HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDApacket__03-02-23_0143_455
NOTICE OF MEETING - AMENDED DATE
REGULAR MEETING - AMENDED AGENDA
MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Chairman Scott Grzybowski
Vice Chairman Steve Nurney
Commissioner Bill Craig
Commissioner Janice Holden
Commissioner Sherry Irwin
Commissioner Brian Jennings
Commissioner D.J. Willard
TIME:5:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING - AMENDED MEETING START TIME: 4:00 PM
WHEN:TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2023 AMENDED MEETING DATE: THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2023
WHERE:FOUNTAIN HILLS COUNCIL CHAMBERS
16705 E. AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS, FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Commissioners of the Town of Fountain Hills will attend either in person or by telephone conference call;
a quorum of the Town’s Council, various Commission, Committee or Board members may be in
attendance at the Commission 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 Commission 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 Commission 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 Executive Assistant 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 Commission. Verbal comments should be directed through the
Presiding Officer and not to individual Commissioners.
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 Executive Assistant prior to discussion, if possible.
1.CALL TO ORDER
2.ROLL CALL
3.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 Commission, and (ii) is subject to reasonable
time, place, and manner restrictions. The Commission 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 commissioners may (i) respond to criticism, (ii) ask staff to review a matter, or
(iii) ask that the matter be placed on a future Commission agenda.
4.CONSIDERATION & POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of MMPC Meeting Minutes of October 25,
2022 Meeting Minutes
5.CONSIDERATION & POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of the MMPC Meeting Minutes of January
24, 2023
6.DISCUSSION: Sonoran Conservancy Fountain Hills Comments on Proposed New Trails
7.CONSIDERATION & POSSIBLE ACTION: Proposed New Trails - Extension of Overlook Trail
8.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Trail Renaming
9.DISCUSSION: Communication Procedures for Incidents in the Preserve
10.UPDATE: MMPC Expanded Scope Working Group Discussion
11.DISCUSSION: Non-Native Plant (NNP) Buffelgrass on North Leg
12.UPDATE: Sonoran Conservancy Fountain Hills Liaison
13.REVIEW AND DISCUSSION: Trail Counter Activity
14.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Future Agenda Items
15.UPDATE: Next MMPC Meeting is March 28, 2023. Agenda items and attachments due by
March 14, 2023 to be included in the next meeting packet.
16.ADJOURNMENT
McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission Meeting of March 2, 2023 2 of 3
16.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 McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission with the Town Clerk.
Dated this 27th day of February, 2023.
___________________________________________
Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
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 Commission with this agenda are
available for review in the Community Services' Office.
McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission Meeting of March 2, 2023 3 of 3
ITEM 4.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 03/02/2023 Meeting Type: McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission
Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Community Services
Prepared by: Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
Staff Contact Information: Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
Request to McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission (Agenda Language):
CONSIDERATION & POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of MMPC Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2022
Meeting Minutes
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.
Attachments
October 25, 2022 Meeting Minutes
Form Review
Form Started By: Patti Lopuszanski Started On: 02/16/2023 04:42 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/16/2023
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OCTOBER 25, 2022
1.CALL TO ORDER at 5:00 PM
2.ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioner Brian Jennings; Commissioner Bill Craig; Commissioner Janice Holden;
Commissioner DJ Willard; Commissioner Steven Nurney; Commissioner Sherry Irwin
Absent: Chairman Scott Grzybowski
Staff
Present:
Deputy Town Manager/Community Services Director Rachael Goodwin; Parks
Superintendent Kevin Snipes; Executive Assistant Patti Lopuszanski
3.CALL TO THE PUBLIC - NONE
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 Commission, and (ii) is
subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The Commission 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 commissioners may
(i) respond to criticism, (ii) ask staff to review a matter, or (iii) ask that the matter be placed on a
future Commission agenda.
4.CONSIDERATION & POSSIBLE ACTION of approving the September 27, 2022 Meeting Minutes
Meeting minutes from MMPC September 27th meeting were tabled to November 22, 2022.
5.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Preserve Trail Naming Guidelines
MOVED BY Commissioner Brian Jennings, SECONDED BY Commissioner Janice Holden Motion to
adopt the following trail naming guidelines with amendments as noted.
Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously
The Commission is looking at adopting the following trail naming guidelines:
McDowell Mountain Preserve Trail Naming Guidelines
Working names for a trail should be initially submitted by the developer/builder. However, the
MMPC or the Sonoran Conservancy may suggest alternative trail names that may be more
appropriate as time goes on. The new names may be used to simplify trail layouts or be more in line
with the nature of the FH McDowell Mountain Preserve.
Any new names must also meet the conventions below.
Names should be checked to ensure that the proposed names do not conflict with other trail
names in use in the area. The names will not be the same or too like any existing name(s) in
the area.
The name(s) should, when possible, have a historical, natural, or geographic connection to the
area.
Trail names should not be overly difficult to pronounce or awkward to spell.
Trail names should avoid using the names of living or recently departed individuals. Two
Trail names should avoid using the names of living or recently departed individuals. Two
exceptions to this are the Wayne Tall trail and the Andrews/Kinsey trail which should be
grandfathered in.
6.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Realigning Workgroups
Vice-Chair Nurney informed the commissioners that this item was in regards to dissolving the
existing outreach and operations groups and instead, moving forward and creating ad hoc groups to
address items as they come up. He explained that there was an operations group and an outreach
group. The outreach work group handles everything that involves the public, in essence. It had
reached the point where people were assigned long-term to those two groups. Tasks may require
different skill sets and, therefore, it was agreed that ad hoc groups would be effective.
Ms. Goodwin shared that the Community Service Advisory Commission handles most projects on
an ad hoc basis, because each person has a different specialty or different awareness of that issue.
