Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013.1107.TCRM.Minutesz:\council packets\2013\r131121\131107m.docx Page 1 of 16
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE
FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 7, 2013
* CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Kavanagh called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Town Hall Council Chambers.
* INVOCATION – Mr. Fred Widom, Congregation Beth Hagivot
* ROLL CALL
Present for roll call were the following members of the Town Council: Mayor Kavanagh, Councilmember
Dickey, Councilmember Brown, Councilmember Yates, Vice Mayor Hansen, Councilmember Elkie, and
Councilmember Leger. Town Manager Ken Buchanan, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire and Town Clerk
Bevelyn J. Bender were also present.
* MAYOR’S REPORT
i) The Mayor may review recent events attended relating to economic development.
Mayor Kavanagh recognized and thanked the Citizens’ Road Bond Committee (Citizens for Saguaro) for a job
well done, which was headed by Mayor Jerry Miles and Mr. Bob Thompson and consisted of a very dedicated
group of volunteers. Their objective was to be transparent and relay the facts to the public so that the voters
could make an informed decision about the reconstruction of Saguaro Boulevard. She expressed appreciation
and commended the Committee’s hard work and dedication to the task, their personal time involvement and
commitment to helping out our Town.
Mayor Kavanagh recognized Town Attorney Andrew McGuire as the President of the Arizona Cities Municipal
Attorney Association (ACAA). She indicated that this association consists of all municipal attorneys in the state
(both in-house and attorneys representing cities and town on a contract). She commented that one of the
functions of the Cities Attorney Association is to discuss current municipal legal issues. She congratulated Mr.
McGuire on his election to the President of the ACAA.
ii) The Mayor will read a Proclamation declaring November 2013 McDowell Mountain Month.
Mayor Kavanagh read a Proclamation declaring November 2013 as McDowell Mountain Month (Proclamation
available on line and in the office of the Town Clerk).
The Mayor began with item (iii) under Scheduled Public Appearances/Presentations for the convenience of the
public attending the recognition of the Make A Difference Day Committee Member and vendors ; however,
items are listed in order on the agenda.
* SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS
i) Presentation by Deputy Town Manager Julie Ghetti regarding the Town's budget report for all
funds for the first quarter ending September 30, 2013.
Deputy Town Manager Julie Ghetti presented information provided in the PowerPoint (available on line and in
the office of the Town Clerk). She stated that this was the first quarterly report for the fiscal year that started on
July 1st. She discussed the following areas:
z:\council packets\2013\r131121\131107m.docx Page 2 of 16
Revenues by Fund: General Fund Revenue and State Shared Revenues
Local Sales Tax Collections: Retail Activity, Restaurant/Bar Activity, Telecommunications Activity,
and Construction Sales Tax Activity
General Fund Expenditures by Department
Other Funds: Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF)/Vehicle License Tax (VLT) Revenues
HURF Expenditures
Other Fund Expenditures
Ms. Ghetti reviewed that the General Fund was the Town’s main operating fund at 77% of total resources; the
other operating fund was the HURF and combined those two funds represent 90% of the total resources for the
Town. She stated that all funds in the General Fund were broken down into these categories and that the State
Shared Revenues equal the income tax and sales tax and that combined they equal 38% of the Town’s revenue
and with the local sales tax at 57% for a total of 95% of total revenues are from those sources. The other
includes those things such as program fees, licenses, court fees, permit fees, etc. She indicated that the local
sales tax for the first quarter was almost 4% higher than last year and it shows it as under budget because this is
a slow time of the year. Ms. Ghetti noted that usually we see a slow first quarter but then it picks up as the
seasonal residents come into community. She stated that State Share Revenues both income tax and sales tax
were higher than last year. The sales tax was 7% higher and the income tax was 9% higher. She pointed out
that regarding the local sales the increase over last year was about 3.7%, which was back to about the 2009
level. She indicated that revenues were typically slower in the first quarter but historically during the next two
quarters it picks up; at this time last year they were at 93% of the budget.
Ms. Ghetti discussed the retail activity of the local sales tax and stated that compared to last year it is up 3.4%,
percentage wise, it’s higher than the same period last year noting that last year the Town was at 78% and are
currently at 83%. Regarding Restaurant/Bar Activity, compared to last year they were up 5.8%, percentage wise
again, it’s slightly less than last year (79% of the budget) and this year they were at 77% for the quarter.
Regarding Transportation/Communications Utilities Activity, compared to last year it was slight less than 1%
higher and almost the exact percentage from last year. Construction Activity, compared to last year is up 50%
and she noted that it was hard to project because sales tax depends on the activity and that doesn’t always relate
to the building permits activity because it’s unknown when they come in to get a permit or when they are going
to construct it; it’s based on value (so it was hard to predict). However, she indicated that last year there were
four building permits and this past quarter there have been ten.
Ms. Ghetti continued with the General Fund Expenditures. She stated that each one of the pies represented a
department: Public Safety (Police & Fire) is 53% of the budget; Community Services includes the Parks and the
Community Center; Development Services includes Building Safety Zoning, Code Enforcement and Facilities.
Administration includes the Manager, Finance, Clerk, HR, IT, and Volunteer Program for a total expenditure of
about $3M, which was about 89% of the budget for the quarter. She briefly discussed the other funds noting
that the Town has about 25 separate funds and except for the General Fund, all of other funds are restricted for a
specific purpose. She commented that HURF gets revenue from two primary sources: HURF Revenues that are
shared from the State, and the other, which is new this year, the Vehicle License Tax (VLT) and this was going
into the HURF Fund for Pavement Management. She pointed out that last year at this time the VLT was $186K
and this quarter it is $205K. She proceeded to discuss HURF Expenditures and pointed out that 78% of the
HURF Revenue is dedicated to the Pavement Management Program and the revenue for the quarter was about
$500K but the expenditures are about $900K and that was because they were using reserves (doing the
Pavement Management Program really early on in the year and as the year goes on, the revenue from the other
sources will catch up to it). She discussed that the restricted funds and revenue sources are from grants, bond
proceeds and dedicated sales tax; she reiterated they were dedicated for a specific purpose. She discussed the
chart showing the expenditures for those restricted funds and noting that some showed no expenditures because
those are debt payments that aren’t –paid until December.
z:\council packets\2013\r131121\131107m.docx Page 3 of 16
Ms. Ghetti summarized that fund balances remain healthy for all funds; the General Fund Revenues are slightly
lower (2%) than last fiscal year and 10% under budget; the General Fund Expenditures were 6% under budget;
Pavement Management remains a priority and will be funded through the HURF and Vehicular License Tax
Revenues; and local economic indicators remain positive (retail and restaurant activity). She stated the last slide
showed the fund balances and noted that all were invested in Government Securities and none were at risk. She
said $7M was in the local Government Investment Pool and $15M was with PFM Asset. She indicated her
willingness to answer any questions.
ii) Recognition of the Town of Fountain Hills received, for the 12th consecutive year, the Distinguished
Budget Presentation Award for Fiscal Year 2012/13 from the Government Finance Officers
Association (GFOA). Deputy Town Manager/Finance Director Julie Ghetti, MPA, CPA, received
the Certificate of Recognition for Budget Preparation from the GFOA as the individual instrumental
in their government unit achieving a Distinguished Budget Presentation Award.
