these facilities. So it seems to us, the staff, that the parking will be handled very well. As far as the bus parking, that's an issue that we're still looking at just a little bit. The town engineer and public works director I think have been looking at that a little closer TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 15 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 15 of 62 and may have some comments they want to make about where they think that will happen. But whether it be in some of the spaces within the parking lot or potentially along La Montana where the bus stops -- where the bus stop it, that would be a good location for a bus to park and maybe even load and unload from that location, because that bus comes very infrequently. So it would be available most of the time. MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. So is Mr. Bill going to come up now? WESLEY: Yes. MAYOR DICKEY: Okay. WESLEY: I'm going to get his presentation up here, I think. And he's -- MAYOR DICKEY: Hi. BILL: Hi. I'm Joe Bill, Fountain Hills resident and president of the International Dark Sky Discovery Center. Mayor Dickey, member of the Council, as you might suspect we are delighted to be at this stage of our project. It has been quite a road. And what I'd like to do is just very quickly show you the road that we've been on for seven years. So you can see here that it started way back -- actually it started in 2015. A group of us got together and decided that maybe we should try to preserve our natural dark skies here in Fountain Hills. And we learned about the International Dark-Sky Association. And the first thing we learned is, well, we're going to have to update our outdoor lighting ordinance in order to even begin the process. And so we did that. And in 2016 -- November, it was unanimously approved by the Council to update our outdoor lighting ordinance. So then we decided to go ahead. But we went back to the Council to seek approval to actually pursue the Dark-Sky designation because it's something for the Town. It's not for the Fountain Hills Dark-Sky Association or any other organization. It's for the Town of Fountain Hills. And that was approved. So then we went to work on fulfilling all the requirements. And in January of 2018, as some of you know, we did receive that designation of being the seventeenth International Dark-Sky community in the world. Well, that's kind of rare next to a metropolitan area, and it's quite prestigious. And so we thought, well, what else can we do. So we gathered a number of community leaders. And some of you were involved, that I see here today, either up there or in the audience. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 16 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 16 of 62 And we had representatives from the Council, the Chamber, the school board, and other community leaders. And so after a series of meetings it was decided that, well, in order to make an impact and have it be sustainable, we needed to do -- have four major components: an observatory, a planetarium, an exhibit hall, and a theatre. So we went ahead with that. Then we started laying it out. And we said, okay, we're going to need a fair amount of square footage here to do this. Where is this going to go. And so we looked all over Fountain Hills. I know some town staff actually helped point out some possible areas. But it all came back -- always came back to Centennial Circle. It's got the parking. It's got the infrastructure. It can benefit our downtown businesses, et cetera. So it always came back there. So in November of 2018 we went back to Council and sought approval for somewhere in Centennial Circle area. That was approved. Then we went to the next level and got much more detail, much more exact square footage, exactly what the footprint should look like. And then it came down to, look, it's only going to fit -- the only thing reasonable, really, that could work in the Centennial Circle area is in the south side of the Centennial Circle. Okay? So that then led to today. So today we are here, as John mentioned, to seek approval for the site plan and elevation. So let me go through a few things. First, we have an amazing team. We wouldn't be here today if we didn't have some outstanding individuals helping us along the way. So if they could just -- those of us who -- those board members who are here, if you could stand up for just a second? You would be amazed at the number of hours that have gone into this project. And we couldn't do it alone. But we also have some other major partners that have helped us. So one of them is Swaback Architecture. And we have representatives here today. We have John (ph.)and Scott. John, go ahead and stand up. John is the principle at Swaback Architecture. And he lives in Fountain Hills. And Scott Graham, of course, does all the good work for John, right? Yeah. So we're delighted to have them on board. They've done an amazing job. We have another major partner represented here tonight. And that's McCarthy Building Companies. And tonight we have Justin Adams and Russ Sanders. And that is another amazing team. So we're delighted to work with them as well. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 17 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 17 of 62 So we started working on the floorplan. This is kind of close to where it got pre- finalized. And you can see where we've kind of placed the planetarium, the observatory, the theater, the emersion zone, et cetera. And that led to eventually the footprint that John showed you just a bit earlier. You can see the footprint of the facility. Centennial Circle is kind of the right. But you can see the community garden area, the -- where it will be relocated is on the left. You can see some parking spaces on the top. That's the library parking lot. And then at the upper right corner is just the corner of the museum and the library. So this gives a god picture of exactly where it will be positioned. And just very quickly, as you know, we have four -- now five major components. We have the observatory. It'll be the largest telescope in the greater Phoenix area. We'll have a planetarium with about sixty-five seats and a tilted dome, an inspiration theatre with 150 tiered seats, and an exhibit hall that will be highly interactive. And this is -- this exhibit hall is going to be focused on educating people about the impact of excessive light at night, light pollution, and how it affects not only the sky but also human health, nocturnal animals, pollinators, et cetera. And then this fifth one I want to mention is, we recently realized that the classroom won't be in use at all times. And so therefore, let's put it to use. And so we're going to have a lot hands-on displays in there that's going to teach the physics of light. And so we decided to call it the Einstein Exploration Station. That led to this, and this is -- some of you have seen this before. But this is an amazing design that goes -- the credit goes to Swaback Architecture. It truly is amazing. This speaks science. This speaks modern. I mean, this -- people will come to see this, even without wanting to go in the facility. It's that impressive a design. And I should also mention that we have another major partner that's been working with us. And that's PGAV Destinations. They're based in St. Louis. And they've been working on the interior, a lot. And people always say, well what's the inside going to look like? Well, not that long ago our board said, you know what, when people walk into the lobby we should probably have some kind of a wow factor. You know, so when they walk in the door they go wow. So -- okay. So here's what they came up with. And so -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Wow. BILL: Perfect. So the thing is, you have to realize that the board had a second wow. And that was when they -- we saw the price tag. So I just wanted to let you know this is TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 18 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 18 of 62 not in our budget. It -- it's something we will work toward, depending on how things go. But the design is there. And so it's just a matter of whether we can find the funding to do something like this. Okay. So I'll go through the rest quickly here. This is what the hallway to the planetarium will look like. The hallway to the observatory. This is what it looks like as you enter the emersion zone, the exhibit hall. And so the rest of the these all are inside the exhibit hall. This is going to be a display about light pollution and what that looks like. This teaches people about what the Bortle scale is, how dark your skies are. This is going to teach how light impacts bird migration. Over a hundred million birds are lost every year because of excessive light. This is about nocturnal animals and what excessive light does to them. This is a little bit about the physics of light. This is how the eye works. This is a area for sky stories. There's a lot of history here. This is archeoastronomy. And of course the southwest, as you know, has a lot of archeoastronomy in the area. You know, the native cultures learned how to figure out when it was the solstice, the equinox, when to plant the corn, et cetera. So we'll be having that. And then this is -- there's going to be a lot of history here about the advance of the astronomy sciences. And lastly, this one you'll like; it has a knowledge quest. Okay. So this is how we're going to find out if you paid attention when you go through the emersion zone because if you didn't learn anything you aren't going to do very well at the end. But if you did pay attention, you'll do well. You might get a prize on the way out. So that's our plan there. Okay. So the last thing I have is a two-and-a-half minute video. I'd like to play it because as you look at the facility and decide whether this is a -- the right kind of elevation for the Town, you'll get to see it from all sides. And I think this is the best way to share with you the -- to see it and how it fits on Centennial Circle. So it's two-and-a- half minutes. And then after that we'll have questions. [VIDEO] BILL: Okay. All right. So you can see why we're excited. So I'm here to answer any questions you might have. And then plus we have representatives from Swaback Architecture as well as the construction company, if there are questions along those lines as well. So are there any questions? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 19 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 19 of 62 SPELICH: Thank you, Madam Mayor. So Mr. Bill, what is the total cost of the project and -- BILL: Okay. SPELICH: Yeah. Part two, how close are you to that? BILL: Okay. SPELICH: And what can we as councilmembers do to help you make your dream become a reality? MAGAZINE: Write a check. SPELICH: Anything other than -- BILL: Right. SPELICH: -- the whopping $400 a month we all get for being on the Council. Is there another way we can do anything? BILL: Good question, David. I'm glad you asked it. Basically, our fundraising goal is $25 million. And that includes three years of operating expenses because you don't want to open the doors with no money left in your bank account because it takes a little while to build up your grant programs, your -- all kinds -- membership programs, everything. So of the twenty-five million, we have raised eight-and-a-half. So we're about one-third of the way. And we hope to -- you know, we're optimistic. We have a lot of contacts out there. And there are no guarantees in this business, of course, as you know, with fundraising. But we're moving forward. We have a great -- we have a great story to tell. We have a great facility to show. And it's a matter of finding the right very few people who can make this happen. And that's what we are really focused on right now. FRIEDEL: When do you anticipate putting a shovel in the ground? BILL: When we reach that $25 million goal or close to it because you don't want to -- you don't want to make the mistake of starting a project when you're not sure you're going to have the rest of the money in hand. I would have to leave town if we pulls walls up and no roof. So basically our entire board has said we have to get pretty close to our goal, at least with some assurances that we're definitely going to make it, before we do anything like that. MAYOR DICKEY: Do we have any speaker cards on this item? MENDENHALL: Yes, Mayor. We do have two. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 20 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 20 of 62 First is Vicky Derkskin -- Derksen. DERKSEN: No, I was just going to approve it. MENDENHALL: Yes. She's for it. BILL: Okay. Thank you, Vicky. MENDENHALL: Oh. And Jeff Esposito also wants to comment in writing. And he's for it as well. BILL: Okay. MENDENHALL: And that's it. MAGAZINE: I just want to -- a couple of words. First of all, when we vote, since I'm on the board I will be recusing myself. But having said that, you have no idea -- the public has no idea what a hard-working board we have. The amount of time they have put in, the expertise they have at their hands is just astonishing. You just saw the tip of the iceberg this evening. We've actually had retreats -- all day retreats to talk about some of the details. And it's just been absolutely remarkable. When this happens, it's going to be a nationwide event. People throughout the County will be talking about this and will be coming to Fountain Hills. It's going to change the face of Fountain Hills. And I just want to personally thank Joe and -- by the way, anybody that has -- anybody watching on channel 11, anybody has -- I don't know -- $5, $10, $15 million dollars that wants to have their name on the building, call Joe or his wife Nancy, who's our treasurer. It would be very welcomed. So with that, I just want to thank Joe and thank the board. SPELICH: I'm sure, Mr. Bill, you already thought about this. But did anybody try to make contact with Elon Musk, because this has got somebody's ego who wants to stroke a huge check, who's got more money than God. This sounds like something that would be right in his wheelhouse. BILL: Well, as a matter of fact, we have reached out. And we've reached out to a lot of key folks like that. And the thing is, you -- all it takes is one person like that to decide to do this. Okay? And that's why we've reached out to them. But we also -- in the fundraising business, have learned that if they don't have an Arizona connection specifically, it's a little harder. And so there are people in Arizona who have the means to make this happen. And so we definitely are reaching out to various contacts to get those TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 21 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 21 of 62 people interested. We have some contacts fairly well made already. But we're trying to really reach the kinds of individuals who can just say, sure, let's do this. SPELICH: So is he -- does he know about this? Do you know that he knows about this? BILL: In the case of Elon Musk? We don't know if it got all the way to his desk. Okay? One -- the other thing we learned is that the very wealthy -- I'll tell you, they're sort of like guarded -- like, the guards at Fort Knox. You -- it's very hard to get to them. And some even pay to have their names erased from the internet so that you can't find them. And so it's difficult. And so when you asked earlier about what can you do to help, the message that needs to go out there is that the best thing that works is if you know someone who knows someone. And that is what can get us in the door to talk to people, because once we get a chance to tell the story, we can make a sale. This is a great project. MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you so much. SCHARNOW: Madam Mayor? MAYOR DICKEY: Oh. Yes. Go ahead, Mike. SCHARNOW: Yeah. Just real quick, I just wanted to point out -- I know it's been talked about before -- but I just want to clarify that the (indiscernible) includes relocating the community garden, first of all. And then secondly -- I know the garden's behind this, but -- and they're going to get the same amount of room, if not more, with the relocation? BILL: Yeah. The answer is yes. In fact, Jerry Butler on our board has been working closely with the garden. And that has been going very well. It's a great new design. We're including some things that they don't have already like, for instance, a restroom. And so it's a cooperative relationship. And we expect it to go well. And we actually want to work with them, because there are some things we can do together that's done nowhere else in the Country. And to just kind of show how this -- how -- what -- our mission, how it relates to plants, nocturnal animals. And we can have some demonstration beds. It's just fun to think about those kinds of options. And I think -- Mike, did I miss the first part of your question? SCHARNOW: Well, I know the garden's behind it. But I just -- I thought I remember -- BILL: Oh. SCHARNOW: -- that your price tag includes the cost of relocation? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 22 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 22 of 62 BILL: That's right. That's what I missed. Yes, it does. SCHARNOW: Okay. Great. MAYOR DICKEY: Thanks. Yeah. I was going to point that out. Well, again, thank you for all the collaboration not only with your business partners, and ASU, and the State of Arizona because they funded some of this. So we're kind of working on that end a little bit too. All of the board and all of the fine professional work that they've done so far with this has just been amazing -- you and Nancy. Of course, one of the things we can do in the future is, you know, the lease will come back to us -- the lease with the garden and making sure that we take everybody into consideration on the things that we can do up here. And again, to just make sure that we get the word out this is an amazing project that will, like you said, have a lasting -- and I think Alan you said it -- effect on our town, on our businesses. It's a unique -- it's always been something about Fountian Hills where, you know, we're so unique and beautiful. And what kind of niche sort of a beautiful opportunity we could have here. And so I wish you the best. I think that you'll probably find support up here for this. And working with John, and with Grady, and anything else that you need to bring it forward. And then I guess we'll see the lease at some time in the future. Were there any other questions? Yes, sir? MAGAZINE: I just want to clarify something that may not have been clear enough. To avoid getting lots of letters and hate mail, I want to make it clear that the -- our board is paying for the relocation of the garden? BILL: Right. Yes. MAYOR DICKEY: All right. If there isn't anything else, I will entertain a motion, please? GRZYBOWSKI: Move to approve site plan SIT22-13, subject to staff receiving complete final plans. MCMAHON: Second. MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. All in favor, please say aye. ALL: Aye. SCHARNOW: Aye. MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you very much. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 23 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 23 of 62 MAGAZINE: And I recused myself. MAYOR DICKEY: Oh. Yes. Let the record show. Thank you so much. Thank you all. Our next item is the approval of a -- the sport lighting. I think Rachael's going to do that one? GOODWIN: Good evening, Mayor and Council. Thank you for having me tonight. I feel fortunate to go following the Dark Skies discussion because we're going to talk some more about lights. So you guys are kind of primed and ready to go. In this conversation, however, tonight we are going to be talking about our ballfield lights. Now this isn't part of the presentation. But I figure I'm going to take the opportunity that's presented to say a lot of what we're talking about tonight is about lighting our field and also supporting the Dark-Sky concept of how sports fields and how community use goes hand in hand with that designation. So if there's questions I can answer, please let me know. Otherwise, I am going to talk a little bit about our lights, where we are now, and where we'd like to go. So the majority of what we're going to talk about tonight are the Golden Eagle Park ballfields. However, the conversation is about a contract with Musco Lighting. Musco Lighting is our lighting provider for all of our parks. They -- we have field lights in all of our parks other than the Avenue Fountains. And our parks are all different ages. So this contract specifically is earmarked for a large project at Golden Eagle. So that's where we're going to focus most of our discussion tonight. As you might remember, Golden Eagle flooded a number of years ago. But before that, I wanted to go back to the installation. And Councilman Scharnow, you probably remember the lights were installed between 1997 and 1999. There's twenty poles. They're all between seventy and eighty feet tall. They have about 175 light fixtures over the course of four ballfields. At the time of installation -- so in the late '90s -- there was a ten-year warranty in effect. We can all do the math. That warranty is no longer valid. It also features metal highlight technology. So that is pretty dated technology. It's twenty-five years old. And at the time of install we did expect them to last roughly twenty to twenty-five years. So when we had the flood in 2018 done there was a lot of damage done and a lot of surface damage. And that's what we repaired. And you can kind of see some photos there. But there's -- we're still finding issues below grade, underground corrosion, things that got wet that shouldn't have. So we're still kind of dealing with that on a case-by-case basis. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 24 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 24 of 62 So that's really kind of an unknown that we handle as it comes up. So the ballfields. When we redid them in 2018, we saw a tremendous uptick in use. They've always been well-used ballfields. But they are more used today than I -- than as far back as I can track. We host more than thirty-five camp tournaments annually. Those are generally over weekends. So that means thirty-five out of fifty-two weekends we're hosting a ball tournament at the park. It's the home of our senior softball program. It's the home of our Fountain Hills little league. Both baseball and softball programs. It is the multi -- we host multiple club teams, and games, and practices out there. We are the home of post-grad sports. And we are a partner facility with the Fountain Hills Unified School District. What does that translate to when I say, "thirty-five tournaments annually" and all of this different usage? This is what it translates to financially. We've grown to about 65 to $68,000 generated annually. You can kind of see the tracking from FY16 through FY21 there. We've increased our partnerships to include more senior tournaments. I'll draw a note there, you can kind of see that dip in FY18. That's a direct impact from the flooding when we had to shut the fields down for the better part of six months. But the renovations that we did during that time accelerated us exponentially. You can kind of see that shoot up over FY20 and 21. So it does translate to real dollars and real financial and revenue benefits for the Town. I mentioned post-grad sports. And I wanted to call special attention to them because they are a unique partnership with us. Post-grad sports is a gap year college baseball training and recruiting program. So athletes that finish high school that may not be quite ready yet for a -- for recruiting or for college-level play take this program to improve their skills and become more prepared for that -- more recruitable. We've established a financial partnership with them. We are their home field. We host them three to four days a week, basically from August through May. So during the school year. It is a very, very good partnership. Not only finically, but they bring national player and MLB exposure to us. They do a number of rehab projects. We've had a number of different MLB pitchers that were working on their rehab come out and use our ballfield. I mean, that's a -- that's national exposure. And then they also support our fields and our programs with donations. They do a number of work days out there to make sure our fields are TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 25 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 25 of 62 maintained at the highest level. So this is a really unique partnership. And it's just one of many that we have out there at Golden Eagle Park. Other impacts about our parks. So what else do you know and need to know about Fountain Hills and our Golden Eagle ballpark fields? Well, it's a user-rated facility. You can go on Google. There's 226 reviews. We have 4.6 stars, which is great. I did pull one of the direct quotes out of there because it is kind of a summary of how we feel about it too. "It's an incredible facility for the kids, just like the pros. Playground is also first class. Excellent overall." It kind of sums it up. We've done a lot of work on those fields. We've done a lot of work on our reputation to become the premier ballfields in the east valley. We get used -- we get a lot of bookings because of the quality of our fields. We're an established destination tournament site. What does that mean? It means that we have teams that come to play from California, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas. People come to be part of those tournaments. And what does that -- it translates into tourism -- sports tourism. It translates into indirect revenue for hotel stays, restaurants, other spending in our community. So it's -- all round it's a very, very big part of what we do. And really, lighting is an essential factor to draw those tournaments here. So why am I talking a lot about these lights? Because we need some new ones. I just mentioned at the beginning of this that we started -- that these were installed in the late '90s. They are at the end of their useful life. They were expected to last twenty to twenty-five years. They did. We are at twenty-five years now. We started having this conversation back in 2016 at the twenty-year mark. We knew this was coming. This isn't a surprise. We've been talking about it. It's been put into our CIP (ph.) outlook program. I kind of said, hey, it's coming. We've got to start talking about it. We're now at that point where we need to execute. We've spent more than $40,000 since May, this past May, in repairs that continue to happen. We're degrading quickly. So what the staff has done is put together a proactive plan verses a reactive failure approach. And really what we're talking about here is eyeballing next summer, 2023, as the installation time for this project. Why? It minimizes our downtime. We're -- most people are not playing ball in the summer. It's hot. It's too hot. So we don't have a lot of usership. So we're not going to be impacting TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 26 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 26 of 62 our users. We're also going to be able to plan it so that we can have all the right people there at all of the right times so that our window of installation and our window of downtime is minimized. You heard me mention it was in summer. That crosses two fiscal years. The process of this fiscal ending in June, our new fiscal one starting in July. We spread the cost over those two fiscal years to help stabilize the budget. So it's not such an impact all at once. By doing all of this, it also minimized or reduces to nothing, our revenue impact. IE: We will not be having to cancel tournaments. We will not have to turn folks away because of this. If we wait until there is a failure, the likelihood is we will have revenue impact. Not only that, is that we will have a significant downtime as we try to manage through that process. So what is the proposal tonight? The proposal is a Musco Lighting LED lighting package. As I mentioned, we're using metal highlight. That's why you hear the hum when you're out there if you're under any of our ballfield lights. It's also why there's not that instant on/off concept. You can't turn them on, then turn them off, and then it takes another twenty minutes for them to heat back up again. So the proposal on the table tonight is the -- that Musco would use our existing poles that are out there. That is a really, really big benefit for us that we don't have to pay to replace those. Not only will they use what's existing, but they will put it under a twenty-five year warranty, parts and labor, for us. That is also a really, really significant benefit. Using LED would reduce operations cost. It just uses less power, less energy. We would move to LED technology and controllers which, again, is significantly in -- reduces our impacts and the energy usage. It's dimmable and adjustable so that when we aren't necessarily playing but we're prepping fields or we're doing cleanup they can be dimmed so that it reduces the usage. And it reduces the light pollution and all of those things we talked about in terms of Dark Skies. It also lends itself to reduce resident impacts. IE: If you live near or around Golden Eagle, you know when those lights are on. There's a lot of light spillage out there because it's that -- how they were designed twenty-five years ago. And again, they -- it does afford us the instant on and off. It's no surprise that sometimes ballgames go long. They think we're going to be done at 9. There's extra innings, the game it tied, whatever TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 27 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 27 of 62 it is. And if the field lights go off you hear a collective groan. If that happens, in this instance, not a big deal. We can address that. It's a small win overall. But it's a big win if you're the kid out there playing or the parent out there watching. Why Musco? You heard me say Musco does all of our park lights. There's a reason. Musco does ninety-eight percent of the world's sports fields lightings. I'm going to share this image -- actually two images with you. This is at Notre Dame Prep. You might be familiar with it over in the Scottsdale area. The upper left image is the original lighting supplier that relit their football field. You can kind of see how bright it is. You can kind of see the -- I'll call it splotchy -- lighting. There's different shadows. You can't see the end of the track there. Within the first week of that facility being lit up, the town received -- or City -- City of Scottsdale received numerous calls. The school received numerous calls. There was a lot -- a lot of complaints. It forced the shutdown of the facility due to the spillage and due to the community impacts. And the school was forced to correct the issue and go back with must -- and redo the fields with Musco Lighting. You can kind of see the impact there from photo 1 to photo 2. But that's why we use Musco as part of our lighting, so that we know we're getting a quality product. It always come back to the money discussion. I get it. It's a big investment for us. So what you have here in front of you is a breakdown of a twenty-five year cost of ownership. So if we keep the lights we have for another twenty-five years or if we move to an LED system. The left column kind of indicates our different costs. So with the existing fixtures we're at 1.2 million in energy, 1.24 in maintenance parts and labor, and roughly 183,000 in controllers and software. That's if we keep what we have. If we move to an LED system there is an investment. It's roughly -- it's a $1.4 million installation investment. However, our reduced -- it reduces our energy cost over those twenty-five years to 678,000 total. Maintenance parts and labor would be under warranty. And the controllers are included. At the end of twenty-five years, the total investment is 2.08 for the LED verses 2.643 with the existing. We come out ahead. It takes us a while to get there. But my concern is that I don't know when those maintenance and -- that 1.24 maintenance that's coming continues to come year over year. The fact that we've spent over $40,000 in the last four months is really, really concerning. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 28 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 28 of 62 So the contract that's before you tonight is set to not exceed $2 million. It is renewable up to four years. So it's a total of five years for 2 million -- not to exceed 2 million. This project that we've talked about tonight is broken over two fiscal years. It's identified for 700,000 in this year's CIP and 700 in next year's. the project, however, would be one project because we would start in June and finish in July. And the two -- and bridge those two fiscal years. That's why we did it the way we would do it -- or we're recommending that way. The total contract includes the ballfield lights, as I just talked about. But it also includes the installation of lights at our Four Peaks playground which is also another CIP project that's in our budget this year. It also would address any maintenance on lighting controls throughout our other parks and any additional operational maintenance in other parks. So while we know there's 2.4 earmarked for the project we talked about tonight, the remaining contract would be to address any operation or standard maintenance in other parks. I know that's a lot. I'm happy to answer questions or talk more about this, (indiscernible). FRIEDEL: Two questions. So Golden Eagle itself, what's the price tag on that? GOODWIN: 1.4. FRIEDEL: 1.4? GOODWIN: Total. FRIEDEL: Okay. And then you mentioned that due to flooding and other issues in 2018 there was corrosion underneath some of those poles. Is that going to affect any installation on the new equipment that they're going to be putting in there? GOODWIN: Great question. And that is factored into that budget. We have that built in so that we can address that if we find it. In a best case scenario, everything looks great and we come in under budget. Worst case scenario, we have the funding there to address it if we need to. And it's just a matter of we don't know what's under there until we get there. MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you, Rachael, for the presentation. So basically this is a need, not a want? GOODWIN: Yes, ma'am. MAYOR DICKEY: Because this is -- our lighting system is failing. It's so old you TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 29 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 29 of 62 can -- probably can't even get all the parts or there's no guarantee that we're going to be able to obtain parts in the future. So basically we're wasting money, right? GOODWIN: I would say yes. I would say this is definitely a need in that we knew it was coming. We've been planning for it. We've been anticipating this. MAYOR DICKEY: Right. GOODWIN: I mean, we're starting to see all of the red flags that say, yeah, it's time. MAYOR DICKEY: Right. So it's already budgeted. This is something that you've been looking at for a while. And it really does -- it sounds like it needs to be done. GOODWIN: Yes. MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. MAGAZINE: Rachael, what is renewable for up to four additional years mean? GOODWIN: Most of our contracts have that language in it. It's a -- an -- And Aaron, feel free to jump in on this. But the idea is that we make a contract that -- they're usually on an annual basis. And they have an automatic renewal so that you don't see us up here every single year renewing contracts. We ask for the contract amount that we think we should need during that five-year period. Clarify for me if I'm wrong. ARNSON: That's right, Ms. Goodwin. So Mayor and Council, the gist of it is we typically include the one-year provision with automatic renewals or the option to renew. So for example, this contract is up to $2 million but this budget is only for 1.4 million for this project. Say there's a repair that needs tapped in the future, say there's a different lighting project, the Council has already done a one-and-done and authorized the expenditure so that we don't have to necessarily come back. Now, we have made it a policy that if there is a big ticket item we do bring it forward for public awareness and so that the Council is aware. But it prevents us from having to come forward for simple term renewals. That's all it really is. GOODWIN: And just so I can clarify, in case this is what -- and I may not have made this clear -- is that the total over those five years is 2 million. It's not 2 million every renewal. So just to make sure. MAGAZINE: Council might remember that I was very skeptical when this came up last TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 30 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 30 of 62 time and asked a lot of questions. I tried to look at it from a lot of different perspectives to see if there was some way to avoid doing this. But I will say that Rachael can be very persuasive. And so I will support this. GOODWIN: I appreciate that. MCMAHON: Also Rachael, do you think that having an improved lighting system is going to increase the use of the park -- GOODWIN: I absolutely -- MCMAHON: -- be more inviting? GOODWIN: Absolutely. MCMAHON: Okay. GOODWIN: I think it will go a long way to -- MCMAHON: Okay. GOODWIN: -- to that. MCMAHON: Okay. SPELICH: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I was very much for this project. Actually, I tried to talk Councilmember Magazine into it. And I hate to say it, but now I'm a little hesitant about the project. Not that I'm not for the lights and everything. But in light of the horrible report we got last council meeting related to the over $1 million estimated price tag to fix the Community Center and try to stop it from being a Poseidon adventure, I'm hesitant to roll forward with this unless I have some reassurance from the guy that's in charge of the money and holds all the money to if, in the event we approve this -- and like I said, I'm totally for it. I understand that you are really gripping and trying to find parts to fix the lights because they're so old. And eventually there'll become a time where there won't be lights even available to fix it. So but moving forward with a vote, I would like some reassurance that if we do vote for this, which is a lot of money, that when we get the final estimate or the final price of how much it's going to cost to fix the Community Center, that there will be monies available to make that happen. Because if it is a choice between lighting the ballfield for another two years or fixing the Community Center, which we dumped $800,000 into and it's slowly flooding and ruining everything that we spent the money on, I would be a yes vote if I can be assured -- even though my council term is coming to an end but I still don't TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 31 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 31 of 62 want to leave it for the new council -- I want to be reassured that if that price tag comes back to fix the Community Center and it's going to be north of seven figures, as Mr. Buick (ph.) said, I want to know that when I'm making this vote that I'm not going to ruin the chances of the Community Center being fixed properly. GOODWIN: Sure. I certainly understand that. And I'll ask our finance director to chime in. And I will kind of draw a little bit of a parallel here in that when we know our systems are aging, it's up to us to make sure that we're proactively addressing the issues. The Community Center notwithstanding, it's an aging facility, we're finding issues. I would prefer to take this one on proactively. We know there's an issue. We want to get ahead of it so that we're not surprised later with that. MAYOR DICKEY: Hold on one sec -- FRIEDEL: Is there any possibility to help Councilmen Spelich's thought and spread this out over more than two years? GOODWIN: You know, that's a great question. We actually kind of brainstormed what we could do to minimize that initial cost. You know -- and because it is a big number, and it's a big blow to our financials. And really the two fiscal years is probably the most we can spread it out, financially speaking. Anything more than that indicates that we're going to have to mobilize multiple times. And I don't know how often you've worked with bringing out cranes, and bringing out all of the technicians, and the electricians, and all of that. It's likely going to increase our budget on this project significantly. And that is -- and that's just the cost for mobilization. We also have a number of conduits underground that go to all of the different ballfields. So essentially, we'd have to rip it up, repair it, rip it back up again the next summer, repair it. FRIEDEL: What about just doing Golden Eagle now and getting that all complete and putting a watch on Four Peaks? GOODWIN: That would be up to you guys to direct. The cost for the Four Peaks -- I don't remember it off the top of my head -- is less than 200,000. So it's not a significant number. And it is a response to a community request. MAYOR DICKEY: Before Dave comes up, can you address what Councilman said about the Community Center as far as things that we did actually getting ruined as TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 32 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 32 of 62 opposed to, you know, what was found in the walls and that such. GOODWIN: I will speak to it as much as I am familiar. I know Justin Weldy, our public works director, is kind of leading that charge. A lot of the issues that we're finding, it's my understanding, are more extensive than originally anticipated. We put in a number of projects including a new drainage system out front, new doors, and other efforts to address the problems anticipating -- great, we were proactive, we went ahead and did these things. During that time they definitely found that the problem was larger and more invasive than once thought. So with that in mind, and again kind of learning from that process, that's why we built in some funding so that if we find that same thing -- if we find that it's more extensive than we thought -- we have some budget allocated so we can address it. We do have the means to anticipate that. We've done quite a bit of legwork ahead of time. IE: we've gotten vendors out here. We've had them evaluate onsite so that we feel comfortable with the number they're giving us. And they feel like they're comfortable giving us that estimate. It's a two-way street. We want to make sure that -- of that too. POCK: Thanks Councilmember for bringing this question up. I -- I'm -- yes. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Are we forgetting? POCK: I'm standing off to the side. You know, I'm trying to, like, okay I need to temper my comments. But I will say, as far as the capital projects fund, this project was budgeted. The funds are there to cover that. The -- it wouldn't take our fund balance down to zero where we wouldn't be able to do something else. I can't stand up here and say that, you know, we've got nine million extra dollars to do something with the Community Center, God forbid it comes back with that kind of dollar amount. If things continue the way that they're continuing now for this fiscal year, by the time this project comes around in May, June, we'll have quite a bit of -- I don't want to say extra -- but our fund balance in the capitol funds project will be growing. The problem, if any -- excuse me -- you know, if we get into a recession early next year where it's starting to effect TPT (ph.) construction, that type of thing, we might have a little bit less than what we think we have at the end -- you know, forecast for the end of next year. But like I said, there's still going to be -- the fund balance is there now plus some to cover cost for the Community Center. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 33 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 33 of 62 MILLER: Just to dovetail onto that, David, realize that you don't have the final, final audited report from the audit. But we had a surplus last fiscal year. It had nothing to do with the RPA (ph.) money. And that will be transferred or will be shortly into that capital fund. Do you remember what that number is? SPELICH: It was right at what we had -- what I had brought to Council when we were doing the budget. It was between the three million and the three-and-a-half million that the general fund will transfer into the capital projects for this year's projects. MILLER: So the only reason I'm bringing that up is I think we're very cautious and we have employed that firm to help us identify and help prioritize the different improvements that are going to need to be made to the building. But I feel very confident, based on what he told us privately both before the Council presentation and also afterwards, that he feels that a number of the interim or short-term solutions such as sealing the windows and some of the drainage system that we are talking about putting in the front of the building will address most of the issues on a long term. So -- but what I'm trying to get at is -- the bottom line is that we are -- I feel, because he said if we were just to replace door front windows and all that, you were talking about -- he said a seven-digit number. And that's what you're recalling, correct? So -- but he had told us he didn't think it was going to get to that extreme. So -- and he's going to be coming back to you with a presentation that identifies and helps prioritize what should be done based on both cost and cost benefit. POCK: Okay. And I was just going to add to that. You know, I believe that we're able to pay for a low seven-figure renovation or repairs to the Community Center out of the capital fund itself. If it's more than that, we have other funds that we'd be able to tap into to move to the capital projects if needed. Be it, the facilities reserve, could probably -- general fund, that type of thing. So there are more options. We're not -- if -- and/or I think we could do both of these without a problem. GRZYBOWSKI: Before I ask my question, does anybody have anything for Mr. Pock? No? Okay. So I have two comments and a question. And I'm saying that out loud so I don't forget to go through it all. The touchscreen that I was the quality control person for Musco Lighting a couple of weeks ago -- oh, perfect. Thank you. Oh my gosh. So I have to say TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 34 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 34 of 62 I'm a little disappointed in these photos because they are not from the exact same angle where the touchscreen was from about the 50-yard line. And if you look at the top left you kind of see the little Saints symbol has darkness to it. You honesty could not make out the people standing at the 50-yard line right there on that Saints symbol. Now if you look in the bottom right-hand corner, it's bright and you could totally see a hundred percent at the 50-yard line. So I'm a little disappointed in the photograph angle here. I feel like we're missing something. The other thing that I want to point out with the other photo is, being directly as somebody seated in the stands looking out, you could one hundred percent make out how annoyed I would be if I was that house at Four Peaks or at Golden Eagle with the before lights. Once you see those after lights and see how little spillage -- thank you -- how little spillage is around it, it's -- it is so impressive. And I'm sure that the Four Peaks people would -- they're just going to be thrilled because I know they've complained. The second comment I want to make is I realize that (indiscernible) is not in charge of money. But the Community Services Advisory Commission did vote on it and recommend the project. Then the question I have is actually going to be more of a Justin thing. And it's probably more of a -- Justin, can you come and talk about the flooding in Golden Eagle Park and all of the work you guys have done to help prevent this kind of thing from happening again? I think it's very important to talk about that for the thousands of fans that you know are watching us from home so that they know we're not putting in good money and then there may be a reflood or, you know, that kind of thing. GOODWIN: Absolutely. I think Justin can probably speak to a number of efforts as well as our parks superintendent, Kevin Snipes. They have both -- they both put extensive work into that project. You're welcome. WELDY: Thank you for the opportunity. I'll start this off. Obviously immediately after the storm event action was taken by the Parks Department and Public Works to clear the drainage channels, was on our side, and to immediately begin remediation or removal of the sediment on the fields was on the Parks side -- Kevin's side. Since that time after every storm event, the Public Works Department with support of two local contractors, TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 35 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 35 of 62 has gone in and removed the sediment that has accumulated in the drainage channels in the impoundment area around the outside of the ballparks. That project that the Mayor and Council had approved some years ago to make the final improvements to that, is now approaching the ninety percent mark. Soon they will be a hundred percent. And probably in the early next calendar year staff will be up here asking the Mayor and Council to approve and contract for the necessary work to complete that project. With that said, again, after ever storm event, Public Works and contractors, and Parks goes in and cleans out material. And we'll continue to do so. GOODWIN: But not from the ballfield. WELDY: Not from the ballfield. We just work on the drainage channels. And then Kevin will provide the Park the -- GOODWIN: And you've expanded the drainage channels? WELDY: We have. GOODWIN: Well, I mean, we've taken some preventive measures. WELDY: In fact we have taken extensive preventative measures. I'm not going to get into a lot of background here because it'll make more than one of you sleepy. Originally, when the drainage channels -- when they were designed, they were designed for very short and light rain events. And as a result of that, it didn't take them very long to become built up with sediment after the storm, which created the most damage in recent history. We went in and expanded not only the width but the depth of the three primary drainage channels that go between the parks and around the park and lead to Golden Eagle Dam. The end result of that is increased capacity for storm water not only as it rolls by and around the ballfields, but also the through -- put through the Dam has been substantially increased as a result of improvements we've made there as well. SNIPES: Mayor and Council. The Parks Department has done a lot as well to the ballfields. As you know, with the 600,000 that was approved by you guys to make the improvements, we certainly have done that. Those improvements include changing slopes and angles of the entire fields to where we can get the water off the fields quicker. So as we get those flood waters coming through, even if they do come outside the banks, we help guide that water back to where that they should be. We've had some issues where we have flooded out onto the fields. Over the last couple years I think Justin and I TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 36 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 36 of 62 both have learned a lot from watching those events and how they roll. Some of our latest things that we've done is going much deeper. And with Justin's help, that's made a huge difference because it helps catch all that sediment before it actually gets to the Dam base where we're clogging up and then increasing the event, like we saw in 2018. So I'm very pleased with where we're at now. We're constantly getting sediment down. That's coming down from the top of the mountain. So I don't think we have control over stopping that. But we're certainly being proactive in once the events occur, working together to make sure that we get in there and get that stuff cleaned out before the next event comes in. And it's bought us a lot of time and a lot of ability to handle heavy rain flows. MAYOR DICKEY: Do we have any speaker cards on this? MENDENHALL: No, Mayor, we don't. MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. Vice Mayor? FRIEDEL: One last question. Now I know Musco did lighting for us out at Desert Vista Park. MAYOR DICKEY: Yes. FRIEDEL: So are they -- so I'm assuming you did your homework and they're the best value out there for these lights? MAYOR DICKEY: No doubt about it. FRIEDEL: Thank you, Madam Mayor. SPELICH: and Rachael, as I discussed with you in the past, it was always my pet peeve to go by these parks and see them lit and no one playing. And I suggested to you -- I don't know how many meetings ago -- that I think that the people that book these things and don't even give you the courtesy of notifying you that they're not going to show up and everything, I'd suggested that we put something into the fee structure or something that would let them know that there's going to be a price for us leaving these lights on and them not showing up and everything. I will vote in the affirmative for the project. But I hope that even though there's going to be a light savings and everything, as far as the electricity and everything, that we insist on -- and this, by the way, includes little league and everybody else. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 37 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 37 of 62 So little league people, send me your emails. I just think that there should be a serious focus on the energy consumption that we use and just now showing up or giving the courtesy of that, I would hope that with this new system and the ability to -- I would hope somebody, either you or Kevin, have an app that will be able to shut the lights off from your house when somebody calls and a citizen tells you that we're lighting up the entire neighborhood and absolutely no one is standing on the field. That's all. MAYOR DICKEY: Okay. Thank you. And I agree. The principle there is that if you've booked the fields and aren't going to use them, it's a common courtesy to let us know. Okay. SCHARNOW: Madam Mayor? MAYOR DICKEY: Yes. Hi, Mike. Thanks. SCHARNOW: Yeah. Just real quick. Rachael, maybe you can probably answer this. But if someone doesn't show up, I mean, at a reasonable time in the evening, I mean, don't we have a park attendant on site who can just turn the lights off. I mean, I guess I don't understand how that happens. I mean, I just -- I thought there was always someone on staff, you know, when something's scheduled. GOODWIN: Sure. The quick answer to that is yes. We do generally have a park attendant on in the evenings. But like many of us, they can't be all places at once. So there may be occasions where they planning -- they're planning their route to end at the ballfields at the end of the program so that they can do cleanup and pull trash. And it's not until they get there at the end of the night that they realize, oh, nobody's been here. So generally speaking, we do ask our users to give us a heads up if something changes. We know occasions like last night with the high winds and things like that come up. We understand that. And we want to work with them about that. Soccer had the fields last night. It wasn't a great night to be playing soccer. So yes, we do have that. But as a result of that conversation, Councilman, we have instituted a very small but effective light fee to our partner groups to help offset that and to provide a little bit of accountability to them to help make sure that if they're not going to be there, if their -- a reservation time changed, something happens, they have some accountability to let us TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 38 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 38 of 62 know. So Councilman Scharnow, to answer you, yes, we do have that staff. But the new technology does allow us to get a heads up if we get a phone call, if one of our staff gets a call from soccer, or little league, or any user that says, hey we're not going to be there tonight, it doesn't then require staff to get ahold of the person on staff, get them over to the site. We can just turn them off via the app and login. And it's quick and easy. So it does help us be more efficient in that capacity. SCHARNOW: Well, and I appreciate that, Rachael. I just want to add quickly, in general, you know, Golden Eagle Park I feel like has been like kind of the crown jewel of our -- at least athletic facilities in Fountain Hills. And you know, I appreciate the out of town usage and tournaments and that kind of thing. But again, you know, Councilman Spelich mentioned little league. But there are a lot of kids and seniors that still use that park and live in our town. So I think it deserves the attention, you know, that it needs to keep the standards up and keep everyone playing out there and safe. Thank you. MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. Yeah. The first thing I thought of when you showed the twenty-five years out, staying where we -- what we have is like, it's not going to get there. So you know, it's kind of a mute thing. Can I get a motion, please? MCMAHON: Move to approve contract 2023-34 with Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. GRZYBOWSKI: Second. MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. All in favor, please say aye. ALL: Aye. MAYOR DICKEY: Any opposed? Thank you. GOODWIN: Thank you so much. MAYOR DICKEY: Thanks, Rachael. Our next item is -- Justin, thank you -- flood control district. MILLER: Yes. Mayor and Council, Justin will be giving his presentation. But I wanted to let you know that the next three items are related to one another. So he'll be giving the staff report on all three. MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. WELDY: Thank you. Madam Mayor, Councilmembers. As with most of the projects TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 39 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 39 of 62 that we approach, some of them are eyewitness accounts by staff. Others are from residents or motorists that identify. We work to identify the best possible funding solution or scenario through either one or multiple years. I've had the privilege, since I've been here, to look over several documents and be involved in several projects. In doing so, to have discovered an incredible amount of time and effort by not only the town staff but management and the Council has resulted in some pretty incredible grant funding with the match or the Town's portion being relatively low. This is an excellent example. With direction from the Mayor, and Council, and the Town Manager, the next two IGAs that we're going to discuss and the design contract to accomplish that are amazing. You'll note or maybe you'll recall that we had approached the Mayor and Council earlier this year and asked for permission to apply for the small assistance grants. One of the projects is off of Grande. It's a channel that runs from Grande to Rosita. There are two homes immediately on Grande that have been effected, one more so than the other. The lower two homes on the portion -- or on the section of the drainage channel, not as much, but to an extent, yes. They've lost items that they've had planted or items that they've left in their driveways due to overtopping and just a simple flow. We're delighted tonight to make the Mayor and Council aware that we have been approved for that contract to move forward with the design and the eventual construction. It's a pretty big number in regards to grant funding. There's a couple of corrections that I would like to make that I discovered I made. The preliminary estimated cost, as you can see in the staff report, is approximately $290,000. The grant funding for this is 217,500 with the Town's match being 72,500 which is twenty-five percent. You'll note that on the very bottom I twisted those two numbers. And it shows the Town's portion being $217,000 and the flood control district's being a little bit less than that. I would like to make sure you understand that I made that mistake. The Town's portion is 72,500. And the flood control district will be contributing 217-plus for this project. Relatively uncomplicated. We've discussed a little bit of it in the past. But I will certainly answer any additional questions that I'm able to tonight. MAYOR DICKEY: Councilman Spelich? SPELICH: Thank you, Madam Mayor. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 40 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 40 of 62 Justin, if this gets approved tonight -- which I don't see it to be a problem considering the homeowner came here and showed us all the pictures of the damage -- what would be the start time for the project? And what would be the completion time? WELDY: Madam Mayor, Councilmember, the first portion is if they are approved tonight and also the design contract. We will set up a meeting to meet with that designer, that engineer, before the end of this month depending on available times, issue a notice to proceed during that meeting and provide a purchase order. Given the limited challenges we'll be facing for the Grande one, I would suspect by probably February or March of next year, depending on how long it takes the flood control district to review the plans as they're prepared. They will be ready to go to construction at that time. MAYOR DICKEY: Did we have any speaker cards on this item? MENDENHALL: We do not have any, Mayor. MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. Any further questions? Can I get a motion, please? FRIEDEL: Move to adopt resolution 2022-40 and authorize the capitol project D6062. SPELICH: Second. MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. All in favor please say aye. ALL: Aye. MAYOR DICKEY: Any opposed? Thank you, Justin. WELDY: You're welcome. MAYOR DICKEY: Going to the next one. WELDY: Madam Mayor, Councilmembers, the next one is equally impressive. This particular one is down on Deuce Court. That's on North Saworow (ph.) just before Fountain Hills Boulevard. This one is an error that we are going to help to correct and do the right thing. A brief history on this. When that subdivision was built and the improvements were installed, the developer was to install a catch basin. This is a device that catches water that flows in from the street and diverts that water into a pipe. That pipe goes downstream, enters another drainage structure until it eventually reaches a wash. The improvement plans that the Town has for that subdivision shows that said drainage pipe is eighteen inches in diameter. And that said catch basin at this exact location. Both of those are inaccurate. The catch basin is off by about fifty feet. And the pipe is off by TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 41 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 41 of 62 sixteen inches. So it's a four-inch pipe in a catch basin that's fifty feet away. We are, in fact, going to correct that and install the correct size catch basin and pipe in the drainage easement that is noted on the improvement plans, relieving the issues from the adjacent property owners. And in this case, it's a considerable amount of water that these individuals have endured for some time because the Town's ability to act on this was limited due to the fact that these drainage improvements were on private property. And the amount of issues related to it were unknown because of the HOA's responsibilities. This is a really good opportunity for the Town to right a wrong and allow for grant funding to fund the majority of that improvement. With that said, I'll answer any additional questions you may have on this one. MAYOR DICKEY: Any speaker cards? MENDENHALL: No, Mayor. We do not have any speaker cards. MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. Peggy? MCMAHON: I'll make a motion. MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. MCMAHON: Move to adopt resolution 2022-41 and authorize capitol project D6063. MAGAZINE: Second. MAYOR DICKEY: All in favor, please say aye. ALL: Aye. MAYOR DICKEY: Any opposed? MAGAZINE: Nada. MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. You're taking the next one too, right? WELDY: Madam Mayor, Councilmembers. And lastly, this is the contract that we're asking you to consider and approve for the design of these two projects. This -- the engineer, principle engineer from this firm has a considerable amount of years working for much, much larger firms on this type of improvement. Staff had engaged this engineer in the past for a couple of other projects to help us arrive at some budgetary numbers for capital projects. As part of the project -- process -- excuse me. Those projects were not selected. We were, however, impressed by his knowledge in the engineering field and also his reasonable prices. In this particular case, this is yet another good deal for the Town of Fountain Hills. The TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 42 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 42 of 62 County is going to grant funding to help us pay for the design as well. And on this one -- and I didn't memorize these numbers because I hadn't looked at it in a while -- it looks like the project for design is about $59,000. I'm missing a table on this one here. There it is. Turned one page too many. So for Deuce Court it's 21,000; for Grande Boulevard, 37,000 for a total of 59,205. And I'm missing a sheet here that breaks down the flood control district's contribution. MAYOR DICKEY: It says here the fiscal impact is 59,205. But then above it sounds like our share is 14,801. So I'm not sure -- WELDY: There it is. MAYOR DICKEY: Yeah. WELDY: Yep. Well, on my sheet it didn't print that. Again, I would say this is a benefit to the Town and the residents as a whole for the cost savings from utilizing the grants. With that, if there are any questions related to this one, I will certainly do my best to answer them. MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. Cards? MENDENHALL: Thank you, Mayor. No, we do not have any speaker cards. MAYOR DICKEY: Great. FRIEDEL: Move to approve Professional Services Agreement 2021-039 with NFra, Inc. for design of drainage improvements associated with the two capital projects D6062 and D6063 for Grande Boulevard, Rosita Drive, and Deuce Court in the amount of 59,205. That's not right. MAYOR DICKEY: It's fourteen -- FRIEDEL: It should be 14,000 -- MAYOR DICKEY: 80125? FRIEDEL: -- 801. MAYOR DICKEY: Can you correct the amount, right? FRIEDEL: Yeah. GRZYBOWSKI: I'll second that -- MAYOR DICKEY: Is that okay? GRZYBOWSKI: -- for the correct amount. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 43 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 43 of 62 FRIEDEL: For the correct amount. MAYOR DICKEY: Aaron? ARNSON: Yeah. I think for the correct amount is good. I -- we may just want to approve it for the full amount so that we can operate under the contract and have the entire thing approved. So I think it's fine to state it -- but yeah. Understood. MAYOR DICKEY: Okay. I guess I can second on -- GRZYBOWSKI: Second. MAYOR DICKEY: -- whatever? GRZYBOWSKI: On whatever it was we just did? MAYOR DICKEY: All in favor, please say aye. ALL: Aye. MAYOR DICKEY: Any opposed? Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Grady? We have our final action item here. MILLER: Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor and Council, the item before you is a follow up to the august 23rd work session. You'll recall that McGrath Consulting gave a great report on the evaluation of our emergency medical and fire services here in town. And as part of that, there were findings and recommendations in that. But it was -- due to the late hour in the evening we did not have an opportunity, really, for the Council other than the questions they asked along the way, to really have a discussion about what came out of the report in a little bit more detailed discussion. So before you tonight, our finance director -- I should say our Chief Financial Officer, David Pock, is going to give you a brief presentation that includes that information. And then also some additional items for your consideration tonight. So with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Pock. POCK: All right. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I told you I'd be back. All right. So as Grady mentioned, we did do the final report from the McGrath Consulting Firm on our fire services at the August 22nd meeting. This presentation is basically just an overview summary, bullet-point type things from that report just to refresh your memory. So some of the key takeaways from that report, as far as the Rural Metro contract, they are meeting all of their contractual agreements as far as response times go. We have a very low fire-dollar loss rate. Compliance with the NFPA standards for staffing, TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 44 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 44 of 62 deployment, and call processing dispatch are not required under the contract. Professional leadership and quality of services -- quality service is being provided to the Town through the contract. Fountain Hills and Carefree are the only two municipal master contracts remaining in Arizona. You had a table of about, I'd say, fifteen to sixteen different municipalities that have moved away from contracting services either through a master contractor or through a subscription service. That could be a sign of a little bit of risk. So primary reason for movement away was the desire for local control. And then also since Rural Metro is not involved in the automatic aid system, that's also another reason that a move away from that contract might be beneficial. As far as the options provided by the consultant, you can see that there's seven there. The first -- the ones above the redline are the ones that staff believes are realistic, as far as being obtainable. So we have the status-quo. We have bringing it inhouse. And then bringing it inhouse with enough staff and enough training to become part of the automatic aid system. As far as their recommendations, I'm not going to go through and read all these. You've seen them all before. But I'll try to summarize them as best I can. If we did decide to stay with Rural Metro and that contract, they recommended that we start putting together a plan just in case Rural Metro decided to discontinue it. That was the first point. The second point is basically if we do decide to bring it inhouse, it was their recommendation that we go -- start on the path of becoming eligible for the automatic aid system. Third point is the additional staff that if we do bring it inhouse it would require an additional HR person and some IT support. And finally, that all fire personnel -- if we did bring it inhouse -- would be eligible for the PSPRS (ph.) program. So based on that, the two reasonable options that staff believes -- obviously, the status- quo. Our current contract is effective through the end of fiscal year '24. So June 30th, 2024. There is another two year renewal available on our current contract that would extend it out to fiscal year '26. If that's Council's desire, then motion A that you see in your packet -- and the suggested motion would be the one you'd want to choose. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 45 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 45 of 62 The other option is bringing the fire department fully inhouse with its own fire personnel. That would have staff come back with the recommendation as far as going straight into develop a transition plan and -- which would include not just to Rural Metro, to terminate the contract at some point. If that's Council's choice, then motion B. Now as far as your Council package, you received an Excel worksheet that actually goes into more detail. I just took the summary here and gave you totals for each of those fiscal years as a comparison between these two options. On top, the contract with Rural Metro. You can see the first three years are a grayed out. That's based on the three percent increase that's on our current contract. That green portion for fiscal year '27 going forward has an actual contract inflater on this one of five percent, assuming they would increase their annual increase in their contract. The annual FH -- Fountain Hills inflater is all the other costs that are involved, be it vehicle maintenance, equipment, things that the Town supplies. That's all figured at three percent increase. If that's brought inhouse, based on the consultant's numbers, for option 1, those are the numbers that you see there. They used -- for all their personnel costs ,and training, and that sort of thing they used a five percent inflater in the report. And then, of course, we still have the Fountain Hills expenses as well. And then that bottom line is basically just the difference between those two scenarios. I do have the Excel worksheet with me on the computer. So if people wanted to see all those expenses, we can expand those if needed. MILLER: Mayor, I just -- SPELICH: I just wonder if you can go back to that last slide? Again, I know Mr. Pock has already stated this. But I want to just remind you, if you looked at the -- on your screen in front you, the green is really an unknown at this point. We really don't know what Rural Metro will charge. And based on the inflationary pressures we've been seeing over the past year, we believe that after fiscal year '26, if we were to continue with them, they'd probably have a reset. They would probably increase their rates because of the three percent multiplier that we have had or the escalator probably hasn't been enough. And so they would likely either do one of two things. They'd probably increase it to a number that they thought they could kind of recover right away what they should've been charging us plus an escalator. Or they will come a little bit more reasonable and then TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 46 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 46 of 62 have a more -- higher escalator going forward. So I just want to let you know that things that we don't know at this point. We don't know the future and what it holds for us. But certainly as we're all seeing with ourselves, and businesses, and everything we paid today, we definitely know that inflationary pressures are going to be with us even as things start to normalize a little bit. MAGAZINE: May I? I just want to make sure I understand this. Rural Metro, FY24, 4.5 million, inhouse 5.6 million. But I think you're saying that the 4.5 million isn't fixed; is that correct? POCK: So -- MILLER: Go ahead. You go ahead. POCK: So the 4.5 million that's included there, it's fixed. Based on the current contract it will increase three percent over what it is this year. It will be that plus our Town cost for vehicle maintenance, equipment, supplies, that sort of thing will be 4.5 million. MAGAZINE: So that's a difference of 1.1 million? POCK: Correct. MAGAZINE: In fiscal '24? POCK: Correct. MAGAZINE: In our favor? POCK: If we stayed with Rural Metro there would be -- it would be $1.1 million less than if we -- MAGAZINE: That's what I'm saying. POCK: -- brought it -- MAGAZINE: Yes. POCK: There are -- MILLER: I was going to -- I'm sorry. I was just going to jump in. What you're not really seeing is that there's one-time cost associated with -- if we were to bring it inhouse there would be one-time costs. That's why that first year is about $600,000 more verses 25 if it's inhouse; does that make sense? So there -- even though we have the fire stations and we have all the, you know, the apparatus and all that, there would be training cost and additional personnel that would be driving that cost. Correct, Mr. Pock? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 47 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 47 of 62 POCK: That's correct. MAGAZINE: Math isn't my forte. But if I take 4 million 534 verses 5 million 658, I see a difference of 1.1 million. Is that not correct? POCK: No. That's absolutely correct. MAGAZINE: Okay. So if we stay with rural, we save 1.1 million. POCK: For one year. MAGAZINE: The next year -- I didn't write it down. Well, it's a lot less in 20 -- in FY26 I think we saved, like, 326,000; that sound about right? POCK: Right. So you're looking at the Excel sheet that I sent out with the packet, correct? MAGAZINE: Yeah. POCK: So the one that's on your screen, I did make an adjustment compared to what you have in your packet. MAGAZINE Oh. Okay. POCK: That -- fiscal year '25 and fiscal year '26 I had increasing at the five percent. But it's actually fixed. We have a three percent increase per year for our Rural Metro contract through fiscal year '26. So that's the only difference that you'll see between the packet and this number. MAGAZINE: Okay. So -- POCK: But you're absolutely right. MAGAZINE: All right. If I understand it, and I may not, we would save considerable amount by staying with Rural Metro through FY25. And then we'd have the time we need to bring it inhouse by FY26. Does that make sense? MAYOR DICKEY: We're always going to have the startup cost. SPELICH: Yeah, I'd rather have the upfront cost. POCK: So there's quite a few costs involved with adding -- getting involved with the dispatch center and getting that equipment installed on all the vehicles and everything. It also has six additional firefighters that are brought in under that option just to cover anybody that's out on paid sick leave, or vacation, or something like that. So you will always have those costs -- MILLER: The big takeaway here is -- I hate to use this excuse -- or not excuse but TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 48 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 48 of 62 example. But it kind of hits home. Right now, under Rural Metro, we don't have mutual aid. And cities are unwilling to grant mutual aid. Mutual aid is basically if we need assistance from Scottsdale fire to assist, they will not do say because we're having Rural Metro as our provider. If we have our own fire department and our own personnel, they will do that. The other thing is, if we have our own personnel and we're able to get our training up to the level that is required for automatic aid, then we qualify for automatic aid. So it's like the difference -- and I had to use this as an example -- but it's like the difference of being, like, a Slovenia that you're providing your own military defense. But then you're able to join NATO and you have the additional resources at your disposal, if you have a need for it. Not -- I'm sorry for that. It's just a really good way to explain it. MAGAZINE: I think it boils down to how much is mutual aid worth; doesn't it? Because if in the first year you can save over a million dollars, is that the cost of not having mutual aid? MILLER: It's one of those things. It's a service level question. And that's where -- why it's before you tonight -- MAGAZINE: That's what I'm saying. MILLER: -- for you to discuss it. MAGAZINE That's what I'm saying. You have to decide what -- how much mutual aid is worth. FRIEDEL: Can I? MAYOR DICKEY: Yes, go ahead. Go ahead, Vice Mayor. FRIEDEL: I agree with you, Allen. And I find it very difficult to believe that another down wouldn't come to our aid if we had an issue. So the mutual aid is, I think, overrated. I don't want to use that word. But there's no other word I can think of at this point. The Town's been around a long time. If Scottsdale had a problem I think we would go help them. If the Indian Reservation had a problem I know we would go and help them if we had to. So I don't -- I agree with you. How much is it really worth? We don't have it now. GRZYBOWSKI: I think one of the big things we need to remember -- and unfortunately I didn't write the difference down in my notes -- but we are discussing mutual aid. It is TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 49 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 49 of 62 different from automatic aid. I think we do mutual aid, that that's just kind of a thing. No? No, we don't? Even with the mutual aid either. But we don't qualify for automatic aid. Rural Metro, as a general rule doesn't, because they don't meet the training standards. And the model does not meet the response time standards. MAYOR DICKEY: Mutual aid, we did have that until recently when Scottsdale cut that off from Rural Metro because they didn't have the same level of training, and staffing, and such like that. So right now we have no mutual aid from Scottsdale or automatic aid. The other thing about automatic aid is not -- it's shared communications. It's joint equipment purchasing. It's operations and staffing of special response teams like hazardous waste -- I mean hazardous materials., trench rescues, structural collapses. There's certain things that maybe we wouldn't always have the equipment for. And that's where mutual aid comes in. We're looking at the safety of our residents but also of the firefighters themselves. I really -- I'm sorry. I know I should wait for everybody else. But I do have some question about these numbers. You said the first two were off because we knew that was only three percent. But this -- POCK : Correct. MAYOR DICKEY: -- rest of that chart is still more than what I had for '26, '27, and '28. It was 326,000 more in '26; 338,000 more in '27. So it had gone down quite a bit. POCK: Correct. MAYOR DICKEY: So I -- I'm not totally sure about why that is. And I also don't know if we're adding in the IT person, which I don't think we need; the training person, which I don't think we need. So I think there's other variables in here which come under the umbrella of it all being under out control if this is how -- if this is the way we go. So I just was a little unsure about those numbers. POCK: So when you're saying that you came up with the difference, was that strictly on the Rural Metro contract line? Or is that on a part -- Town expenses? MAYOR DICKEY: Well, this was from the -- this is yours, I believe. POCK: Okay. MAYOR DICKEY: But this is not -- it's obviously changed the '24/'25 because we know that that's the three percent. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 50 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 50 of 62 POCK: And '26. MAYOR DICKEY: And -- yeah. Which I -- anyway, I know -- I thought it ran out in '25. But that's okay. POCK: It's actually, technically June of '26. MAYOR DICKEY: Two -- you get two. And you said the three percent was guaranteed through that, even though it had to be renewed? POCK: Right. MAYOR DICKEY: But again -- yeah. I think -- maybe this was something that was more of a preliminary? Because under -- on 27 -- FY27 it says 338,389. And here it's -- well, where'd it go. It's not on this one. POCK: Are you looking at the inhouse or the Rural Metro? MAYOR DICKEY: The difference between. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 320 -- MAYOR DICKEY: So the difference between in 20 -- in FY27, the difference between here is 338,389. FRIEDEL: Right. POCK: Right. So what did -- what are the inflaters showing on the one that you have? The -- MAYOR DICKEY: Well, this is -- POCK: -- highlighted -- MAYOR DICKEY: -- the five. But it's after the three years. So it's the five and the three. POCK: Okay. So what I did -- the only different that I made between what you have in here is I just used the 1.3 percent to increase through fiscal year '26. And then taking that and increasing it by the five percent going forward. So none of the numbers underneath were the contract numbers changed, just the formula for that row of three. MAYOR DICKEY: But the -- okay. But the one you had up though before that was smaller that had the difference between Rural Metro and us. So go to 27, you've got 521 -- I can't read it too good. POCK: Five -- 521,386. MAYOR DICKEY: Yeah. And on this it's 338,389. So that's -- this was from -- TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 51 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 51 of 62 POCK: So that's going to be the difference between because over on this one is the new -- with the fixed cost 4.8. MAYOR DICKEY: Oh. POCK: So that's just this line here. The total 4.8 million for fiscal year '26. MAYOR DICKEY: Yeah. Well, it's just -- it's -- POCK: Like 5 million -- 44,000. MAYOR DICKEY: 044 -- yeah. I don't know. MILLER: And again, what we were stating earlier is we just don't know after -- starting in fiscal year '27, if we were to remain with the status quo we just don't know what Rural Metro would charge us, at that point. POCK: Yeah. MCMAHON: So it's -- one of the things -- MAYOR DICKEY: That's what -- MCMAHON: -- is we don't even know if they're going to renew the contract. POCK: They haven't -- yeah. You don't -- you never know. MCMAHON: And that's why -- one of the reasons why we were looking over this is -- POCK: It's a possibility because if they pull out we don't have really any other private groups. MCMAHON: Right. POCK: -- privatized -- MCMAHON: Because the only other town that is using Rural Metro along with -- I mean, we are is Carefree, right? MAYOR DICKEY: And they're looking to change. MCMAHON: Right. I don't know if there was -- MAYOR DICKEY: They're in the same process. They're looking -- FRIEDEL: They're reviewing it. Do they give us a -- we have a -- either one -- either side gives a one-year notice; is that what it is? MAYOR DICKEY: I -- GOODWIN: If I remember correctly we can give one year notice. But they have to give us two years' notice. And I did make a note that McGrath is actually suggesting we come up with a plan now because two years' notice is a lot. But knowing how much money TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 52 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 52 of 62 needs to be invested and knowing how much stuff you got to buy, and prepare for, and hire, we're going to need every day of those two years when you get notice. MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. Councilman? MAGAZINE: If the numbers I have in front of me are accurate -- and I have no clue at this point -- MILLER: And it's all assumptions. MAGAZINE: Okay. Well -- MILLER: It's all assumptions. MAGAZINE: Okay. Well -- MILLER: And it's guesses on our part too. So -- MAGAZINE: In FY24 we would save 1.1 million dollars if we stayed with Rural Metro. That's serious money. It would seem to me -- and councilmembers can totally disagree because I'm not sure of what I'm saying -- but if we stayed with Rural Metro for FY24, we can let the next Council decide about the following year where the savings is only 326,000. POCK: But it won't be -- MAGAZINE: I can't -- I'm sorry? POCK: -- just 300,000. MAGAZINE: I can't hear you. POCK: It won't be just 300,000. That 1 million will just move one year later. Because the -- it's initial cost. And the additional personnel, additional equipment, and diff -- when -- for startup cost. MAGAZINE: You talk -- okay. If we bring it in-house, right? POCK: Right. But even if you bring it inhouse in fiscal year '24, it would still be -- the first year will be $1.1 million cost or difference. MAGAZINE: Oh. Okay. All right. Okay. Yeah. Right. Okay. FRIEDEL: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think what we all really need to focus on is Rural Metro is a small, small subsidiary of a very large corporation. And this corporation's balance sheet shows that they make money in everything they do other than fire service. Okay? Now the only person that I know that is an expert at wasting money TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 53 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 53 of 62 is the Federal government. They don't do anything to it. So I think this corporation, now that it only has two contracts left, I think there's going to be a distinct possibility that they're going to wake up and say we're no longer going to be in the business of losing money. And I think we really need a backup plan. And this is the backup plan. The only question was -- that was a rambling statement. The only question that I have for you is, I remember the Mayor or somebody, when I balked at the $1.1 million and the McGrath representative was here, I remember that it was said that the 1.1 million wouldn't be 1.1 million, it'll be close to 700,000 because we're not taking into consideration something. So what has changed from -- I felt good about 700,000. Where did the extra money come? MAYOR DICKEY: I think part of that was because the money that we were already spending here, we thought we were looking just at the contract amount and not the 250,000 extra and then the other extra, which I forgot what that goes for. But it's all the equipment. And that's the stuff we're already paying for. But the -- but what I had done -- we also -- what made it look like it was 800 was that I went out over different years because the -- they only had one year. They had the first year which is Rural Metro absolutely lowest -- three percent from the lowest. And now I get why this didn't work out. And then -- and it was the most for us. So they had this million-dollar thing. But then, when you brought it out over the years, it -- with Rural Metro getting higher and us getting lower -- that was a more of a realistic picture. And this is a realistic picture in as -- you know, I -- again, there's some of these variables that I think once we're in -- once we have it here, we have the control over do we need a trainer; maybe not, probably not. Do we need an extra IT, maybe not. How much help, as far as getting to the auto aid, how much time do we have. I think there are some variables here that once we go through the transition, if we go through trying to get this plan in place, that we will have our -- more definite feeling for what we'd actually need and what it would look like going forward. SPELICH: So my question is then, if this is approved this evening, what would be the time that this would all kick in? When does chief -- MILLER: So if this the case tonight -- that's why we brought this to you at least for discussion. And if you were to say you preferred this particular service model, which is TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 54 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 54 of 62 to bring it inhouse, we would bring back an action item for you next month. And you would act on that. And we would give proper notice to Rural Metro and our -- what we were saying our implementation date would be, would be January of 2024. We would -- SPELICH: Okay. MILLER: -- have to have a transition plan that helps identify all the moving parts and all the things we need to do in time prior to us switching over. SPELICH: So I guess my question is, is that a realistic time frame because what I think we need to take into consideration is is the fire department that we currently have and the staff that we currently have -- and Chief Ott can correct me if I'm wrong -- but I believe that we have many guys that have thirty-plus years on the job. And I don't see guys that have thirty-plus years on the job fighting fires is a young man/young woman's game, definitely not for people who are -- at the over-the-hump stage of their life. I think that we're going to have to replace quite a few people because I see that they're not going to transition over with thirty-plus years on the job. They're not going to transfer over to a new department and everything. So is that real -- is that a realistic time frame because I think when you're replacing that much staff, I don't know if you can get that done in that short of time. MILLER: That's what the transition plan is for. And so, again, we've seen some of these other jurisdictions do these. If we were starting up from scratch and we had to have new equipment, new stations, all that, it takes much longer. We believe we may want to have, like, the Chief on board sooner than the actual cutoff point so we can get, like, the hiring started and move all those things along. Also, we are not going to necessarily hire everybody. We're going to offer and go through a whole interview process and determine, you know, if there's people that have an interest in this and if it's going to be in our best interest. So we're not going to just necessarily just give a hundred percent of these jobs to these people. And to your point, yeah. It takes a while to go the -- like, a recruitment process. So you're absolutely right. But that needs to be built in to that time period before we make that switchover. And that's for the transition plan. I would anticipate we need to have that transition plan in place by late spring. That we have to have -- and it's giving us guidance and direction on when we do what, when. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 55 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 55 of 62 MAGAZINE: Yeah. MAYOR DICKEY: Uh-huh. MAGAZINE: Is the proposal that we bring it in house for FY24? Is that what we're talking about? MILLER: We're talking about January of '24. So it'd be a partial year, partial fiscal year. MAGAZINE: Well, I guess I'm missing something because the cost for FY24, according to this, is 5.6 million as opposed to rural which is 4.5 million. So what am I missing? Is that not correct. POCK: It's absolutely correct. That's a one-time cost. MAGAZINE: Then why is -- MAYOR DICKEY: One-time costs are more right now. But we also would -- if we want to have the mutual aid, we -- right now we do have four -- we have eight per -- you know, four in each station. And we'd have to have five. We'd probably have to hire -- we would need to have backfill. So we'd have to hire some -- MAGAZINE: The -- MAYOR DICKEY: -- some more people than we have right now. MAGAZINE: The report we got said that we are getting a really good deal. That Rural Metro is fulfilling all of their requirements. And they're giving us excellent service. I don't know why -- and we haven't -- you know, how long have we had fire service? Forty years, thirty years, whatever, without mutual aid? I don't -- MAYOR DICKEY: We had mutual aid until about a year ago -- less than a year ago. We had -- Rural Metro was in mutual aid with Scottsdale until very recently. MAGAZINE: Okay. So they wouldn't be if we stayed with Rural Metro? MAYOR DICKEY: Right. MAGAZINE: But we would save $1.1 million? MAYOR DICKEY: It's not really savings. It's just that we're not spending it. Mike, do you have anything to say? SCHARNOW: Yeah. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I mean, we can juggle the numbers all we want. Doesn't mean that -- the bottom line is just it's going to cost more if we bring it inhouse. But I think, you know, we have enjoyed excellent fire and emergency TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 56 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 56 of 62 medical service over the years because of our personnel, and the previous fire chiefs, and then the one we currently have. And so I think Councilman Spelich does bring up a good point in terms of a larger corporation holding company, et cetera, et cetera. The philosophical thing in terms of how we want to provide this service to our citizens. And I think, you know, all the other jurisdictions when the route that they did because of very specific reasons. And I think it behooves us to be proactive on this now and move on this because what -- like Dave says, it could change in a year or two. Or else we're given notice. And you know, we're not quite as ready as maybe we should be. But I think if we kind of pull the trigger on this now and get ready, it -- the timing will be good. And we can do it in a more orderly fashion and control our shape in terms of our fire service and the excellent service that we have provided, you know, over the decades. I think we want to continue that. And I think going this route will just enhance our ability to do that. MAGAZINE: I too want to do it in an orderly fashion. And I understand that we and -- what's the other -- Carefree, that's it -- are the only two. But they have to give us how much notice? MILLER: The company has to give us two years. But in our contract it says we have to give a minimum of one year notice. MAGAZINE: Okay. Well, I'm two years should be plenty of time to plan to bring it inhouse. It's probably double what you need. So I don't know what the rush is. I just don't get it. MAYOR DICKEY: I think part of it, that we talked about when we had the report, was that communities want control over their fire protection services. The reason that our Chief can't be here giving us advice is because he doesn't technically answer to us. So our Town Manager and our policies do not -- are not -- they only have to be considered by Rural Metro. They don't have -- they -- when -- they are not what forms a policy or any of that. I mean, he cannot speak to us. Our Town firemen and women can't come and give us the kind of information that we need because they work for Rural Metro. They don't work for us. Part of the report, some of the stuff that was missing is due to the fact that it's a private corporation. And they don't have to tell us those things. We are a government entity. We are transparent. And so some of these comparisons are flawed TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 57 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 57 of 62 because we didn't get all the information. And again, this is nothing about our guys and gals who are working here for us. And none of this is meant to be personal. It's a way of becoming part of the automatic aid with every other city and town in our region; definitely want to have mutual aid, which we don't have. It's stability of services. It's cost of services. We'll be under our control. It's having a chief and a town manager that works in conjunction with the Council together. So I don't think it's only a matter of dollars and cents. And I still believe that once we have this sort of control, that we will have more control over the dollars and cents. FRIEDEL: Mayor? MAYOR DICKEY: I was going to see what -- FRIEDEL: Okay. I will let them. Sorry. MAYOR DICKEY: Okay. Councilman? MAGAZINE: Well, I hear you. And I hear about this control and so on. I'd like to hear what problems we've had. If we've had a lot of problems, that changes the equation. But what kind of problems have we had in dealing with Rural Metro where supposedly they're not responsive, they're not giving us this, they're not giving us that. I'm not aware of any of that. MILLER: Just a couple things. I want to dovetail on what Councilmember Spelich said earlier about the company and being one of only two of the master contracts that are left. Rural Metro, the history since -- for, like, the last fifteen or more years has actually gone through a number of reorganization filings, bankruptcy filings. I don't know if you understand that the company that owns it now is KKR. KKR is Kohlberg, Kravis, and -- you probably remember -- yes -- and Roberts. And you probably recall, like, I think it was RJR Nabisco and some of these other -- Beatrice Foods and all these other big conglomerates where they bought the companies and then they broke them up into smaller pieces and sold them. Not as bad as T. Boone Pickens. But the point is, we really don't know what the future lies with this. And they're probably going to try to find and get best value and try to sell this off or parts of the company off to different investors or go public with an IPO. So I guess my concern is, yes, they have to give us two years' notice. But how many TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 58 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 58 of 62 times do we hear about -- especially in retail that they just ended up letting their employees know that they're closing the store or whatever. I mean, even though we're a big client, in the scheme of things, I don't think they would necessarily give us two years if there's a financial issue with the company. So the point is, this is kind of like if the Council wants to go in this direction -- and by the way, I'm -- I've been very pleased with Rural Metro. There's -- there was a point that they did a couple personnel changes that I didn't like. And I had no control over it. And it had to do with our chief and one of his former bosses basically had some sort of a disciplinary matter that they -- that he did to Archie (ph.). If I didn't agree with it, I brought it up to him and it didn't matter because our contract said they shall handle all the personnel side of this. And so that's kind of the -- control. The only control I have is when it's time to hire either a new chief or deputy chief, they give me three candidates. And I get to interview the three and then make a choice. It works. It's been working very fine for all these years. But again, being the last of the two and the biggest of the two really concerns me. They have a master contract and we're the last of the two that -- and the rest of the company that's in the fire business that's doing municipal fire, they're in the subscription business. And a lot of those subscribers -- a lot of those cities that were doing that have now gone and contracted either with other cities or they brought it inhouse. GRZYBOWSKI: Two things. First one, McGrath told us when they were here that the Phoenix area automatic aid is the gold standard. So knowing that we can eventually, maybe not year one, but eventually get to that point, that's impactful. My question, I feel like January '24 seems a little anxious over -- I don't know what I'm trying to say. Have we talked to other cities and towns that have actually pulled this off? Is it something we can make happen that quickly? Or do -- should we lean more towards the fiscal '24 as opposed to the January '24 date? I just -- MILLER: Well, it would actually be fiscal '25. So it would be -- because -- MAYOR DICKEY: So (indiscernible) '24? MILLER: Right. It'd be '24/'25. So you're saying July of '24 verses January. GRZYBOWSKI: I just -- I guess my question is, have we talked to somebody else that's done it? Have you talked to the town manager or the city manager that has made this TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 59 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 59 of 62 happen, and what they went through, and how long it took them? Is there a Bible already out there and we can just use their cheat sheet to help make it happen quicker and smoother? Or do we need to be a little bit more realistic and get -- pad in some extra time? MILLER: Well, I have had some discussions with my peers. Scottsdale was -- it took longer but it was also multiple fire stations, multiple people, a lot of complexities with Scottsdale. There really hasn't been -- other than the Daisy Mountain, which has just taken over recently in Cave Creek -- there hasn't been one of our size where -- and I do believe that a year -- if you prefer eighteen months, I think we can make that work. And I think that would be fine. It may give us a little bit more breathing room for sure. SPELICH: When is the contract due -- up for renegotiation? MILLER: It ends in June of '26. SPELICH: I think a five percent multiplier is not a realistic figure. I don't see them -- that's not even going to be close. It's going to be one of the -- it's going to be what MCSO did to us two years ago when they whacked us with the fourteen percent -- the resort fee. So I'll go back -- I'll hark -- I mean, I can understand Councilmember Magazine's opposition. I don't think you'll find a cheaper guy up here than me when it comes to spending town money. I mean, I'm basically opposed to everything that costs money. But I'm a realist. And I just can't believe a major corporation is going to hang in there and keep a part of their business model a loser. And that's what -- no offense to Chief Ott. I'm not calling you a loser. I'm just saying Rural Metro is a loser, regardless. I don't think that the quality of service is really a question. I agree with everybody. I think the service we get from Rural Metro is top notch. I mean, obviously you can tell by your insurance premiums for your home that they respond quickly. We don't have a real huge loss -- damage loss per home that goes -- catches on fire, I think overall. But we have to look at this from an aspect of I just don't think that this company's going to be in business anymore. And to save a little bit of money now and extend this, I guess it's kind of like the bad girlfriend. You want to be the one that dumps her. You don't want to be the one to get dumped. So I'm kind of looking at it as I want to be the dumper instead of the dumpee. So the only way to make this happen is to take a bite of the sandwich, that we all know what we're talking about. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 60 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 60 of 62 And better to take a bite now than to take a bite three years from now. MAGAZINE: Where do you come up with these things? SPELICH: So it's just -- free stuff. MAYOR DICKEY: Along those lines, here's what happened in Scottsdale. That voters had soundly defeated an initiative to move away from Rural Metro and create a municipality-owned fire department. Yet shortly after the vote, Rural Metro gave notice to Scottsdale of their intent to cancel the contract. They reportedly said that the contract had been determined to be no longer profitable. The City of Scottsdale was given nineteen months to create their own fire department. And again, they needed everything. And then the other thing I wanted to just read. Again, not related to money necessarily. But Rural Metro has done a great job in delivering our services. But bringing the fire department services inhouse offers the possibility of mutual aid and automatic aid. And it's a significant service level enhancement for our residents and our businesses. And as I said earlier, for the fire fighters and paramedics themselves. FRIEDEL: May I? MAYOR DICKEY: Yes, Council. FRIEDEL: We don't ever want to -- MAYOR DICKEY: -- Vice Mayor. FRIEDEL: -- run the risk of not having fire protection. Period. That's why we're doing this. MAYOR DICKEY: Yeah. MCMAHON: Yeah. But also, this is going to happen sooner or later. I just don't see -- like David said, I just do not see Rural Metro just hanging in for one town because I'm not sure that Carefree is going to continue with them either. So I think we're being really prudent in looking at this. Dollars aside, yeah, do we want to spend money all the time? No, we don't. But at the same time we -- personally, we have an obligation to protect our town and the services that we provide. And I think we're being very proactive in looking at this and exploring it. MAGAZINE: I'm really surprised -- it's skin-flint Spelich -- doesn't want to save the million dollars that could go to taking care of the Community Center. But having said that, I'm going to bow to the wisdom of my colleagues and town manager. I'm not sure TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 61 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 61 of 62 it's the right thing to do. But I doubt if it will be a major mistake. So I will support it. MAYOR DICKEY: Do we have any speaker cards? SCHARNOW: Madam Mayor? MAYOR DICKEY: Oh. Councilman? SCHARNOW: Yeah. Real quick. I just -- you know, I want to say too the Town, over the years, has been a big proponent of helping the fire department achieve the success and the good ratings that they have. I mean, the previous Council spent some money to build a new fire station and move it closer to Eagle Mountain and that kind of thing. And we get -- you know, we have the reserve money each year for equipment replacement and the ladder truck and everything. So I mean, the Town's always been a big supporter of the fire department. And I think this is just one more step in that direction. MAYOR DICKEY: That's a good point, Mike. I didn't even think of that. Did we have any speaker cards? UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: No. MAYOR DICKEY: No? MENDENHALL: No, ma'am. We do not. MAYOR DICKEY: I didn't ask you. But I think you're right. Any further discussion? A motion, please, it's on 179-B, I believe? GRZYBOWSKI: It's actually three -- page 379. MAYOR DICKEY: Oh. Sorry. I can't see. GRZYBOWSKI: So I guess we're going with B. So I move that the Town of Fountain Hills consider bringing fire and emergency medical services completely inhouse with Town personnel and bring forth a recommendation to Council at a later date directing staff to develop a transition plan to implement an inhouse fire department. SPELICH: What she said. MAYOR DICKEY: Is that a second? SPELICH: Second. MAYOR DICKEY: All those in favor, please say aye. ALL: Aye. MAYOR DICKEY: Any opposed? Thank you. All right. Well, our next item is a discussion direction to the town manager. Anything TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 62 of 62 OCTOBER 4, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 62 of 62 for the good of the order for future agenda? No? We are adjourned. ITEM 8. A. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 11/01/2022 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting Agenda Type: Regular Agenda                  Submitting Department: Community Services Prepared by: Rachael Goodwin, Community Services Director Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language):  CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of System 4 of Phoenix Contract 2023-039.2. Staff Summary (Background) Due to the Covid pandemic, the Town Park(s) locations were cleaned/disinfected/decontaminated as a separate scope via a Purchase Order in the interests of time for health and safety reasons. Contract 2022-056 was then implemented to formalize this service with a term from January 1, 2022, until December 31, 2022. In August, the RFP for Town-wide janitorial services was drafted omitting Park locations as there was a current contract in place. As (1) the Covid pandemic has been addressed such that health and safety issues have been generally mitigated, (2) the vendor has asked for a fee increase, and (3) to eliminate invoice confusion, this separate contract scope should be folded into the Town-wide agreement (2023-039) as we are amending that agreement via Amendment No. 2 for the fee schedule increase at this time. Amendment No. 2 to Contract 2023-039, Town Wide Janitorial/System4 of Phoenix, (1) adds the Town Park(s) locations to the scope of work, (2) adds funds to cover this additional scope, and (3) adds an across the board fee schedule increase for all services. This fee schedule increase of 8.2% is within the Consumer Price Index [CPI] increase for the region (based on the Bureau of Labor’s CPI). The current stand-alone Park’s contract (2022-056), ending on 12/31/22, will be terminated upon execution of this amendment to Contract 2023-039. Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle NA Risk Analysis Nightly cleaning of park restrooms is important to ensure proper cleanliness and sanitary conditions for the public. Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A   Staff Recommendation(s) Staff recommends the approval of System 4 of Phoenix Contract 2023-039.2  SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to approve System 4 of Phoenix Contract 2023-039.2 and associated budget transfers. Attachments System 4 of Phoenix Contract 2023-039.2  Exhibit B  Exhibit C  Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Community Services Director Rachael Goodwin 10/18/2022 03:59 PM Finance Director David Pock 10/19/2022 04:06 AM Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 10/19/2022 09:13 AM Town Manager Grady E. Miller 10/19/2022 12:32 PM Form Started By: Patti Lopuszanski Started On: 10/13/2022 05:27 PM Final Approval Date: 10/19/2022  1 Contract No. 2023-039.2 SECOND AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS AND FLYING SQUIRREL ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A SYSTEM4 OF PHOENIX THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (this “Second Amendment”) is entered into as of October 18, 2022, between the Town of Fountain Hills, an Arizona municipal corporation (the “Town”) and Flying Squirrel Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a System4 of Phoenix, a(n) Arizona corporation (the “Consultant”). RECITALS A. The Town and the Consultant entered into a Professional Services Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated April 14, 2022, for the Consultant to provide Janitorial/Custodial services (the “Services”). The Town and the Consultant amended the Agreement via Amendment No. 1, dated July 1, 2022 to add cooperative language. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this First Amendment have the same meanings as contained in the Agreement. B. The Town has determined that it is necessary to add funds to the Agreement with the Consultant for additional Services, to add to the scope, and allow for fee increases. C. The Town and the Consultant desire to enter this Second Amendment to amend the Agreement to (i) add to the scope of the Agreement to include the Town Parks’ Scope and (ii) provide for compensation to the Consultant for the Services and (iii) incorporate an updated fee schedule due to Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing introduction and recitals, which are incorporated herein by reference, the following mutual covenants and conditions, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Town and the Consultant hereby agree as follows: 1. Compensation. The Town shall pay Consultant an aggregate amount not to exceed $545,584 (including all renewals) for the Services. The Town shall pay Consultant an annual amount not to exceed $114,396 for the Services. 2. EXHIBIT B: Community Services (Parks) Department Scope. Exhibit B, as attached, shall be incorporated by this reference. 2 3. EXHIBIT C, Fee Schedule. All monthly fees in Exhibit A shall be replaced by the monthly fees in Exhibit C as of January 1, 2023. Exhibit C, as attached, shall be incorporated by this reference. 4. Effect of Amendment. In all other respects, the Agreement is affirmed and ratified and, except as expressly modified herein, all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 5. Non-Default. By executing this Second Amendment, the Consultant affirmatively asserts that (i) the Town is not currently in default, nor has it been in default at any time prior to this Second Amendment, under any of the terms or conditions of the Agreement and (ii) any and all claims, known and unknown, relating to the Agreement and existing on or before the date of this Second Amendment are forever waived. 6. Israel. Consultant certifies that it is not currently engaged in, and agrees for the duration of this Agreement that it will not engage in a “boycott,” as that term is defined in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 35-393, of Israel. 7. Conflict of Interest. This Second Amendment and the Agreement may be cancelled by the Town pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-511. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGES] EXHIBIT B TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS AND FLYING SQUIRREL ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A SYSTEM4 OF PHOENIX [Additional Scope—Parks] See following pages. Fountain Hills Parks Dept – REVISED Scope of Work Below is a listing of the services performed by area and with the specified frequency. - Services will be performed 7 times per week and will occur after hours - Optional Porter Service at Golden Eagle Park every Saturday & Sunday 2pm – 6pm - The cleaners will have key access to the buildings. A. All Areas Frequency Check logbook for customer communications prior to starting service Every Service Clean and disinfect water fountains and/or water coolers Every Service Dust mop and damp mop all hard floor areas Every Service Empty trash and replace liners as needed Every Service Remove all cobwebs as needed Every Service * *Clean and Disinfect all Park Restrooms nightly **Be sure to restock all Toilet Paper & Soap Dispensers nightly - as required Every Service B. Restrooms Frequency Clean and disinfect all counter tops, sinks, toilets, and urinals Every Service Clean and polish restroom metals and mirrors Every Service Dust mop and damp mop all hard floor areas with a hospital grade disinfectant Every Service Restock paper and soap products Every Service Spot clean tile walls and partitions Every Service Detail clean and disinfect tile walls and partitions 1 x per week Change Urinal Screens 1 x per month C. Restroom Deep Cleans Frequency * Deep Clean 1 - 2 restrooms per night, as per attached schedule: 1. Using Re-Juv-Nal Disinfectant & Foamer attachment, clean floor, sinks, toilets, walls & doors, floor. 2. Thoroughly rinse all surfaces after scrubbing with Re-Juv-Nal. 3. Wipe down all surfaces and use floor squeegee to direct water on floor to floor drain. Daily D. Porter at Golden Eagle Park – AS NEEDED Frequency * Work from 2pm - 6pm every Saturday & Sunday, as required by Parks Dept 1. Keep all trash receptacles in entire park emptied and debris removed. 2. Police restroom building to be sure all towels, tissue & soap are stocked & restrooms are kept clean. 3. Police entire park to maintain clean and trash-free environment at all times. Every Weekend E. Closing Procedures Frequency Do a final walk through inspections prior to exiting the building Every Service Document any abnormalities or concerns in the logbook Every Service Lock appropriate doors Every Service Set alarm as directed Every Service Turn off lights as instructed Every Service F. Cautions Frequency As of 11-12-2020 Fountain Hills Parks Dept – Deep Cleaning Schedule To be completed during Regular Nightly Parks Restroom Cleaning Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday GEP & Trailhead Four Peaks Park DV & Trailhead Fountain Park Golden Eagle Desert Vista & FPP Fountain Park Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Fountain Park Desert Vista GEP & Trailhead Four Peaks Park Fountain Park Desert Vista Golden Eagle Park Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Golden Eagle Park FPP & Trailhead Desert Vista Fountain Park GEP & Trailhead Desert Vista & FPP Fountain Park Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Fountain Park Desert Vista GEP & Trailhead Four Peaks Park Fountain Park Desert Vista Golden Eagle Park Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Golden Eagle Park FPP & Trailhead Desert Vista Fountain Park GEP & Trailhead Desert Vista & FPP Fountain Park EXHIBIT C TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS AND FLYING SQUIRREL ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A SYSTEM4 OF PHOENIX [Updated Fee Schedule as of January 1, 2023] See following pages. MONTHLY FEE SCHEDULE Scope/Area Current Fee until December 31, 2022 New Fee as of January 1, 2023 Town Parks Dept. Monthly $4,355 $4,712 Town Monthly (All but Parks) $4,456 $4,821 Total Monthly Fee $8,811 $9,533 ITEM 8. B. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 11/01/2022 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting Agenda Type: Regular Agenda                  Submitting Department: Community Services Prepared by: Rachael Goodwin, Community Services Director Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language):  CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Acceptance of public art for the Motor Vault Fountain Hills LLC Staff Summary (Background) In accordance with the Public Art Policy's requirement for commercial development, the newly developed Motor Vault Fountain Hills LLC, located at Saxon and Desert Vista Drive, is subject to the Town of Fountain Hills Public Art requirement. Motor Vault is required to either make a financial contribution to the Public Art Program of 3/4 percent (three-quarter percent) of the total construction cost, or an art installation of equivalent or greater value. The construction cost is estimated at $3,743.567.25 of which $28,076.25 represents the value of 3/4 percent.  In lieu of paying the public art fee, the developer has opted to install public art on the property that adheres to the guidelines of the Public Art policy, including public access and 24-hour visibility. The proposed art installment is entitled "Ford GT" and will be created by artist Jamie Schena and has an estimated value of $30,000, including design and installation. The proposed art concept has been reviewed and approved by the Public Art Committee. The sculpture will be constructed of stainless steel and will be located on private property. Therefore, maintenance and upkeep will be the responsibility of the property owner. The proposed art project is before the Town Council for conceptual review and approval prior to permitting, inspections, and other approvals from the Development Services Department. The engineering drawings will be subject to review by Town staff and final approval of the installation will be contingent upon meeting all structural engineering requirements. Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle The Town of Fountain Hills Public Art Master Plan. Risk Analysis Conceptual approval and proper inspections are forthcoming.  Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) The Public Art Committee recommended approval at their meeting on October 3, 2022, of the design concept and adding it to the Town's public art collection pending Town Council review and approval.  Staff Recommendation(s) Staff recommends approval.  SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to accept the public art application for the sculpture and authorize it to be installed at the designated location at Motor Vault Fountain Hills LLC. Attachments Motor Vault Application  Proposed Artwork Location  Proposal Design  Ford GT  Artist Bio  Artwork Install & Care  Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Community Services Director Rachael Goodwin 10/18/2022 08:16 AM Finance Director David Pock 10/19/2022 03:56 AM Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 10/19/2022 09:14 AM Town Manager Grady E. Miller 10/19/2022 12:43 PM Form Started By: Patti Lopuszanski Started On: 10/05/2022 12:00 PM Final Approval Date: 10/19/2022     From: Vern Haugen ٧(1аидеп@те.с٠т Subject: Public Artwork Motor Vault Fountain Hills Date: September ١4. 2٥22at It:46 AM ٦0■. The proposed Pub!!c Artwork Motor Vauk Founta!n Hills. Will be commissioned damle Schena to design build and deliver 6foot long stainless steel Ford GT. For atotal sum of $20جاـــــهــــــــــــــــــه. To be delivered by November 15 2022 to: M o t o r Va u l t F o u n t a i n H i l l s 11843 NDesert Vista Fountain Hills AZ 85268 Motor Vault Valley lie will then concreete the stainless steel base to the ground and landscape and light to work. MOTOR VAUIT Fountain Hills and/or MOTOR VAUIT Fountain Hills HOA Will maintain the sculpture washing It when needed. The work to install landscape and light the sculpture will be $5,000. ةThx Vern Haugen Manager of Motor Vault Fountain Hills lie ITEM 8. C. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 11/01/2022 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting Agenda Type: Regular Agenda                  Submitting Department: Administration Prepared by: Grady E. Miller, Town Manager Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language):  CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: To establish an in-house fire department staffed with town fire personnel, provide proper notice of ending agreement with Rural Metro in twelve or eighteen months, and to direct staff to develop a transition plan.   Staff Summary (Background) The Town of Fountain Hills currently provides two fire stations, vehicles, and all equipment for the Fountain Hills Fire Department in a hybrid operation between a town-operated service and a privatized service provider with its own fire personnel.  Since the town invests a major amount of resources in providing this service for its residents, the Town of Fountain Hills recently underwent a program review and evaluation of the fire and emergency medical services.  The firm of McGrath Consulting Group presented its findings and conclusions at a Town Council workshop on August 23.  As part of the service evaluation, McGrath evaluated a variety of different service delivery methods, such as contracting out with a private service provider (ie: Rural Metro); contracting with another municipality such as Scottsdale; contracting with a nearby fire district; and the possibility of bringing the fire and emergency services completely in-house with town fire personnel.   At the Town Council meeting on October 4, 2022, the Town Council discussed the possibility of bringing the fire department completely in-house.  As discussed, an in-house fire department would create other opportunities for mutual aid with the City of Scottsdale and other municipalities almost immediately that currently do not exist.  With mutual aid, the Fountain Hills Fire Department or Scottsdale Fire Department could request additional assistance in a fire or other major incident from one another.  Having an in-house fire department would also help move the town closer to the possibility of transitioning into automatic aid.  Automatic aid would position the Fountain Hills Fire Department with an advanced level of support from other municipalities and fire agencies throughout the region during major fire and emergency incidents.  Automatic aid is dispatched based on the closest fire units, regardless of geographic boundaries or municipal borders.    After its discussion on October 4, the Town Council voted in the affirmative to bring the fire department fully in-house with its own fire personnel.  As part of this motion, Council directed staff to bring forth a recommended motion in November to provide proper notice to Rural Metro and seek Council authorization to move forward on developing a transition plan to fully implement an in-house fire department.  Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle Providing for a safe community is a major priority of the Town Council and is contained in the Town Council adopted 2022 Strategic Plan, Strategic Priority 3 - "Continue to Improve the Public Health, Well-Being, and Safety of Our Town" and supporting task C. "Incorporate public health, well-being, and safety in Fountain Hills policies when relevant." Risk Analysis N/A Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) While the town has enjoyed outstanding service from Rural Metro in the provision of fire and emergency medical services, the possibility of having a fully in-house fire department will substantially enhance the level of protection for residents and businesses in Fountain Hills through mutual aid initially with the City of Scottsdale and then, ultimately, automatic aid.   SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to officially establish an in-house fire department with town fire personnel, provide proper notice of ending the agreement with Rural Metro in twelve to eighteen months, and direct staff to develop a transition plan to fully implement an in-house fire department. Attachments Fire Services Information 10.4.2022 Council Meeting  Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Director David Pock 10/24/2022 04:06 PM Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 10/25/2022 08:31 AM Town Manager (Originator)Grady E. Miller 10/25/2022 09:19 AM Form Started By: Grady E. Miller Started On: 10/19/2022 12:44 PM Final Approval Date: 10/25/2022  ITEM 8. G. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 10/04/2022 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting Agenda Type: Regular Agenda                  Submitting Department: Administration Prepared by: Grady E. Miller, Town Manager Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language):  CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Town Council discuss and provide direction to staff on preferred service delivery options for fire and emergency medical services based on the recently completed Fire Services Evaluation. Staff Summary (Background) The Town of Fountain Hills currently provides two fire stations, vehicles, and all equipment for the Fountain Hills Fire Department in a hybrid operation between a town-operated service and a privatized service provider with its own fire personnel.  Since the town invests a major amount of resources in providing this service for its residents, the Town of Fountain Hills recently underwent a program review and evaluation of the fire and emergency medical services.  The firm of McGrath Consulting Group presented its findings and conclusions at a Town Council workshop on August 23.  As part of the service evaluation, McGrath evaluated a variety of different service delivery methods, such as contracting out with a private service provider (ie: Rural Metro); contracting with another municipality such as Scottsdale; contracting with a nearby fire district; and the possibility of bringing the fire and emergency services completely in-house with town fire personnel.   The McGrath Consulting report and presentation indicated that the current service provider, Rural Metro, was doing an outstanding job of maintaining emergency response times and meeting its contractual obligations under its existing agreement with Fountain Hills.  It did note, however, that there were a few potential downsides to the current contractual relationship, including the possibility that the company could decide to discontinue services in the future and that there would be little to no other private sector firms to step in to provide these services at the municipal level.   Due to the lateness of the hour following the presentation and question and answer period at the work session on August 23, 2022, the Town Council did not have the time nor the opportunity to discuss this matter further, including a preference for a fire department service delivery model.  It should be noted that if the town were to bring the fire department completely in-house, it would create other opportunities for mutual aid with the City of Scottsdale and other municipalities almost immediately that currently do not exist.  With mutual aid, the Fountain Hills Fire Department or Scottsdale Fire Department could request additional assistance in a fire or other major incident from one another.  Having an in-house fire department would also help move the town closer to the possibility of transitioning into automatic aid.  Automatic aid would position the Fountain Hills Fire Department with an advanced level of support from other municipalities and fire agencies throughout the region during major fire and emergency incidents.  Automatic aid is dispatched based on the closest fire units regardless of geographic boundaries or municipal borders.    The attached spreadsheet was created by Chief Financial Officer David Pock based on the information contained in the McGrath Fire Services Evaluation Report.  It compares the one-time and ongoing costs of bringing the fire department completely in-house and maintaining the status quo with Rural Metro.  It is important to note that the contract with Rural Metro will expire in June of 2026, so it is unknown what the town would be paying to contract for this service after 2026, as well as the built-in annual escalator that currently sits at 3 percent annually.   The purpose of this agenda item is to seek Town Council direction on the preferred service delivery model for the Fountain Hills Fire Department. The suggested motions below provide direction to staff on the preferred service delivery model.  Please note that if the Town Council wishes to make a formal decision on bringing the fire department fully in-house with its own fire personnel, then the Town Council will act in the affirmative on suggested motion B; then next month, staff will bring forth a recommended action providing proper notice to Rural Metro and seeking Council authorization to move forward on developing a transition plan to fully implement an in-house fire department.  Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle Providing for a safe community is a major priority of the Town Council and is contained in the adopted  2022 Strategic Plan, Strategic Priority 3 - "Continue to Improve the Public Health, Well-Being, and Safety of Our Town" and supporting task C. "Incorporate public health, well-being, and safety in Fountain Hills policies when relevant." Risk Analysis As the staff report and McGrath Fire Services Evaluation Report indicate, there are varying cost impacts and service level improvements depending on the fire service delivery model selected.     Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) While staff believes Rural Metro has done a great job in delivering fire and emergency medical fire services in Fountain Hills and meeting all of its contractual obligations, bringing fire department services in-house offers the possibility of mutual aid and eventually, automatic aid, as a significant service level enhancement for our residents and businesses.   SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to provide staff direction on one of the following options: A. That the Town of Fountain Hills continue utilizing Rural Metro as its fire and emergency medical services provider. OR B. That the Town of Fountain Hills consider bringing fire and emergency medical services completely in-house with town personnel; and bring forth a recommendation to Council at a later date directing staff to develop a transition plan to implement an in-house Fire Department. Attachments FD Model Comparison Cost Spreadsheet  FH Fire Evaluation Report  FH Fire Evaluation Presentation  Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Director David Pock 09/27/2022 05:40 PM Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 09/27/2022 08:09 PM Town Manager (Originator)Grady E. Miller 09/28/2022 06:48 AM Form Started By: Grady E. Miller Started On: 09/20/2022 04:47 PM Final Approval Date: 09/28/2022  Contract with Rural Metro FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 Rural Metro $4,188,802 $4,398,242 $4,618,154 $4,849,062 $5,091,515 Dues & Memberships 515 530 546 563 580 Meetings & Trainings 2,266 2,334 2,404 2,476 2,550 Maint. & Repair 59,853 61,649 63,498 65,403 67,365 Utilities 33,310 34,310 35,339 36,399 37,491 Contractual (non-RM) 4,779 4,923 5,070 5,222 5,379 Supplies 14,992 15,441 15,905 16,382 16,873 Equipment 22,866 23,552 24,259 24,986 25,736 Copier ISF 277 285 294 303 312 Vehicle ISF 205,542 211,708 218,059 224,601 231,339 Technology ISF 1,717 1,769 1,822 1,876 1,933 Total: $4,534,919 $4,754,743 $4,985,350 $5,227,273 $5,481,073 Annual contract inflator:5.0% (user may update) Annual FH inflator 3.0% (user may update) In-House FD FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FD Wages & Benefits $3,562,294 $3,740,409 $3,927,429 $4,123,801 $4,329,991 Admin Wages & Benefits 127,511 133,887 140,581 147,610 154,991 Other Personnel/Admin Costs 660,687 334,998 351,748 369,335 387,802 Insurance (WC, Liab, E&O) 239,830 251,822 264,413 277,633 291,515 Personal Protective Equip Initial Purchase 190,575 - - - - Annual Replacements - 25,368 26,636 27,968 29,367 Dispatching Initial Equipment Purchase 310,669 - - - - Ongoing Service Fees 220,644 227,263 234,081 241,104 248,337 Dues & Memberships 515 530 546 563 580 Meetings & Trainings 2,266 2,334 2,404 2,476 2,550 Maint. & Repair 59,853 61,649 63,498 65,403 67,365 Utilities 33,310 34,310 35,339 36,399 37,491 Contractual (non-RM) 4,779 4,923 5,070 5,222 5,379 Supplies 14,992 15,441 15,905 16,382 16,873 Equipment 22,866 23,552 24,259 24,986 25,736 Copier ISF 277 285 294 303 312 Vehicle ISF 205,542 211,708 218,059 224,601 231,339 Technology ISF 1,717 1,769 1,822 1,876 1,933 $5,658,328 $5,070,247 $5,312,084 $5,565,663 $5,831,560 Annual McGrath inflator:5.0% (user may update) Annual FH inflator 3.0% (user may update) Difference: $(1,123,409) $(315,504) $(326,734) $(338,389) $(350,487) FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33 $5,346,091 $5,613,395 $5,894,065 $6,188,768 $6,498,207 597 615 633 652 672 2,627 2,706 2,787 2,871 2,957 69,386 71,468 73,612 75,820 78,095 38,616 39,774 40,967 42,196 43,462 5,540 5,707 5,878 6,054 6,236 17,379 17,901 18,438 18,991 19,561 26,508 27,303 28,122 28,966 29,835 321 331 341 351 362 238,279 245,427 252,790 260,374 268,185 1,990 2,050 2,112 2,175 2,240 $5,747,335 $6,026,677 $6,319,745 $6,627,219 $6,949,811 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33 $4,546,490 $4,773,815 $5,012,505 $5,263,131 $5,526,287 162,740 170,877 179,421 188,392 197,812 407,192 427,552 448,929 471,376 494,945 306,091 321,395 337,465 354,338 372,055 - - - - - 30,835 32,377 33,996 35,695 37,480 - - - - - 255,787 263,460 271,364 279,505 287,890 597 615 633 652 672 2,627 2,706 2,787 2,871 2,957 69,386 71,468 73,612 75,820 78,095 38,616 39,774 40,967 42,196 43,462 5,540 5,707 5,878 6,054 6,236 17,379 17,901 18,438 18,991 19,561 26,508 27,303 28,122 28,966 29,835 321 331 341 351 362 238,279 245,427 252,790 260,374 268,185 1,990 2,050 2,112 2,175 2,240 $6,110,380 $6,402,758 $6,709,361 $7,030,888 $7,368,073 $(363,044) $(376,081) $(389,616) $(403,669) $(418,263) Financial Analysis Fire Department Operations Conducted By: McGrath Consulting Group PO Box 865 Jamestown, TN 38556 August 2022 McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 2 McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. P.O. Box 865 Jamestown, TN 38556 Office (815) 728-9111 Dr. Tim McGrath, CEO tim@mcgrathconsulting.com Chief Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant chaigh@mcgrathconsulting.com Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant malayna@mcgrathhumanresources.com www.mcgrathconsulting.com ©Copyright 2022 McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise without the expressed written permission of McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 3 Table of Contents Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Study Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 8 Interviews ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Review of Regional Public Safety Studies ...................................................................................... 10 Additional Regional Information Reviewed .................................................................................. 10 Regional Dispatching Services - Costs ........................................................................................... 11 Fountain Hills Specific Data ........................................................................................................... 11 Additional Options for Consideration ............................................................................................... 11 Study Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 11 Support of Town and Department Personnel ................................................................................... 12 Snapshot in Time .............................................................................................................................. 13 Consulting Team ............................................................................................................................... 13 Appendix ........................................................................................................................................... 13 Historical Overview/Background Information .......................................................................................... 14 Fountain Hills .................................................................................................................................... 14 Rural Metro (Source: Rural Metro Website) .................................................................................... 16 Movement Away from Contracted Fire Protection ................................................................................... 19 Scottsdale Situation .......................................................................................................................... 19 Control of Fire Protection ................................................................................................................. 21 Regional Automatic Aid System ................................................................................................................ 22 Difference Between Automatic Aid and Mutual Aid ......................................................................... 24 Applicability of Automatic Aid to National Standards ....................................................................... 25 Current Fountain Hills Model ............................................................................................................ 32 Impact of Automatic Aid ................................................................................................................... 33 Central Arizona Life Safety System Response Council............................................................................... 35 Communication and Dispatch ........................................................................................................... 35 Staffing Levels ................................................................................................................................... 35 Minimum Firefighter Training Standard............................................................................................ 36 Regional Dispatch Centers ........................................................................................................................ 36 Phoenix Fire Regional Dispatch/Phoenix Regional Wireless Consortium (PRWC) ............................. 36 Mesa Fire Regional Dispatch/ Mesa Regional Wireless Cooperative (TOPAZ) .................................. 37 Estimated Startup Costs .................................................................................................................... 37 Staffing Options and Costs ........................................................................................................................ 39 Status Quo ........................................................................................................................................ 39 Create own Fire Department ............................................................................................................ 40 Intergovernmental Agreement ......................................................................................................... 44 Consolidate into Rio Verde Fire District ............................................................................................ 46 Request for Proposal (RFP) ............................................................................................................... 46 Human Resources and Internal Considerations ........................................................................................ 48 Internal Services ............................................................................................................................... 48 Personnel Costs ................................................................................................................................ 49 Appendix A – Data Request ...................................................................................................................... 51 Appendix B – Regional Automatic Aid Agreement .................................................................................... 56 Appendix C – Summary of Fountain Hills Fire Department Startup Costs ................................................. 69 McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 4 Startup Year ...................................................................................................................................... 69 Subsequent Year ............................................................................................................................... 70 Table of Figures Figure 1: Side-by-Side Option Comparison - Financial ............................................................................... 7 Figure 2: Fountain Hills Total Incident Responses .................................................................................... 15 Figure 3: Fountain Hills Fire Loss in Dollars .............................................................................................. 15 Figure 4: Fountain Hills Average Response Times .................................................................................... 29 Figure 5: 5-Minute Time Zone Compliance .............................................................................................. 30 Figure 6: 8-Minute Time Zone Compliance .............................................................................................. 30 Figure 7: Fountain Hills Response Zones per Fire Station ........................................................................ 34 Figure 8: Projected Dispatch Costs ........................................................................................................... 38 Figure 9: Status Quo Budget Projection ................................................................................................... 40 Figure 10: Department Employee Count - Option #1 ............................................................................... 41 Figure 11: Annual Budget for Option #1 .................................................................................................. 42 Figure 12: Department Employee Count Option #2 ................................................................................. 43 Figure 13: Annual Budget for Option #2 .................................................................................................. 43 Figure 14: Maintenance Costs .................................................................................................................. 44 Figure 15: Personnel Option #3 (All employees belong to Scottsdale) .................................................... 45 Figure 16: Annual Budget for Option #3 .................................................................................................. 45 Figure 17: Personnel Option #4 (All employees belong to Scottsdale) .................................................... 46 Table of Tables Table 1 : Task and Staffing Standards - Single Family Residential Structure Fire ...................................... 27 Table 2: Response Time Standards - First Alarm ...................................................................................... 27 Table 3: Task and Staffing Standards - Strip Shopping Center & Apartment Building .............................. 28 Table 4: Response Time Standards - First Alarm at Strip Shopping Centers and Apartments .................. 29 Table 5: Emergency Call Processing Standards ........................................................................................ 31 Table 6: Emergency Call Processing Flowchart ........................................................................................ 31 Table 7: Mutual Aid Partners - Station Location and Travel Distances ..................................................... 33 McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 5 Executive Summary McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. was commissioned by the Town of Fountain Hills to conduct an independent, non-biased study and cost analysis of fire department operations. The goal of this study is to determine whether the Town should renew its current contract with Rural Metro, seek an intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with another nearby municipality, or establish its own in-house Fire Department. Consultants worked to understand the overall contractual situation with Rural Metro as well as how fire services are provided throughout the Phoenix Valley. This included working to recognize and appreciate Rural Metro’s history and current business models under their parent company Global Medical Response, Inc. Important were interviews with Fountain Hills elected officials to determine their individual perspectives related to how services are currently provided. In addition, consultants reviewed a 2021 Community Survey Report completed by ETC Institute of Olathe, Kansas. Extensive work was done to understand the Regional Automatic Aid System as well as the Regional Communication Systems (Phoenix Regional Communications and Mesa Regional Communication System). An analysis was conducted related to Fountain Hills compliance with national fire service standards/best practice models. The national standard referenced throughout the report as well as the one used by the Regional Automatic Aid System is the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. It is important to note that due to confidentiality clauses in the contract with Rural Metro, the consulting team received limited data, service analysis, and side-by-side comparative costs. The consulting team did their absolute best to minimize the impact of the limitations where possible. A detailed description of the study’s limitations is noted in the body of the report. Options were developed related to both “status quo” or discontinuation of a contract with Rural Metro. These options include a detailed financial analysis of likely future costs while considering the limitations of the study. Four options were evaluated and costed with two additional options detailed within the body of the report. Key takeaways from the study include: • Fountain Hills has a very low fire-dollar loss rate. • Rural Metro appears to be meeting all contractual obligations as detailed in the contact with the Town of Fountain Hills. • The Rural Metro leadership team assigned to Fountain Hills is professional and clearly working to provide quality services within the context of the contract. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 6 • The trend over the last 30+ years is for municipalities/districts in Arizona to move away from contractual fire services provided by Rural Metro. o Fountain Hills is one of only two true municipal master contracts that still exist. o Carefree, AZ, who has the other master contract, is evaluating options for a potential change. o Since Rural Metro is not adding new master contracts, one can surmise that the model is no longer a priority under Global Medical Response (GMR) leadership. This is concerning and must be a primary focus when considering the future of fire protection for the Town of Fountain Hills. It is impossible to predict how long Rural Metro will be willing to sustain Master Contracts. • Under the current response model employed by Rural Metro, NFPA 1710 is not being met related to response times and staffing standards. Rural Metro is not allowed to participate in the regional automatic aid system, and Rural Metro assets responding from other locations coming to assist Fountain Hills exceed reasonable response times. • If the Town did not contract with Rural Metro and could join the Regional Automatic Aid System, the system would help/allow the Town to meet NFPA 1710 standards. • Financially, the most economical option for both meeting NFPA 1710 and participation in the automatic aid system is through a contractual relationship with the City of Scottsdale, whereby the Fountain Hills stations, and apparatus are merged fully into the Scottsdale Fire Department. • Should the Town move away from Rural Metro and not join Scottsdale, a decision will need to be made related to choosing a regional dispatch center to replace Rural Metro Dispatch. The below chart provides a side-by-side financial comparison of the four (4) options detailed in this report. The options as reported utilize Fiscal Year 2023 – 2024 cost projections and include between $260,000 - $280,000 in original startup costs (applicable to options #1 and #2). Startup costs would be reduced in subsequent years. The financial difference reported in the chart compares the projected costs of each category against the status quo number. Non-financial options are detailed and provided within the body of the report and are not addressed in this executive summary chart. To assist in understanding the following chart: • Status Quo: Continue a contractual relationship with Rural Metro. This option will not allow Fountain Hills to become part of the Regional Automatic Aid System and will not bring the Town into compliance with NFPA 1710. • Option #1: Create a Fountain Hills Municipal Fire Department using the current staffing level. The current staffing level does not meet the standards of NFPA 1710 related to staffing and response times. This option will not allow Fountain Hills to become part of the Regional Automatic Aid System. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 7 • Option #2: Create a Fountain Hills Municipal Fire Department that is compliance in staffing and response times and meets NFPA 1710. This option will allow Fountain Hills to become part of the Regional Automatic Aid System. Figure 1: Side-by-Side Option Comparison - Financial * See Pages: 40-48 for full description and methodology of options. Recommendations: 1. Should the Town continue using contractual services, it is strongly recommended that a contingency plan be developed for the possibility that Rural Metro might exercise their right to end their contractual relationship. Work on this contingency plan should begin immediately and be complete within 12-months. 2. If, at a point, the Town elects to create and operate a fire department, a primary goal should be compliance with the standards that allows membership in the Regional Automatic Aid System (Option #2). It is further recommended that a consultant knowledgeable in the Regional Automatic Aid System be hired to help the Town prepare its application and assist with plan implementation. 3. It is recommended that any move toward creation of a municipal fire department include the additional positions in Human Resources (HR) and Information Technology (IT) as outlined in this report. (See Section Titled: Human Resources and Internal Considerations.) 4. If the Town elects to create a municipal fire department, it is recommended that all fire employees be placed in the Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS). Participation in this system will be important related to recruitment and retention of fire service personnel. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 8 Introduction The scope of work as detailed in the request for proposals includes a focus on two key areas: 1. A comprehensive analysis of a Town-operated fire department compared to the currently contracted Rural Metro operation. This includes current and historical costs. 2. A proposal of a complete cost structure for the creation and operation of a municipal fire department including foreseeable future costs. Specific areas of focus are to include: a. Employee recruitment, training, and on-boarding costs b. Personnel costs, such as salaries and benefits c. Insurance costs: liability, worker’s compensation, employee health insurance d. Vehicle/Equipment/Maintenance costs e. Cost of joining TOPAZ Communication f. Employee retirement costs In 2021 Fountain Hills contracted with ETC Institute to conduct a community survey report. The focus of the survey was to gather information on residents’ level of satisfaction with Town services. Within the overall survey, satisfaction with the quality of fire protection currently provide by Rural Metro was rated very high with a 91.7% approval rating. Similarly, the quality of EMS service received an overall approval rating of 87.9%. Helpful to Town leadership in understanding how best to evaluate options related to continued fire protection, residents’ listed fire protection as one of the top four services that they would be least willing to reduce or eliminate Study Methodology To fully understand the issues, the lead consultant conducted numerous interviews with elected officials, town leadership, and regional fire service leaders. The lead consultant was given tours of all Fountain Hills Fire Department facilities as well as a driving tour of the community, surrounding wildland urban interface, target hazards, and special risk concerns related to fire/EMS/rescue protective services. These tours were conducted by Fountain Hills/Rural Metro Fire Department leadership. A detailed literature review was conducted related to recent studies conducted on this issue by other communities and fire protection districts. The goal in obtaining and reviewing these documents was to see how other researchers have evaluated similar issues, with the hope of providing insight into the questions being asked by the Town of Fountain Hills. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 9 A literature review is essential in that it shows familiarity of issues and helps to develop focus and topic trajectory for the investigation. It provides insight into what has already been done and identifies what is known related to the topic. Importantly, a well-done literature review also provides historical context on the issue. Over the past 30- plus years numerous communities and fire protection districts throughout Arizona have studied the issue of contractual fire service. Contractual fire service has been a hotly debated topic since the late 1980s. Looking at the history of this issue, a clearer understanding of the topic is realized including an understanding of how the subject has been managed by other communities and fire protection districts. This historical picture can then be used to inform decision-making today. An added benefit of this literature review is the fact that current financial data from other communities and fire protection districts is readily available. Since other communities have recently, or are currently, wrestling with this same issue, costing metrics and data exist which can be used to inform and compare against data calculated specifically for Fountain Hills. Study methodologies broke down as follows: Interviews Elected Officials: • Mayor Ginny Dickey • Vice Mayor Gerry Friedel • Councilmember Alan Magazine • Councilmember Sharron Grzybowski • Councilmember Peggy McMahon • Councilmember Mike Scharnow • Councilmember David Spelich Town Leadership: • Town Manger Grady E. Miller • Finance Director David Pock • Administrative Services Director David Trimble • Fire Chief Dave Ott • Fire Marshal Mike Winters • Procurement Administrator Robert Durham Fire Service Leadership: • Fire Chief Mary Cameli, Mesa Fire and Medical Department • Assistant Chief Mike Dunn, Mesa Fire and Medical Department • Jason Taylor, Planning and Research Manager, Mesa Fire and Medical Department • Fire Chief Tom Shannon, Scottsdale Fire Department McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 10 • Fire Chief Jay Ducote, Rio Verde Fire Protection District • Deputy Chief Scott Krushak, Rio Verde Fire Protection District • Fire Chief Brian Tobin, Daisy Mountain Fire & Medical • Scott Freitag, Fire Chief, Central Arizona Fire and Medical Authority • Scott Walker, Executive Assistant Chief, Phoenix Fire Department • Cliff Jones, Fire Chief (Ret.), Tempe Fire Department • Randy Roberts, Fire Chief (Ret.), Rural Metro assigned to Fountain Hills Other External Service Providers: • Arizona Municipal Risk Retention Pool • Public Safety Personnel Retirement System • CuraLinc Healthcare -- Employee Assistance Program Review of Regional Public Safety Studies • Fire Service Proposal – Town of Carefree, Scottsdale Fire Department, 2011 • Alternative Fire Services Report (DRAFT), Town of Fountain Hills, February 2019 • Standards of Cover Strategic Planning Report, Town of Queen Creek, Center for Public Safety Management, LLC, May 2020 • Fire Service Options, Town of Cave Creek, Public Safety Resource Management (PSRM), August 2020 • Fire Service Scope of Work, Town of Cave Creek, Daisy Mountain Fire District, November 2021 • Public Safety Advisory Committee - Report and Recommendations, Town of Carefree, January 2022 Additional Regional Information Reviewed • Letter addressed to Town of Carefree from Daisy Mountain Fire & Medical detailing “ballpark” costs for them to provide contractual services • Letter addressed to Town of Carefree from City of Scottsdale Fire Department detailing “approximate” costs for them to provide contractual services • An Internal Rio Verde Fire District memo from March 2021 detailing “all in costs” for a new full- time career firefighter: This data includes funding for a Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS) Tier 3 pension as well as employee paid insurance and required social security. The total cost was extrapolated out over a 3-year period showing all anticipated cost increases. • Intergovernmental Agreement for the Regional Metropolitan Phoenix Fire Service Automatic Aid • Letter from the Town of Carefree requesting inclusion in the Regional Automatic Aid System including the response from the Life Safety Council • Collective Bargaining Agreement between Rural Metro Fire and United Fire Fighters Association of Maricopa County IAFF Local 3878, 2020 – 2025 • Central Arizona Life Safety Council: Managing Fire & EMS Service Delivery in These Tough Economic Times McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 11 • Phoenix Regional Automatic Aid Bridge Fire Academy – Proposal, September 9, 2021 • Phoenix Regional Automatic Aid Bridge Fire Academy – PowerPoint Presentation, September 9, 2021 • Letter addressed to Town of Cave Creek from Daisy Mountain Fire & Medical detailing startup costs • Arizona Retirement System website • Compensation Structures for the City of Mesa, City of Tempe, City of Scottsdale, Daisy Mountain Fire District, and Rio Verde Fire District Regional Dispatching Services - Costs • Salt River implementation costs (Estimated) • Cave Creek implementation costs (Estimated) • Rio Verde Fire District dispatch budget and assessed fees paid to TOPAZ communications Fountain Hills Specific Data • Fire Protection and Emergency Services Agreement between The Town of Fountain Hills and Rural Metro Fire Department, Inc. • Personnel Policies: Amended and Restated, April 2018 • Pay Plan: Fiscal Year 2021 – 2022 • Employee Benefit Guide: 2021 – 2022 • Arizona Municipal Risk Retention Pool Benefit Guide • Rural Metro monthly data reports for FY 15/16 – FY 20-21 • Paychex Services Agreement • Fountain Hills Community Survey - 2021 Additional Options for Consideration It was made clear by town leadership that additional options beyond the three identified 1) status quo; 2) seek an intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with another nearby municipality; 3) establish an in-house Fire Department, should be proposed, and brought forward for consideration. Additional options do exist and will be discussed later in this report. Study Limitations Rural Metro is a private for-profit corporation operating as a division of Global Medical Response (GMR). GMR operates with more than 36,000 employees, bringing together multiple businesses including American Medical Response (AMR), Rural Metro Fire, Air Evac Lifeteam, REACH Air Medical Services, Med- Trans Corporation, AirMed International, Guardian Flight, and others. Due to their size, they are considered one of the largest air, ground, managed medical transportation, and community industrial/specialty and wildland fire services providers in the world. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 12 Since GMR is a privately held company, this study is limited in the ability to obtain data related to the financial health of Rural Metro and how their profit/loss status may impact the long-term stability of the provider. Also limiting the study is the inability to obtain data from Rural Metro. The agreement between the Town of Fountain Hills and Rural Metro stipulates the following related to confidentiality and data sharing. Article V – CONFIDENTIALITY: From and after the date hereof [June 30, 2017], neither party hereto will reveal, divulge, or make known to any person, firm, or corporation any Confidential Information (as hereinafter defined) obtained by such party during the term of this Agreement. “Confidential Information” includes but is not limited to: financial information; audited and unaudited financial reports; operational budgets and strategies; methods of operation; strategic plans; business methods, practices or plans; marketing plans and strategies; management systems programs; computer systems; personnel and compensation information and payroll data; insurance data and loss history; education and training materials; and other such reports, documents or information. This confidentiality clause significantly hinders comparative analysis on this report as it relates to: • Recruitment, hiring, on-boarding, and employee turnover • Staff training and development • Insurance costs including liability, workers compensation, etc. • Costs of communication/dispatch • GMR strategic planning related to Rural Metro Additionally, the consultants were unable to obtain performance data criteria related to the AMR dispatch center/system. This prevented a true comparative analysis of compliance with national standards related to call processing times and fire apparatus/company response and deployment times. This general lack of comparative data significantly weakens the overall side-by-side analysis of this study making it impossible to evaluate the true comparative costs associated with maintaining fire services within the Town of Fountain Hills. Support of Town and Department Personnel The consulting team appreciates the assistance of David Pock who served as the project manager for this study. Mr. Pock’s assistance in the coordination of interviews and access to data was beneficial to understanding the overall situation. A special thanks is also extended to Fire Chief David Ott for his support and assistance throughout the development of this study. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 13 Snapshot in Time It is important for the reader to understand that a study of this nature is a snapshot in time, and findings are based on the assessment of the situation during site visits and the material/data provided. The topic of contractual fire service in the Phoenix Valley is very dynamic, thereby making it impossible to capture in this report a complete narrative related to the decision making underway in some of the neighboring communities. Consulting Team The recommendations made within this report are based on the best quantitative data discovered and qualitative observations by the Consulting Team, who have spent years in either fire, EMS, emergency services, human resources, emergency management, or an aspect related to those endeavors. Three consultants participated in the study. Each addressed topics that were appropriate to their specific skills and expertise: • Dr. Tim McGrath, CEO McGrath Consulting Group o Project Manager o 33 years Fire/EMS (paramedic) experience • Chief Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant o Lead Consultant o 38 years Fire/EMS (paramedic) /Emergency Management experience o Experience serving as Interim Village Manger o 15 plus years of managing municipalities’ organizational and operational strategic planning • Ms. Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant o Human Resources Consultant o 20-years’ experience in both private and public sector human resources o Experience as the Human Resources Director and Senior Advisor for a large county in northern Wisconsin. o Experience serving as Interim County Administrator Appendix • Appendix A: A listing of the data requested by the consulting team prior to the first site visit • Appendix B: Regional Automatic Aid Agreement • Appendix C: Summary of startup costs - Fountain Hills Municipal Fire Department McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 14 Historical Overview/Background Information Fountain Hills Fountain Hills is a planned use community incorporated in 1989. The land comprising the community was purchased by the McCulloch Oil Company (McCulloch chainsaws), doing business as McCulloch Properties, and was developed by the company’s president C.V. Wood. McCulloch Oil Company’s founder Robert P. McCulloch is known for the planned use community of Lake Havasu City, AZ. The fountain in Fountain Hills was used as the marketing draw similarly to the London Bridge in Lake Havasu City. Fountain Hills is primarily a bedroom community with supporting commercial space. There is a small industrial area with light hazards. The town’s wastewater and drinking water treatment facilities are the primary high hazards. The Town has significant wildland urban interface including McDowell Mountain Preserve Spanning over 1000 acres of Sonoran Desert. This wildland interface provides tremendous risk with a strong potential for loss to both residential structures and infrastructure should a large wildland fire occur. In 2004 the Town requested a proposal for assumption of fire services from the City of Scottsdale. The decision was made to continue contractual services with Rural Metro due to a lower cost option. In FY 2020 – 2021 Rural Metro, through the Fountain Hills contract, made 4,215 incident responses which is well within the lead consultant’s experience for a community and population base like Fountain Hills. Interestingly, the department has realized an increase in call volume of 1,024 responses over a six-year period, equating to a 13% annual increase. This is significant and a trend that needs to be monitored. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 15 Figure 2: Fountain Hills Total Incident Responses A six-year average of total fire loss in dollars for the Town of Fountain Hills is $309,323. In the lead consultants experience, this number is very low compared to population base and the value of the property protected. This is likely attributed to a combination of factors including but not limited to: • Building and site plan reviews • Building and site inspections • Public education activities • Response capabilities and professionalism of fire department staff • Sprinkler and alarm requirements Figure 3: Fountain Hills Fire Loss in Dollars McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 16 Rural Metro (Source: Rural Metro Website) On February 2, 1948, Rural Fire Protection went into service on a shoestring budget, one truck, a 30 x 30 station fully furnished with used goods and eager anticipation. Two weeks later, their first call defied the law of averages with not one fire, but two at the same time. By 1950, Rural Fire Protection was operating in the, then town of Scottsdale, a budding city outside of Phoenix with a population of just over 2,000. In April, a massive fire erupted in the Arizona Crafts Center and Rural Fire Protection charged in to help. This event cemented their future as the first fire department for Scottsdale, Arizona. More than 50 years later (2003), Rural Fire protection bowed out, allowing the City of Scottsdale to raise its own fire department to service nearly 200,000 citizens. During the 50 years that Rural Fire Protection was servicing Scottsdale, it acquired Metropolitan Fire in 1959, making it Rural/Metro Fire Department. In the same fashion, Rural/Metro expanded to Pima County replacing Catalina Fire Department in 1962, and then to Yuma County replacing the Tri-State Fire Department in 1971. In 1976, Rural/Metro Fire Department made a historic move outside of Arizona, purchasing Knoxville Fire Department and taking Rural/Metro Fire to the national stage. Founder Lou Witzeman even sat for an interview on 60 Minutes (1968) and later Good Morning America (2000). One man, a green fire truck, “hard work, brains and luck.” More than seventy years later Rural Metro Fire Department boasts 42 stations, more than 100 fire apparatus, and more than 1,000 employees—and is a part of Global Medical Response’ family of first response solutions. Lou’s “white horse” cause has come full circle. “It takes hard work, luck, brains, guts and a sense of humor.” In his experiment of free enterprise gone wild, Lou found these five things key to growth, creation, acceptance, and survival. From an enthusiastic 22-year-old to a pioneer in the fire industry, Louis A. Witzeman gave birth to a revolutionary idea, fought his way to the top and handed over the reins in eternal rest in 2004. For more than 70 years, Rural/Metro Fire Department, carries on the courageous fight of a young journalist and his “white horse” cause. Continuing to put in “hard work” in communities across the nation. Serving as the “white horse” for those in need. With a little “luck, brains, guts and sense of humor,” Rural/Metro Fire Department looks forward to the next 70 years with eager anticipation, determination, and promise. Key Timeline Markers • Rural Metro was purchased in 2011 by the private equity firm Warburg Pincus for an estimated $438 million. • Rural Metro, under the ownership of Warburg Pincus, filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in 2013. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 17 • Rural Metro was purchased by American Medical Response (AMR) in 2015. • Rural Metro and AMR was purchased by Global Medical Response (GMR) in 2018. Global Medical Response, Inc. is located in Greenwood Village, Colorado. It reportedly generates $4.4 billion in annual sales (USD). There are 522 companies in the Global Medical Response, Inc. corporate family. Rural Metro Contract Models Rural Metro breaks contracts down into the following five areas: 1. Master Contract/Community Fire Contract: Under a master contract, Rural Metro provides all staffing and PPE needed for community fire protection. In some situations, this might also include apparatus, tools and equipment and a facility based on the needs and desires of the community protected. Fountain Hills has been a Master Contact Community with Rural Metro for many years. Arizona communities that utilize this model: • Leisure World, Mesa (Although categorized by Rural Metro as a master contract, the services provided to Leisure World are not a true comparison to those in Fountain Hills and Carefree.) • Fountain Hills Fire Department, Fountain Hills • Carefree Fire Department, Carefree 2. Membership/Subscription: Under a membership/subscription situation, Rural Metro offers to homeowners, landowners, and commercial property owners who are not covered by a municipal or fire protection district a subscription contract for fire protection. Subscription contracts are not overly common throughout the United States. Although they do exist, it is much more common for a State Fire Marshal’s Office to assign all properties not within a municipality to a fire protection district. The fire protection district, operating as a body of local government, establishes a tax rate and assessment process to collect fees to provide fire protection. Under this scenario, all properties receive fire protection, and everyone pays for the services provided. In Arizona, this “forced fire protection” model is not utilized, thereby allowing a subscription model to exist. Rural Metro’s business model capitalizes on this situation by filling the fire protection void through the subscription process. Under Rural Metro’s subscription model, if enough properties are grouped together within a geographical region, Rural Metro will staff a fire station and apparatus to meet the contractual standard for response time as agreed to within the subscription contract. If there are not enough properties to financially sustain a fire station, assets will respond to the contracted address from the closest Rural Metro facility(s). McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 18 Unincorporated areas of Arizona that utilize this model are as follows: • Sahuarita • San Tan Valley • Tucson • Unincorporated East Maricopa County • Unincorporated Rio Verde • Unincorporated West Maricopa County • Waddell • Wildland – State and Federal seasonal personnel • Yuma 3. Seasonal Contract Firefighters: Rural Metro provides seasonal contract firefighters for wildland response throughout the United States. 4. Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF): Rural Metro contracts with airports to provide ARFF services. This may be full, 24-hour ARFF services or staffing during hours of operation. Basically, whatever the airport needs. Covered ARFF operations: • Acadiana Regional Airport, New Iberia, LA • Bismarck Airport, Bismarck, ND • FedEx World Headquarters, Memphis, TN • John Glenn International Airport, Columbus, OH • Lafayette Regional Airport, Lafayette, LA • Morristown Municipal Airport, Morristown, NJ • Sikorsky Aircraft, Jupiter, FL 5. Industrial/Installation Fire Protection: There are currently none in Arizona but Rural Metro covers installations in several other states. • Barrick Gold Mine, Goldclonda, NV • BASF Refinery, McIntosh, AL • BMW Factory, Greer, SC • Citgo Petroleum Corporation, Lemont, IL • Citgo Petroleum LCMC, Lake Charles, LA • Crazy Mountain Ranch, Clyde Park, MT • CVR Energy, Coffeeville, KS • CVR Energy, Wynnewood, OK • El Paso Refinery, El Paso, TX • Flint Hills Resources-LP, Rosemount, MN • Indorama Ventures, Westlake, LA • INEOS, Joliet, IL • Phillips 66 Refinery, Wood River, IL • St. Paul Park Refinery, St. Paul, MN • Volkswagen Group of America, Chattanooga, TN • Western Gallup Refinery, Gallup, NM • Wieland Rolled Products, East Alton, IL Movement Away from Contracted Fire Protection Over the years, many communities/fire protection districts have elected to move away from Rural Metro contracts and begin providing their own services. The primary reasons noted for these moves: • Communities want control of their fire protection services • Stability of services • Cost of services • Communities want to be part of the regional automatic aid system (automatic aid will be discussed as a major heading later in this report) Due to limitations in research, the following list and timeline may not be all inclusive but serves to provide a generalized listing of Arizona communities/fire protection districts that have ended subscription and/or master contracts with Rural Metro. In some cases, the ending of service was driven by Rural Metro. • 1988: Flowing Wells Fire District (now Northwest Fire District) • 1988: “The Boot” Annexation Area (Annexed into the City of Phoenix) • 1989: Sun City Fire District • 1989: Town of Youngtown (now covered by Sun City Fire District) • 1989: Ahwatukee (Annexed into the City of Phoenix) • 1989: Laveen Fire District (now covered by Phoenix Fire Department) • 1989: Daisy Mountain Fire District • 1992: Northwest Fire District • 1993: Town of Gilbert • 1994: Sun City West Fire District (now North County Fire & Medical District) • 2005: City of Scottsdale • 2007: Town of Paradise Valley (now covered by Phoenix Fire Department) • 2008: Town of Queen Creek • 2010: Litchfield Park • 2020: Town of Cave Creek • 2022: Town of Carefree (Currently under review. At the time of this report, Carefree has signed an 18-month contract with Rural Metro to allow analysis and development of a possible transition plan.) Scottsdale Situation Numerous interviewed individuals referred to Rural Metro’s contact with Scottsdale as the company’s “crown jewel.” In 2005, at the time of Rural Metro’s pullout of Scottsdale, the city had a population of 227,717. This represented the largest municipality protected by Rural Metro. Two years prior (2003) voters soundly defeated an initiative to move away from Rural Metro and create a municipally owned fire department. Yet shortly after the vote, Rural Metro gave notice to Scottsdale of their intent to cancel their contact. They reportedly said that the contract had been determined to be no longer profitable. The City of Scottsdale was given 19-months to create their own fire department. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 20 In an East Valley Tribute article titled Fire Department started from scratch will succeed longtime Rural Metro team, published June 26, 2005, then Tempe Fire Chief Cliff Jones was quoted as saying “the transition is of historic proportions” meaning that there is no national precedent for building a fire department for a city the size of Scottsdale. In an interview with Chief Jones by the lead consultant, Chief Jones said that it has become common for towns to shed their reliance on Rural Metro and launch municipal or fire district departments. He indicated that in many cases the decision to move away from Rural Metro is driven by community leadership, however, there are other historical instances where, like in the Scottsdale situation, Rural Metro elected to discontinue service to an area due to the lack of profitability. When the move is driven by Rural Metro, the move can be problematic for communities as they strive to create their own department. Well documented cases involving Rural Metro’s pullout are New River (now covered by Daisy Mountain Fire District) and Ahwatukee and the East Valley (now covered by the City of Phoenix). In the book You Don’t Always Get What You Pay For: The Economics of Privatization, (2000) written by Dr. Elliott D. Sclar, a professor and economist at Columbia University and Director of the Center for Sustainable Urban Development, Dr. Sclar devotes a considerable amount of focus to the Rural Metro example in Chapter 4 of the book. Nearly every important study advocating or studying the privatization of municipal services refers to Scottsdale, yet few cities have followed its example. Even among those that have, they often drop the practice after a brief experiment because the Scottsdale experience is historically unique. Although it demonstrates that private for-profit fire protection is feasible in the United States, it is an example of a monopoly rather than competitive contracting. Every year, without competitive bidding, Rural Metro and the City of Scottsdale negotiate a cost-plus-profit contract for fire protection for the next twelve months. Dr. Sclar goes on: Because Rural Metro is a for-profit firm, it has strong market incentives to economize its staffing levels, which is does with an elaborate staffing patten that involves on-call reserve firefighters as well as volunteers. It can manage in this fashion only so long as the population density of Scottsdale remains significantly less than the regional average. As urbanization proceeds, pressure on the company to conform to regional staffing norms becomes irresistible. Given the cost-plus nature of the Scottsdale – Rural Metro relationship [8.5% profit on the direct cost of service], it is difficult to see how the city can avoid absorbing these added staffing costs. It is easy to envision a time and situation in which an economically booming Scottsdale is transformed from one of the lowest-cost providers in the area into one of the highest. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 21 If it’s such a good idea… Arizona is a politically conservative state. If for-profit fire service was clearly more cost-effective than direct municipal service, little would stop neighbors of Scottsdale from following its example. Despite the favorable reviews garnered nationally by Rural Metro, there is no local groundswell of support to have other cities sign on the dotted line. Indeed, some newer jurisdictions that had contracted with the Scottsdale-based provider have switched to municipal fire protection. Interestingly Dr. Sclar’s book was published in 2000, three years prior to Rural Metro’s notice to Scottsdale of their intent to abandon their contract and five years before the City of Scottsdale began operation of their newly created municipal fire Department. Control of Fire Protection A primary reason for movement away from contracted fire services is the desire for local control. In the case of a master contract as utilized by Fountain Hills, the town owns the fire stations, apparatus, and equipment, it just doesn’t employ the fire service personnel directly. This ownership of facilities and equipment may or may not be historically consistent with other Rural Metro master contracts. Fire Chief In Fountain Hills, Rural Metro has assigned a designated fire chief to serve as a department head for the community. Although Chief David Ott is assigned to this position, the town manager ultimately has no direct control over Chief Ott and/or the operation of the fire department. Per the existing Rural Metro agreement, the Town Manager has advisory input that is to be “considered” by the Fire Chief. ARTICLE I, Section 1.6, Subsection E: The Town Manager shall be responsible for coordinating all services within the primary service area as well as conveying the wishes of the Town to the Fire Chief with respect to such services. The Fire Chief shall, at all times, consider the request of the Town Manager with respect to the implementation of fire protection and emergency medical services. While the Town Manager shall have no chain of command authority to direct the operations of Rural Metro employees, such authority being reserved to the Fire Chief, the parties to this agreement understand that the Town expects Rural Metro to reasonably respond to its needs for fire protection and emergency medical services as communicated through the Town Manger. In the opinion of the Lead Consultant, Fountain Hills is blessed to have a dedicated and professional individual serving as fire chief; however, Chief Ott is often caught in the middle as he works to manage the expectations of the Town Manager and the Council while simultaneously reporting to senior leadership at Rural Metro. This unenviable position has more than once placed Chief Ott “between a rock McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 22 and a hard place” as he tries to navigate the needs of the community while working under the direction of a for-profit company. Cost of Service As evidenced by the literature review, some communities/fire districts have found it more economical to operate their own departments while others have elected to create their own departments even though a cost increase was realized. In this latter situation, the driving factor reportedly was the continuity of service provided by their own department and the ability to control costs at the local level. Rural Metro has had a presence in Fountain Hills since the early 1970s. The current contract began with the 2017/2018 fiscal year and is a 5-year agreement with two 2-year extensions, potentially extending to 2026. Each year of this multi-year contract includes a 3% annual multiplier. This multiplier is believed to have been the same number used throughout Rural Metro’s history working in the Fountain Hills area. The contract price upon commencement of the current agreement in 2017 was $3,508,053 annually. Stability of Services As communities/districts have moved away from contractual services, Fountain Hills remains one of the last master contract communities offered by Rural Metro. The other two master contracts are with the Town of Carefree, who is currently evaluating options related to a move away from Rural Metro, and the retirement community of Leisure World located in Mesa. Since Rural Metro is not adding new master contracts, one can surmise that the model is no longer a priority under Global Medical Response (GMR) leadership. This is concerning and must be a primary focus when considering the future of fire protection for the Town of Fountain Hills. Under the current contact, ARTICLE II: Section 2.2 and 2.3 address agreement termination. • Rural Metro may terminate for convenience upon 2-years written notice to the town. • The Town may terminate for convenience 365-days after serving notice to Rural Metro. Regional Automatic Aid System In any deliberations related to a change in fire protection services, the issue of Regional Automatic Aid must be understood and considered. The Regional Automatic Aid System utilized in the Phoenix Valley has been in existence since 1976. It is a time-tested deployment model that provides the closest, most appropriate fire service resource regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. It is easily and decisively the “gold standard” for automatic aid systems operated throughout the United States. It was the original model for fire department shared services and continues to set the example for excellence in asset deployment and cost efficiency. Key aspects of the system include but are not limited to: McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 23 • Shared communication centers: Individual communities do not need to maintain their own public safety answering point (PSAP) and dispatch center. • Joint equipment purchasing • Better geographically-located facilities/fire stations designed to provide timely emergency response coverage to a designated district/area instead of a single-focused community model. This is accomplished through a conscious distribution of resources within a member’s jurisdictional boundaries to ensure that no participant unfairly benefits at the expense of another member and that jurisdictional equity and autonomy is maintained. • All assets maintained by a member of the Automatic Aid System are available, shared, and operated as if the asset is the property of the entire system and not just belonging to a single community/district. • No liability exists if a community is not able to provide the requested assistance due to other calls or being unavailable due to training, public education, community events, etc. • Operation and staffing of specialty response teams (examples): o Hazardous Materials o Trench Rescue o Structural Collapse Rescue o Confined Space Rescue o High-angle Rescue o Dive/Underwater Rescue o Swift Water Rescue o Mountain Search and Rescue o Fire Cause and Origin Investigation • Shared specialized unit response: o Command Team o Rehab o Brush Fire Response o Water Tenders Hallmarks of the system are shared standard operating procedures, training and 4-person staffing. All participants of the automatic aid system agree to operate at emergency incidents utilizing the same protocol and procedures. To accomplish this, they also agree to provide the same base level (academy) training to all firefighters. Likewise, incumbent firefighters are required to attend continuing education including specialized training based on their rank and operational assignments (e.g., engine company, ladder company, safety officer, command officer, etc.). These two factors allow the various participants to operate seamlessly as one large fire response agency compared to individual jurisdictions who only come together during times of emergency and are then forced to merge operations spontaneously. In addition to coordinated standard operating procedures and training, a staffing standard of 4-person companies is maintained. This staffing level not only meets national standards (NFPA 1710), but also McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 24 ensures that the same number of firefighters will arrive on-scene and be able to perform standardized functions regardless of jurisdiction. This staffing level applies to all engine and ladder companies. Another major aspect of the system is the elimination of duplicate services. Since equipment and tools are shared as part of the specialty team response model, it fosters the purchase and maintenance of specialty assets and equipment that would likely be prohibitive in cost or frequency of use for any one jurisdiction. Difference Between Automatic Aid and Mutual Aid Automatic Aid Automatic aid occurs when departments/districts agree prior to an emergency incident to share resources as part of the original/first dispatch to a 9-1-1 call for help. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) defines automatic aid as follows: Automatic aid is established through a written intergovernmental agreement that provides for the simultaneous dispatch of a predetermined response of personnel and equipment to a neighboring jurisdiction upon receipt of an alarm and is included as part of a communication center’s dispatch protocols. As an example, if Fountain Hills was operating as part of the Regional Automatic Aid System for a reported structure fire, Fountain Hills would respond with equipment from both fire stations along with equipment from Scottsdale (or the nearest auto-aid partner) to establish a base-level response. A typical base level response (single-family dwelling) within the automatic aid system is three engine companies and one ladder company (commonly known as a 3 and 1). This automatic “front loading” of response equipment and staffing is extremely important in today’s fire environment since fires progress much quicker than in years past, due to the combustibility of the products burning (i.e., plastics/composites/laminates/foams compared to natural products). This faster-moving fire environment requires greater assets early in an incident to quickly gain control and minimize loss. Automatic aid is also preplanned to include multiple alarms thereby allowing an incident commander to simply elevate the response (i.e., 2nd Alarm, 3rd Alarm, 4th Alarm, etc.). This preplanning is efficient and greatly assists the incident commander in his/her decision-making process. Lastly, automatic aid response is based on the closest asset to the emergency incident regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. Mutual Aid Mutual aid is not automatic. Mutual aid is requested on an ad hoc basis by the local incident commander. Using the mutual aid model, the Fountain Hills incident commander would arrive on scene, determine that assistance is needed, determine which department/district can best assist, then have Rural Metro McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 25 Dispatch contact the department/district to see if they are able to respond. Mutual aid, even in the best situations, takes time to put into operation. Though mutual aid partners may regularly train together, in the Rural Metro model, members are trained separately from the Auto Aid System’s regular training program. There is also no commonality of training and operational procedures between Rural Metro, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Fire Department, Salt River Fire Department, or partners in the Regional Automatic Aid System. Applicability of Automatic Aid to National Standards National standards exist that can be used by Fountain Hills to help in decision making related to management of the organization. NFPA standards are not mandatory unless they have been adopted by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Arizona State Statutes, or one of Arizona’s regulatory agencies/bodies. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is a global, non-profit organization that promotes safety standards, education, training, research, and advocacy on fire and electrical-related hazards. Established in 1896 as a way to standardize the use of fire sprinkler systems, the NFPA’s scope grew to include building design, rescue response, electrical codes, and other safety concerns. NFPA publishes more than 300 consensus standards intended to minimize the possibility and effects of fire and other risks. NFPA standards are administered by more than 250 technical committees comprising approximately 8,000 volunteers. NFPA standards are adopted and used throughout the world. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) uses consensus standard rule making. Consensus standards are developed through the cooperation of all parties who have an interest in participating in the development and/or use of the standards. Consensus requires that all views and objections be considered and that an effort be made toward their resolution. Committees are composed of industry representatives, fire service representatives, and other affected parties who all work together to agree on the final rule. NFPA standard revision dates work on a three-to-five-year review cycle. NFPA standards are used primarily by emergency response agencies to established benchmarks of professional performance. In almost any legal proceeding, NFPA is utilized as the standard for determining performance criteria of a fire response organization. NFPA 1710 NFPA has adopted two (2) standards addressing fire department organization and operation: NFPA 1710 – Organization and Development of Fire Suppression, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments – and a sister standard NFPA 1720 – Organization and Development of Fire Suppression, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Volunteer/Paid-On-Call Fire Departments. NFPA 1710 is applicable to Fountain Hills. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 26 Chapter 5 of NFPA 1710 provides specific details on fire department service capabilities, staffing, deployment, and response times. It includes benchmarks for structural fire suppression, EMS, aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF), special operations, marine rescue and firefighting (MRFF), and wildland. Structural fire suppression standards are broken down based on the type of occupancy and the square footage: • Single-family dwelling (2000 ft2) • Open air strip shopping (13,000 – 196,000 ft2) • Apartment (1200 ft2 per unit constructed in a 3-story or garden apartment configuration) • High-rise (the highest floor is 75’ above grade) Different deployment models are assigned for each of the above occupancies based on their level of risk and likely operational needs. Staffing numbers are then assigned along with time standards, beginning with call initiation, until all units have arrived on scene. The below charts detail the NFPA 1710 task/role needs, along with staffing requirements, for fires in structures applicable to the Town of Fountain Hills. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 27 Table 1 : Task and Staffing Standards - Single Family Residential Structure Fire Single-family dwelling (2000 ft2) Task/Role Staff Number Needed Dedicated incident commander 1 Pump operator with a dedicated water supply 1 Ability to establish and operate 2-handlines (attack and backup) 4 One support member for each attack and backup line to assist in stretching of hose lines, utility control, and forcible entry as necessary 2 Provision of at least one victim search and rescue team 2 Provision of at least one team to raise ground ladders and perform ventilation 2 If an aerial device is used in operations, one member is required to function as the aerial operator to maintain primary control of the aerial device at all times. 1 At a minimum, an initial rapid intervention crew (IRIC) assembled from the initial attack crew and, as the initial alarm response arrives, a full and sustained rapid intervention crew (RIC) established. (OSHA Respiratory Protection Standard; 29 CFR § 1910.134): 4 Total staffing numbers required for compliance 16 *17 if aerial ladder is being used *When an incident escalates beyond an initial full alarm assignment, or when significant risk is present to the member due to the magnitude of the incident, the incident commander shall request an EMS crew consisting of a minimum of two members to provide treatment and transport for injured members and civilians. In addition to staffing numbers based on tasks/roles, NFPA has also established response time parameters along with performance percentage indicators. Table 2: Response Time Standards - First Alarm Response Time Standards – First Alarm Assignment Unit(s) Time from Dispatch to Arrival Performance Standard First Engine Company 240 sec. (4 minutes) 90% of the time Second Engine Company 360 sec. (6 minutes) 90% of the time Full Initial Alarm Assignment (3 and 1) 480 sec. (8 minutes) 90% of the time McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 28 Table 3: Task and Staffing Standards - Strip Shopping Center & Apartment Building Open air strip shopping (13,000 – 196,000 ft2) and Apartment (1200 ft2 per unit constructed in a 3-story or garden apartment configuration) Task/Role Staff Number Needed Establishment of incident command outside the hazard area for the overall coordination, direction, and safety of the initial full alarm assignment. This number includes the incident commander and a safety officer. 2 Establishment of two uninterrupted water supplies with each supply line maintained by an operator. 2 Establishment of an effective water flow application rate of 500 gallons per minute (GPM) from three handlines, each of which has a minimum flow rate of 150 GPM. 6 One support member for each attack and backup line to assist in stretching of hose lines, utility control, and forcible entry as necessary 3 Provision of at least two victim search and rescue teams 4 Establishment of an initial medical care component capable of providing immediate on-scene emergency medical support and transport that provides rapid access to civilians or firefighters potentially needing medical treatment. 2 Provision of at least two teams to raise ground ladders and perform ventilation 4 If an aerial device is used in operations, one member is required to function as the aerial operator to maintain primary control of the aerial device at all times. 1 At a minimum, an initial rapid intervention crew (IRIC) assembled from the initial attack crew and, as the initial alarm response arrives, a full and sustained rapid intervention crew (RIC) established. (OSHA Respiratory Protection Standard; 29 CFR § 1910.134): 4 Total staffing numbers required for compliance 27 *28 if aerial ladder is being used McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 29 Table 4: Response Time Standards - First Alarm at Strip Shopping Centers and Apartments Response Time Standards – First Alarm Assignment Unit(s) Time from Dispatch to Arrival Performance Standard First Engine Company 240 sec. (4 minutes) 90% of the time Second Engine Company 360 sec. (6 minutes) 90% of the time Full Initial Alarm Assignment 610 sec. (10 minutes and 10 seconds) 90% of the time Rural Metro provides monthly reports to Fountain Hills. These reports include average monthly call response times as well as information on response times from the individual fire stations. These response times reflect all emergency calls for service. Data is not available to allow a breakdown focused specifically on structural fire responses, therefore, a true comparative analysis is impossible. The data is also focused on “first arriving” and does not include data for the “second company” or arrival of a “full initial alarm assignment.” The contract between the Town of Fountain Hills and Rural Metro establishes an average 5-minutes or less response time for the first arriving unit. Although not specifically stated, it is assumed that this standard is 300 seconds or less. The agreement also references an 8-minute response area that is impacted by fire station location. Per the agreement, this response standard (in both cases) is to be met 90% of the time. Exceptions exist and are noted within the contract. These are primarily due to concerns with severe weather, high call volume, disasters, etc. Response data for the past 6-years is provided below: Figure 4: Fountain Hills Average Response Times McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 30 Figure 5: 5-Minute Time Zone Compliance Figure 6: 8-Minute Time Zone Compliance Although not meeting NFPA 1710, Rural Metro is in full compliance with the contract established with the Town of Fountain Hills. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 31 NFPA 1221 Several standard-setting bodies exist within the emergency services communication field. • APCO – Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials • ANSI – American National Standards Institute • NENA – National Emergency Number Association • NFPA – National Fire Protection Association (NFPA 1221 - Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems) Although each have their specific areas of focus, all agree on a standard template related to call processing. This is important since NFPA 1710, as indicated in the charts above, establishes several benchmarks for response times that have a direct tie to quality customer service. These benchmarks only work if call processing times are held to a strict standard of emergency responder notification. Table 5: Emergency Call Processing Standards Emergency Call Processing Standards PSAP Function Process Time Standard Performance Criteria 9-1-1 Calls Answered ≤15 Seconds 90% of the time ≤20 Seconds 95% of the time Time to Dispatch ≤60 Seconds 90% of the time ≤90 Seconds 95% of the time Table 6: Emergency Call Processing Flowchart Emergency Call Processing Flowchart Event (Something happened requiring emergency assistance) Call Initiated (Call placed to 9-1-1 requesting help) Call Rings at PSAP Call Answered Call Processing (Determining the nature of the emergency & call location) Call Entry (Entering call information into CAD) Call Dispatch (Emergency responders notified of the call) 15 - Seconds 60 - Seconds Fountain Hills fire assets are dispatched by Rural Metro communications. Due to the required call transfer from the public safety answering point (PSAP) to Rural Metro, an automatic delay is currently built into the system. Rural Metro, within the contractual agreement with Fountain Hills (ARTICLE 1: Section 1.4, Subsection B), states that the communication center dispatch times will meet the above criteria. Although requested through the Fire Chief, no computer aided dispatch data related to call processing was provided. Additionally, no data was available to indicate the response time of “second companies” as well as mutual aid assets. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 32 Current Fountain Hills Model When comparing the current Fountain Hills response model against national standards (since no computer aided dispatch data was available), the consultants had to rely on mapping programs to estimate mutual aid response times. To conduct this analysis, the closest fire stations were identified and then mapped using the Fountain Hills Town Hall as the destination address (16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains, Fountain Hills, AZ 85268). Each of these numbers are shown as “drive time” numbers and not “response” numbers which may be slightly faster. In Table 7, stations colored “Gold” operate as part of the Regional Automatic Aid System. Those in “Gray” are mutual aid, and those in “lime green” are the nearest Rural Metro stations out of town. Since Rural Metro is not part of the Regional Automatic Aid System and operates their own dispatch center, any non-Rural Metro assets responding should be considered mutual aid. Since mutual aid requires Rural Metro to contact the dispatch center for the requested mutual aid asset, even under best conditions, a 3–5 minute delay can be expected and should be added to the overall response time. When comparing NFPA 1710 for a Single-family dwelling (2000 ft2) with a total assignment response time of 480 sec. (8 minutes) against the numbers indicated below, Fountain Hills does not meet the standard related to response times. When looking at staffing levels and considering the eight (8) on-duty Fountain Hills firefighters, plus the on-call Fountain Hills chief officer, plus the three (3) firefighters [sometimes dropping to 2-firefighters to reduce overtime] assigned to Rural Metro Station 826, the total number of responding personnel are four to five (4 - 5) short of meeting NFPA 1710. Since Scottsdale has ceased mutual aid partnerships with Rural Metro, the shortfall in staffing will need to be covered by either Fort McDowell, Rio Verde and/or Salt River. Rural Metro Station 821 could respond with staffing and equipment, but their turnout time plus drive time from Carefree makes them more than 40-minutes away. Considering NPFA 1710 related to open air strip shopping centers or apartments the current Fountain Hills Rural Metro model cannot meet the established national standard. Rural Metro was able to provide a map (Figure 6) detailing 5-minute response zones from the individual Fountain Hills fire stations. Although helpful, the map does not provide information related to asset response as required by NFPA 1710. It does show the strengths and weaknesses related to fire station locations within the Town. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 33 Table 7: Mutual Aid Partners - Station Location and Travel Distances Mutual Aid Partners: Station Location and Travel Distances To Fountain Hills Town Hall Fire Station Miles Minutes Fort McDowell 4.5 9 Scottsdale Station 607 6.1 11 Scottsdale Station 606 9 14 Rio Verde 11 17 Salt River Station 294 13.9 18 Scottsdale Station 604 11.2 18 Scottsdale Station 608 10.8 19 Salt River Station 292 13.4 19 Rural Metro Station 826 (Scottsdale) 15.6 22 Salt River Station 291 15.9 22 Salt River Station 293 15.8 23 Rural Metro Station 821 (Carefree) 29.4 39 _____ = Regional Automatic Aid System _____ = mutual aid _____ = nearest Rural Metro stations out of town Impact of Automatic Aid Based on current fire station locations, should the Town join the Regional Automatic Aid System, not all addresses within the Town of Fountain Hills will meet the NFPA 1710 standard for response times. To fully comply with NFPA 1710 a third fire station will be needed. Membership in the system would however speed the number of firefighters on-scene. Operations would also be enhanced by the increased training standards and joint operations procedures. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 34 Figure 7: Fountain Hills Response Zones per Fire Station McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 35 Central Arizona Life Safety System Response Council Should the Town of Fountain Hills elect to cancel services currently provided by Rural Metro and enter the auto-aid system, the Town will need to petition the Central Arizona Life Safety Response Council for admission. The Life Safety Council consists of all fire chiefs representing departments/districts who are part of the Regional Automatic Aid System. This group meets regularly and is responsible for the coordination of operational procedures and training. Within the group is the Executive Life Safety Council who provides direct system oversight and reviews all requests for expansion of jurisdictional boundaries greater than five square miles as well as applications for inclusion in the Automatic Aid System. Each proposal is assessed against system standards (i.e., communications/dispatch, staffing, minimum firefighter training standards). Each application is also evaluated to determine both the positive and negative impacts of inclusion in the system. In essence, applicants need to enhance the services provide by the system. Key requirements for consideration by the Executive Life Safety Council are as follows (see Appendix B: Intergovernmental Agreement for the Regional Metropolitan Phoenix Fire Service Automatic Aid): Communication and Dispatch All participants must be part of the Phoenix Fire Regional Dispatch System or the Mesa Fire Regional Dispatch System. All participants must also be a member of either the Phoenix Regional Wireless Cooperative (PRWC) or the Topaz Regional Wireless Cooperative (TRWC). Departments/Districts that enter the system that are not members of PRWC or TRWC shall have an active plan to become members within one (1) year of entry. For a participant(s) that does not meet this requirement, any party can request a vote of the Central Life Safety Response System Council for a determination as to whether the participant(s) not meeting this requirement will remain eligible for automatic aid response, or if the participant(s) will then default to a mutual aid response. These Regional Dispatch Systems will use a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system that automatically selects the closest, most appropriate participants’ unit(s) for dispatch. The CAD system shall be a centralized, totally integrated unit dispatch/status keeping system. Staffing Levels Full staffing as described in NFPA 1710 on engines and ladders provides the most efficient and effective personnel safety and service delivery to the public. System participants recognize the importance of service delivery and personnel safety issues. The minimum daily staffing level for all engines and ladders shall be four (4) members which is “full staffing” under NFPA 1710. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 36 Minimum Firefighter Training Standard To ensure safety, baseline knowledge and a consistent approach to performing tactical operations, all participants agree to require that all emergency response employees receive initial firefighter recruit training through a recognized regional fire training academy or through an alternative method, as approved by the Life Safety Council, which meets the published curriculum. The four- currently recognized regional fire training academies are Phoenix, Mesa, Glendale, and Chandler. Regional Dispatch Centers As required by the Regional Automatic Aid System Agreement, all member agencies must be part of the Phoenix Fire Regional Dispatch System or the Mesa Fire Regional Dispatch System. Members must also be part of the Phoenix Regional Wireless Cooperative (PRWC) or the Topaz Regional Wireless Cooperative (TRWC). Should the Town move away from Rural Metro, a decision will need to be made related to which regional dispatch center to affiliate. Both regional dispatch centers operate using real time – interactive computer aided dispatch (CAD) systems that share data between the two centers. One center can serve as a backup center should the other loose capability. The centers also utilize Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) equipment to track the location of apparatus as well as Geographic Information System (GIS) to discern the location of the emergency allowing CAD to match the closest and most appropriate units for response to the incident. This is done regardless of geographical community boundaries. The two centers generally divide the Valley by Highway 101. Those to the west operate through Phoenix and those to the east operate through Mesa. Members are divided as follows: Phoenix Fire Regional Dispatch/Phoenix Regional Wireless Consortium (PRWC) • Arizona Fire and Medical Authority • City of Scottsdale • Buckeye Valley Fire District • City of Surprise • City of Avondale • City of Tempe • City of Buckeye • City of Tolleson • City of Chandler • Daisy Mountain Fire Department • City of El Mirage • Harquhala Fire District • City of Glendale • Sun City Fire and Medical Dept. • City of Goodyear • Town of Guadalupe • City of Maricopa • Town of Paradise Valley • City of Peoria • Town of Wickenburg • City of Phoenix McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 37 Mesa Fire Regional Dispatch/ Mesa Regional Wireless Cooperative (TOPAZ) • City of Apache Junction • City of Mesa • Rio Verde Fire District • Superstition Fire and Medical District (formerly Apache Junction Fire District) • Town of Gilbert • Town of Queen Creek Estimated Startup Costs Although there is slight variation in costs between Phoenix Regional Dispatch and Mesa Regional Dispatch, the most recent and comprehensive cost estimates for startup and annual fees comes from numbers provided to the Town of Cave Creek, AZ. The Cave Creek numbers were provided in July 2020 by the Phoenix Regional Dispatch Center. If the Town of Fountain Hills decides to join the Mesa system, the cost projections as noted will likely be somewhat less. In estimating startup and annual costs, the consultants added a 3% annual multiplier to reflect cost increases in the years since the projection was provided to Cave Creek. The numbers also reflect a current (rounded up) Fountain Hills’ call volume as well as the number of apparatus operated by Fountain Hills per the current Rural Metro contract. The projections account for the two current fire stations. Should the Town of Fountain Hills elect to add a third fire station, using today’s numbers, the overall cost will increase by roughly $18,550 annually with a startup cost to add the new facility of $132,713. This calculation includes an additional computer configuration for the added fire apparatus responding from the new fire station. See Figure 8. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 38 Figure 8: Projected Dispatch Costs Startup Costs Description Qty Unit Cost Total Inflationary Multiplier Projected Costs - Fountain Hills Generation II Fire Station Dispatch Package 2 $90,000.00 $180,000.00 3%$190,962.00 Installation - Generation II Fire Station Dispatch Package (350 hours per fire station at $70/hr labor fee) 2 $24,500.00 $49,000.00 3%$51,984.10 Synthesized Voice System 2 $695.00 $1,390.00 3%$1,474.65 Mobile Computer Terminals (MCT)8 $5,885.71 $47,085.68 3%$49,953.20 AirMobile MCT Update System 2 $3,500.00 $7,000.00 3%$7,426.30 WAN Network Equipment for Primary Site 1 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 3%$6,895.85 Test (4 hours per system @ $70/hr labor fee)3 $280.00 $840.00 3%$891.16 PCMSS New License / Station 0 $200.00 $0.00 3%$0.00 Contingency 0 $100.00 $0.00 3%$0.00 Data Circuit Installation for ringdowns / Station 2 $340.00 $680.00 3%$721.41 Data Circuit Installation for primary site 1 $340.00 $340.00 3%$360.71 $310,669.37 Annual Costs Fire Dispatch Fee 4300 $24.46 $105,178.00 3%$111,583.34 $111,583.34 Annual General Maintenance Service Fees Station Alerting Package Maintenance Fee 2 $9,300.00 $18,600.00 3%$19,732.74 MCT Maintenance Fee 8 $4,100.00 $32,800.00 3%$34,797.52 AirMobile Maintenance Fee 2 $4,100.00 $8,200.00 3%$8,699.38 $63,229.64 Annual Network System Fees WAN/LAN System Fee 1 $17,400.00 $17,400.00 3%$18,459.66 Add'l PCMSS License 0 $200.00 3%$0.00 $18,459.66 Annual CAD System Fees CAD Modernization Service Fee 4300 $5.00 $21,500.00 3%$22,809.35 CAD Maintenance Service Fee 4300 $1.00 $4,300.00 3%$4,561.87 $27,371.22 Annual GIS & Data Analytics Fee 4300 $0.00 $0.00 3%$0.00 $0.00 $220,643.86 Subtotal: Total Annual Costs Total Startup Costs Fountain Hills Regional Dispatch System Subtotal: Subtotal: Subtotal: Subtotal: Projected Costs McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 39 Staffing Options and Costs Status Quo This option continues the contractual service agreement with Rural Metro. Under this model, the Town owns the fire stations, apparatus (not the ambulances), and all loose equipment including the Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA), cardiac monitors, and extrication equipment. Rural Metro provides the personnel as well all structural and wildland personal protective equipment (PPE). Historically, the contract includes an annual 3% inflationary multiplier, thereby allowing the Town to accurately project/budget future costs for fire protection. Under this option, the Town is not eligible for membership in the Regional Automatic Aid Program. The Central Arizona Life Safety System Response Council has clearly and repeatedly blocked Rural Metro from inclusion and seemingly has no appetite to modify this policy. Without inclusion in the system, Fountain Hills does not meet the national standard for response times to structural fire incidents as well as staffing deployment. Additionally, the town of Scottsdale has ended their mutual aid agreement with Rural Metro, which has a potentially negative impact on the services provided within Fountain Hills. Of greatest concern is the wildland urban interface that exists where homes are built into the desert landscape. This land use configuration has the strong potential for large wildland fires that would require significant personnel and equipment to maintain control, with the likelihood of significant property damage/loss. The use of regional teams to provide command, water tender response, and brush fire apparatus would be beneficial and likely imperative during these type incidents. Another concern of not being part of the automatic aid system is the lack of specialty team response capabilities. Of specific concern is the need for hazardous materials mitigation, trench and confined space rescue, and mountain search and rescue. Conversely, under the existing model the Town historically has a very low fire dollar loss value, and Rural Metro is in full compliance related to their agreed-upon response time standards established in the contract with the Town. The firefighters and department leadership assigned to the Town appear to be dedicated and committed to providing the best services possible. The overarching concern noted through this study is the long-term stability of Rural Metro. Over the past 40-years, communities/districts have discontinued contractual services with Rural Metro and moved to a municipal/district-based fire protection model. This has significantly reduced Rural Metro’s market share of available contract options. Included in this concern is the fact that Fountain Hills is one of the few remaining Master Contract communities and should the Town of Carefree elect to discontinue services with Rural Metro, Fountain Hills will be the last remaining municipal contract. It can be surmised, based McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 40 on an evaluation of Rural Metro’s current clients, that the master contract model is not their business priority since new master contracts are not being added. A significant concern exists in that Rural Metro could give notice to the Town that they are terminating their agreement for convenience. Fountain Hills would then have two years to develop and implement a plan for fire protection. Based on this concern, it is strongly recommended that the Town develop a contingency plan for the possibility that Rural Metro might exercise their right to end their contractual relationship. Assuming all things remain consistent with the application of a 3% inflationary multiplier for the Rural Metro contract as well as a 3% multiplier against all other line items, a 10-Year fire service budget project is shown in the following chart. Figure 9: Status Quo Budget Projection Create own Fire Department Under this option the Town of Fountain Hills would create and operate a municipally owned fire department. Two distinct but similar options exist. • Option #1: Standalone Fire Department that DOES NOT MEET the Regional Automatic Aid Standard • Option #2: Standalone Fire Department that MEETS the Regional Automatic Aid Standard In both cases, captains, engineers, and firefighter/paramedics would work a 24-hr. on-duty shift followed by 48-hours off-duty. The fire chief, fire marshal, administrative assistant and training officer would work a typical 40-hour week. Additionally, under either of these models the Town will need to contract with a physician willing to provide medical direction and oversight to the department’s EMT and Paramedic health care providers. This is typically paid through an annual stipend process. Depending on the provider, costs could range between $0 - $70,000 annually. This number is not included in either of the total cost estimates since it is very dynamic depending on the medical institution the Town decides to partner with. Option #1: Standalone Fire Department that does not meets the Regional Automatic Aid Standard Should the Town of Fountain Hills decide to create and operate a municipal fire department, the option still exists as to whether this new department would be part of the Regional Automatic Aid System. The benefits of joining the system are many; however, there is a significant increase in costs associated with joining the system. Additionally, since Rural Metro would no longer provide dispatching services, the town would need to join one of the two regional dispatch centers. FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 FY 32-33 $4,319,678.44 $4,449,268.79 $4,582,746.86 $4,720,229.26 $4,861,836.14 $5,007,691.22 $5,157,921.96 $5,312,659.62 $5,472,039.41 $5,636,200.59 10-Yr. Budget Project Status Quo McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 41 Under Option #1 several staff changes will be required. Since there is no longer a “backfill pool” the department will need to increase staffing per shift to cover paid-time-off (PTO). Fountain Hills offers sick, vacation, holiday, and personal leave to their full-time employees. Based on this, a typical firefighter working a 24-hour-on/48-hour-off schedule is assigned to cover 120 shift days per year. When you apply PTO along with work reduction days covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), an individual firefighter will be on-duty about 100 days per year. To cover these PTO vacancies without creating automatic overtime while still maintaining a staffing level of eight (8) firefighters per shift (3-per engine company and 2-per ladder company), the department will need to staff each 24-shift with two additional full-time employees. This translates into six (6) additional new hire firefighters. In addition to the new full-time firefighters, the department will require administrative support. It is recommended that a full-time administrative assistant be added to assist in records management and the processing and tracking of data. Additional Information Technology and Human Resource support will likely also be needed. Included in cost projections is the salary and benefits for a Human Resource Generalist and an Information Technology Specialist. Since Rural Metro will no longer be responsible for staff training, it is recommended that a full-time training officer be hired to work a 40-hour week. This position will be responsible for daily shift training/drills, EMS continuing education, succession planning/staff development and ongoing employee safety. This position will ensure mandatory training and department compliance with all required standards as established by OSHA or similar such regulatory bodies. Department Employees Under Option #1 are as follows: Figure 10: Department Employee Count - Option #1 Standalone Department: DOES NOT MEET Regional Auto Aid Standard Rank Number in Category Fire Chief 1 Fire Marshal 1 Administrative Assistant 1 Training Officer 1 Captain 6 Engineer 6 Firefighter/Paramedic 18 * Total full-time employees – all categories: 34 McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 42 Figure 11: Annual Budget for Option #1 Note: Included in the section titled “Other Personnel and Related Administrative Costs” is the projected expenses for recruit training at a regional fire academy. If incumbent Rural Metro firefighters were hired and sent to a “bridge academy,” the cost per student would be less, thereby realizing a savings in this category. Option #2: Standalone Fire Department that MEETS the Regional Automatic Aid Standard Should the Town of Fountain Hills decide to create and operate a municipal fire department that meets the standards of the Regional Automatic Aid System, additional staffing numbers will be required. Under Option #2 minimum staffing per engine and ladder company needs to be four (4) firefighters per unit. Instead of fully staffing both engine companies and the ladder company with four (4) firefighters as part of the initial transition to a municipal department, the recommendation is to staff both engines with the required 4-firefighters and then operate the ladder as a “jump company.” Under the “jump company” model, firefighters would cross-staff the engine and ladder responding with whichever piece of equipment is needed based on the type of call. The automatic aid system would then fill the needed apparatus (i.e., engine or ladder company) with a neighboring unit to ensure minimum response matrices are met. Under Option #2 six (6) additional firefighters (in addition to those recommended in Option #1) will be needed. The Town should be cognizant that increasing from 30 shift firefighters to 37 full-time firefighters will likely require three (3) additional full-time firefighters be hired to cover leave time if the town wants to avoid paying “some” backfill overtime. Avoidance of backfill overtime will be important for work life balance and will likely reduce employee turnover. If the Town does not want to hire three (3) additional firefighters at startup, it should strategically plan to add the three (3) firefighters in the future since tenure will likely increase leave time benefits requiring more backfill coverage. The Town should also ensure that the overtime budget realistically covers benefited time off. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 43 Figure 12 details the number of department employees within each category, excluding the three (3) additional backfill firefighters. Figure 12: Department Employee Count Option #2 Standalone Department: MEETS Regional Auto Aid Standard Rank Number in Category Fire Chief 1 Fire Marshal 1 Administrative Assistant 1 Training Officer 1 Captain 6 Engineer 6 Firefighter/Paramedic 24 * Total full-time employees – all categories: 40 Figure 13: Annual Budget for Option #2 Note: Included in the section titled “Other Personnel and Related Administrative Costs” is the projected expenses for recruit training at a regional fire academy. If incumbent Rural Metro firefighters were hired and sent to a “bridge academy,” the cost per student would be less, thereby realizing a savings in this category. In both Option #1 and Option #2, the Town’s personnel policies will need to be modified to accommodate 24-hour employees, including time off provisions. Additionally, modifications will need to be made related to the handling of firefighters working holidays when the rest of the town’s employees are off work. Lastly, personnel policies will need to address FLSA work periods and Kelly Days/FLSA work reduction days. Should the Town decide to pursue Option #2, it is strongly recommended that a consultant knowledgeable in the Regional Automatic Aid System be hired to help the town prepare its application and assist with planned implementation. The change in dispatching protocols, standard operating guidelines, and the McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 44 needed upgrade in base training is complicated, and the town would benefit from the expertise of someone familiar with the process. Several local consultants exist giving the Town various options. Vehicle/Equipment/Maintenance Costs – Option #1 and #2 The Town of Fountain Hills, per the agreement with Rural Metro, is responsible for the purchase and maintenance costs of apparatus, tools, and equipment. Based on conversations with the Rural Metro assigned Fire Chief, the consultants understand that the Town maintains a vehicle replacement sinking fund (i.e., saving account) used for the purchase of new apparatus. Sinking funds are an incredibly wise financial management tool when applied to the purchase of fire apparatus and some specific equipment. Currently, Rural Metro (per their agreement) conducts the maintenance and repairs of equipment at a cost plus 10% pricing model. Then they invoice the Town monthly. A review of costs are as follows: Figure 14: Maintenance Costs Throughout this report, cost projections include maintaining these fees at the historical averages shown. Since Rural Metro will no longer provide maintenance services, the Town will need to find a provider who can do this work. Intergovernmental Agreement Two options exist related to an interlocal agreement with the City of Scottsdale. For tracking and ease of reading, these options will be labeled as: • Option #3: Standalone Fire Department with Scottsdale providing contractual staffing • Option #4: Scottsdale providing all fire department services Option #3: Standalone Fire Department with Scottsdale providing contractual staffing In this scenario, the Scottsdale Fire Department will basically mimic the Rural Metro contract except that it will meet the standards of the Regional Automatic Aid. Scottsdale is unwilling to provide contract services that do not meet the Automatic Aid standard. In a memo sent to the Town of Carefree on July 21, 2021, Scottsdale provided an “approximate” staffing cost of $136,573 per firefighter. This is an “all in” number which includes benefits and pension. It uses an average calculation rather than one specific to rank. Current Fiscal Year FY 20-21 FY 19-20 FY 18-19 Vehicle Maintenance/Repair 25,996.72 39,682.34 38,336.15 31,406.69 Equipment Maintenance/Repair 4,793.14 4,370.29 13,202.25 11,030.98 McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 45 Figure 15: Personnel Option #3 (All employees belong to Scottsdale) Contractual Staffing from Scottsdale: Meeting Regional Auto Aid Standard Rank Number in Category Division Chief (Acting as “Fire Chief” for the town 1 Fire Marshal 1 Administrative Assistant 1 Captain 6 Engineer 6 Firefighter/Paramedic 24 * Total full-time Fountain Hills employees – all categories: 0 Figure 16: Annual Budget for Option #3 Option #4: Scottsdale providing all fire department services In this scenario, the Scottsdale Fire Department will simply merge the two Fountain Hills fire stations and companies into their organization making them part of the Scottsdale Fire Department. Scottsdale is unwilling to provide contract services that do not meet the Automatic Aid standard. In this case, no administrative oversight is needed since the Scottsdale Fire Chief and Executive Team will ultimately be responsible for operation of the entire department, and the Town of Fountain Hills will need to pay nothing other than an invoice as submitted from Scottsdale each year. The budget for this Option is expected to be similar to the one for Option #3 with a reduction in salaries for the Division Chief (Acting as “Fire Chief” for the town), Fire Marshal, Administrative Assistant, HR Generalist, and IT Specialist. A total of $476,885 in reduced dollars is anticipated from what is shown in Option #3. Fiscal Year FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 FY 32-33 Personnel Costs $5,189,774.00 $5,345,467.22 $5,505,831.24 $5,671,006.17 $5,841,136.36 $6,016,370.45 $6,196,861.56 $6,382,767.41 $6,574,250.43 $6,771,477.95 Dispatching $221,135.34 $227,769.40 $234,602.48 $241,640.56 $248,889.77 $256,356.47 $264,047.16 $271,968.58 $280,127.63 $288,531.46 Operational Costs $371,332.00 $382,471.96 $393,946.12 $405,764.50 $417,937.44 $430,475.56 $443,389.83 $456,691.52 $470,392.27 $484,504.04 Structural PPE Initial Purchase $163,800.00 Structural PPE Annual Replacement $33,768.00 $35,118.72 $36,523.47 $37,984.41 $39,503.78 $41,083.94 $42,727.29 $44,436.38 $46,213.84 Hybrid PPE (Rescue/EMS/Wildland) Initial Purchase $61,425.00 Hybrid PPE (Rescue/EMS/Wildland) Annual Replacement 12,663.00 13,169.52 13,696.30 14,244.15 14,813.92 15,406.48 16,022.73 16,663.64 17,330.19 $6,007,466.34 $6,002,139.58 $6,182,668.08 $6,368,631.00 $6,560,192.13 $6,757,520.18 $6,960,788.96 $7,170,177.53 $7,385,870.36 $7,608,057.47 IGA with Scottsdale - Option 3 10-Yr. Budget Project Grand Totals McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 46 Figure 17: Personnel Option #4 (All employees belong to Scottsdale) IGA with Scottsdale for full FD Services: Meeting Regional Auto Aid Standard Rank Number in Category Captain 6 Engineer 6 Firefighter/Paramedic 24 * Total full-time Fountain Hills employees – all categories: 0 Consolidate into Rio Verde Fire District In this scenario, the Town of Fountain Hills would petition the State to allow them to join the Rio Verde Fire District. The Town would then have no further control over the fire department, and it would be merged into the operations of Rio Verde. Rio Verde is unwilling to provide contract services that do not meet the Automatic Aid standard. Request for Proposal (RFP) The Town of Fountain Hills could do a Request for Proposals looking for a different contractor other than Rural Metro. The financials of this option are unknown but assumed to be similar or less than those of Rural Metro. The lead consultant is aware of three possible contractors. Others may exist but are not readily known. Falck Falck is an international firm headquartered in Denmark. It was created by Sophus Falck in 1906 based on his experiences in the Great Christiansborg Castle fire. Falck is a leader in industrial fire and rescue services at high-risk facilities and critical infrastructure facilities in Spain, the UK, the Netherlands and Germany. Falck provides municipality fire and rescue services throughout Denmark. Falck operates a US headquarters in Orange, CA providing the following services: • Falck Mobile Health/Care Ambulance Service operates more than 250 ambulances in Los Angeles County and Orange County in California. • Falck Northern California provides advanced emergency medical services (EMS) to residents and visitors to Alameda County. • Falck Northwest provides ambulance services in the Puget Sound area. In July 2015 they began servicing Salem Oregon by providing BLS and ALS support to the Salem Fire Department. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 47 • Falck Rocky Mountain is the exclusive emergency ambulance provider for the City of Aurora, Colorado. Falck current holds no contracts for fire suppression services in the United States. Metro Paramedic Services Metro Paramedic Services is a division of Superior Ambulance Service headquartered in Elmhurst, IL. Superior Ambulance Service began operations in 1959, and they established Metro Paramedic Services, Inc. in 1984. Metro Paramedic Services, Inc. offers complete, turnkey, custom designed options for each client. The company provides firefighters and paramedics to communities in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Paramedic Services of Illinois (PSI) Paramedic Services of Illinois, Inc. has been providing EMS & Firefighter Personnel since 1975. PSI is headquartered in Itasca, IL. PSI lists their contractual strengths as the following: • A leading provider of contractual paramedics/firefighters • Cost Effective • Customized service agreements • No hiring costs, including background checks and pre-employment physicals • No employee salaries, benefits or pension expenses • No education or training expense • No staffing or disciplinary considerations • No worker’s compensation or disability claims • No employment liability issues • Limited professional liability exposure to the community • No miscellaneous day to day concerns or hidden expenses PSI provides services to thirty-six Illinois communities ranging from EMS only to full fire department staffing. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 48 Human Resources and Internal Considerations Because staffing options include the Town creating its own fire department, additional information is provided for human resources and other internal considerations. Employees will expect total compensation to be competitive for the skills, education, and responsibilities of the position. Since the Town is in close proximity to communities and organizations that lead the market’s wages, in order to have successful recruitment efforts and retention, the Town needs to be highly competitive to be an employer of choice. Similarly, the organization should ensure internal services (Administration, Human Resources, Finance, Information Technology, Legal etc.) are able to support a 24/7 public safety department. Human Resources will be critical to ensure employer compliance requirements, recruitment/retention, total compensation, organizational development, and employee relations. The following are two (2) areas that should be considered if services are brought in-house. Internal Services Human Resources The Town’s Administrative Services Director is currently responsible for all human resources, risk management and safety, and payroll for the Town, in addition to leadership over staff who coordinate procurements and information technology services. There is also support from the Finance Department with the payroll process. The Town utilizes an applicant tracking system (ATS) for receiving applications and has a third-party vendor to process paychecks from the payroll files created by the Town. All other processes are manual. Currently in the United States, the median HR-to-employee ratio is 1.4 HR staff to 100 employees served. This ratio, however, may fluctuate based upon standardized processes, software capabilities, and outsourcing various HR functions. It must be stressed that HR functions across organizations differ in terms of centralized/decentralized recruitment processes, involvement with payroll, workers compensation, training, labor relations, etc. Therefore, comparative information will not necessarily reflect identical HR services, but is simply a tool to assist with staffing planning. The Town currently has an estimated 80 full-time, part-time, or seasonal employees. Although there is a perception that a greater amount of HR work may be needed to support full-time employees versus part- time employees, this is not normally the case, so both categories of employees are combined in total employee count. Given there are 80 employees working for the Town, the current HR to employee ratio is approximately 1:80, assuming the Administrative Services Director spends 100% of his time on human resources functions – which he does not. With the integration of a 24/7 public safety department, 34-38 new positions will need to be added to the Town, and one (1) full-time Human Resource Generalist position will be needed. This recommended position has been included in the associated costs to ensure the Town has sufficient capacity in this area. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 49 Other costs to further support Human Resources have also been included such as recruitment expenses, skills testing, post-offer testing, annual testing, uniforms and equipment costs, employee assistance program enhancements for public safety, FLSA training, payroll administration increases, service agreements for onboarding and performance management systems, and professional services costs for salary structure development, policy manual updates, and miscellaneous legal fees that arise. Information Technology The Town currently employs one full-time Chief Technology Administrator as well as a part-time IT Support Specialist. Because of the current workload (without adding a town-owned fire department), the part-time position should be increased to 40-hours per week. With the option to bring the fire department in-house, the Town will need to purchase and manage a fire and EMS reporting software. This will include interface of that software with the regional dispatch center, support software, and end user support. This will require an additional full-time IT position to support the existing Chief Technology Administrator and Support Specialist. The cost of these recommendations has been included with the staffing cost projections. Nominal software costs were also included, although this amount will largely be driven by the software system selected and is often based on the number of calls for service. The Town currently owns the technology hardware, so no additional hardware costs were included. Personnel Costs Personnel costs in the staffing options to add in-house fire department employees include wages, health, dental, vision, pension (see section below), life and disability, Medicare, unemployment tax costs, and social security for civilians only. Social Security was excluded for all firefighter positions on the basis they will be covered under a public retirement system. All wages, benefits, and insurances have been trended 5% each year, based on current market conditions and historical insurance trends. Pension The Town currently offers a 401(a)-retirement plan with an 11% matching contribution for eligible employees. The Town does not participate in the Arizona Retirement System (ARS) and does not currently have any positions that would qualify for Arizona’s Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS), although bringing the fire department in-house would be a qualifier. A review of the retirement systems of the neighboring communities revealed that they participate in the PSPRS. This is significant, because if Fountain Hills does not offer the PSPRS benefit, they may lack a major recruitment and retention tool. The lure of this benefit from its comparable market will likely create turnover when there are openings in those departments. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 50 It should be noted that turnover can be calculated as Total Payout Cost + Recruitment Cost + Replacement Compensation/Benefit Cost + Training Cost. Turnover Costs will typically calculate around 1.5 times the cost of the original position, so the Town would be able to analyze the cost of the PSPRS against the cost of turnover to the organization if it chooses an alternative pension option. The PSPRS is the pension benefit included in the staffing costing. Costs also include actuarial fees to join the PSPRS and fees associated with creating and maintaining the Town’s PSPRS Local Board and related legal fees. Workers Compensation Worker’s compensation will increase, simply because of the nature of the work performed by employees. It should be noted that in discussions with the Arizona Municipal Risk Retention Pool (AMRRP) the Town’s current experience with low workers compensation claims will change, and the Town should expect an increase in overall claims, which will require additional case management time from Town Administration. In addition, in 2021, the State of Arizona passed Senate Bill 1451, which removed the requirement that firefighters had to prove certain diagnoses were caused by their line of work, otherwise known as a Presumptive Cancer Law. Presumptive cancer laws will automatically treat certain diagnoses as occupational illnesses from line of duty, even after the employee has left employment. Although the AMRRP has been planning for these claims, the impact to financials was simply not provided. The Town will want to take an active approach to wellness, annual testing, and risk management services. Worker’s compensation has been trended in the costing at 5% each year. Overtime The staffing options section covers the recommendation for additional full-time firefighters needed to cover scheduled time off in lieu of relying strictly on overtime. Overtime will always occur with 24/7 operations, whether for unexpected call outs, turnover, training, and hold overs due to emergency operations. However, overtime is not a best practice solution to staffing. Time away from work allows employees to “recharge” and directly correlates to productivity, work/life balance, focus, and health, so ongoing overtime could result in burnout, performance concerns, fatigue, etc. Overtime has been included in the personnel costs provided. Should the Town bring the services in-house, the Town is recommended to monitor actual overtime annually and develop an average trend of usage to adjust budgets prospectively, based on historical usage. Accrued and Unused Paid Time Government accounting guidelines indicate that accrued and unused liabilities be funded so the organization will have funding to pay these liabilities whenever used, including at time of termination. Should the Town bring the department in-house, sick and vacation liabilities will need to be added to the current liabilities. An estimate has been added to the costs, which may need revision after time-off policies are developed for 24/7 operations. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 51 Appendix A – Data Request Financial Analysis- Fire Department Operations Data Request December 10, 2021 To: David Pock, Finance Director Town of Fountain Hills 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains, Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 From: Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. In preparation for work on the financial analysis of the fire department, McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. will require data points on a multitude of topics to accurately analyze and answer the following questions: 1. Conduct a comprehensive cost analysis of a Town of Fountain Hills municipal fire department compared to current contracted Rural Metro operations. This needs to include current and historical costs associated with fire department operations. 2. Propose a complete cost structure of a Fountain Hills municipal fire department to include all tasks to create a fire department from inception to operation and projections for future costs. Areas of analysis should include, but not be limited to: a. Recruitment costs b. Personnel costs (including dispatch) c. Insurance costs (liability, worker’s compensation, etc.) d. Vehicle/Equipment/Maintenance costs e. Cost of joining TOPAZ communication system f. Training costs g. Retirement costs (health insurance, retirement, etc.) The data points requested are those we anticipate needing to complete the study. There will likely be additional points of data requested as information is uncovered during our work. If the Town feels that a particular data point or document has not been requested and will be needed, please feel free to provide this information as well. A study of this nature will only be as strong as the data/information we are able to obtain and review. Producing a usable and McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 52 accurate study will require insight and input from both our consulting team as well as leadership of the Town of Fountain Hills. Data Delivery Directions • The data submitted will be utilized to determine recommendations. As best possible, please ensure that the data is correct. As we work through the project, if you uncover an error or omission, please let us know. New data submitted after the draft report is presented will not be utilized. • Whenever possible, please put the data in an electronic format. The sendit.fh.az.gov system will work fantastically, and we appreciate you providing this for our use. • In most cases, we request three (3) years of historical records. Please provide data as appropriate for 2019, 2020, 2021. If, by your analysis, it makes sense for us to look at an additional year (2018) due to the unusual nature of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, please feel free to share this data as well. • Before doing any “hand counts,” please reach out so we can discuss. Data Request Documents General Information • Overview of the department • Overview of the area protected o Town o Rural District o Contracted Services (wildland response (state and/or national), special services, etc.) Response District • Map of Coverage Area • Map of contiguous surrounding area showing neighboring department station/facility locations Governance • List of Elected Officials • List of town leadership including an organizational chart • Fire/EMS Leadership o Organizational Chart o Job requirements: ▪ Administrative ▪ Supervisory ▪ Operational o Fiscal responsibilities o HR responsibilities McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 53 Personnel Management/Human Resources • Current roster of fire department staff (sworn and non-sworn) • Fire Department Personnel (If known) o Hire date o Age or date of birth • Fire Department organizational chart o # of Career o # of Paid On Call o # of Part-time (Paid On Premise) o # of Volunteers o # of Other Employees (Include civilian) o Rank Structure (Number of employees in each category) • Fire Department: Minimum/Maximum Staffing o Minimum staffing = o Maximum staffing = o Number of days at maximum daily staffing (show for each study period year) o Number of days at minimum daily staffing (show for each study period year) • Current salary of each employee (name, rank, salary) • FLSA pay cycle • Spreadsheet with the benefit breakout (If known – we understand that this may not be available to the Town due to the contractual relationship with Rural Metro. o Health o Retirement o Taxes o Overtime by employee – past 3-yrs. (if known) o Etc. • Labor agreements – Already Received • Town of Fountain Hills Police & Fire Commission or Civil Service Regulations – if applicable • Town’s Insurance liability/worker’s comp policy • Town’s benefit summary/true benefit cost • Town’s current salary schedule and classification listing for all employees • Retirement system actuarial report (if exists) • Town’s employee handbook The Department • Department Rules and Regulations • Department Standard Operating Procedures • Department Standing Medical Orders o Medical Control o Medical Director: Name and contact information McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 54 Dispatch (PSAP) • Who provides dispatch? • Location (address of dispatch center) • Cost • Dispatch data – time from receiving call to FD notification • Who answers 9-1-1 calls? • Who answers cellular 9-1-1 calls? • Number of employees • Number of shifts • Staffing per shift (minimum & maximum) • Emergency Medical Dispatching Program o Program Utilized o Medical direction oversight/medical director • Dispatcher/Call Taker Certifications Apparatus & Equipment • Type of Apparatus (engines, trucks, ambulances, ladder tenders, utilities, command, etc.) • Apparatus department ID number • Pump & Tank size (if applicable) • Mileage • Engine Hour Reading (if appropriate) • Manufacturer • Manufacturer date • Replacement Schedule (sinking fund if one exists) • Apparatus maintenance records o Internal o External • Special Teams Apparatus Training • Training Records (Last 3 years) for each member • Special Teams – certifications • All current employees’ certification level Fiscal • Current year financials • Past three years’ budgets • Operating – include all revenue and expenses • Capital – include all revenue and expenses • Town financial policies and procedures McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 55 • Purchasing policies • Equipment or capital reserve fund ledger Revenue • List of fire department grants applied for and/or received for past 3-yrs. • List 2% fire dues received for past 3-yrs. (if applicable) • List and explain any other department revenue received o Inspection fees o Permit fees o EMS service fees o Emergency response fees o False alarm fees o Etc. Other relevant Information • Last fire department analysis (conducted by Town) – Already Received • Any additional information deemed important or helpful McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 56 Appendix B – Regional Automatic Aid Agreement INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE REGIONAL METROPOLITAN PHOENIX FIRE SERVICE AUTOMATIC AID THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between the Cities, Towns, Fire Districts, and governmental jurisdictions (hereinafter collectively referred to either as “Participants,” or “Parties,” and sometimes referred to individually as “Participant” or “Party”), to provide for automatic assistance for fires and other types of emergency incidents as described under the terms of this Agreement (the “Automatic Aid System”). The initial Participants are listed in Attachment A to this Agreement, which Attachment shall be amended upon the addition of new members as set forth herein. RECITALS WHEREAS, agreements for automatic assistance in fire protection and response to other emergencies have existed between specific municipalities and governmental jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the Automatic Aid System has been in existence since 1976 to provide the highest levels of service in conjunction with the most effective use of local fire department/district resources working collaboratively through intergovernmental cooperation; and WHEREAS, the Participants in the Automatic Aid System seek to provide the most efficient, safe, and effective fire-rescue-emergency medical services to their respective communities; and WHEREAS, the safety of the employees of each Participant is paramount; and WHEREAS, this Agreement shall encourage the development of cooperative procedures and protocols, including, but not limited to, the possibility of joint purchasing, coordination of communications, training, health and safety, fire prevention, public education, fire investigations and other activities that will enhance each Participant’s ability to fulfill its mission; and WHEREAS, the Participants are committed to demonstrate public equity through reasonable commitment and distribution of resources within their jurisdictions to ensure that no Participant unfairly benefits at the expense of other Participants and that jurisdictional equity and autonomy is maintained; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Participants to continue and improve the nature and coordination of emergency assistance to incidents that threaten loss of life or property within the geographic boundaries of their respective jurisdictions; and McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 57 WHEREAS, it is further the determination of each of the Participants that the decision to enter into this Agreement constitutes a fundamental governmental policy of the Parties hereto and, by entering this Agreement each Participant has made the determination that the policies and procedures set forth in this Agreement constitute the proper use of the resources available with respect to the provision of governmental services and the utilization of existing resources of each of the Parties hereto, including the use of equipment and personnel; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Participants to initiate and/or renew their support for an Automatic Aid System for fire department/district services. AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing introduction and recitals, which are incorporated herein by reference, the following mutual covenants and conditions, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 - PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY 1.1 Purpose. All Parties to this Agreement agree that its purpose is to provide a highly efficient, effective and mutually beneficial relationship among multiple regional jurisdictions to provide for the overall public safety of the region through an Automatic Aid System. This Agreement will continue to allow for an automatic response of the closest, most appropriate fire department/district resources. 