Vice-Chair Nurney reminded the commissioner that the groups were noted in the Guidelines and
Commissioner Willard added it will be necessary to determine when changes are being made to the
Guidelines, which is a living document, who will be making those modifications. Vice-Chair Nurney
recommended that a motion be made to eliminate reference to the workgroups identified in the
McDowell Mountain Preserve Commission Guidelines and replace them with ad hoc groups to
perform the same, or future functions.
MOVED BY Commissioner DJ Willard, SECONDED BY Commissioner Janice Holden Vice Chair
Nurney called for a Motion to eliminate reference to the workgroups identified in the McDowell
Mountain Preserve Commission Guidelines, and replace with ad hoc groups to perform the same or
future functions.
Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously
7.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Trail Renaming, Trail Rating and Trail Maps
After discussion, Chair Nurnery asked for a Motion to approve the Trail Rating System and the
Proposed Trail Maps as proposed and to continue the evaluation of the Trail Renaming per the
workgroup for discussion at the next commission meeting. It was agreed upon that another
workgroup would be created to obtain data to support the discussion that would be presented at a
later meeting date.
MOVED BY Commissioner DJ Willard, SECONDED BY Commissioner Steven Nurney
Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously
8.REVIEW AND DISCUSSION: 2021 Accomplishments
The item regarding the Review and Discussion of the 2021 Accomplishments was tabled until the
November 22, 2022 meeting.
9.UPDATE: Sonoran Conservancy Fountain Hills Liaison
Commissioner Holden informed the commissioners that the 1st Board meeting took place and the
Host Program started on October 15, 2022. There are two shifts that are covered by volunteers, on
Saturday and Sunday. The 1st Aid in the Desert was created and working with Chief Ott and
Scottsdale to put on this Zoom training.
McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission Meeting of October 25, 2022 2 of 3
10.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Future Agenda Items
Future Agenda Items:
Borrow a Bell for mountain bikers
Year end reviews
Camera/Parking Lot
11.REVIEW AND DISCUSSION: Trail Counter Activity
Vice Chair Nurney asked if there was a reason for the numbers being noted in red and blue and it
was discussed that those were estimates where counters are in need of repair. Commissioner
Holden added that there is a volunteer currently working on refurbishing trail counters.
12.UPDATE: Next MMPC Meeting November 22, 2022
13.ADJOURNMENT AT 6:25 PM
MOVED BY Commissioner DJ Willard, SECONDED BY Commissioner Brian Jennings
Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously
MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN ADVISORY COMMISSION
__________________________________________
Scott Grzybowski, Chairman
ATTEST AND PREPARED BY:
________________________________
Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting held by
the Fountain Hills McDowell Mountain Advisory Commission in the Town Hall Council Chambers on the 25th day of
October, 2022. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present.
DATED this 2nd day of March, 2023.
_________________________________
Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission Meeting of October 25, 2022 3 of 3
ITEM 5.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 03/02/2023 Meeting Type: McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission
Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Community Services
Prepared by: Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
Staff Contact Information: Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
Request to McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission (Agenda Language):
CONSIDERATION & POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of the MMPC Meeting Minutes of January 24, 2023
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.
Form Review
Form Started By: Patti Lopuszanski Started On: 02/15/2023 03:13 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/15/2023
ITEM 6.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 03/02/2023 Meeting Type: McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission
Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Community Services
Prepared by: Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
Staff Contact Information: Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
Request to McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission (Agenda Language): DISCUSSION:
Sonoran Conservancy Fountain Hills Comments on Proposed New Trails
Staff Summary (Background)
The SCFH presented plans for two new trails temporarily referred to as, The Upper Sonoran and Rustic
Trails to their Board. As of this date, Board members were unable to ‘preview’ the trail sites due to
schedule conflicts, so personal impressions are excluded from these comments. A site visit is planned for
Feb 23. There has also been informal discussion about a connector trail from the Overlook to the Easy
Access Trail. While this may have SCFH Board support, it was excluded from these comments pending
further investigation.
Attachments
SCFH Comments on Proposed New Trails
Form Review
Form Started By: Patti Lopuszanski Started On: 02/21/2023 04:12 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/21/2023
SCFH COMMENTS TO THE MMPC VETTING TWO POTENTIAL NEW TRAILS IN THE
MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN PRESERVE
SCFH CONSIDERATION
The (relevant) SCFH Objectives (approved Feb 2020) are:
To provide recreational opportunities for the community to enjoy these natural assets
(the Preserve and other natural resources and assets)
To advocate and take appropriate action to minimize the impact to the Town’s natural
resources.
The MMPC Guiding Principles are:
To maintain the natural beauty of the Preserve, minimize human impact, prioritize
conservation over development and provide public access.
These seemingly conflicting values – conservation over development, minimizing human impact
and providing recreational opportunities - are difficult to reconcile and quantify.
- There are no industry guidelines as to how many trail miles per acre are acceptable
for a Preserve. Today the Preserve is 824 acres with approx. 10 miles of trails. How
much ‘public access’ is too much, too little or just enough?
- Hikers and cyclists are generally keen for new, exciting trails, more options with
expansive views with different perspective of the area.
- Trailblazer volunteers are eager to build more trails.
- The Town wants to meet the needs of the greater community and provide health,
wellness and educational opportunities in its unique Sonoran Desert.
The MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THE SONORAN
CONSERVANCY OF FOUNTAIN HILLS are the two organizations charged with the
protection, conservation and preservation of the Preserve.
Therefore; should we also consider asking, “why build more trails rather than why
not?”
In addition to the questions asked in the ‘general’ vetting criteria portion of the MMPC
Guidelines, consideration for additional trail builds should also be given to the following
questions:
1. The Preserve is not under a ‘use it or lose it’ provision that would close the window of
future trail builds if not built now. What is the urgency to build?