Mayor Kavanagh recognized Deputy Town Manager Julie Ghetti and her staff for receipt of the Town’s 12th
GFOA’s Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for Fiscal Year 2012/13.
Town Manager Ken Buchanan stated they don’t give these away they have to be earned and the Town has
earned them for twelve straight years. He stated that was something to really be proud of especially with Julie
and her staff.
iii) Recognition of the Make a Difference Day Committee Members and vendors
Councilmember Yates stated that the Town recently held its 5th Annual Make a Difference Day where residents
in need of assistance with household tasks, cleaning up, landscaping, painting, installing doors, building a
wheelchair ramp, and may other projects were provided help that was carried out by just under 300 volunteers.
He said it was truly a morning of neighbor helping neighbor, which is one of the reasons that Fountain Hills is
such a terrific place to live. People care and look after one another. This event requires a community of
volunteers and donors in order to be successful. He shared what his group accomplished that day by painting the
Town green.
Mayor Kavanagh stated the Council wanted to recognize and give thanks to the vendors who gave their services
and donations for Make A Difference Day: Artistic Land Management, AZCO Landscape, Father & Son Carpet
and Tile Cleaning, Fountain Hills Cleaning Services, Home Depot, Paul’s Ace Hardware, Professional
Maintenance Service, Republic Services, Robert Weidman, Roman Empire, Starbucks, Target, Wall Works, 1st
Class AZ, and Fountain Hills Construction Clean-up. The Town is grateful for their generosity of time and
service.
Mayor Kavanagh stated they wanted to acknowledge the commitment and planning that goes into this detailed
event by recognizing the Make a Diffe5rence Day Planning Committee. These volunteers spent hours during
the past several months visiting prospective projects, talking with homeowners, finding professional vendors,
locating tools and supplies, and coordinating projects that morning. Certificates of appreciations were
distributed to: Don Zurek, Sandy Larson, Ken Thornton, Lisa Kern, Nita Blose, Nan Norton, Boyce Baldwin, Jo
Nelson, Tom Lawrence, Paul Appledorn, and Mike Ciccarone, which was followed by a group picture being
taken by the Times reporter Bob Burns.
Mayor Kavanagh expressed thanks to everyone for helping to make the community stronger through the Make a
Difference Day.
CALL TO THE PUBLIC
None.
z:\council packets\2013\r131121\131107m.docx Page 4 of 16
CONSENT AGENDA
AGENDA ITEM #1 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 3 AND 17, 2013.
AGENDA ITEM #2 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A PERMANENT EXTENSION OF
PREMISE LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY CHRISTINA KARP, DBA JIMMY'S,
16758 GLENBROOK BLVD., FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ 85268.
AGENDA ITEM #3 – CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY RANDY D. NATIONS, OWNER/AGENT OF WICKED 6 BAR & GRILL, LLC.,
LOCATED AT 13100 N. SUNRIDGE DRIVE, FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ. THIS IS FOR A SERIES 6
LICENSE (BAR).
Councilmember Yates MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda as listed and Councilmember Brown
SECONDED the motion.
There were no citizens wishing to speak on these agenda items.
A roll call vote was taken as follows:
Councilmember Dickey Aye
Councilmember Elkie Aye
Councilmember Leger Aye
Vice Mayor Hansen Aye
Councilmember Yates Aye
Councilmember Brown Aye
Mayor Kavanagh Aye
The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
REGULAR AGENDA
AGENDA ITEM #4 - DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE COUNCIL DIRECTION REGARDING
TERMINATING THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FOUNTAIN
HILLS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS.
Town Manager Ken Buchanan addressed the Council stating the Town of Fountain Hills approved a
professional service agreement with the Fountain Hills Chamber of Commerce during the 2013/14 annual
budget process this past June in the amount of $103,000. He acknowledged that a letter was submitted
requesting termination of the agreement by the Chamber effective December 31, 2013. Termination of the
agreement requires that it be mutual so the Town Council needs to move to accept termination of this
agreement. He stated that staff would carry it forward should the Council agree to terminate the contract with
the necessary paperwork to effectively complete the termination of the agreement itself.
There were no citizens wishing to speak on these agenda items.
Councilmember Yates asked if there was an accounting of how much has been spent to date, what the carryover
balance was, and what contracts were still in place.
Town Manager Buchanan responded that was discussed with their CEO and they felt that the termination should
be December 31 because they still had the transition period to close those out to ensure that the y can get the
accounting of those funds as well.
z:\council packets\2013\r131121\131107m.docx Page 5 of 16
Councilmember Yates questioned if there were annual contracts that might carryover and Mr. Buchanan
responded yes. He indicated that they would need to be brought back to the Council for discussion as they go
through the transition.
Councilmember Elkie asked if the contracts that were entered into on behalf of the Town’s contract with the
Chamber poised any obligation for the Town with respect to those contracts. Town Attorney McGuire
responded that they had not seen any of the contracts to know the terms and indicated and that they would be
looking into whether or not the Town will continue those. He stated there couldn’t be any obliga tion currently
existing but they may want to take assignment of some of those if they need to continue.
Councilmember Elkie asked when this item would be back before the Council regarding the website. Mr.
Buchanan stated that was one thing they were looking at and they had put together an outline so that the
Chamber and the Town could start reviewing items to be brought back to the Council as they knew more
information, which would be over the 60-day period.