1.2 Authority. The Parties acknowledge that this Agreement is being entered into pursuant to the Intergovernmental Agreement Statute, Section 11-952, Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) 1.3 Effect on Prior Agreements. The Parties further understand that this Agreement supersedes any previous automatic aid agreements between any of the Parties hereto. ARTICLE 2–AUTOMATIC AID ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS To be eligible to participate in the Automatic Aid System, a Participant shall meet the standards and requirements set forth in this Article at all times during the Term of this Agreement. Any Participant failing to meet these eligibility standards and requirements is subject to removal from the Automatic Aid System as prescribed herein. 2.1 Allocation of Resources. It is agreed that the scope of this Agreement includes automatic assistance in responding to fires, medical emergencies, hazardous materials incidents, rescue and extrication situations and other types of emergency incidents that are within the standard scope of services provided by fire departments/districts in the Automatic Aid System. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 58 A. Standard Automatic Dispatch. The Participants executing this Agreement agree to dispatch their respective assigned fire department/district units on an automatic basis. The Computer Aided Dispatch and Automatic Vehicle Locator system will automatically determine the closest available, most appropriate unit(s) regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. Each jurisdiction agrees that such unit(s) will respond. B. Specialized Unit Dispatch. Participants agree the assignment of a specialized unit to an incident relies on predefined response levels (as predefined by Volume II Standard Operating Procedure Phoenix Fire Department) to specific types of incidents, the closest specialized unit to the call, and/or any special call for resources that may be made by an incident commander and is not pre- programmed in the CAD system. This includes, but is not limited to, hazardous materials support, technical rescue support, loss control, rehab, command, utility, brush, and water tenders. Members assigned to a specialized unit will be required to complete all initial training and continuing education requirements of the specialty. The current recognized regional Special Operations training program is the Phoenix Fire Department Special Operations training program. The inclusion of other recognized training programs will be approved by the Life Safety Council. 2.2 Standard Service Requirements. Participants in this Agreement agree to the following standard service requirements as the primary response system elements: A. Communications and Dispatch. All Participants must be part of the Phoenix Fire Regional Dispatch System or the Mesa Fire Regional Dispatch System. All Participants must also be a member of either the Phoenix Regional Wireless Cooperative (“PRWC”) or the Topaz Regional Wireless Cooperative (“TRWC”). Departments/Districts that enter the system that are not members of PRWC or TRWC shall have an active plan to become members within one (1) year of entry. For a Participant(s) that does not meet this requirement, any Party can request a vote of the Central Life Safety Response System Council for a determination as to whether the Participant(s) not meeting this requirement will remain eligible for automatic aid response, or if that Participant(s) will then default to a mutual aid response. These Regional Dispatch Systems will use a Computer Aided Dispatch (“CAD”) system that automatically selects the closest, most appropriate Participants’ unit(s) for dispatch. The CAD system shall be a centralized, totally integrated unit dispatch/status keeping system. (1) The CAD system will allow the most appropriate emergency response unit closest to an emergency to be dispatched automatically– regardless of the jurisdiction where the emergency occurs or the jurisdictional affiliation of the response unit. The CAD system utilizes Automatic Vehicle Location (“AVL”) equipment to discern the location of emergency response units and a computerized Geographic Information System (“GIS”) to discern the location of the emergency call. The AVL and GIS systems allow the CAD system to match the closest response unit to the emergency and recommend it for dispatch within the Automatic Aid System boundaries. Each Automatic Aid System McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 59 Participant shall ensure that its respective emergency response apparatus and vehicles are equipped with AVLs. (2) The Regional Dispatch System relies on a consistent and preplanned system of communications. Communications support for Participants includes a comprehensive radio system with multiple tactical radio frequencies. Participants are required to provide for their individual needs to ensure consistent, interoperable and safe communications not only within their jurisdictional areas, but within the entire Automatic Aid System. (3) If the Life Safety Council decides at any time that additional communications infrastructure is necessary to meet the operational requirements of the Automatic Aid System, each Participant will be responsible for all costs, authorizations and/or agreements to maintain interoperable communications within its jurisdictional boundaries. B. Command Procedures. All Participants will use standard command procedures. A standardized Incident Management System (“IMS”) provides for efficient management of the emergency and for the safety of firefighters through the use of standard terminology, reporting relationships, and support structures. The IMS and associated standard operating procedures adopted for use by all Automatic Aid Participants is the Phoenix Fire Department’s Standard Operating Procedures in the Phoenix Volume II Manual (which can be obtained by sending an e-mail to firechief.pfd@phoenix.gov), or the Mesa Fire and Medical Department Standard Operating Procedures 200 Series available at fireinfo@mesaaz.gov. C. Incident Management and Minimum Company Standards. Participants shall use the same set of procedures for Incident Management and Minimum Company Standards according to Volume II, Standard Operating Procedures Phoenix Fire Department (basic evolutions used by the fire service) or the Mesa Fire and Medical Department Standard Operations Procedures 200 Series. It is required that Command Officers that function in an Operational response capacity, attend at least 50% of the Command Officer training curriculum offered at the Phoenix Fire Department Command Training Center, or as determined by the Central Arizona Life Safety Response System Council. Participants that do not meet this requirement are subject to removal from the Automatic Aid System, as determined and voted on by the Central Arizona Life Safety Response System Council. D. Incident Safety Officer. To ensure safety, all Participants agree that their standard operating procedures and command procedures shall match those adopted by the Life Safety Council. To do this, Participants shall use an Incident Safety Officer System (“ISOS”) that will follow NFPA Standard 1521. E. Compatible Equipment. To ensure compatibility of equipment, McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 60 Participants shall maintain an inventory of equipment (based on National Fire Protection Association (“NFPA”) standards), including hoses, couplings, pump capacity, communications equipment, and will maintain the minimum standard amount of equipment on each type of apparatus (as recommended by all applicable NFPA standards). F. Standardized Numbering and Terminology. Participants shall utilize the Valley- wide apparatus numbering system and standardized terminology for apparatus and fire stations as established and maintained by the Life Safety Council. G. Standardized Response Criteria. Participants shall use standardized response criteria (i.e., pre- established type and number of apparatus that will be automatically dispatched based on type of call as per standard NFPA and International Organization for Standardization (“ISO”) recommendations). The CAD system can tailor the response to specific types of incidents by jurisdiction, or part of a jurisdiction, upon request by the jurisdiction needing the tailored response. This includes the capability to automatically dispatch selected specialty units. H. Staffing Levels. Full staffing as described in NFPA 1710 on engines and ladders provides the most efficient and effective personnel safety and service delivery to the public. System Participants recognize the importance of service delivery and personnel safety issues. The minimum daily staffing level for all engines and ladders shall be four (4) members which is “full staffing” under NFPA 1710. • Temporary Reduction in Staffing. Full staffing may be temporarily reduced to three (3) trained personnel for up to a total of 8 hours in any 24- hour shift period. Departments/Districts that enter the system with a staffing level of three (3) members on any engine and/or ladder shall have an active plan to accomplish full staffing within one (1) year of entry. For a Participant(s) that does not meet this requirement, any Party can request a vote of the Central Life Safety Response System Council for a determination as to whether the Participant(s) not meeting this requirement will remain eligible for automatic aid response, or if that Participant(s) will then default to a mutual aid response. • Other Reductions in Staffing; Changes to Deployment Model. Any Participants that have reached full staffing, that then subsequently reduce staffing below full staffing, or make significant changes to their deployment model, shall be subject to removal from the Automatic Aid System, as determined and voted on by the Central Arizona Life Safety Response System Council. I. Minimum Firefighter Training Standards. To ensure safety, baseline knowledge and a consistent approach to performing tactical operations, all participants agree to require that all emergency response employees receive initial firefighter recruit training through a recognized regional fire training academy or through an alternative McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 61 method, as approved by the Life Safety Council, which meets the published curriculum. The four currently recognized regional fire training academies are Phoenix, Mesa, Glendale and Chandler. 2.3 Reciprocity; No Guaranty of Perfect Equity. Participants agree that automatic aid is reciprocal. While this does not ensure that a Participant’s jurisdiction will receive the exact amount of assistance it gives, it does mean that all Participants will provide assistance outside their jurisdictional boundaries and that the level of service delivered, and decisions made within the Automatic Aid System will be mutually beneficial to all Participants in the system and will maintain general equity among all Participants to the greatest degree possible. 2.4 Ownership of Property and Equipment. Each Participant shall retain ownership of any equipment or property it brings to the performance of this Agreement and shall retain ultimate control of its employees. 2.5 No Reimbursement for Services. Except as specifically agreed to by the Parties involved in a specific incident, none of the involved Parties shall be reimbursed by any of the others for any costs incurred in responding pursuant to this Agreement. In the event of formally declared disasters, however, Participants may directly apply for reimbursements from County, State and/or Federal agencies as appropriate. ARTICLE 3–LIFE SAFETY COUNCIL; VOTING 3.1 Life Safety Council. The Participants shall be jointly responsible for administering this Agreement through the Central Arizona Life Safety Response System Council (the “Life Safety Council”). The purpose of the Life Safety Council is to ensure the effective and efficient operation of the Automatic Aid System. Each Participant is a member of the Life Safety Council and is expected to participate in scheduled meetings. A. Composition. The Fire Chief from each Participant shall serve as the official representative to the Life Safety Council from that jurisdiction. The Fire Chief may appoint an alternate to attend Life Safety Council meetings. B. Responsibilities. The responsibilities of the Life Safety Council shall be as follows: (1) Evaluate requests to participate in this Automatic Aid Agreement from other fire departments/districts that are dispatched by the Phoenix Dispatch Center or Mesa Dispatch Center. Requests for participation will be evaluated to ensure compliance with the Automatic Aid Eligibility Standards and Requirements prescribed herein and to determine impact upon existing Participants. (2) Evaluate proposed modifications to a Participant’s service delivery model for compliance with the criteria established herein and for impact on other Participants. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 62 (3) Establish such technical committees or working groups as may be necessary for the efficient and effective operation of the Automatic Aid System. (4) Develop, approve or modify such technical documents as may be necessary for the efficient and effective operation of the Automatic Aid System. (5) Develop, within the first year of this Agreement, Life Safety Council bylaws establishing Life Safety Council procedure, such as and without limitation, notice of meetings, the taking of meeting minutes, the distribution of minutes, etc. (6) Evaluate and consider for adoption national benchmarks as may be appropriate for implementation within the Automatic Aid System. (7) Develop, approve or modify alternative response models as appropriate based on the area served by the Participants (i.e. urban, suburban, rural), which may be subsequently implemented by Participants. (8) Establish methods for service measurement, provided that: (a) “Time of dispatch” will be measured from the point in time at which the Dispatch and Deployment Center has notified the station, or the responding unit out of the station, of the call through the station alert system, radio, or Mobile Computer Terminal (“MCT”). (b) “Response time” will be measured from the Time of Dispatch to the time of arrival on-scene. (9) Vote on all actions that will significantly or materially impact or change the responsibilities of the Life Safety Council and/or the automatic aid eligibility standards and requirements for the Participants’, as prescribed in this Agreement, utilizing the voting process set forth below. 3.2 Voting Process. For matters pertaining to this Agreement that require voting by the Life Safety Council, the voting process shall incorporate tiered voting. The initial vote (Tier 1) will utilize a single, non-weighted vote per Participant. After the initial vote has been conducted, any Participant shall have the right to request a second vote that will utilize weighted voting (Tier 2). For the weighted vote, each individual Participant’s vote will be formed by assigning a percentage to that Participant. The percentage to be assigned will be calculated based upon that individual Participant’s total calls for service within that Participant’s geographical boundaries, compared to the total number of calls for service within the geographical boundaries of all Participants to this Agreement combined (see Attachment B). This calculation will be based on the reported call volumes as determined by the Regional Computer Aided Dispatch centers. Any members’ voting weight exceeding forty percent (40%) shall be reduced and will be weighted to no more and to no less than 40%. Such McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 63 reduction shall not affect the weighted vote of any other member. The percentages assigned to Participants will be reviewed, recalculated and reassigned every five (5) years at the time this Agreement is renewed. 3.3 Passage. In order to pass, all matters to be voted on by the Life Safety Council will require a simple majority vote for Tier 1 voting, and for Tier 2 voting, a majority vote of at least fifty-one (51) percent is required. ARTICLE 4–SERVICE AREA CHANGES 4.1 Service Area Changes. Certain changes to a Participant’s operations within its service area have the potential to negatively affect its neighboring Participants and ultimately negatively affect the Automatic Aid System in its entirety. The occurrence of the following events is subject to review by the Life Safety Council. A. Reduction in Service Levels. If at any time while this Agreement is in effect, an Automatic Aid System Participant desires to, close a fire station and/or increase its geographical/jurisdictional boundaries to include an area more than five (5) square miles, or reduce its level of fire, medical or emergency services provided within its municipal or jurisdictional boundaries, the Automatic Aid System Participant desiring to initiate the change and prior to initiating the change, will give a minimum of 120 day notice to all Parties for a 30 day review period for any potential impacts to the system. This notice shall include a proposed plan on how the notifying party will maintain the requirements and standards set forth in Article 2 of this Agreement. If after review, it is determined by any Participant that the change will result in a change to the response order of another jurisdiction’s primary response units or any other negative impact to any jurisdiction or to the system as a whole, any Party can request a vote of the Central Life Safety Response System Council for a determination as to whether the proposed newly modified area will remain eligible for automatic aid response or if the proposed newly modified area will then default to a mutual aid response. The Council will utilize the voting process set forth in this Agreement. ARTICLE 5–MUTUAL AID AND OTHER AGREEMENTS 5.1 Mutual Aid Areas. Calls to response areas outside of the jurisdictional boundaries of the Participants in the Automatic Aid System will be considered mutual aid when such written agreements between relevant parties exist or when a Participant has been defaulted from the Automatic Aid System and deemed a Mutual Aid Member (as set forth in Article 4, Service Area Changes). Requests for and responses to mutual aid will be at the sole discretion of the parties involved. Any response to a mutual aid jurisdiction by a Participant will not bind any other Participant to respond. Under these circumstances, a mutual aid request may require approval by the highest ranking on-duty fire officer of the Participant asked to provide the resources. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 64 5.2 Other Agreements. Nothing in this Agreement shall limit the ability of any or all the Parties from continuing to perform under existing agreements (other than any previous automatic aid agreements between any of the Parties, hereto, which upon execution of this Agreement are superseded), entering into future agreements, or agreeing to participate in more specific contracts for services, mutual assistance or automatic response(s) or prohibit any of the Parties from providing emergency assistance to another jurisdiction that is not a Participant in this Agreement. Such agreements will not be binding on or commit any other Participants to provide automatic aid or mutual aid to the other jurisdiction; such other future agreements also do not extend any rights associated with this Agreement to any other entity that is not a Party. ARTICLE 6–TERM OF THE AGREEMENT 6.1 Term; Renewal. This Agreement shall be recorded by each Party with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office, shall commence on December 19, 2017, regardless of the date of recordation, and shall continue in force through December 19, 2022, or until terminated by formal act of the Parties. This Agreement shall automatically renew for successive five-year terms, unless terminated earlier by formal act of the Parties. 6.2 Termination. If an individual Party wishes to terminate its participation in this Agreement, it shall provide all Participants 120 days’ formal notice, in writing, of intention to terminate. That terminating party’s termination will then be effective on the 121st day after notice has been provided, unless the notice to terminate has been withdrawn. ARTICLE 7–GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 7.1 No Third-Party Beneficiaries. No term or provision of this Agreement is intended to, or shall, create any rights in any person, firm, corporation or other entity not a party hereto, and no such person or entity shall have any cause of action hereunder. 7.2 Workers’ Compensation. The Parties agree that it is the responsibility of each Party to ensure that its employees are notified in accordance with the provision of Arizona Workers’ Compensation Law, specifically, A.R.S. § 23-1022, or any amendment thereto, and that all such notices, as required by such laws, shall be posted accordingly. That by signing this Agreement and to ensure compliance with the notice posting requirements, each Party grants consent to all other Parties to inspect that Party’s respective premises and work places upon request of any of the other Parties. However, nothing in this Agreement should be construed as imposing a duty to inspect another Party’s respective premises and work places, and this agreement does not create a joint or employer/employee relationship between a Party and another Party’s employees. McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 65 7.3 Immigration Requirements. The Parties will comply with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”) and will permit inspection of its personnel records to verify such compliance. To the extent applicable under A.R.S. § 41-4401, each Party warrants compliance with all federal immigration laws and regulations that relate to its employees and compliance with the Everify requirements under A.R.S. § 23-214(A). Each Party has the right to inspect the papers of the other Parties participating in this Agreement to ensure compliance with this paragraph. A Party’s breach of the above-mentioned warranty shall be deemed a material breach of the Agreement and may result in the termination of the Agreement by the Life Safety Council under the terms of this Agreement. 7.4 No Joint Venture. No term or provision in this Agreement is intended to create a partnership, joint venture or agency arrangement between any of the Parties. 7.5 Notices. Any notice to be provided to a Party or Parties to this Agreement shall be satisfied be sending a written letter by U.S. mail, certified, return receipt to the current fire chief of each respective Participant. Notice shall be deemed effective five days after mailing. 7.6 Cancelation for Conflicts of Interest. This Agreement is subject to cancellation pursuant to the provisions of A.R.S. § 38-511. 7.7 No Israel Boycott. In accordance with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 35-393.01, by entering into this Agreement, each Participant certifies that it is not currently engaged in, and agrees that for the duration of this Agreement to not engage in a boycott of Israel. IN WITNESS HEREOF, this Agreement is executed as provided below. Further, in signing this Agreement, the signatories below affirm and attest that they are authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of their respective Party. CITY OF PHOENIX, a municipal corporation ED ZUERCHER, City Manager Kara Kalkbrenner DATE Fire Chief ATTEST: Phoenix City Clerk McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 66 CERTIFICATION BY LEGAL COUNSEL In accordance with the requirements of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 11-952(D), the undersigned Attorney acknowledges that (i) he/she has reviewed the above agreement on behalf of his/her client and (ii) as to only his/her client, has determined that the Agreement is in proper form and is within the powers and authority granted under the laws of the State of Arizona. City Attorney for Phoenix [SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON FOLLOWING PAGES] [INSERT INDIVIDUAL SIGNATURE PAGES FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS] McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 67 ATTACHMENT A PARTICIPANT DATE APPROVED 1 Avondale Fire and Medical December 15, 2017 2 Arizona Fire and Medical Authority January 16, 2018 3 Buckeye Fire and Medical December 15, 2017 4 Buckeye Valley Fire District December 11, 2017 5 Chandler Fire, Health & Medical December 15, 2017 6 Daisy Mountain Fire and Medical January 16, 2018 7 El Mirage Fire Department December 15, 2017 8 Glendale Fire Department January 16, 2018 9 Gilbert Fire Department January 16, 2018 10 Goodyear Fire Department January 16, 2018 11 Guadalupe Fire Department January 16, 2018 12 Maricopa Fire Department January 16, 2018 13 Mesa Fire and Medical December 11, 2017 14 Peoria Fire and Medical December 11, 2017 15 Phoenix Fire Department Initial Member 16 Queen Creek Fire Department December 15, 2017 17 Scottsdale Fire Department December 11, 2017 18 Sun City Fire Department January 16, 2018 19 Superstition Fire and Medical December 11, 2017 20 Surprise Fire and Medical December 11, 2017 21 Tempe Fire and Medical December 11, 2017 22 Tolleson Fire Department January 16, 2018 McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 68 ATTACHMENT B VOTING PROCESS and WEIGHTED VOTE PERCENTAGE For matters pertaining to this Agreement that require voting by the Life Safety Council, the voting process shall incorporate tiered voting. The initial vote (Tier 1) will utilize a single, non-weighted vote per Participant. After the initial vote has been conducted, any Participant shall have the right to request a second vote that will utilize weighted voting (Tier 2). For the weighted vote, each individual Participant’s vote will be formed by assigning a percentage to that Participant. The percentage to be assigned will be calculated based upon that individual Participant’s total calls for service within that Participant’s geographical boundaries, compared to the total number of calls for service within the geographical boundaries of all Participants to this Agreement combined. This calculation will be based on the reported call volumes as determined by the Regional Computer Aided Dispatch centers. Any members’ voting weight exceeding forty percent (40%) shall be reduced and will be weighted to no more and to no less than 40%. Such reduction shall not affect the weighted vote of any other member. The percentages assigned to Participants will be reviewed, recalculated and reassigned every five (5) years at the time this Agreement is renewed. Jurisdiction Incident Totals Weight Vote Yes No Avondale Fire and Medical 8,243 2% Arizona Fire and Medical Authority 13,373 3% Buckeye Fire and Medical 5,884 1% Buckeye Valley Fire District 1,559 1% Chandler Fire, Health & Medical 23,807 5% Daisy Mountain Fire and Medical 3,307 1% El Mirage Fire Department 2,843 1% Glendale Fire Department 31,114 6% Gilbert Fire Department 17,033 3% Goodyear Fire Department 8,021 2% Guadalupe Fire Department 1,133 1% Maricopa Fire Department 4,506 1% Mesa Fire and Medical 67,833 13% Peoria Fire and Medical 19,740 4% Phoenix Fire Department 213,825 40% Queen Creek Fire Department 3,195 1% Scottsdale Fire Department 33,957 7% Sun City Fire Department 11,659 2% Superstition Fire and Medical 3,836 1% Surprise Fire and Medical 14,315 3% Tempe Fire and Medical 25,702 5% Tolleson Fire Department 1,952 1% Total Calls For Service 516,837 McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 69 Appendix C – Summary of Fountain Hills Fire Department Startup Costs Startup Year Ca t e g o r y De s c r i p t i o n St a r t U p C o s t - D O E S NO T M e e t S t a n d a r d St a r t U p C o s t - M e e t s St a n d a r d Fir e D e p a r t m e n t W a g e s , B e n e f i t s , O T De p a r t m e n t B a s e W a g e s a n d B e n e f i t s 3,0 8 6 , 0 0 6 . 4 5 $ 3,5 3 9 , 3 1 2 . 8 9 $ Fir e D e p a r t m e n t W a g e s , B e n e f i t s , O T De p a r t m e n t O v e r t i m e 47 6 , 2 8 7 . 6 1 $ 55 2 , 4 6 1 . 9 7 $ Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n W a g e s a n d B e n e f i t s Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n B a s e W a g e s a n d B e n e f i t s 12 7 , 5 1 1 . 2 7 $ 12 7 , 5 1 1 . 2 7 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Re c r u i t m e n t E x p e n s e 30 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 30 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Ex e c u t i v e R e c r u i t m e n t F e e s ( F i r e C h i e f s e a r c h ) 25 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 25 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Ba s i c S k i l l s T e s t i n g 5, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 5, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Ba c k g r o u n d C h e c k - $ - $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Po s t O f f e r T e s t i n g 41 , 2 5 0 . 0 0 $ 47 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Re g i o n a l A c a d e m y C o s t s 14 8 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 $ 17 1 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Un i f o r m s / E q u i p m e n t 30 6 , 9 0 0 . 0 0 $ 35 3 , 4 0 0 . 0 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Un i f o r m A n n u a l R e p l a c e m e n t C o s t - $ - $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s An n u a l P h y s i c a l T e s t i n g - $ - $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s EA P P r o g r a m E n h a n c e m e n t s f o r P u b l i c S a f e t y 3, 5 0 0 . 0 0 $ 3, 5 0 0 . 0 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Sic k a n d V a c a t i o n L i a b i l i t y F u n d i n g - $ - $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s FL S A T r a i n i n g 1, 8 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1, 8 0 0 . 0 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Pa y c h e x s P a y r o l l 6, 2 3 7 . 0 0 $ 7, 1 8 2 . 0 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s On b o a r d i n g a n d P e r f o r m a n c e M a n a g e m e n t 15 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 15 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Ac t u a r i a l R e v i e w F e e s t o j o i n P S P R S 2, 5 0 0 . 0 0 $ 2, 5 0 0 . 0 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s PS P R S L o c a l B o a r d P e r D i e m / L e g a l C o u n s e l F e e s 5, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 5, 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Fir e / E M S R e p o r t i n g S o f t w a r e 25 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 25 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Pr o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s - C o m p e n s a t i o n U p d a t e 20 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 20 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Pr o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s - P o l i c y M a n u a l U p d a t e 15 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 15 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Pr o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s - M i s c . L e g a l F e e s 10 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 10 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ Wo r k e r s C o m p e n s a t i o n , L i a b i l i t y , a n d E & O I n s u r a n c e A d j u s t m e n t s Ge n e r a l L i a b i l i t y 12 6 , 3 9 6 . 0 0 $ 12 6 , 3 9 6 . 0 0 $ Wo r k e r s C o m p e n s a t i o n , L i a b i l i t y , a n d E & O I n s u r a n c e A d j u s t m e n t s Er r o r s & O m i s s i o n s ( p r o f e s s i o n a l l i a b i l i t y ) 5, 2 7 1 . 0 0 $ 5, 2 7 1 . 0 0 $ Wo r k e r s C o m p e n s a t i o n , L i a b i l i t y , a n d E & O I n s u r a n c e A d j u s t m e n t s Wo r k e r s C o m p e n s a t i o n 10 8 , 1 6 3 . 0 0 $ 12 2 , 7 9 8 . 0 0 $ Dis p a t c h i n g Dis p a t c h i n g t h r o u g h e i t h e r P h o e n i x o r M e s a 31 8 , 7 0 1 . 2 4 $ 31 8 , 7 0 1 . 2 4 $ Op e r a t i o n a l C o s t s Ba s e d o n c u r r e n t T o w n e x p e n s e s f o r F D s e r v i c e s 37 1 , 3 3 2 . 0 0 $ 37 1 , 3 3 2 . 0 0 $ St r u c t u r a l P P E - I n i t i a l P u r c h a s e Pu r c h a s e 3 3 s e t s / 3 9 s e t s 13 8 , 6 0 0 . 0 0 $ 16 3 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 $ St r u c t u r a l P P E - A n n u a l R e p l a c e m e n t Re p l a c e 6 s e t s p e r y e a r / 8 s e t s p e r y e a r - $ - $ Hy b r i d P P E ( R e s c u e / E M S / W i l d l a n d ) - I n i t i a l P u r c h a s e Pu r c h a s e 3 3 s e t s / 3 9 s e t s 51 , 9 7 5 . 0 0 $ 61 , 4 2 5 . 0 0 $ Hy b r i d P P E ( R e s c u e / E M S / W i l d l a n d ) - A n n u a l R e p l a c e m e n t Re p l a c e 6 s e t s p e r y e a r / 8 s e t s p e r y e a r - $ - $ 5,4 7 0 , 9 3 0 . 5 7 $ 6,1 2 5 , 8 9 1 . 3 7 $ Su m m a r y S p r e a d s h e e t - S t a r t u p Y e a r McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. Page 70 Subsequent Year Ca t e g o r y De s c r i p t i o n Su b s e q u e n t Y e a r - D O E S NO T M e e t S t a n d a r d Su b s e q u e n t - M e e t s St a n d a r d Fi r e D e p a r t m e n t W a g e s , B e n e f i t s , O T De p a r t m e n t B a s e W a g e s a n d B e n e f i t s 3, 2 4 0 , 3 0 6 . 7 7 $ 3, 7 1 6 , 2 7 8 . 5 3 $ Fi r e D e p a r t m e n t W a g e s , B e n e f i t s , O T De p a r t m e n t O v e r t i m e 50 0 , 1 0 1 . 9 9 $ 58 0 , 0 8 5 . 0 7 $ Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n W a g e s a n d B e n e f i t s Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n B a s e W a g e s a n d B e n e f i t s 13 3 , 8 8 6 . 8 3 $ 13 3 , 8 8 6 . 8 3 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Re c r u i t m e n t E x p e n s e 10 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 $ 12 , 6 0 0 . 0 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Ex e c u t i v e R e c r u i t m e n t F e e s ( F i r e C h i e f s e a r c h ) - $ - $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Ba s i c S k i l l s T e s t i n g 2, 6 2 5 . 0 0 $ 2, 6 2 5 . 0 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Ba c k g r o u n d C h e c k - $ - $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Po s t O f f e r T e s t i n g 7, 8 7 5 . 0 0 $ 10 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Re g i o n a l A c a d e m y C o s t s 28 , 3 5 0 . 0 0 $ 37 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Un i f o r m s / E q u i p m e n t 58 , 5 9 0 . 0 0 $ 78 , 1 2 0 . 0 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Un i f o r m A n n u a l R e p l a c e m e n t C o s t 32 , 2 2 4 . 5 0 $ 37 , 1 0 7 . 0 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s An n u a l P h y s i c a l T e s t i n g 34 , 6 5 0 . 0 0 $ 39 , 9 0 0 . 0 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s EA P P r o g r a m E n h a n c e m e n t s f o r P u b l i c S a f e t y 3, 6 7 5 . 0 0 $ 3, 6 7 5 . 0 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Si c k a n d V a c a t i o n L i a b i l i t y F u n d i n g 11 3 , 2 0 9 . 7 3 $ 12 8 , 3 1 7 . 6 4 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s FL S A T r a i n i n g - $ - $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Pa y c h e x s P a y r o l l 6, 5 4 8 . 8 5 $ 7, 5 4 1 . 1 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s On b o a r d i n g a n d P e r f o r m a n c e M a n a g e m e n t 15 , 7 5 0 . 0 0 $ 15 , 7 5 0 . 0 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Ac t u a r i a l R e v i e w F e e s t o j o i n P S P R S - $ - $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s PS P R S L o c a l B o a r d P e r D i e m / L e g a l C o u n s e l F e e s 5, 2 5 0 . 0 0 $ 5, 2 5 0 . 0 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Fi r e / E M S R e p o r t i n g S o f t w a r e 15 , 7 5 0 . 0 0 $ 15 , 7 5 0 . 0 0 $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Pr o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s - C o m p e n s a t i o n U p d a t e - $ - $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Pr o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s - P o l i c y M a n u a l U p d a t e - $ - $ Ot h e r P e r s o n n e l a n d R e l a t e d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s Pr o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s - M i s c L e g a l F e e s - $ - $ Wo r k e r s C o m p e n s a t i o n , L i a b i l i t y , a n d E & O I n s u r a n c e A d j u s t m e n t s Ge n e r a l L i a b i l i t y 13 2 , 7 1 5 . 8 0 $ 13 2 , 7 1 5 . 8 0 $ Wo r k e r s C o m p e n s a t i o n , L i a b i l i t y , a n d E & O I n s u r a n c e A d j u s t m e n t s Er r o r s & O m i s s i o n s ( p r o f e s s i o n a l l i a b i l i t y ) 5, 5 3 4 . 5 5 $ 5, 5 3 4 . 5 5 $ Wo r k e r s C o m p e n s a t i o n , L i a b i l i t y , a n d E & O I n s u r a n c e A d j u s t m e n t s Wo r k e r s C o m p e n s a t i o n 11 3 , 5 7 1 . 1 5 $ 12 8 , 9 3 7 . 9 0 $ Di s p a t c h i n g Dis p a t c h i n g t h r o u g h e i t h e r P h o e n i x o r M e s a 22 1 , 1 3 5 . 0 0 $ 22 1 , 1 3 5 . 0 0 $ Op e r a t i o n a l C o s t s Ba s e d o n c u r r e n t T o w n e x p e n s e s f o r F D s e r v i c e s 38 2 , 4 7 1 . 9 6 $ St r u c t u r a l P P E - I n i t i a l P u r c h a s e Pu r c h a s e 3 3 s e t s / 3 9 s e t s - $ - $ St r u c t u r a l P P E - A n n u a l R e p l a c e m e n t Re p l a c e 6 s e t s p e r y e a r / 8 s e t s p e r y e a r 25 , 3 6 8 . 0 0 $ 33 , 7 6 8 . 0 0 $ Hy b r i d P P E ( R e s c u e / E M S / W i l d l a n d ) - I n i t i a l P u r c h a s e Pu r c h a s e 3 3 s e t s / 3 9 s e t s - $ - $ Hy b r i d P P E ( R e s c u e / E M S / W i l d l a n d ) - A n n u a l R e p l a c e m e n t Re p l a c e 6 s e t s p e r y e a r / 8 s e t s p e r y e a r 9, 5 1 3 . 0 0 $ 12 , 6 6 3 . 0 0 $ 5, 0 9 9 , 6 0 3 . 1 3 $ 5, 3 5 9 , 9 4 0 . 4 3 $ Su m m a r y S p r e a d s h e e t - S u b s e q u e n t Y e a r Town of Fountain Hills Financial Analysis Fire Department Operations 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 1 Project Scope McGrath Consulting Group, Inc. was commissioned by the Town of Fountain Hills to conduct an independent, non-biased study and cost analysis of fire department operations. The goal of this study is to determine whether the Town should renew its current contract with Rural Metro, seek an intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with another nearby municipality, or establish its own in-house Fire Department. 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 2 Study Methodology 1.Understand the overall contractual situation with Rural Metro •Rural Metro’s history •Current business models under their parent company Global Medical Response, Inc. •Current contract for services with the Town of Fountain Hills •How services are currently provided to the Town •Collective bargaining contract with Rural Metro employees 2.Understand how fire services are provided throughout the Phoenix Valley •Role of Regional Automatic Aid System •Role of the Regional Dispatch Centers (PSAPs) •Who are the participating municipalities/districts within the Automatic Aid System •What are the pros and cons of the Automatic Aid System 3.Analyze Fountain Hills compliance with national fire service standards/best practice models 4.Analyze options related to how best to provide fire protection services in the future 5.Analyze projected costs based on options 6.Provide recommendations based on study findings and options 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 3 Study Process •Interviews •Fountain Hills Elected Officials •Fountain Hills Town Leadership •Fire Service Leadership •Fountain Hills/Rural Metro •Mesa Fire and Medical Department •Scottsdale Fire Department •Rio Verde Fire Protection District •Daisy Mountain Fire & Medical •Central Arizona Fire and Medical Authority •Phoenix Fire Department •Cliff Jones, Fire Chief (Ret.), Tempe Fire Department •Randy Roberts, Fire Chief (Ret.), Rural Metro assigned to Fountain Hills •Other External Service Providers •Arizona Municipal Risk Retention Pool •Public Safety Personnel Retirement System •CuraLinc Healthcare --Employee Assistance Program 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 4 Study Process •Document/Data Review •Regional Public Safety Studies related to changes in contract services for fire protection •Public Document Review –Regional Public safety Agencies (i.e., letters, memos, training documents, strategic plans, etc.) •Regional Dispatch Services –Costs and Budgets •Salt River implementation costs (Estimated) •Cave Creek implementation costs (Estimated) •Rio Verde Fire District dispatch budget and assessed fees paid to TOPAZ communications 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 5 Study Process •Fountain Hills Specific Data •Personnel Policies: Amended and Restated, April 2018 •Pay Plan: Fiscal Year 2021 –2022 •Employee Benefit Guide: 2021 –2022 •Arizona Municipal Risk Retention Pool Benefit Guide •Rural Metro monthly data reports for FY 15/16 –FY 20-21 •Paychex Services Agreement •Fountain Hills Community Survey -2021 (See pages 7 –10 of report) 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 6 Study Limitations It is important to note that due to confidentiality clauses in the contract with Rural Metro, the consulting team received limited data, service analysis, and side-by-side comparative costs. The consulting team did their absolute best to minimize the impact of the limitations where possible. A detailed description of the study’s limitations is noted in the body of the report. (See pages 11 of report) 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 7 Key Takeaways •Fountain Hills has a very low fire- dollar loss rate. (See pages 13 –14 of report) 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 8 CONTRIBUTING FACTORS •Building and site plan reviews •Building and site inspections •Public education activities •Response capabilities and professionalism of fire department staff •Sprinkler and alarm requirements Key Takeaways •Rural Metro appears to be meeting all contractual obligations as detailed in the contract with the Town of Fountain Hills. (See pages 28 -29 of report) •Average 5-minutes or less response time for the first arriving unit (<300 seconds). •An 8-minute overall response area based on fire station locations. •Response standards (in both cases) are to be met 90% of the time. •The current contract does not require compliance with NFPA 1910 (staffing and deployment). •The current contract does not require compliance with NFPA 1221 (call processing and dispatch). 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 9 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 10 Key Takeaways 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 11 Key Takeaways Chief Ott and the Rural Metro leadership team assigned to Fountain Hills are professional and clearly working to provide quality services within the context of the contract. 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 12 Key Takeaways •The trend over the last 30+ years is for municipalities/districts in Arizona to move away from contractual fire services provided by Rural Metro. o Fountain Hills is one of only two true municipal master contracts that still exist. o Carefree, AZ, who has the other master contract, is evaluating options for a potential change. o Since Rural Metro is not adding new master contracts, one can surmise that the model is no longer a priority under Global Medical Response (GMR) leadership. o This is concerning and must be a primary focus when considering the future of fire protection for the Town of Fountain Hills. o It is impossible to predict how long Rural Metro will be willing to sustain Master Contracts. (See pages 16 -20 of report) 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 13 Key Takeaways Generalized listing of Arizona communities/fire protection districts that have ended subscription and/or master contracts with Rural Metro. In some cases, the ending of service was driven by Rural Metro. •1988: Flowing Wells Fire District (now Northwest Fire District) •1988: “The Boot” Annexation Area (Annexed into the City of Phoenix) •1989: Sun City Fire District •1989: Town of Youngtown (now covered by Sun City Fire District)•1989: Ahwatukee (Annexed into the City of Phoenix) •1989: Laveen Fire District (now covered by Phoenix Fire Department) •1989: Daisy Mountain Fire District •1992: Northwest Fire District •1993: Town of Gilbert•1994: Sun City West Fire District (now North County Fire & Medical District) •2005: City of Scottsdale •2007: Town of Paradise Valley (now covered by Phoenix Fire Department) •2008: Town of Queen Creek•2010: Litchfield Park •2020: Town of Cave Creek •2022: Town of Carefree (Currently under review. At the time of this report, Carefree has signed an 18-month contract with Rural Metro to allow analysis and development of a possible transition plan.) 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 14 (See pages 18 of report) Key Takeaways •A primary reason for the movement away from contracted fire services is the desire for local control. •Desire to be part of the Regional Automatic Aid System•The Rural Metro model does not meet staffing and training standards,•The Rural Metro model does not meet response time standards. •Leadership Challenge -The assigned Rural Metro Fire Chief is often caught in the middle between the Town Manager and the Council while simultaneously reporting to senior leadership at Rural Metro. ARTICLE I, Section 1.6, Subsection E: The Town Manager shall be responsible for coordinating all services within the primary service area as well as conveying the wishes of the Town to the Fire Chief with respect to such services. The Fire Chief shall, at all times, consider the request of the Town Manager with respect to the implementation of fire protection and emergency medical services. While the Town Manager shall have no chain of command authority to direct the operations of Rural Metro employees, such authority being reserved to the Fire Chief, the parties to this agreement understand that the Town expects Rural Metro to reasonably respond to its needs for fire protection and emergency medical services as communicated through the Town Manger. 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 15 (See pages 20 -21 of report) Understanding and Applicability of NFPA Standards and the Regional Automatic Aid System 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 16 Regional Automatic Aid System Mutual Aid Mutual aid is not automatic. •Aid is requested on an ad hoc basis by the local incident commander. •Mutual aid, even in the best situations, takes time to put into operation. Automatic Aid The Regional Automatic Aid System utilized in the Phoenix Valley has been in existence since 1976. •Provides the closest, most appropriate fire service resource regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. •It is easily and decisively the “gold standard” for automatic aid systems operated throughout the United States. 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 17 (See pages 23 -24 of report) Regional Automatic Aid System •Shared communication centers •All assets maintained by a member of the Automatic Aid System are available,shared,and operated as if the asset is the property of the entire system and not just belonging to a single community/district. •Operation and staffing of specialty response teams (examples): o Hazardous Materials o Technical Rescue Teams (Trench Rescue,Structural Collapse Rescue,Confined Space Rescue,High-angle Rescue) o Dive/Swift Water Rescue o Mountain Search and Rescue o Fire Cause and Origin Investigation •Shared specialized unit response: o Command Team o Rehab o Brush Fire Response o Water Tenders 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 18 Regional Automatic Aid System •Hallmarks of the system: •Shared standard operating procedures •All personnel trained to same minimum standards with participation in regular joint continuing education •Staffing standard of 4-person companies •Designed to meet national standards (NFPA 1710) •Ensures that the same number of firefighters will arrive on-scene and be able to perform standardized functions regardless of jurisdiction •Staffing applies to all engine and ladder companies •Regional Dispatch Centers •Compliance with NFPA 1221 -call processing and dispatch •Automatic dispatch of closest resource based on geographical location •Rural Metro is blocked from being part of the Regional Automatic Aid System due to compliance standards. 