2. Is demand on existing trails such that new trails are required to offload human
impact? Are spider trails increasing because of more foot/bike traffic?
3. Should proposed trails be subjected to more careful design review? Is there a way to
lessen the impact and conserve more of the area as a natural open space?
4. Can all trails be built by hand? Is additional equipment (mechanical, helicopter support)
required and at what cost to build the trail to the same standard as other Preserve
trails? Where is the equipment box to be located, at what distance from the work site
and at what cost to acquire and move?
5. What is the plan if the Adero community challenges parking on Eagle Ridge Drive?
Will the original plan to build additional parking inside the Preserve gate be required
with a loss of Preserve land?
6. Does the growing trailblazer organization need to better utilize its volunteers by
building more trails rather than only maintaining them?
7. How will additional garbage on the trails and at the trailhead be managed?
8. Is there a way to identify and protect wildlife corridors that run through the more
remote area of the Preserve?
SCFH RECOMMENDATIONS
I Upper Sonoran Trail
The SCFH supports the Upper Sonoran Trail be vetted by the MMPC and presented to Town
Council in Spring 2023 for approval with the proviso that:
1. The MMPC consider the questions raised above as part of the vetting process for new
trails.
2. The Trailblazers provide 1) a 2 – 3 year organizational plan that provides for leadership,
trail building know-how, and teams to complete the building and simultaneous maintenance of
all trails, 2) A plan to provide volunteers an introductory handbook to Trailblazing focused on
safety and sustainable trail building.
3. The remaining trails in the Trail Master Plan: the Sunridge Loop, Sunridge Loop Access
Connector and the Quartz Trail Connector be withdrawn from the Trail Master Plan in lieu of
two to three new trails being evaluated for consideration in 2023/2024.
II Rustic Trail
The SCFH does not support the Rustic Trail be vetted by the MMPC nor presented to Town
Council at this time until the following considerations are given:
1. The MMPC consider the questions raised above as part of the vetting process for new
trails.
2. This trail is a not a substitute for the originally envisioned Quartz Trail Connector – a trail
with less than 300’ or 0.25mi in the MMP and the rest in the McDowell Sonoran Preserve. This
two-mile trail will be built entirely in the McDowell Mountain Preserve.
3. This trail is inconsistent with the building standards of other trails in the Preserve. It
won’t be maintained to the same standards either. How will this affect the safety and viability
of the trail for users and Trailblazers? If it becomes as popular as Sunrise or Tom’s Thumb –
how will its maintenance be ensured if needed in the future?
4. This trail should be subjected to more careful design review to insure its safety and long
term viability.
5. What is the rush to move forward with this trail? Why not wait until the Upper Sonoran
is completed to determine if a second trail in the same area is desired and a study of the Rustic
Trail’s viability can be thoroughly investigated.
2/14/2023
ITEM 7.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 03/02/2023 Meeting Type: McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission
Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Community Services
Prepared by: Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
Staff Contact Information: Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
Request to McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission (Agenda Language):
CONSIDERATION & POSSIBLE ACTION: Proposed New Trails - Extension of Overlook Trail
Staff Summary (Background)
Attachments
Vetting of Possible New Trails
Extension of the Overlook Trail to the Easy Access Trail
Vetting Process for Overlook Trail
Form Review
Form Started By: Patti Lopuszanski Started On: 02/21/2023 04:15 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/21/2023
February 23, 2023
Vetting of Two Potential New Trails
in the FH McDowell Sonoran Preserve
Introduction
In 2022 a Trail Master Plan was developed by the MMPC and approved by the Fountain Hills Town
Council. The Trail Master Plan serves as the basis for consideration of any new trails in the Preserve.
The addition of the North Leg trail was also approved by the FH Town Council at that time. Construction
of the North Leg trail is now nearing completion.
The MMPC established a Working Group to consider if and when any additional trails in the Preserve
should be added. This report contains their recommendations.
An initial draft of this document was shared with the SCFH to facilitate their input. Their input is
included in the Appendix. This document was then modified after taking the SCFH input into account
and addresses a number of their concerns.
Summary of Recommendations
The Work Group recommends:
1. The trail referred to as the “Upper Sonoran Trail” in the Trail Master Plan be presented to the FH
Town Council for approval. Note: The actual trail name is yet to be determined.
2. If approved, that construction of the Upper Sonoran Trail to begin based on a schedule
determined by the Lead for the Trailblazers.
3. The trail referred to as the “Quartz Trail Connector” in the Trail Master Plan be replaced by a trail
completely within the Fountain Hills Preserve. This trail will be referred in this document as the
“Remote Trail”. Note: The actual trail name is yet to be determined, and Remote Trail is only
used to differentiate this trail from the Upper Sonoran Trail.
4. The trail referred to as the Remote Trail be presented to the FH Town Council for approval.
5. If approved, that construction of the Remote Trail to begin based on a schedule determined by
the Lead for the Trailblazers. It is expected that actual construction will commence after
completion of the Upper Sonoran Trail although planning and preparation for the Remote Trail
may be concurrent.
Potential new trails addressed in this vetting document:
- Upper Sonoran trail
- Remote trail
The Trail Master Plan vets several of the vetting criteria for all the trails in the plan. This is included in
the Appendix.
The additional vetting in this document addresses trail specific criteria.
Vetting of criteria specific to these potential new trails:
Upper Sonoran Trail Vetting
This is an approximately 1.8-mile trail from the end of the Promenade Trail to the ST20 marker on the
Sonoran Trail.
What is the potential impact on the image of the Town of FH?
• One of the appeals of Fountain Hills is the Preserve and the ability of people to enjoy the Preserve via
a trail system. Additional hiking options in the Preserve will enhance that image.