Councilmember Dickey stated that as the Town moves forward looking for an Economic Development person
and not knowing exactly how that would go, she asked if this was a big determining factor in what we would be
looking for. Mr. Buchanan said that was one of the issues that would need to be discussed with the Council in
the future.
Councilmember Leger MOVED to terminate the professional service agreement as requested by the Fountain
Hills Chamber of Commerce and to direct the Town Manager to implement the transition program and
Councilmember Dickey SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
AGENDA ITEM #5 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2013-26, APPROVING THE TOWN OF
FOUNTAIN HILLS ARIZONA TOWN COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE, AMENDED AND
RESTATED NOVEMBER 7, 2013.
Town Manager Buchanan addressed the Council relative to this item. He stated the Mayor and Council last
approved revisions to the Council Rules of Procedure in July 2009. The Council indicated an interest in a
shorter and more streamlined application process for incumbent Commission and Board applicants. As a result
staff incorporated that process into the document and has also worked with the Town Attorney to complete a
comprehensive review for the purpose of term standardization, removing redundancy and provid ing additional
clarification where appropriate, as well as for any necessary text revisions to mirror current practices and
processes. He stated there were approximately 18 items that were highlighted in the report but there were many
more. He indicated that he, the Town Clerk, or Town Attorney would be happy to address any questions the
Council may have. He stated that staff was seeking approval of the Council Rules of Procedure tonight;
however, if there are any revisions the Council wants to see other that what was being recommended staff asked
that they be vetted tonight and then the document would be brought back at a future meeting for approval.
There were no citizens wishing to speak on these agenda items.
Councilmember Dickey stated she had a general question regarding the inclusion of committees to be subjected
to all of these written rules. She indicated that she had thought back to prior committees and she wanted to bring
that up as the Council has spoken about commissions and the need for staff, minutes, and all the things that have
to happen when we have these types of meetings. She asked if there would be or is there a definition of
“committees” where maybe if it’s an ad hoc committee or something like that where they wouldn’t have all of
these stipulations. Town Attorney McGuire said that the ones listed in the Council Rules are the ones that we
are typically talking about (the standing committees); however, that doesn’t mean that if there is an official
subcommittee appointed by the Council that’s more of an ad hoc committee, they’ll still be governed by all of
the Rules of Procedure and the Open Meeting Law as long as it’s an official appointed committee of the
Council. He stated the intent was for the ones that are listed here; if it’s an ad hoc committee he doubted they
z:\council packets\2013\r131121\131107m.docx Page 6 of 16
would be going through this formal procedure, but the idea was to standardize what everyone was doing, which
was the overall theme in the revisions.
Councilmember Dickey indicated she had other questions. She asked about the agenda item that lets a
Councilmember add an agenda item for the next time. She stated they’ve had discussion about that in the past
(4.2.B). She asked for clarification and gave the example someone saying at the end of this meeting I would
like an item added about the fountain, the lake or fill in the blank, or she questioned if it is a two step process.
She indicated that in the past you had to go ahead of time and then it would be written in the agenda and then
you would have the feeling whether it was Okay with everybody that it would be on an agenda. She asked for
clarification if that could be done at the meeting; could it be added today.
Mr. McGuire responded the Council was not allowed to discuss, as a group, anything that is not properly
agendized 24 hours in advance. He clarified that the item was not for the purpose of introducing something at
that point (at the meeting). He said that the reason that the item exists is because when you have a process that
requires three Councilmembers or the Mayor or the Manager to put something on the agenda there is always a
chance that someone could be disenfranchised if there were only two members or one member. He said that
agenda item was intended for a Councilmember to be able to be put on the agenda for discussion of whether or
not there was sufficient support by the Council to give it the time and energy necessary to go forward. It was
meant to be a vetting process to ensure that before things are on the agenda that there is sufficient support from
all of the Council before the Town’s limited staff goes out and does the work necessary to properly present it.
He said that was the idea, if only one person was in support of something and two other members weren’t even
saying yes to put it on the agenda, then there was still a place for that item where they could rally support for the
item to try and get it placed on a future agenda fully vetted with the staff report and everything else.
Councilmember Dickey asked if you can actually do that at the time of the meeting knowing you can’t discuss it
but you can try to convince; she asked for an example. Mr. McGuire said it would not occur at the ti me of the
meeting as the requirement still exists that it must be on the agenda 24 hours in advance. He reiterated that was
an absolute requirement for anything that the Council will discuss and the reason for during the Call to the
Public that the Council was not allowed to have a discussion with the person who comes to the microphone,
because there was no way to agendize that; there was no way for a person picking up the agenda to know what
the Council would talk about. This item allows for discussion of it just for the purpose of asking if the Council
wants to put this on a later agenda. He said it was meant to prevent someone from being completely
disenfranchised if they were the lone vote on the Council.
Councilmember Dickey referred to Page 11, Section 5.2.D, regarding the Regular Meeting and the Call to the
Public. She expressed the opinion it felt like at the Call to the Public somebody would add if they didn’t want to
speak they would say for or against. It’s a non-agenda item, and she asked why would you say if you are for or
against.
Town Clerk Bender explained that would occur when a group of people came to talk on the same thing. If there
were a number of cards submitted where they wanted to say they are for or against something and they aren’t
willing to speak, then a total accounting would be given on whatever the topic was, as listed. Mayor Kavanagh
said it would be like when the cards are counted and they don’t want to speak but 10 are for and 5 against the
issue; just so the Council is aware. Mr. McGuire stated the two words “proposed agenda” were causing issues
and it read “relating to the item as indicated on the card” it made more sense for the Call.
Councilmember Dickey asked questions about Item “C” regarding a Councilmember’s use of the Scheduled
Public Appearances/Presentations Section to provide an update on official activities as listed on the posted
agenda. She asked what the “as listed on the posted agenda” meant.
z:\council packets\2013\r131121\131107m.docx Page 7 of 16
Ms. Bender responded that sometimes there are those meetings/activities that Councilmembers attend and they
may want to give the public advance notice of their update. This gives Councilmembers the opportunity to list it
for public awareness and they may come out for that presentation.
Councilmember Dickey asked questions about Item “E.4”, and Mr. McGuire indicated that was should have
been D.4.Councilmember Dickey asked the Town Attorney if they weren’t going to be able amend amendments
anymore because it was too confusing to do. Mr. McGuire said that was actually something that has been part
of the practice for quite a long time and it’s now being put in writing. He explained that the Council votes on
what’s on the floor and then you amend it after that instead of amending an amendment ; he stated that this was
in line with the rules of order that the Council has adopted by default and it’s just now making it clear that this is
how it works.