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 19 National Fire Protection Association •NFPA 1221: Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems Covers all aspects of service delivery, from receiving calls to dispatching emergency units to the correct location in the appropriate time period. •NFPA 1710: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments Provides specific details on fire department service capabilities, staffing, deployment, and response times. 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 20 (See pages 24 -33 of report) NFPA 1221 –Call Processing and Dispatch Standards 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 21 Emergency Call Processing Standards PSAP Function Process Time Standard Performance Criteria 9-1-1 Calls Answered ≤15 Seconds 90% of the time ≤20 Seconds 95% of the time Time to Dispatch ≤60 Seconds 90% of the time ≤90 Seconds 95% of the time Emergency Call Processing Flowchart Event (Something happened requiring emergency assistance) Call Initiated (Call placed to 9-1-1 requesting help) Call Rings at PSAP Call Answered Call Processing (Determining the nature of the emergency & call location) Call Entry (Entering call information into CAD) Call Dispatch (Emergency responders notified of the call) 15 - Seconds 60 - Seconds NFPA 1221 –Call Processing and Dispatch Standards •Fountain Hills fire assets are dispatched by Rural Metro communications. •Due to the required call transfer from the public safety answering point (PSAP) to Rural Metro, an automatic delay is currently built into the system. •Rural Metro, within the contractual agreement with Fountain Hills (ARTICLE 1: Section 1.4, Subsection B), states that the communication center dispatch times will meet call processing standards once they receive the call. •Although requested through the Fire Chief, no computer aided dispatch data related to call processing was provided. 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 22 (See pages 30 of report) NFPA 1710 –Staffing based on required tasks 8/10/2022 23 Open air strip shopping (13,000 – 196,000 ft2) and Apartment (1200 ft2 per unit constructed in a 3-story or garden apartment configuration) Task/Role Staff Number Needed Establishment of incident command outside the hazard area for the overall coordination, direction, and safety of the initial full alarm assignment. This number includes the incident commander and a safety officer. 2 Establishment of two uninterrupted water supplies with each supply line maintained by an operator. 2 Establishment of an effective water flow application rate of 500 gallons per minute (GPM) from three handlines, each of which has a minimum flow rate of 150 GPM. 6 One support member for each attack and backup line to assist in stretching of hose lines, utility control, and forcible entry as necessary 3 Provision of at least two victim search and rescue teams 4 Establishment of an initial medical care component capable of providing immediate on-scene emergency medical support and transport that provides rapid access to civilians or firefighters potentially needing medical treatment. 2 Provision of at least two teams to raise ground ladders and perform ventilation 4 If an aerial device is used in operations, one member is required to function as the aerial operator to maintain primary control of the aerial device at all times. 1 At a minimum, an initial rapid intervention crew (IRIC) assembled from the initial attack crew and, as the initial alarm response arrives, a full and sustained rapid intervention crew (RIC) established. (OSHA Respiratory Protection Standard; 29 CFR § 1910.134): 4 Total staffing numbers required for compliance 27 *28 if aerial ladder is being used Single-family dwelling (2000 ft2) Task/Role Staff Number Needed Dedicated incident commander 1 Pump operator with a dedicated water supply 1 Ability to establish and operate 2-handlines (attack and backup) 4 One support member for each attack and backup line to assist in stretching of hose lines, utility control, and forcible entry as necessary 2 Provision of at least one victim search and rescue team 2 Provision of at least one team to raise ground ladders and perform ventilation 2 If an aerial device is used in operations, one member is required to function as the aerial operator to maintain primary control of the aerial device at all times. 1 At a minimum, an initial rapid intervention crew (IRIC) assembled from the initial attack crew and, as the initial alarm response arrives, a full and sustained rapid intervention crew (RIC) established. (OSHA Respiratory Protection Standard; 29 CFR § 1910.134): 4 Total staffing numbers required for compliance 16 *17 if aerial ladder is being used NFPA 1710 –Response Time and Staffing Standards 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 24 Response Time Standards – First Alarm Assignment Unit(s) Time from Dispatch to Arrival Performance Standard First Engine Company 240 sec. (4 minutes) 90% of the time Second Engine Company 360 sec. (6 minutes) 90% of the time Full Initial Alarm Assignment 610 sec. (10 minutes and 10 seconds) 90% of the time Fountain Hills/Rural Metro (assuming that all units are available and not on other calls) will respond with the following vehicles: •2 –Engines •1 –Ladder Tender •1 –Rescue (Dual role EMS providers) •1 –Medic (Single role EMS providers) •1 –On call Command Officer Total Staff: 11 Firefighter NFPA 1710 –Response Time Standards •The Regional Automatic Aid System is designed to share resources to help meet staffing and response time standards. •Scottsdale has stopped providing mutual aid to Rural Metro. •Mutual aid must be mutual. •Rural Metro is unable to meet response standards of the Automatic Aid System. •Mutual Aid agencies have a built-in delay due to call processing time between dispatch agencies. •Rural Metro will send assets from other communities: •Lengthy response times •Minimal staffing Mutual Aid Partners: Station Location and Travel Distances To Fountain Hills Town Hall Fire Station Miles Minutes Fort McDowell 4.5 9 Scottsdale Station 607 6.1 11 Scottsdale Station 606 9 14 Rio Verde 11 17 Salt River Station 294 13.9 18 Scottsdale Station 604 11.2 18 Scottsdale Station 608 10.8 19 Salt River Station 292 13.4 19 Rural Metro Station 826 (Scottsdale) 15.6 22 Salt River Station 291 15.9 22 Salt River Station 293 15.8 23 Rural Metro Station 821 (Carefree) 29.4 39 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 25 _____ = Regional Automatic Aid System _____ = mutual aid _____ = nearest Rural Metro stations out of town Key Takeaways •Under the current model, the intent of NFPA 1221 is not being met due to call transfer requirements between dispatch centers. •Under the current response model employed by Rural Metro, NFPA 1710 is not being met related to response times and staffing standards. •If the Town discontinued the contract with Rural Metro and worked to comply with the standards required of the Regional Automatic Aid System, the system would help/allow the Town to meet NFPA 1221 and 1710 standards. 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 26 Options 1.Status Quo:Continue a contractual relationship with Rural Metro. 2.Option #1:Create a Fountain Hills Municipal Fire Department using the current staffing level. 3.Option #2:Create a Fountain Hills Municipal Fire Department that is compliant in staffing and response times. This option will allow Fountain Hills to become part of the Regional Automatic Aid System. 4.Option #3:Discontinue contract with Rural Metro and enter an IGA with Scottsdale to provide personnel only. 5.Option #4:Enter an IGA to merge Fountain Hills fire services into Scottsdale Fire Department. 6.Option #5:Consolidate into Rio Verde Fire District. 7.Option #6:Request proposals (RFP)from other providers similar to Rural Metro. (See Pages:40-48 for full description and methodology of options.) 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 27 Status Quo: Continue a contractual relationship with Rural Metro. 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 28 Option #1: Create a Fountain Hills Municipal Fire Department using the current staffing level. 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 29 Standalone Department: DOES NOT MEET Regional Auto Aid Standard Rank Number in Category Fire Chief 1 Fire Marshal 1 Administrative Assistant 1 Training Officer 1 Captain 6 Engineer 6 Firefighter/Paramedic 18 *Total full-time employees –all categories:34 Option #1: Create a Fountain Hills Municipal Fire Department using the current staffing level. •Since there is no longer a “backfill pool,” the department will need to increase staffing per shift to cover paid-time-off (PTO). •This translates into six (6) additional new-hire firefighters. •In addition to the new full-time firefighters, the department will require administrative support. •It is recommended that a full-time administrative assistant be added to assist in records management and the processing and tracking of data. •Information Technology and Human Resource support will likely also be needed. Included in cost projections are the salary and benefits for a full-time Human Resource Generalist and a .5 FTE Information Technology Specialist. 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 30 Option #1: Create a Fountain Hills Municipal Fire Department using the current staffing level. •Since Rural Metro will no longer be responsible for staff training, it is recommended that a full-time training officer be hired to work a 40-hour week. •This position will be responsible for daily shift training/drills, EMS continuing education, succession planning/staff development and ongoing employee safety. •This position will ensure mandatory training and department compliance with all required standards as established by OSHA or similar regulatory bodies. •The Arizona Municipal Risk Retention Pool (AMRRP) has provided an initial estimated insurance adjustment. •Expect higher claims experience and the Town will be providing case management services. •2021 Senate Bill 1451 –Presumptive Cancer Law will have future financial impacts to all AMRRP members. •Proactive wellness, testing, and risk management services will be an important function. 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 31 Option #2: Create a Fountain Hills Municipal Fire Department that is compliant in staffing and response times. 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 32 *Total full-time employees –all categories:40 Standalone Department: MEETS Regional Auto Aid Standard Rank Number in Category Fire Chief 1 Fire Marshal 1 Administrative Assistant 1 Training Officer 1 Captain 6 Engineer 6 Firefighter/Paramedic 24 Note:Included in the section titled “Other Personnel and Related Administrative Costs”is the projected expenses for recruit training at a regional fire academy.If incumbent Rural Metro firefighters were hired and sent to a“bridge academy,”the cost per student would be less,thereby realizing a savings in this category. Option #2: Create a Fountain Hills Municipal Fire Department that is compliant in staffing and response times. •Since there is no longer a “backfill pool,” the department will need to increase staffing per shift to cover paid-time-off (PTO). •This translates into nine (9) additional new hire firefighters. •Avoidance of backfill overtime will be important for work life balance and will likely reduce employee turnover. If the Town does not want to hire three (3) additional firefighters at startup, it should strategically plan to add the three (3) firefighters in the future since tenure will likely increase leave time benefits requiring more backfill coverage. The Town should also ensure that the overtime budget realistically covers benefited time off. 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 33 Option #3: Discontinue contract with Rural Metro and enter an IGA with Scottsdale to provide personnel only. 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 34 *Total full-time employees –all categories:0 Contractual Staffing from Scottsdale: Meeting Regional Auto Aid Standard Rank Number in Category Division Chief (Acting as “Fire Chief” for the town 1 Fire Marshal 1 Administrative Assistant 1 Captain 6 Engineer 6 Firefighter/Paramedic 24 Option #4: Enter an IGA to merge Fountain Hills fire services into Scottsdale Fire Department. 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 35 *Total full-time employees –all categories:0 IGA with Scottsdale for full FD Services: Meeting Regional Auto Aid Standard Rank Number in Category Captain 6 Engineer 6 Firefighter/Paramedic 24 The budget for this Option is expected to be similar to the one for Option #3 with a reduction in salaries for the Division Chief (Acting as “Fire Chief”for the town),Fire Marshal,Administrative Assistant,HR Generalist,and IT Specialist. A total of $476,885 in reduced dollars is anticipated from what is shown in Option #3. Regional Dispatch Center 8/10/2022 36 Options 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 37 Recommendations 1.Should the Town continue using contractual services,it is strongly recommended that a contingency plan be developed for the possibility that Rural Metro might exercise their right to end their contractual relationship.Work on this contingency plan should begin immediately and be complete within 12-months. 2.If,at a point,the Town elects to create and operate a fire department,a primary goal should be compliance with the standards that allows membership in the Regional Automatic Aid System (Option #2).It is further recommended that a consultant knowledgeable in the Regional Automatic Aid System be hired to help the Town prepare its application and assist with plan implementation. 3.It is recommended that any move toward creation of a municipal fire department include the additional positions in Human Resources (HR)and Information Technology (IT)as outlined in this report.(See Section Titled:Human Resources and Internal Considerations.) 4.If the Town elects to create a municipal fire department,it is recommended that all fire employees be placed in the Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS).Participation in this system will be important related to recruitment and retention of fire service personnel. 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 38 Questions/Comments/Discussion 8/10/2022 Craig A. Haigh, Senior Consultant Malayna Halvorson Maes, Senior Consultant 39 ITEM 8. D. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 11/01/2022 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting Agenda Type: Regular Agenda                  Submitting Department: Administration Prepared by: David Pock, Finance Director Staff Contact Information: David Pock, Finance Director Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language):  DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION : Presentation of findings and recommendations on the Town's Law Enforcement Services by Matrix Consulting Group. Staff Summary (Background) The Town Council awarded a contract to Matrix Consulting Group on November 16, 2021 for the purpose of providing an analysis of the Town's law enforcement services. Since that time, Matrix has performed considerable research for the analysis, including discussions with Town and MCSO personnel. Data was also compiled related to contract/personnel costs, calls for service, and dispatch/response times. Using the information received, Matrix presented their initial assessment to Council on September 6th. Based on the discussion at that time, Matrix has provided its findings and recommendations related to the Town's law enforcement services in the attached report. This report will be presented by consultants from Matrix. Attachments Draft Report  Presentation  Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Director (Originator)David Pock 10/25/2022  Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 10/25/2022 08:32 AM Town Manager Grady E. Miller 10/25/2022 09:21 AM Form Started By: David Pock Started On: 10/24/2022 07:52 AM Final Approval Date: 10/25/2022  Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA DRAFT October 24, 2022 Table of Contents Introduction and Executive Summary 1 Law Enforcement Services Assessment 6 Law Enforcement Contract Review 28 Alternative Services Delivery 38 Appendix – Fountain Hills Police Department Budget 47 DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 1 1. Introduction and Executive Summary The Matrix Consulting Group was engaged to perform a contract review of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) law enforcement contract with the Town of Fountain Hills with the intention of determining appropriate service levels, cost-effectiveness, and alternative service delivery approaches. This chapter provides an Introduction and Executive Summary to the project and key findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 1. Introduction to Project Scope The Fountain Hills Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis study involved the following primary efforts. • Developed an understanding of current operations, costs and service levels. This effort was exacerbated based on difficulties in data collection from MCSO despite support from the locally assigned Captain. A town hall effort for community feedback was suspended as a consequence of these delays. • Developed issues and assumptions surrounding existing service levels and potential future service level options. This interim deliverable report was provided to Fountain Hills, and a supporting PowerPoint presentation made to Council to seek guidance. • Identified strengths and deficiencies in the existing contract language that can impact service levels, cost of service, contract management, and related issue areas. • Developed alternative service delivery approaches to include change in existing contract services, alternative contracting, other in-house law enforcement options, etc. Costs associated with these options are provided. These key items reflect the scope of work for this project. 2. Executive Summary While there are several recommendations throughout the body of this report based on findings and conclusions, and included at the conclusion of this chapter for reference, there are several notable issues and related findings that can be summarized. 1. Key Findings The following particularly relevant findings are noted from the contents of this report. DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 2 • The town is a very safe community with 98% of its calls for service at the lower priority 2 and 3 levels. • Fountain Hills has very reasonable Patrol proactive time availability and exceptional response times, even with patrol staffing below contracted levels. • Deputies work a variety of self-initiated activities, largely related to traffic, but they have the capacity to expand this work. • Staffing drivers for deputies and detectives are currently not based on relevant workload requirements such as calls for service, proactive time, or caseload standards. • Fountain Hills is presently overstaffed based on current contract terms and conditions. • Minimum staffing set by the MCSO of three deputies on a shift is adequate (which is generally the current deployment), and is sufficient staffing (in concert with field sergeants) to respond to the vast majority of officer-safety situations, provide sufficient proactive time, and maintain exceptional response times. • The town has detective resources beyond need based on various investigative metrics and the analysis performed. 2 detectives are adequate. • MCSO has the ability to provide exceptional service at recommended staffing levels which are below the current contract, resulting in an estimated savings of $219,000 per annum. Current Contract Staffing Revised Contract Staffing Position Fountain Hills Captain 0.75 Lieutenant 1.25 Patrol Deputy 19 School Resource Ofcr. 1 Detective 2.55 Sergeants 3 Clerical / Admn. Assistant 1 Sub-Total 28.55 Dispatch (FTEs) 1.46 Total 30.01 Position Fountain Hills Captain 0.75 Lieutenant 1.50 Patrol Deputy 16 School Resource Ofcr. 1 Detective 2 Sergeants 4 Clerical / Admn. Assistant 1 Sub-Total 26.25 Dispatch (FTEs) 1.46 Total 27.71 • Beyond response time for Priority 1 calls, there are no performance expectations embedded in the contract. • The contract’s terms and conditions lack, in part, a conflict resolution process and penalties for non-performance. DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 3 • The current invoicing process in conjunction with lack of regular MCSO performance reporting results in difficulties in contract administration and management, particularly with respect to financial compliance monitoring. 2. In-house PD Findings The pro-forma budget for an in-house police department are shown in the table below. This includes “Year One” start-up costs. A comparison of the annual operational costs of an in-house Fountain Hills Police Department to the most recent MCSO FY 21/22 ($5,043,087) shows that the two operations would be cost-competitive on a per annum basis; indeed, the Fountain Hills PD operation as designed would save approximately $500K per year compared to the existing MCSO contract. There are, however, several important issue areas that must be considered when determining the total value of operating an in-house police department. These include, but are not limited to: • There are additional start-up costs associated with the Fountain Hills PD estimated at $4.3 million dollars start-up costs. This equates to a 9-year operational break-even point when compared to continued MCSO contracting. • If Fountain Hills elected to incorporate MCSO staff changes recommended in this report, potential annual Fountain Hills PD savings would be less than $300K annually compared to the MCSO contract, extending the break-even point to 14- years. DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 4 • The staffing contingent, particularly in Patrol, in a Fountain Hills PD is less than the current MCSO contracted staffing levels. If staffing levels were equivalent the annual operating costs of the Fountain Hills PD would be $5 million per annum -- nearly the same as the MCSO contract -- with a $4.6 million start-up cost. • Qualitative benefits of operating an in-house police department, such as further local control, community branding, etc. need to be juxtaposed against costs and additional risk. While risk insurance is included in the pro-forma budget model, this does not mitigate potential litigation that would not be covered by such insurance. • It is assumed the MCSO would provide, through mutual aid, specialized support on a pro-bona basis. This would include the rare use of helicopter services, homicide crime scene investigation, accident reconstruction, etc. that typically would be beyond the capabilities of a small police department. In summary, the totality of information suggests that an in-house police department for Fountain Hills, given the town’s safety, exceptional response time from the Sheriff, and likely net limited additional value of local control, supports retaining the MCSO contract is warranted, particularly if recommendations made in this report are implemented. 2. Summary of Recommendations The following table provides a comprehensive list of all the recommendations made in the report. A review of each chapter provides context for the recommendations. Law Enforcement Services Assessment Continue to staff on the 12-hour (or similar) shift schedule with 3 patrol deputies deployed to Day and 3 deployed to Night shift. This is generally consistent with current Fountain Hills deployment practices. Maintain minimum patrol staffing levels of 3 deputies per shift. Assign and deploy 1 patrol sergeant to each shift. Assign and deploy 1 lieutenant to Night Shift and 1 lieutenant to Day Shift in a watch commander capacity. This facilitates managerial presence on all shifts. Continue to staff 1 Captain position acting in a “Chief” capacity. In the event of absenteeism, ensure that one supervisor/manager position (Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant) is always available to include overtime to facilitate this oversight. DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 5 Based on caseload metrics, reduce investigative staffing assigned to Fountain Hills from 2.55 staff to 2.0 detective staff. To facilitate enhanced investigative workload accountability, directly assign 2 dedicated detectives to Fountain Hills located at the Fountain Hills sub-station. Provide quarterly detective case management information to Fountain Hills, to include cases assigned by type and case clearance information. Maintain existing support service staffing allocations for School Resource Officer, administrative support, and 911 dispatch staffing allocation. Law Enforcement Contract Review Address key MCSO contract issues identified in the Contract Review Checklist to include a dispute resolution process and penalties for non-performance. Develop additional contract performance metrics beyond patrol response time, to possibly include, targets for traffic warnings and citation, positive citizen contacts, minimum investigative case clearance, etc. The MCSO should report quarterly upon contract performance metrics to help identify issues early and devise potential resolutions. MCSO should develop a more comprehensive monthly invoice allowing Fountain Hills to perform more effective financial monitoring of Sheriff charges. This should help resolve potential future contract overcharge issues. Use accurate methodologies for charging MCSO services, including charging for the appropriate number of staff (e.g., increasing field sergeants), charging for the appropriate number of baseline annual work hours (2,190 vs. 2,088) based on patrol shift schedules, and using net annual work hours to accurately determine a patrol post. Eliminate the use of beats to develop a patrol and detective staffing plan for Fountain Hills. Use agreed upon workload metrics for baseline staffing such as proactive time, caseloads and other approaches discussed in this report. Alternative Law Enforcement Delivery Fountain Hills should retain MCSO contracted law enforcement services, particularly if other recommendations made in this report are implemented. DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 6 2. Law Enforcement Services Assessment The following chapter provides an overview of the law enforcement environment and the services currently provided to the Town of Fountain Hills. Fountain Hills is a safe, largely retirement community of 23,820 within 20.4 square miles. According to major crime data illustrated in the graphic below, only 1.2 “major crimes” occur, on average, in Fountain Hills daily. As a result, Fountain Hills is rated as one of the two safest residential communities in Maricopa County. 1. Law Enforcement Contracted and Assigned Personnel Fountain Hills, currently occupies the majority of Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) District 7. The district is also responsible for law enforcement services to the unincorporated areas of Scottsdale, Rio Verde, Tonto Verde, Trilogy at Verde River and Goldfield Ranch. In effect, District 7 is divided into a four-beat patrol structure of which Fountain Hills “occupies” 3.8 beats (for contractual purposes). District 7 staff operate out of the Fountain Hills sub-station owned by Fountain Hills. There is no distinction between staff assigned exclusively to Fountain Hills versus the remainder of District 7. As a DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 7 consequence, the table below reflects the staffing allocation currently present and providing law enforcement services to Fountain Hills as of May 6, 2022. District 7 Current Law Enforcement Positions (FY 21/22) Position Fountain Hills Sub- station Captain 1 Lieutenant 1 Patrol Deputy 13 School Resource Ofcr. 1 Admn. Deputy 1 Deputy Service Aides (DSA) 1 Patrol Sergeants 4 Admn. Sergeant 2 Clerical / Admn. Assistant 1 Sub-Total 25 Dispatch FTEs 1.46 Detective FTEs 2.55 Total 29.01 The staff assignments noted above can be compared to the contractual requirements of MCSO’s services to the Town of Fountain Hills. The following table displays the number of personnel identified contractually to provide Fountain Hills law enforcement services. These staff are outlined in Amendment 1 of the contract in Worksheet Exhibit A. Contracted Law Enforcement Positions (FY 21/22) Position Fountain Hills Captain 0.75 Lieutenant 1.25 Patrol Deputy 19 School Resource Ofcr. 1 Detective 2.55 Sergeants 3 Clerical / Admn. Assistant 1 Sub-Total 28.55 Dispatch (FTEs) 1.46 Total 30.01 Contract charges, levied monthly, are based on this staffing deployment allocation. This staffing allocation is very different, however, from recent deployment strategies. Significantly, MCSO has been unable to staff key patrol deputy positions at District 7, and DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 8 thus the average patrol deputy availability to the Town of Fountain Hills has averaged 13 deputies as opposed to the contractually obligated 19 patrol deputies. The impact of this notable staffing reduction in comparison to contracted requirements will be discussed in subsequent sections. 2. Fountain Hills Patrol Services Patrol services are primarily delivered by Patrol Deputies. They are periodically supported by other units staff such as sergeants and School Resource Officer (SRO) personnel, as needed. Patrol services is the core business of law enforcement service provision, and thus should be staffed appropriately to provide essential levels of service to the community. 1. Factors Driving Patrol Staffing Levels Significant factors for policy makers to consider when determining patrol staffing levels, include, but are not limited to, the following: • The number and types of calls for service generated by the Town citizens. • The type and frequency of deputy-initiated activity to be performed (e.g. business walk). • The type, severity, and volume of crime in a community. • The ability of the law enforcement agency to meet response time goals to calls for service and solve crime. • The desired level of law enforcement involvement in providing non-traditional police services such as neighborhood problem solving, graffiti removal, community meetings and events and teaching/role modeling in the schools. • Providing for basic officer safety and risk management of a patrol force. In some police agencies, primarily smaller ones, the desired level of proactive time may not be the primary measure to determine the minimum number of patrol officer positions needed. It may be driven by officer safety concerns and the need to provide reasonable community coverage 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The Matrix Consulting Group uses an analytical approaches to determine the staffing level required in a community such as Fountain Hills. The approach is characterized by several key factors that provide the basis for objective evaluation of a patrol force: DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 9 • Staffing should be examined based on the ability of current staff to handle the calls for service generated by the community (and the related work such as report writing and processing arrestees); as well as providing sufficient time for proactive activities such as directed patrol, traffic enforcement and addressing on-going issues/problems in a neighborhood. • Staffing is dependent on the time officers are actually available (net average work hours – NAWH) to perform the work required of the patrol function. • The number of patrol staff deployed should be the result of policymakers (Town leaders) selecting a level of policing that is desired by the community while considering officer-safety requirements. Establishing a targeted average level of proactive or uncommitted time is an effective method to determine the policing level that will be provided and also gives guidance to law enforcement leadership regarding expectations. • The analysis used does not include the utilization of ratios such as officers per thousand residents because it does not account for the unique characteristics of communities (e.g., demographics, workload, unique community needs, deployment). Although these ratios are interesting for comparative purposes, they do not provide a comprehensive measure of staffing needs for a specific community, nor should policymakers use them as a basis to make decisions regarding patrol staffing. The project team’s approach is supported by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) that views officer per thousand ratios as “totally inappropriate as a basis for staffing decisions”1. • The project team also does not assign deputy staffing based on arbitrary (or even sophisticated) beat structures as a geographic-based staff deployment model does not account for the numerous workload variables impacting deputy staffing requirements. These key factors are the primary drivers in determining the size and adequacy of a patrol force, and are used as the framing guidelines for future staffing recommendations noted in this report. 2. Calls for Service Workload Information Community-generated Calls for service (CFS) are one of the primary drivers of Patrol workload resulting in important service metrics such as proactive time and response 1 International Association of Chiefs of Police, Patrol Staffing and Deployment Study, 2004, document 7218. DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 10 time. These factors are fundamental in determining a Patrol staffing contingent, as CFS often reflect the bulk of workload in a law enforcement agency. Patrol Deputies are the primary responding units to the vast majority of calls for service. The following tables shows community-generated CFS distribution tables for the Town of Fountain Hills for a one-year period. Calls for Service by Hour and Weekday (2021) Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Total 12a 19 8 10 15 10 13 15 90 1am 13 10 5 7 13 14 15 77 2am 9 5 9 15 8 17 10 73 3am 15 6 7 8 6 10 7 59 4am 9 4 7 6 9 12 8 55 5am 11 15 9 15 15 8 9 82 6am 10 18 14 15 7 17 13 94 7am 18 22 25 16 28 25 21 155 8am 29 36 24 26 25 28 23 191 9am 35 35 27 27 33 36 34 227 10am 43 37 45 44 32 51 27 279 11am 36 35 31 26 48 40 40 256 12pm 35 39 34 34 34 29 32 237 1pm 39 33 35 39 24 47 34 251 2pm 33 33 33 40 39 41 31 250 3pm 27 27 35 35 31 38 24 217 4pm 30 33 38 25 30 35 37 228 5pm 35 39 32 43 37 54 37 277 6pm 32 39 34 37 33 31 42 248 7pm 36 35 38 26 32 35 41 243 8pm 29 29 37 22 29 30 33 209 9pm 34 18 22 22 29 42 35 202 10pm 26 18 25 26 25 32 34 186 11pm 23 13 19 24 12 21 26 138 Total 626 587 595 593 589 706 628 4,324 The 4,324 CFS are reflective of calendar 2021 workload, are those responses initiated by the community, and do not reflect deputy-initiated activities (such as a traffic stop). As noted by the color-coding, CFS are heavier from the late morning to early evening with the most frequent activity occurring in this time period on Friday. DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 11 The following graphic and table portrays calls in a comparative fashion. Calls for Service by Hour Calls for Service by Month Month # of CFS Seasonal +/- Jan 345 -1.4% Feb 340 Mar 381 Apr 374 -1.9% May 358 Jun 329 Jul 392 +7.8% Aug 412 Sep 361 Oct 377 -4.5% Nov 320 Dec 335 Total 4,324 The following observations can be made with respect to calls for service in the Town of Fountain Hills. • Fountain Hills has 0.18 calls for service per community member. This would be lower if incorporating seasonal residents. This CFS ratio is very low compared to most towns/cities nationally. • Interestingly, CFS peak in the summer period compared to the other 3 seasons. DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 12 • The pattern of calls for service by hour of day also shows that CFS peak at 10am and 5pm. This is different than some communities where CFS rise from the early afternoon through the evening. Finally, the CFS workload can be graphed to show how calls for service fluctuate on a day-to-day basis compared to the average day. The following bar-chart shows this information. Number of Days Above or Below Average Workload The data shows that CFS workload can fluctuate somewhat dramatically. There are approximately the equivalent of 2 ½ months (74 days) where CFS on any given day is 20% below average while nearly a full month’s of time (31 days) where CFS is 40% above average. Notably, only 113 days of CFS are +/- within 10% average workload. Additional calls for service data is informative with respect to the top 10 CFS types. The graphic below portrays this information with the shading by time reflecting when such calls are likely to occur and the handling time (HT) in average minutes. Handling time is that period from when the call is dispatched to the patrol unit until it completes the call and departs the scene. DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 13 Fountain Hills Top-10 Incident Types Incident Type # CFS HT 12a 4a 8a 12p 4p 8p WELFARE CHECK 727 32.6 FALSE BURGLAR ALARM 530 20.2 MOTORIST ASSIST 227 37.7 SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY 160 38.5 VEHICLE CRASH NO INJ 146 72.1 LOUD NEIGHBORS DIST 140 22.6 SUSPICIOUS PERSON 131 23.8 TRAFFIC HAZARD 126 25.9 FOLLOW UP 124 46.5 ASSIST OTHER AGENCY 119 29.2 All Other Types 1,894 63.6 Total 4,324 46.0 As shown by the information portrayed, none of the top-10 CFS are related to major (or even minor) criminal events. Indeed, 3 of 10 are related to vehicular/traffic incidents. The #1 CFS is checking on the welfare of a resident. The calls for service information is a key factor in determining patrol staffing requirements, largely driven by a calculation of proactive time discussed below. 3. Proactive Time Proactive time is a major patrol metrics that should be ultimately used as primary drivers in patrol staffing levels. Proactive time is the amount of “uncommitted” time a Patrol Deputy has after responding to calls for service discussed above and related activities to include: • Calls for service administration (reports, jail runs, etc.). • Calls for service back-up (additional deputies on-scene). DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 14 • Administrative workload (shift briefing, vehicle fueling, meeting). • Meal and rest breaks. Significant literature exists regarding the appropriate level of proactive time for a police agency. Proactive time calculations, for staffing purposes, is supported by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Increasingly, law enforcement agencies have come to the realization that the most important test of effectiveness in field services is the amount of proactivity and how it is utilized to support the community in problem- solving. For high service level residential communities proactive capabilities need to represent at least 40% – 50% of available time. A maximum of 60% (to facilitate response time and officer safety) has been analytically supportable, but this typically is in rural environments with long travel distances or small police departments with minimal field staff that don’t have the capability to respond well to multiple concurrent calls. Proactive time is calculated based on average net-annual work hours (NAWH) available to each deputy in a year to perform their duties. This is then compared to the average amount of time it takes to handle a call for service. Once total time required to handle all calls is calculated, and the total available time of assigned patrol deputies is determined, proactive time can be developed. Based on the call for service and officer availability data, the following discussion builds the analysis of field proactive time based on the following formula: Total Net Available Hours – Total CFS Workload Hours Total Net Available Hours = % Proactivity The following tables show baseline information used to calculate proactive time. In the absence of actual data provided by MCSO for certain categories (e.g. report writing) estimates based on our law enforcement experience are used. DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 15 Summary of Patrol CFS Workload Factors Total Calls for Service 4,324 55% Avg. Primary Unit Handling Time 46.0 min. Backup Units Per CFS 0.65 27% Avg. Backup Unit Handling Time 34.5 min. Reports Written Per CFS 0.34 18% Time Per Report 45.0 min. Avg. Workload Per Call 83.7 min. Total Workload 6,033 hrs. The above table shows that annual 2021 CFS workload required an estimated 6,033 hours of work. The table below shows the availability of the Deputy workforce (as of May 2022) in hours per year. These 2 factors are used to calculate proactivity. Breakdown of Unit Availability2 Base Annual Work Hours 2,292 Total Leave Hours − 246 On-Duty Training Hours − 60 On-Duty Court Time Hours − 20 Administrative Hours − 242 Net Available Hours Per Officer = 1,724 Number of Officer Positions × 13 Total Net Available Hours = 22,413 2 MCSO deploys uncommon work schedules whereby on 2 shifts staff work approximately 13.5 hours daily (40 hours weekly) and on 2 shifts work 12 hours daily over 4 days (48 hours weekly). This results in an average availability of 2,292 hours available compared to the more common 2,088 hours or 2,190 (for 12-hour shift programs). DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 16 Fountain Hills Proactivity by Hour and Weekday As shown by the proactive time table, average proactive time is 73% and fluctuates throughout the week based on CFS and staffing patterns. While there are a few time blocks in which proactive time suffers a notable reduction (10am – 2pm). In summary, and a critical finding, more than sufficient proactive time is available even at reduced deputy staffing levels of 13 personnel compared to contracted staffing levels of 19 deputies. 4. Response Time to Calls for Service Response time is the rapidity in which a CFS is responded to by the public safety agency. It represents the receipt of call in 911 Dispatch to arrival of the unit on scene. Generally, the faster the response time the better perceived customer service, particularly with respect to high priority calls (e.g., burglary in progress). Response time characteristics are typically shown by priority of the call for service, with Priority 1 being the highest and requiring “rapid” law enforcement deployment whereas Priority 3 is the lowest priority (with regard to the MCSO dispatch system) calls. The following graphic shows response time (RT) by priority. DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 17 Priority Levels Response Times The response time metrics are impressive for all priorities, and with respect to Priority 1 calls particularly impressive as they also meet the contractual obligation of Priority 1 responses in 5 minutes or less3. Importantly, these response times are reflective of appropriate deputy availability, sufficient proactive time, and are an illustration of the response time capabilities of the MCSO even well below 19 contracted deputy positions. 5. Deputy-initiated Activity Deputy-initiated, or commonly referred to as self-initiated activity, are those events executed proactively by deputies during their proactive time. This can include a wide variety of activities ranging from traffic stops, to pedestrian assistance, to business walks, etc. How deputies use proactive time is critically important with respect to law enforcement service delivery. The following bar charts, compare the frequency of self- initiated activity, by hour, with calls for service workload by hour. 3 2012-17 MCSO / Fountain Hills Intergovernmental Agreement for Law Enforcement Services, pg. 9, Section II B(2). DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 18 Self-Initiated Frequency by Hour Calls for Service (CFS) Frequency by Hour The following tables, in similar format to calls for service data previously provided, serve to demonstrate workload related to self-initiated activity. DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 19 Self-Initiated Incidents by Hour Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Total 12am 9 8 24 44 36 31 4 156 1am 10 8 29 23 25 33 5 133 2am 1 4 23 30 34 42 10 144 3am 8 7 16 44 25 30 9 139 4am 3 2 11 25 22 19 4 86 5am 3 4 6 15 10 5 3 46 6am 13 6 20 18 20 11 17 105 7am 17 33 61 47 66 38 18 280 8am 20 47 68 67 61 48 26 337 9am 24 40 59 61 47 43 17 291 10am 16 28 58 52 39 25 8 226 11am 16 27 33 59 37 28 13 213 12pm 15 30 41 52 44 22 12 216 1pm 15 29 45 41 41 13 9 193 2pm 17 31 40 49 36 20 16 209 3pm 10 20 17 42 35 50 14 188 4pm 13 22 14 38 38 48 13 186 5pm 4 11 10 28 32 19 7 111 6pm 17 24 30 23 25 22 10 151 7pm 17 33 20 27 31 21 13 162 8pm 19 28 22 36 42 21 25 193 9pm 12 30 21 31 28 12 15 149 10pm 13 27 19 29 41 9 6 144 11pm 12 21 36 35 39 7 5 155 Total 304 520 723 916 854 617 279 4,213 DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 20 Fountain Hills Top-10 Self-Initiated Incident Types Incident Type # SI HT 12a 4a 8a 12p 4p 8p PATROL/VACATION WATCH 1,871 42.4 TRAFFIC VIOLATION 852 13.0 FOLLOW UP 472 46.9 SCHOOL PROGRAMS 245 136.9 TRAFFIC CONTROL 220 28.5 MOTORIST ASSIST 111 30.7 WELFARE CHECK 74 34.9 SPEEDERS 31 39.6 FOUND PROPERTY 31 45.3 SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY 27 41.5 All Other Types 279 64.0 Total 4,213 42.7 The following points are made with respect to Fountain Hills deputy self-initiated activity. • Whereas this data reflects computer-aided dispatch (CAD) information recorded on self-initiated activity, it may marginally under-represent workload (though all activities should be recorded for officer-safety purposes). By example the number of citations and warning written in 2021 was 2,1674. This is notably higher than those traffic-related activities noted in the above table. Moreover, this workload is below the 6,289 self-initiated activities reported in 20205, • Vacation watch activities represent the plurality of self-initiated efforts, at nearly 1,900 events in 2021. • Traffic violations, traffic control, citizen vehicle assists, and speeders illustrate 4 of the top 10 self-initiated efforts are related to traffic activities. 4 931 warnings and 1,236 citations. 5 2020 Annual Report for Fountain Hills document. It should be noted that since 2018 self-initiated activity has suffered a continual decline. DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 21 • Self-initiated activity peaks in the 7am – 9am timeframe just before the peak in calls for service workload. In sum, self-initiated activity is high even at some of the highest calls for service levels, illustrating patrol staffing levels capable of performing both types of work. • At 4,213 self-initiated events, this averages 11.5 activities a day or about 1 self- initiated activity for the entire patrol force every 2 hours. As illustrated, however, self-initiated activity is far more prevalent in the morning compared to the rest of the day. Using 2020 data, self-initiated activity was one activity approximately every 1 ½ hours. In summary, deputies focus their proactive time efforts on vacation watch and traffic- related activities, but also engage in work related to follow-up (on prior calls, on casework, etc.) and school-related efforts. In sum, however, there is more than sufficient proactive time to conduct additional proactive work, as needed. 6. Patrol-Related Conclusions The proactive, response time, and deputy self-initiated data suggest that Fountain Hills: • Has more than reasonable proactive time and exceptional response times irrespective of priority, even at patrol staffing below contracted levels. • Is a very safe community with 98% of calls for service at the lower priority 2 and 3 levels. • Works a variety of self-initiated activities, largely related to traffic, that has the capacity to be expanded upon. • Is provided exceptional service levels that still have opportunity for expansion even at staffing below contracted personnel. Indeed, the entirety of patrol-related data brings important issues to bear that need resolution for consideration of alternative law enforcement service delivery. 7. Determining Fountain Hills Patrol Staffing Levels One of the fundamental decisions that drive both staffing levels and the use of staff is the desire for a certain level of proactive time. In safe less busy communities such as Fountain Hills, workloads cannot be the only influencer as deputy-safety factors must be considered. DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 22 As previously noted, proactive time targets are typically set at 45%-50% for urban areas with 60% targets potentially used in large geographic rural areas. The proactive targets ultimately result in staffing levels required to meet them. At 73% average proactive time, Fountain Hills has more than adequate resources now to meet law enforcement needs. Yet, despite this level of proactive time, which is extremely high compared to most agencies that Matrix Consulting has worked with, some communities demand such service levels in order to use the available proactive time for various initiatives. Indeed, during a September Council meeting in which preliminary results were discussed, some members of Council believed that the contracted level of 4 patrol deputies was desirable regardless of service levels currently being provided. Given Fountain Hill’s call types and limited call workloads, while there is potential to replace some deputy staffing with civilian field support (e.g. equivalent of a Community Service Officer position), this would carry some additional (though modest) risk, to personnel in the field. Moreover, it is very unlikely the MCSO would accommodate this staffing model given potential deputy-safety issues. Importantly, higher levels of proactive time may be necessary for deputy-safety purposes than what is justified by workloads alone. Given Fountain Hills does not have a small footprint geographically (it is over 20 square miles), rapid response times are demanded by the community, and deputy-safety must be accounted for, staffing below 3 patrol deputies is not recommended irrespective of proactive time availability. Issue areas noted thus far in this chapter result in the following overarching conclusions: • Minimum staffing set by the MCSO of three deputies on a shift is adequate (which is generally the current deployment), and is sufficient staffing (in concert with field sergeants) to respond to the vast majority of officer-safety situations, provide sufficient proactive time, and maintain exceptional response times. • The various initiatives selected to be conducted during proactive time can (and should) be very specific. These range from traffic enforcement and citations/warnings to business checks, etc. Currently, Fountain Hills deputies are underutilizing available proactive time. Similar to the MCSO developed target for Priority 1 CFS response time, so should performance metrics be developed for use of proactive time (e.g. traffic enforcement as reflected by citations/warnings). • Despite significant amounts of proactive time availability at the minimum staffing level of 3 patrol deputies, Fountain Hills should not drop below 3 deputies per shift DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 23 irrespective of proactive time metrics in order to address potential deputy-safety issues. Based on findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are made. Recommendations: Continue to staff on the 12-hour (or similar) shift schedule with 3 patrol deputies deployed to Day and 3 deployed to Night shift. This is generally consistent with current Fountain Hills deployment practices. Maintain minimum patrol staffing levels of 3 deputies per shift. Assign and deploy 1 patrol sergeant to each shift. Assign and deploy 1 lieutenant to Night Shift and 1 lieutenant to Day Shift in a watch commander capacity. This facilitates managerial presence on all shifts. Continue to staff 1 Captain position acting in a “Chief” capacity. In the event of absenteeism, ensure one supervisor/manager position (Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant) is always available each shift to include expenditure of overtime to facilitate this oversight. 