• Another appeal is the ability of non-hikers to enjoy the view of the Preserve from a distance. This trail
would not be visible from outside the Preserve.
Does it add to the diversity of the trail system?
• This trail is approximately 1.8 miles long and would be of medium difficulty, similar to the Lower
Sonoran Trail.
• The addition of this trail would provide additional options for desirable loop hikes.
• The trail traverses a more remote portion of the Preserve, often with no houses in view. It provides
hikers with a very different experience than other trails in the Preserve.
What is the impact on trail density?
• This trail is further away from neighboring trails than other trails in the Preserve, e.g. Ridgeline/Lower
Ridgeline and Sonoran/Lower Sonoran.
• The topography also serves to isolate the trail.
What is the impact on bordering neighborhoods?
• There are no houses impacted by this trail. It is in a remote area of the Preserve.
What is the impact on wildlife in the Preserve?
• This trail is in a more remote area of the Preserve. There is likely more wildlife in this part of the
Preserve but also more space for a trail to minimally impact the wildlife.
• Housing Development construction and other housing adjacent to the Preserve has a much larger
impact on the wildlife.
What is the level of effort to pursue i.e., trail building difficulty?
• Trail building difficulty of this trail is like other recent trails built in the Preserve, e.g., Lower Ridgeline,
North Leg.
• An additional challenge of building this trail is the hiking distance to the trail. This is not an
impediment to construction but will likely slow the pace of the build.
What is the ability to use professional trail-building resources?
• Accessibility by trail building equipment is not clear, though it is unlikely to be used in the Fountain
Hills Preserve for this trail.
What is the impact on trailhead parking?
• Although parking is addressed in the Trail Master Plan, it is worth noting that each additional hiking
option in the Preserve will likely add incrementally to additional Preserve use.
• The MMPC should review parking constraints and mitigation plans when considering this option.
What is the input from the SCFH?
• The SCFH supports approval of the Upper Sonoran trail, with proviso.
• The full SCFH input is in the Appendix
Conclusion of Upper Sonoran Trail Vetting
The vetting of the Upper Sonoran Trail results in recommending approval.
Remote Trail Vetting
This is an approximately 1.7-mile trail beginning at either the top of Western Loop or at about WL20 on
the north side of the Western Loop trail to the ST20 marker on the Sonoran Trail.
What is the potential impact on the image of the Town of FH?
• One of the appeals of Fountain Hills is the Preserve and the ability of people to enjoy the Preserve via
a trail system. Additional hiking options in the Preserve will enhance that image.
• Another appeal is the ability of non-hikers to enjoy the view of the Preserve from a distance. This trail
would not be visible from outside the Preserve.
Does it add to the diversity of the trail system?
• This trail is approximately 1.7 miles long and would be considered difficult.
• It provides access to a rugged and remote portion of the Preserve, often with no houses in view.
• This trail is designed for more experienced hikers and is a significant addition in the Preserve for them.
• The combination of trail attributes makes this a unique trail in the Preserve, contributing significantly
to the diversity of Preserve trails.
What is the impact on trail density?
• This trail would be the most remote trail in the Preserve.
What is the impact on bordering neighborhoods?
• There are no houses impacted by this trail. It is in a remote area of the Preserve.
What is the impact on wildlife in the Preserve?
• This trail is in a more remote area of the Preserve. There is likely more wildlife in this part of the
Preserve but also more space for a trail to minimally impact the wildlife.
• Housing Development construction and other housing adjacent to the Preserve has a much larger
impact on the wildlife.
What is the level of effort to pursue i.e., trail building difficulty?
• Trail building difficulty of this trail is somewhat dependent how rugged the trail will be, which is still
under discussion. Some sections will require minimal ground disturbance, while others will need
significant modification.
• The question of what trail building standards are appropriate for the Remote trail is acknowledged.
This will require a balance between providing the desired diversity of hiking experience with providing a
safe hiking experience. This will be addressed jointly by the SCFH and the MMPC with the Lead
Trailblazer making the final determination.
• An additional challenge of building this trail is the hiking distance to the trail. This is not an
impediment to construction but will likely slow the pace of the build.
• Trail building difficulty would be very significantly reduced if the Remote trail began at WL20 rather
than at the top of Western Loop. A final decision on this is under discussion.
What is the ability to use professional trail-building resources?
• Accessibility by trail building equipment would be difficult.
What is the impact on trailhead parking?
• Although parking is addressed in the Trail Master Plan, it is worth noting that each additional hiking
option in the Preserve will likely add incrementally to additional Preserve use.
• The MMPC should review parking constraints and mitigation plans when considering this option.
What is the input from the SCFH?
• The SCFH does not support approval of the Remote Trail at this time.
• The full SCFH input is in the Appendix
Conclusion of Remote Trail Vetting
The vetting of the Upper Sonoran Trail results in recommending approval.
APPENDIX
Trail Options contained in the Trail Master Plan:
The geographic footprint of the Preserve and the existing trails in the Preserve suggest these possible
areas for additional trail development:
1. North Leg – a trail, initially out and back only or potentially later a loop trail, from the Promenade
trail extending into the north arm of the Preserve.
2. Upper Sonoran Trail – a trail providing an additional option from the Sonoran Trail with a
possible connection to the Western Loop trail.
3. Sunridge Loop – a loop trail from near the end of the Ridgeline Trail.
4. Quartz Trail Connector – a trail connecting to an extension of the current Quartz trail in
Scottsdale’s McDowell Sonoran Preserve.
Another option, a new access to the Preserve at the junction of Sunridge Drive and Desert Canyon Drive,
would accommodate an easy connection to the Sunridge Loop.
Idea Flow and MMPC Idea Vetting (from the MMPC Guidelines)
The following idea qualification process was adopted by the MMPC in 2019.