Vice Mayor Hansen indicated she had additional questions and that some were out of curiosity. Sh e stated she
was using the redline version so she would provide page numbers as reference points as it was quicker. She
referred to Page 1, a sentence was added to 1.2, and she was curious as to the reason. It says that if the Mayor
and the Vice Mayor were both gone, and if a majority of the Councilmember present are unable to agree on a
Presiding Officer for the meeting, the meeting shall automatically be adjourned. It made it sound like they were
kind of dysfunctional and that five people couldn’t decide on someone to run the meeting. Mr. McGuire said
that was exactly the reason for it because if the group present could not decide who would chair the meeting,
maybe it was not the best time to have a Council meeting that night. He indicated that he had seen that happen
one time so that was the reason for this provision. He commented that sadly all of the things in the document
were experience based.
Vice Mayor Hansen referred to Page 6, regarding the three Council people and indicated she had brought that up
before and thinks it’s cumbersome and she wished they didn’t have that ; however, it is what it is. She
referenced Page 6 where it says the Town Manager or his authorized designee shall prepare the agenda, so he
was in charge of doing that, and then on Page 7, it was added that if somebody wants to schedule a public
appearance, they would submit an application to the Town Manager and adding the Mayor and she questioned
why we were adding another level.
Ms. Bender reiterated that the document hadn’t been updated since 2009 and this was an item had been tracked
as something that had bothered past Councilmembers. At one point in time they didn’t like idea of the Manager
being the one who was able to decide if an item from the public was to be placed on the agenda and they had
asked it to be a two part process, where the Manager and the Mayor approved it. She indicated that it could be
removed if the Council did not want that. Vice Mayor Hansen said it almost sets the scenario to what if there
was one or two other Councilmembers who wanted to see this presentation. Discussion ensued on the rule of
three and how a possible disagreement scenario between the Manager and the Mayor would play out. Mr.
McGuire confirmed that if there was a disagreement between the Manager and the Mayor regarding putting an
item on the agenda, the Mayor would still be able to add the item.
Councilmember Elkie questioned the need for that additional level, if the Mayor had the ability to put it on any
way, as well as three Councilmembers could. He noted that since there is the appeal process for citizens they
can get to the Mayor or three Councilmembers anyway. Ms. Bender stated this was a policy decision for the
Council to decide and noted that it was one of the items that had been requested in the past.
Mayor Kavanagh commented that as she read through a lot of the changes it seemed like they were a lot of
things that they had been doing any way and this was just actually writing down what we had been doing. Ms.
Bender concurred.
Councilmember Leger said that was one he had checked off. He referred to a comment by the Town Attorney,
where the Mayor had the authority to put something on the agenda. He acknowledged that was part of the
policy and he agreed with that; however, looking at this, this was determining that something should not go on
z:\council packets\2013\r131121\131107m.docx Page 8 of 16
the agenda and he stated the opinion that was different than putting something on the agenda. He expressed his
concerns for process on this and stated that on A, it says submission to the Town Manager and the Mayor and
then it comes to B, if the Town Manager and the Mayor can agree to take something off the agenda he said that
as a Councilmember he would not be aware that it was taken off the agenda because he hadn’t been part of that
agenda. Therefore, it would be hard to lobby two other Councilmembers to have it put on the agenda. He stated
his preference was for having the Town Manager make that decision. He stated that if you get someone from a
political body making that decision he was concerned, and he meant no disrespect to the Mayor, but indicated
that he had seen this happen in the past; this could become political. Councilmember Leger advocated that it
was academic having that there as it creates confusion and he proposed it should be removed. If that was not
removed, he suggested that A read as follows with respect to the Public Appearance Presentation Forms, “when
completed return to the Town Clerk for submission to the Town Manager and all Councilmembers.” He stated
that if it remains that the Town Manager and the Mayor make the decision to determine if it’s on the agenda or
not that would be fine with him; however, he wanted to be in the loop, as there would be no way for him to
know someone approached whomever through this presentation form and a decision was made. He stated he
would not be able to initiate the process to get it back on. He did not feel it was necessary, it has worked well
without that statement, and if that statement is in there, it presents a due process issue for him.
Mr. McGuire stated there were two ways to handle this. Have the language revert back to what it was, which
means that if someone was rejected by the Town Manager they would have the opportunity to have the request
forwarded to the Mayor for consideration or obtain the permission of three Councilmembers (the way it was
written before); or just add the language that Councilmember Leger added to say “and all Councilmembers”,
which means that the notification would happen and then the language below would eliminate the due process
problem. He indicated that either option addresses the concern without changing the process that has been used
and that he would be fine either way.
Councilmember Elkie pointed out they did not need to reinvent things and making the language “if the Town
Manger determines that the subject should not be placed on the agenda, an individual wishing to add an item to
the agendas under the Scheduled Public Appearance may”, and then leave subsection (i) in there where the
request could be forwarded the Mayor for consideration or to three Councilmembers, which makes it easier and
eliminates the need for the extra language.
Mr. McGuire verified that the language would revert back to what we had previously and Councilmember Elkie
said that would be his recommendation.
Vice Mayor Hansen asked how they should handle proposed changes to the document (make a list of those
items that there was consensus on or was something more formal needed). Mr. McGuire indicated that after the
Council finished their recommended changes he would address them to see if there was consensus.
Vice Mayor Hansen continued on to page 10, regarding Scheduled Public Appearances and Presentations. She
indicated she would like to see if they could either limit the presentations or have better control over the time
allotted. She made the observation that there had been occasions where a regular meeting didn’t start until 7:30.
She stated the opinion that for any of the public that comes for something on the business part of the agenda
they may have an hour presentation to sit through; it seems like there should be better handle on that so the
public would know what to expect. She suggested that depending on what the presentations were perhaps the
meeting could even be started earlier for presentations like what was done for special meetings. She said she
was throwing that out there to see if anyone else had any thoughts as it sometimes feels like the presentations go
way into the meeting.
Mayor Kavanagh said if someone has to do a PowerPoint it would be even longer but it was probably going to
be really interesting and that everyone watching would want to see it as opposed to having someone doing a
simple presentation. She stated the opinion that it would be hard to limit all presentations to a specific amount
of time.
z:\council packets\2013\r131121\131107m.docx Page 9 of 16
Vice Mayor Hansen responded that perhaps the number of presentations could be limited per meeting so that a
calendar could be established. She acknowledged that some presentations are shorter but there were those that
were longer.