3. Fountain Hills Investigative Services Under the current contract with MCSO, Detectives (Investigators) are ‘supporting’ positions and not directly assigned to Fountain Hills sub-station. Similar to Patrol whereby proactive time, NAWH, and officer safety are key factors in determining staffing, so should detective staffing be driven by workload metrics. This is reflected by caseloads undertaken by the detective contingent. Caseloads represents those cases assigned to a detective for review and potential follow-up. Cases can range from minor misdemeanors to complex felony cases. There are some data restrictions with respect to detective workload metrics, and as a result a thorough analysis of staffing cannot be performed. Nevertheless, there is relevant information available that can provide important indicators with respect to detective staffing needs for Fountain Hills. While MCSO was able to provide caseloads for Fountain Hills, they did not provide caseload by type of case. This restricts analyses capability. Furthermore, there is no data available from the FBI Uniform Crime Report specifically for Fountain Hills DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 24 describing the key person and property crime categories and crime clearance rates, yet other internal MCSO reporting is available that helps facilitate basic analysis. 1. Investigations Caseload Information With respect to caseloads, the following graphs show caseload data for the Fountain Hills detectives for calendar year 2020 and 2021. There is a notable difference in caseloads between 2020 and 2021 that cannot be explained well as a consequence of Covid-19 or other factors. Notably, Fountain Hills was charged for the same number of detectives regardless of this important workload change. In sum, caseloads average 208 cases per year for the 2.55 detective positions. This metric will be used to help determine the necessity of existing detective staffing levels. Of some value is the data reported in the 2020 MCSO Annual Report to Fountain Hills (the most recent). The following graph shows those key person and property crimes by type of offense for the last 3 years. 277 139 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2020 2021 2020/21 Detective Caseload DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 25 Summing the highest crime incident by type for the last 3 years results in a potential caseload for review of 522 cases in a year or approximately 1.4 cases a day. This excludes, however, minor crime types that might be investigated as a matter of policy. Regardless, this provides a baseline of possible work, as opposed to actually assigned work, for the detective staff. 2. Investigations Workload Calculations In brief, detectives can only be expected to handle a certain number of cases monthly to be effective investigators. Caseloads that exceed certain standards will result in less thorough work due to time constraints while caseloads below benchmarks are indicative of potential overstaffing issues. The core workload of a detective is to review cases assigned and determine if the case is active based on solvability, or is read for information purposes and not aggressively investigated. Generally, nearly all person crimes (homicide, robbery, assault) are worked while only 20% of property crimes have sufficient evidence to be classified as active and investigated beyond a cursory review of the crime report. Based on the available data shown above, and in the context of the above explanation, the following Fountain Hills detective workload table is shown: 234 118 3 34 4 103 26 0 50 100 150 200 250 Theft Burglary Veh. Theft Robbery Sex Violation Homicide Assault 2018-20 Fountain Hills Major Crime Incidents 2018 2019 2020 DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 26 Calculated Monthly Casework for Each Fountain Hills Detective6 Position 2-yr Avg. Cases Assigned Highest 3- yr Avg Cases Reviewed Potential 3- yr Avg Cases Assigned Annual Cases 208 522 220 Monthly Cases 6.8 17.1 7.2 In summary, based on the analysis, a Fountain Hills detective potentially reviews an average of 17.1 cases per month (about 1 per workday) and activates between 6.8 and 7.2 cases monthly for follow-up investigation. The following points are noted. • The detective contingent generally required to investigate these various person and property crimes would carry a “generalist detective” caseload. Our investigative analysis suggest that one detective can carry an average generalist caseload of 9-12 cases per month or 108 to 144 cases per year. Based on these metrics, Fountain Hills would need less than two detectives, on average, to conduct such investigative work. • Detectives should be assigned “workable” cases based on relevant leads. These become “active” cases. By example, juxtaposing 2020 caseload (277 cases) versus reported major crimes (429) shows a potential caseload metric of 65% of those case types worked (277/429). While other misdemeanor case types may have been assigned and included in the 277 figure, this calculated proportion of workable cases related to major crimes is very likely over emphasized with respect to case solvability. As discussed above, typically only 20% of property crimes are active. In sum, in 2020, many of the 277 cases assigned likely had very limited ability to be solved and did not need to be assigned. This would then result in less detective staffing needs for Fountain Hills. This observation is particularly relevant when showing case workload metrics of 139 cases in 2021. In sum, detective workloads based on a variety of analytical approaches do not warrant the existing detective staffing levels charged to the Fountain Hills contract. 3. Investigations-Related Conclusions The investigative-related data for the Town suggest that Fountain Hills: 6 Calculations: 2-yr assigned- (277+139)/2(/12)/2.55=6.8. 3-yr reviewed- 522/12/2.55=17.1. 3-yr potential assigned- 20% of property crimes assigned + 100% person crimes assigned = 220; 220/12/2.55=7.2. DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 27 • Is charged for 2.55 detectives irrespective of changes in annual workload. • Does not receive comprehensive case management data from MCSO to include cases assigned by type, case clearance, and other important data elements to help determine detective staffing needs. • Has detective resources beyond need based on various investigative metrics and the analysis performed. Based on findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are made. Recommendations: Based on caseload metrics, reduce investigative staffing assigned to Fountain Hills from 2.55 staff to 2.0 detective staff. To facilitate enhanced investigative workload accountability, directly assign 2 dedicated detectives to Fountain Hills located at the Fountain Hills sub-station. Provide quarterly detective case management information to Fountain Hills, to include cases assigned by type and case clearance information. 4. Fountain Hills Support Services In addition to the key patrol and investigative personnel that Fountain Hills contracts with MCSO for, there are important support positions that are also necessary. These include: • A School Resource Officer (SRO Deputy) assigned to Fountain Hills School District. • A supporting administrative / clerical position. • 1.92 dispatcher full-time equivalents (FTEs) charged as an overhead. An assessment of these positions and related costs indicate they are reasonable. If a higher service level is desired, one additional SRO position could be added so that one position would be assigned at the High School and one at the Middle School; however, given the very safe nature of the community and the consistently high rankings of the School District, this is not necessary unless the Town wishes “best-in-class” services. Recommendation: Maintain existing support service staffing allocations for School Resource Officer, administrative support, and 911 dispatch staffing allocation. DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 28 3. Law Enforcement Contract Review There are several contract-related issues surrounding Fountain Hills law enforcement service delivery. These range from the existing terms and conditions of the contract, to potential modifications in fee charging, contract management, strategy behind the development of staffing levels, etc. The following chapter addresses these various issues. 1. Introduction The MCSO contract with Fountain Hills forms the linchpin for law enforcement service delivery in the Town. As such, there are multiple elements within, and associated with the contract, that are relevant with respect to determining the delivery of efficient and effective law enforcement service delivery. While the members of the project team are not legal experts and will defer to the Town’s Attorney in matters of legal advice, the contents of contract has been reviewed and summarized for important areas where they influence the ability to oversee and deliver contract services consistent with best practices in contract administration and management. This chapter will focus on different contract-related issue areas to include: • Contract assessment of Terms and Conditions. • Contract assessment outcomes including: - Contract Review Check-List; - Best Practices Review for Contract Administration; - Best Practices Review in Contract Management; • Other key contract-related shortcomings. 2. Contract Terms and Conditions Checklist Based on a variety of sources, the project team has devised a ‘Contract Review Checklist’ for professional and service-based contracts to provide a foundation for further contract review. Those items that are classified as ‘No’ particularly should be further evaluated by the Town of Fountain Hills’ legal team in order to determine if such terms and conditions are necessary in any future law enforcement contract. DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 29 Contract Review Checklist Of the elements noted in the checklist, seven (7) were classified as “No,” and thus should be subject to further legal review for possible inclusion in future contract documentation. This, however, does not preclude further assessment for those items marked “Yes.” In effect, this checklist serves as a primer for further investigation into the terms and conditions of the MCSO/Fountain Hills contract. Yes No N/A Contract Element Notes √ Contracting parties are correctly identified? Preamble √ Contract is signed? Sig. Lines √ All contract signatures are dated? Sig. Lines √ Term of contract is specified/dated? Sec. I.C √ Multi-year contract has a funding out clause on a fiscal year basis? Sec. I.D √ Contract has an “auto-renew” provision? Sec. I.D √ Venue is accurately listed as Fountain Hills, Arizona? Sec. I.A √ Governing Law is the State of Arizona? Sec.I.J.5 √ Amendments, if any, must be in writing and agreed to by both parties? Sec. I.E √ Dispute resolution is mediation? √ Dispute resolution is arbitration? √ Non-Performance financial penalties are articulated? √ Termination clause has a “with or without cause” provision? Sec. I.F.1 √ Indemnification clause is worded appropriately (In accordance with Arizona and/or County law) Sec. I.H √ Payment terms are specifically identified? Sec. II.C √ Late Fee penalties specified? √ Attorney Fees are specified? √ Severability Clause is present? Sec. I.J.2 √ Intra-contract references to other Contract section language is accurate? Examples: Sec I.D; II √ Ownership rights specified and memorialized (e.g. apparatus in use?) Sec.II.B.5d √ Professional services contracts were competitively bid? √ Interlocal or Administrative Agreement(s): Contractor and/or Vendor has stipulated contract-related or management fees? Exhibit A √ Scope of Work or Services included / attached? Sec. II √ Exhibits attached? Exhibit A DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 30 Reiterating, while the project team does not provide legal expertise, one of the key issue areas noted that should be addressed in the Checklist is the lack of dispute resolution language and non-performance penalties. This is particularly relevant as discussed in a subsequent section. 3. Contract Best-Practices Assessment Outcome A review of a contract can be placed in context of several contract management activities that can be summarized by the following graphic: In brief, an effective contract contains six elements to allow for best-practice contract administration and management. These six elements are inter-related and often overlapping, but provide a context in which the efficacy of a contract can be examined. Our review of the existing contract has allowed us to identify a handful of potential areas in which contract enhancements, deletions, or other edits could occur consistent with DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 31 best practices in contract management, operations, etc. This is not to suggest that the legal frameworks of the existing document have shortcomings. The observations noted are intended to provide feedback which should help strengthen future contracts and management related thereto, and provide additional assurances for both the Town and MCSO. 1. Contract Management and Administration: Risk Management and Performance / Compliance Monitoring The review of the MCSO / Fountain Hills contract resulted in an assessment that the contract document is generally thorough, with a few areas for improvement noted as stipulated in the prior ‘Contract Review Checklist’. More broadly, there are contract administration and management issues that should be addressed. Importantly, the contract language in present form does not sufficiently protect the Town’s (nor County’s) best interests with respect to dispute resolution. There is no relevant language with respect to dispute resolution which is a fundamental weakness of the contract. The lack of third-party mediation or arbitration puts the contract participants at unnecessary risk and potential exacerbated conflict, to include the Town, MCSO and Maricopa County. In the context of the prior graphic, a lack of independent third-party resolution can contribute to difficulties in Relationship Management, an often overlooked but important element in best-practice Contract Management. Consequently, a future contract section should receive strong consideration for inclusion related to best-practice mediation and or arbitration conflict resolution. There are several issue areas surrounding compliance monitoring. These include: • As noted earlier in the report, there is a lack of comprehensive performance metrics beyond patrol response time. This restricts the ability to monitor service delivery compliance. • There is no consistent performance reporting done on a monthly or quarterly basis. With respect to performance, the only relevant document provided is the Annual Report for Fountain Hills. Yet these only contain key performance indicators (KPI) rather than objectives such as patrol response time outcomes. • There are no contract penalties for lack of performance, thereby increasing risk. This is particularly relevant if the MCSO cannot comply with the service delivery requirements of the contract. DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 32 In summary, there are opportunities to improve contract compliance, performance management and reduce risk. 2. Contract Management and Administration: Financial Monitoring Currently MCSO provides only a monthly invoice, an illustration of which is shown below, to provide a framework for financial monitoring. This invoice has effectively no detail, other than reflecting a total due charge of 1/12th of the annual contract value. This can be juxtaposed against a more detailed invoice from another contracted law enforcement operation shown below: $420,257.24Net 4511/30/2021DEC21PATROL Amount DueTermsDateInvoice No Remit To: Maricopa County Sheriff's Office MCSO Patrol and Per Diem BillingDept #880138 PO Box 29650, Phoenix, AZ 85038-9650 602-876-3259 MCSO.Billing@MCSO.Maricopa.gov Phone: Fax: Email: Bill To: Fountain Hills Attn: Craig RudolphyTown of Fountain Hills 16705 E. Avenue of the FountainsFountain Hills, AZ 85258 Phone: Fax: Email:dpock@fh.az.gov; bbogdan@fh.az.gov Invoice Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Sales TotalDescriptionSale Date $420,257.24December 2021 Patrol Services11/30/2021 TotalDescriptionSale Date Prior Invoices $420,257.24November 2021 Patrol Services10/25/2021 $840,514.48Total Due $420,257.24Prior Balance $0.00Total Paid $0.00Total Discounts $420,257.24Total Sales $0.00$0.00$420,257.24 Over 9045 to 901 to 45 DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 33 Example of Alternate Invoice DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 34 The Fountain Hills MCSO contract has several difficulties associated with the current invoicing process as well as financial compliance monitoring: • The current invoice lacks any detail with respect to services rendered, only showing a charge for 1/12th of the total annual MCSO contract value. • The terms and conditions of the contract articulate that certain types of positions and levels of staffing are to be provided by MCSO to meet the obligations of the contract, yet staffing data demonstrate these staffing requirements are not met. These data are not readily shared in regular reporting by MCSO to allow for effective financial monitoring. - There have been long-standing vacancies in the Watch Commander Lieutenant position. Presently, there is only one such position whereas Fountain Hills contracts for 1.25. - The number of patrol beat deputies at 13 is significantly below the 19 patrol deputies contracted. This is also a long-standing issue whereby deputies are consistently operating at what is identified at minimum patrol staffing levels (or below). - Conversely, there are 6 sergeant positions at the Fountain Hills sub-station as opposed to the 3 positions contracted for in Fountain Hills. Notably, the Fountain Hills contract does not cover the number of sergeants required to supervise each of the four patrol shifts. • In effect, the invoice amounts charged are not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the MCSO contract. The contract clearly articulates staffing levels that will be provided in ‘Worksheet Exhibit A’ and related amendments. In summary, there are insufficient tools to effectively monitor financial compliance with the MCSO contract. Moreover, this appears to have resulted in a lack of contract compliance, resulting in what appears to be an overcharge for services rendered. This finding, however, must be juxtaposed against the lack of performance monitoring language in the contract, which as previously mentioned has not stipulated contract penalties due to lack of performance (e.g. fielding insufficient staff). DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 35 3. Other Contract-related Issues There are several ancillary contract-related issues surrounding Fountain Hills service delivery. The MCSO contract has some notable shortcomings that should be addressed if future Sheriff services are employed by Fountain Hills. These include, but are not limited to: • Staffing drivers for deputies and detectives are not based on relevant workload requirements such as calls for service, proactive time, or caseload standards. Fountain Hills is presently overstaffed based on current contract terms and conditions. • Beyond response time for Priority 1 calls, there are no performance expectations embedded in the contract. • Unique aspects of law enforcement services delivered to Fountain Hills are not effectively incorporated into the contract terms and conditions. By example, Fountain Hills is “undercharged” for sergeant positions based on actual need for field supervision. One-half the deputy staff contingent is working 48-hour work weeks resulting in annual staff hours dedicated to service well above the norm. In sum, the contract does not accurately reflect in several ways what Fountain Hills receives for service or actually requires for service. The MCSO calculates staffing needs for their law enforcement contract recipients using various modelling approaches. Ultimately these impact services provided. Importantly they seem to be driven by MCSO perceived needs as opposed to client (e.g. Fountain Hills) desires and/or requirements. The following observations are made with regard to key approaches used to determine contract staffing requirements. • A full-time equivalent position (FTE) is based on a 2,088 hour work year. This baseline is generally appropriate with one exception: 12-hour shifts, of which approximately one-half of the patrol deputies work, is a 2,190 hour shift. It is unclear how these additional hours are captured in the contract. • Deployment of patrol deputies and detectives are based on the number of beats in the (contracted) service area. Fountain Hills has been allocated 3.8 beats. It is unclear in the contract how this beat service area (3.8) was arrived at. • 5 FTE deputies are apparently required for 24/7/365 coverage of each beat. Broadly speaking, 5 personnel are required for any 24/7/365 operation filling one fixed-post, (such as 1 deputy per beat), but this calculation is imprecise, as filling one post should be based on average Net Annual Work Hours (NAWH) available DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 36 which would generally result in 4.5-5.5 FTEs per post dependent upon such factors as scheduled and unscheduled absence usage. • Moreover, using a geographic area to determine contractual deputy requirements is not based on appropriate workload or service level operational requirements. The patrol deputy staffing level of 19 (3.8 x 5 = 19) is not properly juxtaposed against calls for service response requirements, proactive time needs, officer- safety issues, etc. • Additionally, detective staffing is based on 0.5 detectives per beat and then modified based on the total days covered throughout the year (beyond the 2,088 FTE hours available to each detective). Under the current contract with MCSO, Detectives (Investigators) are ‘supporting’ positions. The 2.55 detectives for which Fountain Hills is charged cannot be mathematically replicated by the project team7 given the data provided. Similar to patrol deputies, devising a staffing plan for detectives based on beats is not consistent with best practice. Rather, detective staffing should be based on detective caseload requirements for Fountain Hills. In summary, the methodology for staffing and performance management should be revised in the contract, and updated terms and conditions developed. Based on findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are made. Recommendations: Address key MCSO contract issues identified in the Contract Review Checklist to include a dispute resolution process and penalties for non-performance. Develop additional contract performance metrics beyond patrol response time, to possibly include, targets for traffic warnings and citation, positive citizen contacts, minimum investigative case clearance, etc. The MCSO should report quarterly upon contract performance metrics to help identify issues early and devise potential resolutions. MCSO should develop a more comprehensive monthly invoice allowing Fountain Hills to perform more effective financial monitoring of Sheriff charges for services rendered. This should help resolve potential future contract overcharge issues. Use accurate methodologies for charging for MCSO services rendered. This includes charging for the appropriate number of staff (e.g. increase in field sergeants), charging 7 3.8 x 0.5 does not equal 2.55. DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 37 for the appropriate number of baseline annual work hours (2,190 vs. 2,088) based on patrol shift schedules, and using Net Annual Work Hours (NAWH) to accurately determine one fixed patrol post. Eliminate the use of beats to develop a patrol and detective staffing plan for Fountain Hills. Use agreed upon workload metrics for baseline staffing such as proactive time, caseloads and other approaches discussed in this report. DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 38 4. Alternative Law Enforcement Service Delivery The following chapter provides information with respect to alternative law enforcement service delivery approaches compared to existing MCSO operations. Three options will be discussed: • Continuation of the MCSO contract under revised staffing. • Use of an alternative services law enforcement provider. • Development of an in-house Fountain Hills police department. This will include the development of pro-forma budgets or contract cost changes, as appropriate. 1. Revised MCSO Contract Staffing As noted in the prior chapters, various service delivery and workload data suggest changes to the MCSO contract with Fountain Hills. The following tables show existing contract staffing and the revised staffing based on previous recommendations. Current Contract Staffing Revised Contract Staffing Position Fountain Hills Captain 0.75 Lieutenant 1.25 Patrol Deputy 19 School Resource Ofcr. 1 Detective 2.55 Sergeants 3 Clerical / Admn. Assistant 1 Sub-Total 28.55 Dispatch (FTEs) 1.46 Total 30.01 Position Fountain Hills Captain 0.75 Lieutenant 1.50 Patrol Deputy 16 School Resource Ofcr. 1 Detective 2 Sergeants 4 Clerical / Admn. Assistant 1 Sub-Total 26.25 Dispatch (FTEs) 1.46 Total 27.71 In summary, noted staffing changes include: • 3 patrol deputies per shift, assigned to Fountain Hills, instead of 4 patrol deputies per shift. • 1 shift sergeant assigned (and expensed in the contract) for each 12-hour patrol shift. DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 39 • 2 detectives, instead of 2.55 allocated detectives, assigned directly to Fountain Hills. • 2 Lieutenant positions, 1 each for Day and Night shift overseeing District 7 (and charged proportionally to Fountain Hills similar to the Captain position). Based on the FY 21/22 MCSO cost allocation worksheet, the noted staffing changes as recommended herein would result in an approximate $219,000 savings annually. 2. Alternative Law Enforcement Contractor Fountain Hills has potential opportunity to contract with other law enforcement agencies for service delivery, but given the location of the Town it is limited to two options: • Scottsdale Police Department. • Fort McDowell Indian Reservation. Our project team contacted management staff of both law enforcement agencies and received definitive feedback that neither agency was interested in providing any kind of law enforcement service delivery to Fountain Hills in the foreseeable future. The general consensus was that given the current law enforcement hiring and retention issues being experienced nationally, Scottsdale Police Department and Fort McDowell Indian Reservation law enforcement were having difficulty staffing their own operations at appropriate staffing levels. Consequently, adding the staffing burden of another contracted law enforcement entity was not deemed feasible. Based on the feedback received, Fountain Hills law enforcement options appear to be restricted to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office or an in-house police department. 3. Fountain Hills Police Department Option An important component of this study is the potential start-up of an in-house police department as opposed to any law enforcement service contract. This requires various exercises to ultimately arrive at an estimated cost for such an in-house operation. Data to be considered include: • The composition of the police department’s staff, to include sworn and civilian positions. DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 40 • The location of the police department. Fountain Hills benefits from having the MCSO District 7 sub-station located in their town facility, and as such a police department location is already available without additional construction or rehabilitation costs. • Estimating factors that would drive significant costs to include staff salary and benefits, purchase of major assets (e.g. police cruisers), etc. • Other key operating assumptions that would influence start-up and on-going costs. These elements will be discussed in the following sections. 1. In-house Police Department Staffing Assumptions One of the major drivers in the costs of operating an in-house police department is determining the staffing levels required to perform services. Our development of this model hinges on our prior recommendations related to patrol staffing; that is, a reduced patrol staffing contingent compared to MCSO contract staffing is more than adequate to provide high levels of service. The following highlights the in-house police department major staffing decisions, followed by a comparative table showing the in-house police department versus MCSO contract. • 3 patrol deputies per shift, assigned to Fountain Hills, instead of 4 patrol deputies per shift. • 1 shift sergeant assigned for each 12-hour patrol shift (4 total). • 1 administrative sergeant assigned for support and line supervision of non-patrol staff, and servicing as coverage, when needed, for patrol sergeants. • 2 detectives performing generalist investigations. • 2 Lieutenant positions, 1 each for Day and Night shift operating in a Watch Commander capacity. • 1 Police Chief, replacing the MCSO Captain position. • 2 Clerks providing front desk, records, and administrative support. • 1.92 Dispatch personnel contracted with MCSO. This is the higher level of staffing in FY 20/21 compared to FY 21/22. The table below shows that the in-house Fountain Hills PD is approximately 1 full- time equivalent staff position above the current MCSO contract. DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 41 Current Contract Staffing In-house Police Department Position Fountain Hills Captain 0.75 Lieutenant 1.25 Patrol Deputy 19 School Resource Ofcr. 1 Detective 2.55 Sergeants 3 Clerical / Admn. Assistant 1 Sub-Total 28.55 Dispatch (FTEs) 1.46 Total 30.01 Position Fountain Hills Chief 1 Lieutenant 2 Patrol Deputy 16 School Resource Ofcr. 1 Detective 2 Sergeants 5 Clerical / Admn. Assistant 2 Sub-Total 29.00 Dispatch (FTEs) 1.96 Total 30.96 In brief, the costs of an in-house Police Department operation are contingent upon the staff model Fountain Hills is willing to deploy. With respect to costs later displayed, we will provide a total cost comparison for a police department operation that fields an equivalent number of patrol staff to the current MCSO contract. 2. Police Department Facility As noted, the MCSO District 7 sub-station serving Fountain Hills is located in the Town Hall at 16705 E Avenue of the Fountains. As such, an in-house police department could transition to this space, and given the staffing contingent of an in-house operation is almost equivalent to the contract, there would be no relevant facility upgrade required. Having an established police facility in Fountain Hills that can be used is a major benefit and notable cost saver with respect to start-up costs. In fact, facility-related costs are typically one of the primary impediments for a community in establishing their own law enforcement agency. In summary, a small investment to potentially re-brand, paint, clean, additional furniture and new computers in the interior of the facility would be warranted. Estimated cost for such service is $175,000 one-time fee. 3. Cost of Services for In-house PD The costs of an in-house Fountain Hills PD are based upon innumerable variables and assumptions that ultimately drive the pro-forma budget. Dozens of assumptions are necessary to include such areas, but not be limited to: DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 42 • Salary expenditures and what compensation step to begin personnel. • Type of benefits paid, proportion of recipients taking family or single medical, retirement offered, and payment contributions of the Town versus the individual. • Number and type of vehicles to deploy and how they are equipped, utilized and maintained. • Risk management and workers compensation fees. • Dispatch, jail, information technology and laboratory service charges. • Overtime expenditures. • Transition, or “hand-over” costs from MCSO to an in-house operation. The details of the pro-forma budget will be provided to the client in a comprehensive worksheet that allows for adjustment to these numerous variables. In summary, however, the philosophy the project team is using to develop the pro-forma budget is to be “competitive but not excessive” with respect to overall expenditures. The budget is also distinguished between “Year One” operations which include start-up costs, and an Annual Operational Budget which estimates annual costs excluding start- up. (1) Salary and Benefits Costs The project team compared various salaries across the region to estimate the starting salary for Fountain Hills PD staff. The comparator agencies included: • Maricopa City • Buckeye • Apache Junction • Queen Creek • Oro Valley • Florence Relevant assumptions with regard to Fountain Hills PD salary includes all positions would start at an entry level salary. Moreover, in order to be competitive, starting salary was adjusted upwards approximately 10% compared to the average starting salary of the above listed agencies. DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 43 For comparative purposes, the MCSO contract salary for a deputy is $30.00 versus $29.64 for a Fountain Hills PD starting salary. Average benefit costs (excluding retirement) include such things as full medical, dental, vision, and life insurance. (2) Retirement Retirement is offered at 2.7% at age 57, the contribution for which is fully paid by the Town. There is no unfunded liability since this is a new police department. (3) Personnel Assets Officers will be outfitted with various uniforms, weaponry, and related at cost to the Town. In order to facilitate recruitment and retention, officers will have take-home police vehicles; however, these vehicles will be the less costly sedans as opposed to the more expensive SUVs. (4) “Liability” Insurances Risk insurance and workers compensation insurance are based on various relevant percentages or costs per Full-time Equivalent (FTE). It is important to note that such insurances do not cover all potential liabilities resulting from litigated actions against the Town. Consequently one of the primary unknowns with regard to total costs of operating an in-house police department is the potential costs associated with awards to a litigant against the PD/Town of Fountain Hills. (5) Other Operational Costs These include estimates of overtime usage, vehicle maintenance and usage costs, services and supplies, contract costs related to 911 Dispatch provided by MCSO, Jail costs, laboratory costs, Records Management System (RMS) costs and other supporting operational costs to run the day-to-day business of the PD. 4. Other Operating Assumptions Impacting Costs One of the most difficult cost calculations is related to the transition or hand-over costs associated with moving from MCSO services to an in-house Fountain Hills PD. There will DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 44 be a service period overlap in “Year One” while Fountain Hills acquires and deploys trained personnel to provide law enforcement services. The length of time to transition from one police operation to another, combined with the cost, is the result of a complex strategic planning undertaking beyond the scope of this report. As such, the duplicative costs incurred can only be estimated, particularly since it is unknown if MCSO would be willing reduce their own contracted service levels while the Fountain Hills PD gradually “stands up.” In sum, “Year One” operational transition costs are estimated at the equivalent of one- third the MCSO service contract to Fountain Hills. In order to facilitate recruitment of staff at Fountain Hills PD, a recruitment consultant is expensed at $150,000 in “Year One.” It is assumed the MCSO, given the public safety benefits of regionalized dispatch, will have a willingness to contract for 911 Dispatch services to Fountain Hills at a modest “premium.” In the event this was not accomplished, an alternative service provider would need to be located in Scottdale or Fort McDowell Indian Reservation despite their “lack of interest.” The additional cost of housing a 911 dispatch center in Fountain Hills would become cost prohibitive given staffing required, technology needs, and the like, and thus such an option is not included in the pro-forma budget. 5. Pro-forma Budget Based on the Matrix Consulting Group’s pro-forma Budget model, which will be supplied to Fountain Hills for future editing/manipulation, the following summary table provides “Year One” start-up and operational costs for the Fountain Hills PD. DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 45 The following provides a summary of the table above. • The pro-forma operating budget for the Fountain Hills Police Department is calculated at $4,513,252 for the first year. • Given calculated start-up costs, “Year One” budget is $8,807,292, or approximately $4.3 million in start-up requirements. • Given pro-forma budgeting is a modeling exercise, it can be assumed that: - Annual operational costs will fall within 95%-105% of the calculated costs using similar assumptions ($4.3 to $4.7 million). - “Year One” costs will fall within 90%-110% of the calculated costs using similar assumptions ($7.9 to $9.3 million). • Future annual operating cost escalators given salary/benefit raises, etc. can be assumed to be 2.5%-6% per year. Further details regarding the pro-forma budget can be found in the Appendix of this report. 6. In-house Police Department Conclusions A comparison of the annual operational costs of an in-house Fountain Hills Police Department to the most recent MCSO FY 21/22 shows that the two operations would be cost-competitive on a per annum basis; indeed, the Fountain Hills PD operation as designed would save approximately $500K per year compared to the existing MCSO contract. There are, however, several important issue areas that must be considered DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 46 when determining the total value of operating an in-house police department. These include, but are not limited to: • There is an additional start-up cost associated with the Fountain Hills PD estimated at $4.3 million dollars start-up costs. This calculates to an approximate 9-year operational break-even point when compared to continued MCSO contracting. • If Fountain Hills elected to incorporate MCSO staff changes recommended herein, potential annual Fountain Hills PD savings would be less than $300K annually compared to the MCSO contract, extending the break-even point to 14-years. • As previously noted, the staffing contingent, particularly in Patrol, in a Fountain Hills PD is less than the current MCSO contracted staffing levels. If staffing levels were equivalent the annual operating costs of the Fountain Hills PD would be $5 million per annum -- nearly the same as the MCSO contract -- with a $4.6 million start-up cost. • Qualitative benefits of operating an in-house police department, such as further local control, community branding, etc. need to be juxtaposed against costs and additional risk. While risk insurance is included in the pro-forma budget model, this does not mitigate potential litigation that would not be covered by such insurance. • It is assumed the MCSO would provide, through mutual aid, specialized support on a pro-bona basis. This would include the rare use of helicopter services, homicide crime scene investigation, accident reconstruction, etc. that typically would be beyond the capabilities of a small police department. In summary, the totality of information suggests that an in-house police department for Fountain Hills, given its safety, community profile, exceptional response time from the Sheriff, and likely net limited additional value from local control, suggests retaining the MCSO service contract is warranted, particularly if a number of recommendations noted herein are executed. Recommendation: Based on the totality of information, Fountain Hills should retain MCSO contracted law enforcement services, particularly if other recommendations herein are executed, in lieu of establishing an in-house Fountain Hills Police Department. DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 47 Appendix – Fountain Hills Police Department Pro-forma Budget Fountain Hills (AZ) Police Department Summary of Cost Projections General Personnel Cost Summary Position # Base Salary X Pos. Retirement Cost Benefits Cost Projected OT Costs Total Pos. Cost Chief 1 $166,323.00 $32,432.99 $44,493.82 $0.00 $243,249.81 Asst. Chief 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Captain 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Lieutenant 2 $201,276.00 $39,248.82 $72,605.81 $20,532.47 $333,663.09 Sergeant 5 $444,350.00 $86,648.25 $153,387.17 $45,328.81 $729,714.22 Detective 2 $136,149.20 $26,549.09 $47,852.49 $7,824.67 $218,375.45 Corporal 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Officer 17 $1,052,062.00 $205,152.09 $464,312.98 $127,728.79 $1,849,255.86 Non-Sworn 2 $76,044.80 $14,828.74 $40,357.47 $0.00 $131,231.01 Total(s): 29 $2,076,205.00 $404,859.98 $823,009.74 $201,414.73 $3,304,074.71 DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 48 Retirement Cost Projections Breakdown Position # Pos. Avg. Pension. Comp. Normal Cost Emplr. Share* Overfunding Amount Total Ret. Cost Chief 1 $166,323.00 $32,432.99 $32,432.99 $32,432.99 Asst. Chief 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Captain 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Lieutenant 2 $100,638.00 $19,624.41 $19,624.41 $39,248.82 Sergeant 5 $88,870.00 $17,329.65 $17,329.65 $86,648.25 Detective 2 $68,074.60 $13,274.55 $13,274.55 $26,549.09 Corporal 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Officer 17 $61,886.00 $12,067.77 $12,067.77 $205,152.09 Non-Sworn 2 $38,022.40 $7,414.37 $7,414.37 $14,828.74 Total(s): 29 $404,859.98 *Note: Employee Share %: 0% Benefits and Incentives Cost Projections Breakdown Position # Incentive Pay Subtotal Insur. Subtotal Other Ben. Subtotal Position Total Chief 1 $0.00 $44,493.82 $0.00 $44,493.82 Asst. Chief 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Captain 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Lieutenant 2 $0.00 $72,605.81 $0.00 $72,605.81 Sergeant 5 $0.00 $153,387.17 $0.00 $153,387.17 Detective 2 $0.00 $47,852.49 $0.00 $47,852.49 Corporal 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Officer 17 $0.00 $464,312.98 $0.00 $464,312.98 Non-Sworn 2 $0.00 $40,357.47 $0.00 $40,357.47 Total(s): 29 $823,009.74 DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 49 Overtime Cost Projections Breakdown Position # Estimated OT Hours OT Sub. X Pos. Type OT Total X Position Type Chief 1 0 $0.00 $0.00 Asst. Chief 0 0 $0.00 $0.00 Captain 0 0 $0.00 $0.00 Lieutenant 2 120 $10,266.23 $20,532.47 Sergeant 5 120 $9,065.76 $45,328.81 Detective 2 80 $3,912.33 $7,824.67 Corporal 0 0 $0.00 $0.00 Officer 17 156 $7,513.46 $127,728.79 Non-Sworn 2 0 $0.00 $0.00 Total(s): 29 $201,414.73 Sworn Equipment Cost Projections Breakdown Equipment Category Cost Projection Weapons $57,350.00 Uniform $45,900.00 Misc. $26,675.00 Initial Investment Costs $129,925.00 Annual Operating Equipment Costs $10,255.00 DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 50 Vehicle Cost Projections Breakdown Information Cost/Count Total SUVs 0 Total Sedans 27 Total Motorcycles 0 Raw Vehicle Subtotal $1,023,030.00 Raw Vehicle Accessories Subtotal $727,056.00 Total Initial Investment $1,750,086.00 SUV Annual Cost Projection 0 Sedan Annual Cost Projection $182,501.37 Motorcycle Annual Cost Projection 0 Annual Vehicle Cost Projection $182,501.37 Supplies Cost Projections Breakdown Supply Type Projected Cost Telecommunications $43,848.00 Information Technology (IT) $111,732.00 Mobile Devices $24,008.64 General Supplies $43,500.00 Projected Supplies Cost Total $223,088.64 External Contract Cost Projections Breakdown Number of External Contracts 6 Total External Contracts Cost $347,827.41 DRAFT Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Matrix Consulting Group Page 51 Average External Contracts Cost $57,971.24 Risk Insurance and Worker's Compensation Projections Breakdown Projected Type Projected Cost Risk Insurance $244,089.64 Workers Compensation (if $0 inc. in Benefits) $0.00 Total Risk Insurance/Worker's Compensation Cost $244,089.64 Summary of Projected Costs Cost Type Projected Costs General Personnel Subtotal $2,076,205.00 Retirement Costs Subtotal $404,859.98 Benefits and Incentives Subtotal $823,009.74 Overtime Costs Subtotal $201,414.73 Sworn Equipment Initial Investment Subtotal $129,925.00 Sworn Equipment Annual Operating Cost Subtotal $10,255.00 Vehicle Initial Investment Subtotal $1,750,086.00 Vehicle Annual Operating Cost Subtotal $182,501.37 Supplies Cost Subtotal $223,088.64 External Contract Cost Subtotal $347,827.41 Worker's Compensation and/or Risk Insurance Subtotal $244,089.64 Other Start-up Costs $2,414,029.00 Total Projected Year 1 Cost $8,807,291.50 Projected Yearly Operating Costs $4,513,251.50 Law Enforcement Feasibility and Financial Analysis Draft Report Presentation Fountain Hills, Arizona Agenda for the Presentation ◆Key findings, conclusions and recommendations in the draft report including: ➔Law Enforcement Services Assessment ➔Law Enforcement Contract Review ➔Alternative Services ◆Discussion on in-house police department operations and pro- forma budget. Last Council Discussion ◆Discussion of the Issues and Assumptions to gain feedback from Council. ◆Discussion of important topics on the MCSO contract such as: ➔Demographics and safety of the town ➔Contracted staffing vs. actual deployment ➔The importance of patrol proactive time and staffing impact ➔Investigations and detective caseloads and staffing impact ➔Detective staffing based on caseloads ➔Key issues related to the current contract ◆There are no other law enforcement contract partners in foreseeable future. MCSO is the only contract choice. ◆Guidelines for an in-house police department. Patrol Findings & Recommendations ◆MCSO generally deploys deputies at minimum staffing levels (3 personnel), which are below contracted levels. ◆Despite this, there is more that adequate patrol proactive time (73%) and excellent response times to serve the community. ◆Key recommendations: ➔Reduce patrol deputies from 19 to 16 positions and continue to deploy 3 deputies on Day and 3 on Night shift ➔Maintain minimum patrol staffing at 3 deputies ➔Add one patrol sergeant --from 3 to 4 –to help ensure line supervision on all patrol shifts ➔Retain 1 School Resource Officer ➔Add one watch commander lieutenant --from 1 to 2 ➔Retain 1 captain Detective Findings & Recommendations ◆Detective caseload metrics suggest that caseloads are below benchmark expectations. ◆2.55 “contract charged” detectives carry from 6.8 –7.2 cases monthly, many of which likely have limited solvability. ◆Caseload benchmarks for “generalist detectives” are 9-12 workable cases per month. ◆Key recommendations: ➔Reduce detective staffing charged to Fountain Hills from 2.55 to 2 ➔Locate these 2 detectives in the Fountain Hills sub-station ➔MCSO should provide quarterly metrics on detective caseloads, case clearances, etc. Key Fiscal Finding MCSO has the ability to provide exceptional service at the report’s recommended staffing levels which are below the current contract. Resulting estimated savings is $219,000 per annum. Contract Findings & Recommendations ◆Contract terms and conditions are generally thorough with a few exceptions: ➔No (financial) penalties for non-performance. ➔No dispute resolution process. ➔No performance metrics beyond patrol response time to Priority 1. ◆Key recommendations: ➔Add non-performance penalties and dispute resolution language ➔Report quarterly on various contract-based performance metrics (e.g., response time, detective case clearance, etc.) ➔Significantly improve the monthly invoice details to enhance Town’s internal controls and avoid overcharging situations ➔Revisit methods for staffing based on a Town “beat structure.” Use instead proactive time metrics, detective caseload metrics, etc. In-House Police Department In-house PD Findings & Recommendations ◆In-house PD staffing is based on report recommendations that equal recommended MCSO staffing. ➔3 deputies on Day shift, 3 on Night shift ➔2 detectives ➔5 sergeants; 4 patrol and 1 support services ➔3 managers: 1 Chief and 2 lieutenants ➔Continued 911 dispatch contracting ◆Other important components: ➔Fountain Hills already has a PD facility requiring minimal revision ➔In-house salaries based on competitive pay with 6 regional towns ➔Various pro-forma costs are competitive but not excessive In-house PD Budget In-house PD Conclusions ◆A Fountain Hills PD would save approximately $500,000 per year compared to the existing MCSO contract. ◆There is approximately $300,000 in savings, however, compared to a recommended revised contract. ◆PD start-up costs potentially make an in-house PD prohibitive. ➔$4.3 million dollars estimated start-up costs ➔This results in a 9-year break-even vs. current contract ➔Alternatively, this results in a 14-year break-even vs. a revised MCSO contract ◆Matrix CG’s recommendation is to maintain the MCSO contract based on recommended revisions in the report. Questions ?