This process would be applied as additional consideration filters following compliance
with the Guiding Principles and used by the working groups to assess new ideas and
issues.
Step 1 - VETTING:
1. Does it meet the Guiding Principles?
2. Does it complement or conflict with our mission to Preserve the Preserve?
3. Does it take the source into consideration - Town, Community, SCFH, within MMPC?
(Town source should take priority)
4. What problem does it solve or what need does it satisfy?
5. What are the funding requirements? (both capital and expense as well as necessary
or long-term funding sources)
6. What is the level of effort to pursue? (Is it achievable within the means of the
MMPC?)
Step 2 – APPROVAL (presented by Working Group at a monthly MMPC meeting)
1. Outline the problem or need.
2. Provide several possible scenarios with pros and cons for each.
3. If appropriate, provide a recommendation for approval/disapproval.
Step 3 – PRIORITIZATION (once approved)
1. Are there time constraints in implementing the idea? (budget deadlines, seasonal
considerations, resource availability, etc.)
2. Will funding complexities affect completion?
Extract from the FH McDowell Mountain Preserve Master plan:
Criteria common to all Options
Many of the vetting criteria and additional factors apply equally to the remaining three trail options
considered:
Do they meet the Guiding Principles?
• The Guiding Principles are to: maintain the natural beauty of the Preserve, minimize human
impact, prioritize conservation over development, and provide public access. While the addition
of new trails will impact the natural state of the Preserve and increase human impact, the Plan
intends that new construction will be carefully considered and carried out in a way that will
minimize impact while providing the public with additional, desired trails.
• The ability to give priority to conservation over development will require that each proposed trail
in the future be thoroughly vetted at that time
Do they complement or conflict with the mission to Preserve the Preserve?
The additional trails present a challenge – how to maintain a balance between keeping the current
character of the Preserve and providing additional public access for its enjoyment. The Trail Master Plan
2022 attempts to solve for these issues.
Do they take into consideration Town input?
• The Town of Fountain Hills has tasked the MMPC with, among other things, “to provide for the
development of a trail system within the Preserve”. Community input to the Community
Services Master Plan of April 2021 has indicated a strong desire for additional trails, including
Greater Trail Connectivity, Long Range Trail Plans, Environmental Education Center,
Development of Outdoor and Environmental Programs, Fitness and Wellness Programs. The
unique characteristic of the Preserve could satisfy many of these aspirations.
What problem or need do they satisfy?
• The addition of trails in the Preserve serves to help accomplish the Town of Fountain Hills desire
to provide for the development of a trail system within the Preserve and serves to help fulfill
community input for a desire for additional trails.
• Additional trails also help to achieve the 2004 Preserve Master Plan vision of “construction of
specific walking trails to provide the public with opportunity to explore all directions within the
Preserve”.
What are the funding requirements?
• Funding requirements are minimal. Labor to build and maintain the trails is done on a volunteer
basis. Minor funds will be required for signage and updating of on-line trail maps.
• Future trail building & maintenance could become problematic for this volunteer group in terms
of safety, expertise, training and equipment. Funding may be required to solve for these
potential issues.
What is the potential impact on the image of the Town of FH?
• One of the appeals of Fountain Hills is the Preserve and the ability of people to enjoy the
Preserve via a trail system. Additional hiking options in the Preserve will enhance that image.
•
What is the impact on Trailhead parking?
• Hiking activity in the Preserve is very seasonal. Parking capacity at Adero Canyon Trailhead may
be reached on weekend mornings during the high hiking season (mid-November through March).
This is approximately 5 per cent of the time the Preserve is open for hiking. Additional trails in
the Preserve will incrementally add to this demand. This can be mitigated by the Town by
allowing parking on Eagle Ridge Drive on weekends during the peak hiking season.
• Parking limitations will actually improve trail user density. If the amount of parking spaces
remains the same, it will limit additional users regardless of how many new trails are added.
What is the impact on wildlife in the Preserve?
• Without an extensive study on wildlife movements, it is difficult to anticipate the impact on
current habitats. However, years of continuous construction in the adjacent neighborhoods have
likely already forced alternate environments for some of the Preserve’s wildlife.
• The impact on wildlife will be considered when vetting any potential new trails.
What is the input from SCFH?
The Sonoran Conservancy of Fountain Hills (SCFH) reviewed an early draft of the Trail Master Plan and
provided input to the MMPC (see full comments in the Appendix). Their thoughtful and thorough
comments were discussed by the MMPC and taken into consideration in finalizing this document.
The SCFH input was most helpful in improving this plan. Their involvement and efforts are appreciated
by the MMPC.
SCFH COMMENTS TO THE MMPC VETTING TWO POTENTIAL NEW TRAILS IN THE
MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN PRESERVE
SCFH CONSIDERATION
The (relevant) SCFH Objectives (approved Feb 2020) are:
To provide recreational opportunities for the community to enjoy these natural assets (the Preserve and
other natural resources and assets)
To advocate and take appropriate action to minimize the impact to the Town’s natural resources.
The MMPC Guiding Principles are:
To maintain the natural beauty of the Preserve, minimize human impact, prioritize conservation
over development and provide public access.
These seemingly conflicting values – conservation over development, minimizing human impact and providing
recreational opportunities - are difficult to reconcile and quantify.
- There are no industry guidelines as to how many trail miles per acre are acceptable for a Preserve.
Today the Preserve is 824 acres with approx. 10 miles of trails. How much ‘public access’ is too much,
too little or just enough?
- Hikers and cyclists are generally keen for new, exciting trails, more options with expansive views with
different perspective of the area.
- Trailblazer volunteers are eager to build more trails.
- The Town wants to meet the needs of the greater community and provide health, wellness and
educational opportunities in its unique Sonoran Desert.
The MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THE SONORAN CONSERVANCY OF
FOUNTAIN HILLS are the two organizations charged with the protection, conservation and
preservation of the Preserve.
Therefore; should we also consider asking, “why build more trails rather than why not?”
In addition to the questions asked in the ‘general’ vetting criteria portion of the MMPC Guidelines, consideration
for additional trail builds should also be given to the following questions:
1. The Preserve is not under a ‘use it or lose it’ provision that would close the window of future trail builds
if not built now. What is the urgency to build?
2. Is demand on existing trails such that new trails are required to offload human impact? Are spider trails
increasing because of more foot/bike traffic?
3. Should proposed trails be subjected to more careful design review? Is there a way to lessen the impact
and conserve more of the area as a natural open space?
4. Can all trails be built by hand? Is additional equipment (mechanical, helicopter support) required and at
what cost to build the trail to the same standard as other Preserve trails? Where is the equipment box to be
located, at what distance from the work site and at what cost to acquire and move?
5. What is the plan if the Adero community challenges parking on Eagle Ridge Drive? Will the original
plan to build additional parking inside the Preserve gate be required with a loss of Preserve land?
6. Does the growing trailblazer organization need to better utilize its volunteers by building more trails
rather than only maintaining them?
7. How will additional garbage on the trails and at the trailhead be managed?
8. Is there a way to identify and protect wildlife corridors that run through the more remote area of
the Preserve?
SCFH RECOMMENDATIONS
I Upper Sonoran Trail
The SCFH supports the Upper Sonoran Trail be vetted by the MMPC and presented to Town Council in Spring
2023 for approval with the proviso that:
1. The MMPC consider the questions raised above as part of the vetting process for new trails.
2. The Trailblazers provide 1) a 2 – 3 year organizational plan that provides for leadership, trail building
know-how, and teams to complete the building and simultaneous maintenance of all trails, 2) A plan to provide
volunteers an introductory handbook to Trailblazing focused on safety and sustainable trail building.
3. The remaining trails in the Trail Master Plan: the Sunridge Loop, Sunridge Loop Access Connector and the
Quartz Trail Connector be withdrawn from the Trail Master Plan in lieu of two to three new trails being evaluated
for consideration in 2023/2024.
II Rustic Trail
The SCFH does not support the Rustic Trail be vetted by the MMPC nor presented to Town Council at this time
until the following considerations are given:
1. The MMPC consider the questions raised above as part of the vetting process for new trails.
2. This trail is a not a substitute for the originally envisioned Quartz Trail Connector – a trail with less than
300’ or 0.25mi in the MMP and the rest in the McDowell Sonoran Preserve. This two-mile trail will be built
entirely in the McDowell Mountain Preserve.
3. This trail is inconsistent with the building standards of other trails in the Preserve. It won’t be maintained
to the same standards either. How will this affect the safety and viability of the trail for users and Trailblazers? If
it becomes as popular as Sunrise or Tom’s Thumb – how will its maintenance be ensured if needed in the future?
4. This trail should be subjected to more careful design review to insure its safety and long term viability.
5. What is the rush to move forward with this trail? Why not wait until the Upper Sonoran is completed to
determine if a second trail in the same area is desired and a study of the Rustic Trail’s viability can be thoroughly
investigated.
2/14/2023
Considerations for the Vetting process for the “Overlook Loop” trail.
The Overlook Loop trail is proposed to start at the top of the present
Overlook trail, extend down the north side of the “South Leg” of the
Preserve and meet the end of the Easy Access trail. This extension of
the Overlook trail would be approximately 0.3 miles long.
Although this Overlook Loop trail is not in the Trail Master Plan, that
plan is acknowledged to be a working document. This trail will add to
the hiking experience in the Preserve so it is recommended that it
should be added to the master plan. The vetting process below
addresses this suggestion.
Vetting:
1. Does it meet the Guiding Principles?
While the addition of new trails will impact the natural state of the Preserve and increase
human impact, the Plan intends that new construction will be carefully considered and carried
out in a way that will minimize impact while providing the public with additional, desired trails.
2. Does it complement or conflict with our mission to Preserve the
Preserve?
The initial intention of Preserving the Preserve was to make sure the land in the Preserve
would not be used for any other purpose than a place for hiking and the enjoyment of nature.
This new trail would adhere to this objective.
3. Does it take the source into consideration?
The recent Town survey indicated a desire for more trails. At the most recent SCFH Board
meeting there was a verbal approval of this trail with the suggestion of making it the same level
of difficulty as the present Overlook trail. The trail design includes this suggestion.
4. What problem does it solve or what need does it satisfy?
Loop trails are nationally recognized as being among the most desirable type of trails.
Trails in our Preserve have already been designed with this in mind. The initial idea of building
this trail came from a hiker. In addition, the Overlook trail is the trail most often recommended
by Trailhead Hosts and this addition to that trail would add to the hiking experience.
5. What are the funding requirements?
Funding would be minimal. It would include some money for tools used and minimal funding
for additional signage.
6. What is the level of effort to pursue?
The effort to build and maintain this trail would not add significantly to the work already
performed by the Trailblazers, especially since it is close to the Trailhead and hiking to do work
on this trail would be minimal.
ITEM 8.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 03/02/2023 Meeting Type: McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission
Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Community Services
Prepared by: Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
Staff Contact Information: Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
Request to McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission (Agenda Language):
CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Trail Renaming
Staff Summary (Background)
Attachments
Trail Renaming Workgroup - SI
Form Review
Form Started By: Patti Lopuszanski Started On: 02/21/2023 04:16 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/21/2023
Trail Renaming WG
Recommendations
Based on the survey results and other discussions
• We Suggest that the Commission recommend the change of WL to Western Trail
• WBL to extension of Andrews Kinsey
• Change the currently named Western Loop entrance off the Promenade, to Alternate Entrance
to Andrew Kinsey
• For Ridgeline, we want to hold off until the decision o possible Overlook extension to the Easy
Access trail, a lollipop trail
o If the Lollipop is approved we keep the Ridgeline the way it was
o If the Lollipop is not approved, Overlook is changed to the Ridgeline starting at the
Promenade
Requirements
What would we need if we changed the names?