Mayor Kavanagh stated that sometimes we run out of months with all the presentations (regular updates by the
utilities, GPEC, MAG, etc) and that sometimes it’s difficult to have enough meetings to get everyone in. She
stated that lately that was why there had been two and three presentations. She acknowledged that she liked to
do presentations whenever there was a staff award. Vice Mayor Hansen interjected that those were gen erally
short.
Mayor Kavanagh asked the Vice Mayor what she was suggesting. Vice Mayor Hansen said she was looking to
ascertain if anyone else felt the same way as it seemed like the presentations were too long all together. Mayor
Kavanagh said that the Town Clerk looks at the presentations when they come up and tries to look at the whole
calendar and to put them out as best she can. Sometimes there are quite a few and that might been dropping
some off. She did not have a problem with generally looking at it although she wasn’t sure she wanted to set
exactly how many they would have.
Ms. Bender asked if the Council wanted to consider limiting the time allowed for presentations overall
(example: 20 minutes for that section) with staff figuring out how many would fit into that section per meeting.
Mayor Kavanagh suggested that then there could be a rotation of those with PowerPoint Presentations as
opposed to who has a simple presentation. Vice Mayor Hansen reiterated that she wanted to make t hat section a
little tighter.
Councilmember Elkie stated he liked the Town Clerk’s suggestion but proposed utilizing the first 30 minutes for
all presentations; he agreed some presentation did run a little long. He stated that it might be helpful for staff to
have the ability to limit time so speakers know how long their presentation can be. He said this could be fluid
and not hard and fast with approximately 10 minutes max for the presentation (even if it’s a PowerPoint
presentation) so the Council could proceed with their regular meeting. He reiterated that he agreed with the
Vice Mayor.
Councilmember Leger said that his intent was not to be arbitrary but that he has had history with this as they
have run into this before. In terms managing the time, you’ll have some say I only had 10 minutes and that
person two weeks ago had 15 minutes, particularly with large groups. Historically, he said we’ve used 15
minutes as the cap for a presentation and encouraged them to do those in 10 minutes. He noted that the
presentations that they’ve heard recently have gone on for 20 minutes. He said that was not an issue as he did
not want to shut people down; however, if we have that presentation ahead of time in the packet, the Council
sees the bulk of the information and he stated the opinion that someone needs to market their scenario in 10 or
15 minutes. He noted that if we start regulating times, that has come back to haunt us. He stated the opinion
that managing the number of presentations is part of the issue; he felt that 10 – 15 minutes should work.
Mayor Kavanagh expressed concern for presentations such as Cox Communications or from someone like
GPEC; they come all the way down here to make their case and we say you only have 10 minutes. She stated
that the way the Town Clerk works it now is to look at the whole year as she tries to put in some longer ones
with some of the shorter ones, and if it’s a longer presentation, sometimes that’s the only one that’s there. She
indicated that she would rather just look at it and try to work through it in-house rather than make a fast rule that
said you can’t go over this amount of time. She stated she did not want to shut anyone down; especially if it’s a
citizen presentation, so everyone who does a presentation feels that they are satisfied with the amount of time
and that it was reasonable.
Mr. McGuire stated that a lot of the items in the Council Rules are guidelines , more than hard and fast rules. He
offered that perhaps this should be one of those provisions that is a “shall endeavor”, the Manager shall
z:\council packets\2013\r131121\131107m.docx Page 10 of 16
endeavor to schedule presentations that are limited to 15 minutes for individuals and 30 minutes collectively for
any Council meeting.
Vice Mayor Hansen commented on the example provided regarding GPEC. She stated if they came to make the
case to stay in the Town’s budget, the time for them to come would be during the budget meetings rather than
during the year.
Councilmember Elkie suggested 10 minutes for the meetings. He agreed with the Town Attorney’s
recommendation of the phrase “shall endeavor” as that gives staff, the Town Manager and Town Clerk the
opportunity to say that is what the Council would like to have happen and carrie s some force; if they want to ask
for additional time, certainly consulting with the Town Manager and Town Clerk he felt confident they could
make the decision. He reiterated that 10 minutes to make the presentation was more than enough time. If they
need additional time due to a particularly onerous subject, that then perhaps they could ask for the additional
time in that situation.
Councilmember Lager said he was on board for either 10 or 15 minutes. As stated before he did not want to be
arbitrary or to shut anyone down, but he stated the way the Town Attorney has suggested offered the flexibility
to the Chair and that works out. He agreed the GPEC presentation was excruciatingly long (about 30 minutes),
there was stuff in there that could’ve been reviewed by the Council on-line, and basically it was a marketing
presentation that he did not think was necessary. He concurred with the Town Attorney’s suggestion.
Vice Mayor Hansen continued with a change to page 13, 4th line down, after the word “included” she indicated
that a preposition was needed. Mr. McGuire said the Peg Tibbett’s change was duly noted.
Vice Mayor Hansen referred to page 18, Section 6.6.A.1, regarding removing the need for people to give their
address. She requested that on the agenda under the “Procedure for Addressing the Council” that the
requirement be added for speakers to not give their residential address so that they would know. Perhaps then
the Mayor would not have to remind them to not give their street address.
Vice Mayor Hansen referred to page 23, Section 7.9, regarding the non-statutory conflicts of interest. She stated
the last sentence was being removed and after reading the new last sentence she indicated that the paragraph had
left her wondering if it wasn’t a statutory reason, but the Council was suppose to be fairly diligent, how do they
know if they are to declare or not. She wondered if there shouldn’t be a final sentence that would give direction
on how they were suppose to decide, since it says they were suppose to vote on every issue. She stated that if
they feel they have a little conflict, and it’s not statutory and there was a gray area, should we or should we not
declare a conflict or vote.
Mr. McGuire responded that the deletion was to remove a redundancy as it already existed in another area so
there wasn’t intent to change anything. In practice what has been done, if you (a Councilmember) think it’s
even close or are uncomfortable declare it, as we’ve probably talked about it before the meeting and I will have
told you that it is or it is not a conflict. If it is not, you can still say I’m not going to vote and then know what’s
going to happen with your vote and then refrain from participating. He added that if it’s a non-statutory conflict,
the rules encourage you to vote.
The Vice Mayor stated that she could see the issue that when something comes up someone might say I have a
conflict of interest because they didn’t really want to vote on that particular thing. Mr. McGuire stated that was
really what the rules were intended do, which was to prevent folks from just abstaining from a vote that was
uncomfortable.
Vice Mayor Hansen referred to page 25, Code of Ethics. She stated that over the years there have been concerns
expressed that this doesn’t have any teeth in it. She noted that the procedural rules tell us how to do things, but
this is the one section where it doesn’t tell us what to do. She offered the scenario of if there were
z:\council packets\2013\r131121\131107m.docx Page 11 of 16
Councilmembers that felt they had a problem but they didn’t know what to do about it; however, she noted that
this section does give any idea of what could possibly be done if they felt someone had stepped over a line
somewhere.
Mr. McGuire responded that there are a number different things that play into this and referred to a time when
there had been a request to censor amongst the Councilmembers several Mayors ago. He stated that at that time
they had gone through the process of trying to determine what authority the Council had to censor one another.
The conclusion was that the Council did not have much and that the only authority to censor was with the
voters, which is in the power of Recall or the ballot box if up for election. Mr. McGuire stated that when this
section came up the first time they had tried to stay away from any “what do we do next” provisions because no
one likes the answer to that question as there wasn’t really any authority to do much. He acknowledged that this
question has come up in other communities, even in charter cities, and unless it is built into the charter that there
is a specific censor that the voters have given, you don’t even have authority there. He noted that Scottsdale had
amended their charter on this provision after the Town had had that discussion. Mr. McGuire summarized that it
was intentional that it’s not there because the Council did not really have anything that they could do. He stated
that from past experience the Council can talk about it, there is the public discussion and that turns out to be the
kind of censorship that the Council has the authority to do.
Vice Mayor Hansen continued and referred to page 29, Advertisement Contents under #8. She suggested its
removal as that action was previously done when the Council had conducted interviews in conjunction with their
regularly scheduled Council meetings so you had a pretty good idea when those dates would be. She noted that
now that it’s done with the committees, it is very flexible, and it can be whenever the Councilmembers are
available.
Mayor Kavanagh agreed that if it wasn’t used it could be taken out. It appeared everyone was in agreement as
there were any further comments on this section from the Council.
The Vice Mayor moved on to page 32, under Removal of Commissioners or Boardmembers, where is says that
Councilmembers may remove them “for any reason”. She discussed the removal of the word “reasonable” and
expressed that with the removal it was very general and asked if there was any way to add a little bit of direction
so people know what actions could cause their removal “for cause”. Mr. McGuire said this was one of those
areas where the experience has been that Councils want to go in the other direction and have given him direction
in other communities to remove the word “reasonable”. He explained that if four Councilmembers come to a
meeting and decide its removal time for someone a lot of times it’s uncomfortable and they really don’t want to
say and they would rather come to the meeting with their four together and say “your done”. He compared it to
and gave the example of a Town Attorney’s removal from Town representation. He stated the opinion that was
not necessarily meant to not tell someone why they were removed from cause but it was a way to spare them
embarrassment for being removed “for cause”. He noted that was how it came up in the two other
circumstances he was aware of and Councilmembers had told him they did not ever want to go through that
again and asked that the word be removed. Therefore, the removal was carried through to this document as
well.
Mayor Kavanagh asked if it could be used the other way where someone could be removed without actually
giving a cause and maybe that’s not justified as maybe they don’t have a good cause. Mr. McGuire responded
that the majority of the Council appoints and can remove; there really wasn’t any hindrance on that under State
law or otherwise and creating cause was something that was up to the Council’s discretion. He stated that he
was relaying why the change was made. Mayor Kavanagh agreed she could see the Vice Mayor’s point.
Vice Mayor Hansen continued and asked about the residency requirements for the Boards and Commissions and
noted that only the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of Adjustment had the requirement to be
residents of the Town. The others say they should be residents but they don’t have to be. She indicated that
z:\council packets\2013\r131121\131107m.docx Page 12 of 16
there wasn’t a change there but in reading through she wondered why everybody wouldn’t be required to be a
resident.
Mayor Kavanagh indicated she too had marked that item for discussion. Mr. Buchanan responded that it was at
the Council’s discretion.
Vice Mayor Hansen asked if there had been a reason for that at one point in time. Mr. McGuire said this
provision came from either Goodyear or Avondale as they have really large areas of unincorporated areas but
that are surrounded by the municipality and there were those people who had a vested interest in the community
but didn’t have a way of participating if they weren’t residents. Therefore, they were open to allowing those
people to participate in small numbers to provide input as they thought it was valuable (although never a
majority). It was really wasn’t intended as crafted for Fountain Hills circumstances because the Town doesn’t
have that group of folks.
The Vice Mayor stated the opinion that the appointed people should be residents and noted that there was a
provision that they could have an additional person help serve on the committee or commission and they just
wouldn’t vote if they had any kind of situation like that. She stated it was a good idea that they need to be
residents.
Mayor Kavanagh agreed with the Vice Mayor.
Councilmember Yates stated that if there was a unique situation where someone has a certain amount of
expertise in a certain field and has an interest in this (whether it was valley or state-wide) he would enjoy having
someone like that at the table on one of these boards. Although he concurred having a vested interest is more
important than anything but sometimes on some of the boards it would be advantageous having someone like
that at the table. He referenced when going through the numerous sign meetings that there was theoretically an
expert in attendance who was in that industry (which turned out they wanted to sell signs) who had had some
facts and figures that were helpful to that group. He suggested it was “food for thought”.
Mayor Kavanagh said that you could still be on in an advisory capacity but then agreed that only residents really
should be the ones that vote. Councilmember Yates indicated he conceded.
Councilmember Leger stated that if everyone was done with the specific changes on procedure he had kind of a
general question. He stated that the Council had rules of decorum and it’s clearly stated in their revised policy
that during the call to the public or agenda items that residents address the presiding officer. That meant they
were directing comments through the Mayor and not specifically directing angst with a specific Councilmember
or calling out a particular Councilmember. He commented that that has occurred in the past, more so in the past
than the recent past. What has occurred is that there is dialogue going back and forth between the dais and the
public in the audience, getting into to kind of a debate type of scenarios where the person has had their three
minutes or however long given (and the Mayor is very gracious with the time), and then it gets into a debate. As
a group facilitator he stated he did not have an issue with that but noted that it violates rules of de corum. He
asked the Town Attorney that when those incidents occur (and they have occurred) is it the parliamentarian’s
responsibility to bring things back to order or is it the presiding officer’s because there has been incidents where
things were not being brought to order.