• Signs and Emergency Markers
o If it was just WL and AK, we would need to create 18 new emergency markers
o OR just 5 for each trail (like Ridgeline) (x2 because on each side)
o OR leave WL the way it is and then just do 5 x2 for AK [FHFD and other first responders
have the markers on the maps already for WL]
o 4 of the 12X18 signs and 15 of the 6x12
o Organized labor to fix/replace
If we change the name of OL to RL we want
• 10 emergency markers
• 1-12X18 (at the Entrance past the gate)
• 1-6x12 (to the Overloop)
If we have the new OL trail agree that it might be better to leave RL as is and create a new Lollipop
loop (Overlook Lollipop, etc)
• 8 emergency markers
• 10-6x12 and 2 12X18
Digital Artifacts - Google, Gaia, All Trails, City site ,etc
• Notice will be sent to key websites (Town, Conservancy)
• Follow-up feedback to MCSO /FD/MMRP re: trail names and safety markers
Vetting
1. Does this meet the guiding principles? Yes, it does not violate any of the Guiding Principals.
2. Does it complement with our mission to preserve the Preserve? Yes, this action would not
degrade our preservation mission.
3. Does it take the source into consideration - Town, Community, SCFH, within MMPC? (Town
source should take priority) Yes the source has been taken into consideration.
4. What problem does it solve, or what need does it satisfy? As new trails were added to the
Preserve it created a complicated and somewhat confusing trail map. Results of our recent survey of
actively involved individuals confirmed this viewpoint. This action would simplify the trial maps and
make it easier for the Preserve's guests to navigate our trail system.
5. What are the funding requirements? (Both capital expense and as well as necessary or long
term costs) New maps will be necessitated this spring because of new trails added during the winter
season, so there would be no added costs for new mapping. The town would need to create some
new signage and the Trailblazers would need to install the new signage as detailed in the other
document. These costs should be very reasonable.
6. What is the level of effort needed to pursue? (is it achievable within the means of the MMPC)
The required effort from the MMPC and the Trailblazers, and the City is minimal.
Timeline
• Go to April / May Council for the Renaming so signs can be done over the summer and installed
Oct/Nov
ITEM 9.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 03/02/2023 Meeting Type: McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission
Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Community Services
Prepared by: Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
Staff Contact Information: Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
Request to McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission (Agenda Language): DISCUSSION:
Communication Procedures for Incidents in the Preserve
Staff Summary (Background)
Staff will discuss the communication procedures in place between the Town, MMPC and SCFH for
incidents in the Preserve.
Form Review
Form Started By: Patti Lopuszanski Started On: 02/21/2023 04:18 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/21/2023
ITEM 10.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 03/02/2023 Meeting Type: McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission
Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Community Services
Prepared by: Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
Staff Contact Information: Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
Request to McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission (Agenda Language): UPDATE:
MMPC Expanded Scope Working Group Discussion
Staff Summary (Background)
Form Review
Form Started By: Patti Lopuszanski Started On: 02/21/2023 04:20 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/21/2023
ITEM 11.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 03/02/2023 Meeting Type: McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission
Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Community Services
Prepared by: Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
Staff Contact Information: Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
Request to McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission (Agenda Language): DISCUSSION:
Non-Native Plant (NNP) Buffelgrass on North Leg
Staff Summary (Background)
Attachments
Buffelgrass Email Update 03.01.23
Buffelgrass Information
Form Review
Form Started By: Patti Lopuszanski Started On: 03/01/2023 08:13 AM
Final Approval Date: 03/01/2023
Bill The two alternatives are physical removal and herbicide treatment. We definitely prefer
herbicide. It is certainly much more efficient by a factor of about 10 - 1 person can spray an area in the same time it takes 10 to remove it. And overall our work has indicated that it is more effective. It is very difficult to physically remove buffelgrass and stop it from coming back since you need to get out the whole plant and all of the rhizome root structure. Herbicide gets absorbed into the vascular system of the plant so
gets sucked down through the whole plant and kills it. It still takes multiple treatments to get rid of an established patch because of all the seeds in the ground, but there is hope. I know there is some reluctance among many land managers to use herbicide. The two most common concerns is its ecological impact and personal safety concerns. We did
significant studies where we tested the effect on neighboring native plants of using herbicide on invasive grass and determined that the effect was neutral to positive. There are definitely differing opinions on personal safety, but we try to address those through appropriate PPE.
If you want to pursue the herbicide option but more information is necessary, I’m sure
that Scott Hamilton would be happy to share his thoughts and I’m certainly available. If you decide on herbicide, I can probably provide some volunteer labor to at least start the effort although there is obviously some cost of herbicide supply. If you decide on physical removal, I’m also happy to help with that but you will probably need to get a
team together if the population is significant.
Hope that helps. I’m available to discuss more in person or on the phone if you would like.
Paul
Hi Bill, As Paul likely mentioned, we are developing a program here in Scottsdale that uses a combination of labor from the stewards, like Paul, as well as specialized contractors to
treat the buffelgrass with herbicide. Paul and the other stewards have been working on
removing buffel grass for several years, and this spring will be the first time we use a contractor to supplement those efforts. Thanks,
Scott
What do you do if you have buffelgrass on your property?
There are two main ways to remove buffelgrass effectively; if the plant is green, herbicides can be used to
kill the plant. Herbicide only works on actively growing plants, thus it has to be green when you spray it. If
less than 50% of the plant is green manual removal is the best method. With any removal technique, a
follow up treatment will have to be performed for the next 3-5 growing seasons, thus removing the seed
that is still in the soil.
Chemical Control (Herbicide):
• Plants must be at least 50% green and actively growing for herbicide to be effective; this usually
occurs during the monsoon rains, but can also occur in the winter if climatic conditions are right
• Products containing glyphosate are very effective and are readily available at hardware stores
• Follow the label directions; a 2% glyphosate solution works well to kill buffelgrass
• Spray enough herbicide to coat all the green leaves, but not to the point that it drips off
• Adding a dye to the chemical solution can help you to avoid spraying non-target species
Manual Control (Pulling):
• Mowing alone is not an effective control method; this actually stimulates new growth
• A digging tool is needed to loosen the soil around the plant so that it can be pulled up without
leaving the base of the plant behind; if part of the plant remains in the soil, it will resprout
• Soil bars (aka Caliche bars, digging bars, rock picks) work well; wedge soil bar point into soil at base
of plant at an angle, push down on soil bar to lever plant out of ground
• Shake dirt off of roots and place in a heavy duty trash bag
• If a blanket of seeds remains, sweeping them up will minimize the # of seedlings next season
Disposal:
Place plants that are pulled up into trash bags and place with other trash items to be collected by the city.
Why is buffelgrass a problem? Buffelgrass, an introduced invasive grass, forms dense
stands, crowding out native plants and animals, and bringing fire to an ecosystem that is not meant to
burn. Please visit www.buffelgrass.org for more information.
Invades undisturbed desert habitat
Competes with saguaros
and other native vegetation
Fuel load is 3x higher than typical desert,
leading to large wildfires
Inhibits animal movement,
alters habitat and displaces
wildlife forage
Wildfire kills desert plants & animals, and poses a
major safety hazard to adjoining urban areas
Volunteer with us! For more information regarding volunteer efforts in the region,
contact the Southern Arizona Buffelgrass Coordination Center Executive Director,
Lindy Brigham, at lbrigham@ag.arizona.edu or (520)626-8307.
Buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare) Identification
Buffelgrass can look dramatically different depending on the time of year. It can be lush and green after good
rains, but quickly dries down to a straw colored plant. Below are a few characteristics that will help you to
correctly identify buffelgrass.
Volunteer
removing DRY
BUFFELGRASS.
GREEN
BUFFELGRASS.
Inset shows
inflorescence
(seed heads).
BOTTLE BRUSH
SEEDHEADS:
Buffelgrass has a
very distinct flower
that looks like a
bottle brush. The
flower can range in
color from reddish
or purplish brown
when seeds are
young to a tan color
when seeds are
mature.
ROUGH RACHIS:
Once the seeds
fall from the
plant, the rachis
(central stem
where the seeds
were attached)
is very rough to
the touch.
HAIRY LIGULE:
Tiny
whitish/blond
hairs can be
seen at the base
of the leaf
where it
diverges from
the stem.
ITEM 12.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 03/02/2023 Meeting Type: McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission
Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Community Services
Prepared by: Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
Staff Contact Information: Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
Request to McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission (Agenda Language): UPDATE:
Sonoran Conservancy Fountain Hills Liaison
Staff Summary (Background)
From the SCFH:
The SCFH updated and approved the current Board of Directors
All activities for March and April have been added to the Towns registration site
The SCFH received a presentation and submitted to the MMPC its response to the
proposal of two potential new trails
The SCFH Board inquired as to how ‘incidents’ in the Preserve, DBG and Lake Overlook
Trail are/should best be communicated between the Town and the SCFH .
Form Review
Form Started By: Patti Lopuszanski Started On: 02/15/2023 03:24 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/15/2023
ITEM 13.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 03/02/2023 Meeting Type: McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission
Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Community Services
Prepared by: Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
Staff Contact Information: Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
Request to McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission (Agenda Language): REVIEW AND
DISCUSSION: Trail Counter Activity
Staff Summary (Background)
Attachments
January 2023 Trail Counter Activity Report
Form Review
Form Started By: Patti Lopuszanski Started On: 02/15/2023 03:21 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/15/2023
2023 Trail Counter Activity
Botanical Garden Lake
Overlook
Andrews Kinsey/
Western Loop
Overlook/
Ridgeline
ACT
Promenade
ACT
Parking Total
January 1,606 7,320 4,123 2,814 12,997 9,621 38,481
February 0
March 0
April 0
May 0
June 0
July 0
August 0
September 0
October 0
November 0
December 0
Year Total 1,606 7,320 4,123 2,814 12,997 9,621 38,481
Red is estimated
ITEM 14.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 03/02/2023 Meeting Type: McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission
Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Community Services
Prepared by: Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
Staff Contact Information: Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
Request to McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission (Agenda Language): DISCUSSION
AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Future Agenda Items
Staff Summary (Background)
Form Review
Form Started By: Patti Lopuszanski Started On: 02/15/2023 03:20 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/15/2023
ITEM 15.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 03/02/2023 Meeting Type: McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission
Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Community Services
Prepared by: Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
Staff Contact Information: Patti Lopuszanski, Executive Assistant
Request to McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission (Agenda Language): UPDATE: Next
MMPC Meeting is March 28, 2023. Agenda items and attachments due by March 14, 2023 to be
included in the next meeting packet.
Staff Summary (Background)
Items for the March 28, 2023 meeting agenda will be due by March 14, 2023 to be included in the next
meeting packet.
Form Review
Form Started By: Patti Lopuszanski Started On: 02/15/2023 03:17 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/15/2023