Mr. McGuire confirmed that the parliamentarian’s job was to interpret questions of order as they come up but
running the meetings was through the chair, whoever that is whether that is the Mayor or the Committee Chair
and stated the opinion that they have the job of enforcing the rules because someone who is not elected should
not. If the rule is violated by a Councilmember, he (as the parliamentarian) shouldn’t be the one telling you all
it’s a problem unless there was a legal problem with it.
z:\council packets\2013\r131121\131107m.docx Page 13 of 16
Councilmember Leger expressed his appreciation for the clarification. He stated then clearly that it is the
presiding officer’s responsibility to bring the meeting back to order. He questioned that if for some reason the
presiding officer is not doing that, can a Council person step up and mention that we have an issue with the rules
of order. He asked if it is appropriate to do so, as long as that Council person is addressing the presiding officer
when doing so.
Mayor Kavanagh stated that she has never had a problem maintaining order and she does like to exercise her
discretion when it comes to the citizens to give them the opportunity to express themselves. If people start
debates she can ask them to quiet down but she certainly like s to give everyone the opportunity to express
themselves. She did not want to start telling residents what they can and cannot say. At this meeting she gives
everyone the opportunity to express however they would like to as long as they are not being rude or unruly in
any way. She stated she would not stop people from debating or however they want to express themselves. She
said that some people get excited when they get up to the podium and she indicated she could tell when someone
is nervous and they have a hard time expressing themselves. She stated she liked to be patient and to let them
make their point. She stated the opinion that when you stop people from making their point because you think
they are being too loud or they are not expressing it they way you would want to that makes the resident feel that
the Council is not listening to them. She reiterated that she has never had a problem with a resident out of
control.
Councilmember Leger said that was not his statement. He reiterated that he has observed rules of order being
violated while she has been Mayor. He indicated that he had wanted to know if he could step in and say that
there is an issue with that because there clearly has been and he could go back on video tape and indicate when
someone has come up to speak and they’ve put their piece in and the Council has had their discussion and then
they are then debating with the Council from the audience. Councilmember Leger stated that by no means was
he saying that he wanted to shut anyone down; he was stating that the Council has rules of decorum and they
were either going to follow them or not. He stated there have been times when people have come up, while
Mayor Kavanagh has been Mayor, that have read a statement directed at a specific Councilmember and that
person was not directing comments through the Mayor and should have been and that wasn’t corrected. He
reiterated that this was not about shutting anyone down as he was a firm believer in high involvement
governance and that he was trying to clarify what his role was as a Councilmember when he observes that.
Councilmember Leger stated that the Town Attorney has clearly said that a Councilmember can make the Chair
aware of that situation and he restated that was not shutting the Mayor or the public down.
Mayor Kavanagh indicated that she has had that discussion with the Town Attorney before and she did have
quite a bit of discretion on certain issues when people come up to speak, such as time wise and other issues and
she indicated that she will continue to do that to give every resident the opportunity to express themselves
however they feel that it is necessary to do so as long as they are not being unruly and they come up to the
podium. She stated that she has quieted people down in the audience on both sides of issues and when people
started clapping. She said she tried to do so in a gentle way because people do get emotional about situations
and by shutting people down it just tends to incite the issue rather than to calm it.
Councilmember Leger commented that if the rules of decorum are read it states specifically how a presiding
officer should deal with situations. If in fact that was the way the Mayor wanted to write the rules of decorum
regarding that then they needed to change some things. He noted that people needed to come through the Chair;
they can criticize the Town Attorney through the Chair, they can criticize him through the Chair but that has not
happened. He said that when the presiding officer gives someone pe rmission to start talking back and forth
from the audience that is certainly not part of their rules of decorum. He stated the opinion that regarding
discretion if the Mayor chooses to invite them back to the podium to say more, that’s fine. He said he was
pointing out that there has been dialogue going back and forth and that every time this has been commented on
the Mayor seems to go off on a tangent and put words in his mouth. He indicated that he was respectfully
saying that in reading the rules of decorum, they have been violated, and if the Mayor wasn’t comfortable with it
then the rules of decorum need to be changed.
z:\council packets\2013\r131121\131107m.docx Page 14 of 16
Mayor Kavanagh reiterated that she has a certain amount of discretion in running the meeting and she will
continue to run the meeting in the best way she can to give every resident the right to say whatever they want to
say as long as they are not being unruly or rude to anyone. She stated that if they want to make a statement that
sounds rude to somebody and it’s interpreted that way the resident still has the right to come up and say
something.
Councilmember Leger said that was not what he was saying. In the past when he noticed that someone was out
of order with respect to the Council’s rules of decorum, which is our policy that he did not write, then he will
certainly bring it to the Chair’s attention.
Mayor Kavanagh asked if there were any other comments related to item being discussed. She asked the Town
Attorney if he wanted to sum up the changes.
Mr. McGuire indicated that he needed clarification and direction on Section 4.2.B.4. He said there were two
different ways to go. One way was to add the language “all Councilmembers” in Subsection A or revert back
subparagraphs A & B to their original form. He commented that either way was fine.
Councilmember Yates stated that from the discussion it sounded like the Council preferred to put it back the
way it was as opposed to adding more language. Councilmember Brown concurred.
Mr. McGuire recapped the proposed changes he heard noting that a motion could be made to include the
changes. He stated the changes as follows: the reversion of Section 4.2.B to the original language and
subsections A & B; Section 5.2.C, provide additional language that the Town Manager shall endeavor to limit
the total time for such presentation to 10 minutes individually or 30 minutes per Council meeting collectively;
and Section 4.2.E, subsection 4 is being moved to D where it should’ve been. He indicated that he was not sure
if there would be a text change but the direction was duly noted to add somewhere on the front of the agenda
direction to the public to identify if they are a resident rather than giving their address; Section 9.2.C #8, re move
the tentative interview dates on the advertisement notification for Boards and Commissions; and in the same
area there will be a change to the requirement for Board and Commission members to be residents.
Councilmember Leger commented on the change that was made on 4.2 that Councilmember Yates that aligned
with Councilmember Elkie’s suggestion. He asked if there was an implication that it was going back to the way
it was so that 5.2.C also needed to change. Mr. McGuire stated that was correct, because those two paragraphs
are tied together the changes would be in both areas. Councilmember Leger indicated he had wanted to make
the connection.
Councilmember Dickey commented that the Town Attorney had indicated these were guidelines; however, they
are what we have to deal with as our guidelines. Therefore, she indicated if they took the time to go through this
and because of the staff time involved she stated the opinion that these were legitimate guidelines or rules and
were procedures that they should follow. She said that just because the way the conversation went she would
hate to think they were putting all this effort into something that the Council wasn’t all going to do their best to
follow.
Councilmember Elkie MOVED to approve Resolution 2013-26 to include the additions and changes as detailed
by the Town Attorney and Vice Mayor Hansen SECONDED the motion.
There were no citizens wishing to speak on these agenda items.
The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
z:\council packets\2013\r131121\131107m.docx Page 15 of 16
AGENDA ITEM #6 - DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO EXPLORE
SUBMITTING APPLICATIONS FOR ONE OR MORE AWARDS OF RECOGNITION IN THE AREA
OF ENVIRONMENTAL EXCELLENCE AND REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS (THIS ITEM WAS
PLACED ON THE AGENDA AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER DICKEY THROUGH MAYOR
KAVANAGH.)
Councilmember Dickey stated she had not wanted to do a PowerPoint and that was why all of the websites had
been listed. She said that they had a lot of constraints on staff but over the years she has seen these awards and
attended them, particularly the Valley Forward, which was now Arizona Forward. She indicated she has seen
opportunities that the Town could be participating in. She provided the Council with a copy of the program and
announcement that was from Valley Forward as that gave a good idea of one that’s very famous and well
attended. She said in gathering this information and probably since 5 or so years ago the Town has started
making some changes by having an environmental planner. She pointed out that the Town does have quite a list
of accomplishments that relate to that. She indicated the biggest was the fact that they had curbside recycling
and the way that the trucks are only once a week. She indicated there were a lot of items and assessments that
Republic had agreed to assist with such as what the Town’s diversion rate was and maybe what has been saved
in the air by not having as many trucks just to name a few.
Councilmember Dickey said gathering this information to apply for one or more of these awards provide a good
assessment as a Town for what we’ve done. She stated it was an honor to be nominated and with the luncheons
and dinners she pointed out that it’s an advertisement for the Town and she felt that it goes along with some of
the other things that the Town has looked at for economic development. She stated the opinion that this was a
huge accomplishment. She discussed the My Rewards Program that just started and said that since this was
really the first one of its kind in the country and if it becomes a pilot program, it could be taken nation-wide and
it could be noted that it had started in Fountain Hills.
Councilmember Dickey ranked the awards in her order of preference stating that the Valley Forward award
would be a really good one to pursue; the Desert Peaks (MAG’s annual award) had other aspects to it. She
pointed out that the Mayor might be interested in this one as it had to do with art. She continued and said the
Valley Metro Clean Air might not be something that the Town would fit into as it was mostly about air quality.
She stated the Earth Hour Challenge was another one that was not quite as likely but she noted that she had
received about a dozen requests for the Council to look into it. Councilmember Dickey acknowledged that they
had pretty much missed the deadlines so there wasn’t a big rush. She requested that staff research applying for
them and she stated the opinion that it wouldn’t be burdensome at all and it goes along with some of the other
strategic plans. She indicated she would like to proceed if the Council agrees.
Mayor Kavanagh said that because there was a limited amount of staff perhaps they could do something lik e we
did with the Republic Services Committee. A staff member is point and then there were residents working on
the committee to look into this. She wasn’t sure the Town had the amount of staff to cover all of this type of
research but there were probably a lot of residents with that type of background that might be interested. She
deferred to Mr. Buchanan.
Mr. Buchanan said staff could make the time for it if it was a priority of the Council; given the time frame, this
would be for next year and could be put in there. He indicated that if the Council wanted a citizen committee to
help put that together, then he would be happy to facilitate that as well.
Councilmember Dickey said that the Arizona Forward was an application and she didn’t think that a citizen
committee would not know everything that the Town has done. She said she would be happy to share and Mr.
Rees certain knows about all that has been done from the retrofits, the audit, the urban trails, new sidewalk
project, etc. She did not know if a committee would be able to get there as quickly as we could get there. If
looking at that one and see what the requirements are, she reiterated that it wouldn’t be overly burdensome for
us to do that and she saw it as beyond just the scope of this one thing.
z:\council packets\2013\r131121\131107m.docx Page 16 of 16
Mayor Kavanagh pointed out that almost sounded like Councilmember Dickey was ready to head up the
committee. Councilmember Dickey stated she had some information and she would be happy to work with you
but indicated that Republic Services had specific information (i.e. tonnage and air pollution). She noted that
would actually fall into the Peaks Award as those were public/private kinds of things.
Mayor Kavanagh indicated she did not want to put Councilmember Dickey on the spot but asked if she would
be willing to help out since Councilmember Dickey had done all this research. Councilmember Dickey said
absolutely.
Councilmember Dickey MOVED that staff research opportunities for the Town to apply for awards of
recognition in environmental accomplishments and regional partnerships and Councilmember Elkie
SECONDED the motion.
There were no citizens wishing to speak on these agenda items.
The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0)
AGENDA ITEM #7 - COUNCIL DISCUSSION/DIRECTION TO THE TOWN MANAGER KEN
BUCHANAN.
Items listed below are related only to the propriety of (i) placing such items on a future agenda for action or (ii)
directing staff to conduct further research and report back to the Council.
A. None.
AGENDA ITEM #8 – SUMMARY OF COUNCIL REQUESTS AND REPORT ON RECENT
ACTIVITIES BY THE TOWN MANAGER KEN BUCHANAN.
None.
AGENDA ITEM #9 - ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Yates MOVED to adjourn the meeting and Councilmember Elkie SECONDED the motion,
which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
By _______________________________
Linda M. Kavanagh, Mayor
ATTEST AND
PREPARED BY:
_________________________
Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Session held
by the Town Council of Fountain Hills in the Town Hall Council Chambers on the 7th day of November, 2013.
I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present.
DATED this 21st day of November, 2013.
_____________________________
Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk