HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010.0608.TCSM.Minutes
z:\council packets\2010\r8-5-10\100608m.docx Page 1 of 10
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF THE
FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
June 8, 2010
* CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Schlum called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Town Hall Council Chambers.
* ROLL CALL
Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Schlum, Councilmember
Contino, Councilmember Leger, Vice Mayor Brown, Councilmember Hansen, Councilmember Elkie and Councilmember
Dickey. Town Manager Rick Davis, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire and Town Clerk Bev Bender were also present.
REGULAR AGENDA
AGENDA ITEM #1 – DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING THE TOWN OF
FOUNTAIN HILLS' FISCAL YEAR 2010/11 BUDGET. THE COUNCIL MAY ADDRESS ANY OR ALL
ITEMS CONTAINED IN THE BUDGET DOCUMENT AND INITIATE ANY CHANGES PRIOR TO THE
ADOPTION OF THE FINAL BUDGET.
Mary Martin addressed the Council and said that based on last week's discussion, she put together a brief presentation to
walk everyone through a number of the items that were brought up at that meeting (Copy on file in the Town Clerk’s
office). Ms. Martin discussed budget methodology and noted that the Town has traditionally prepared a line-item budget
at the Department level. Last year the Town began moving toward development of a Performance/Outcome based budget
on a Program level. She explained this process was being implemented over a number of years so as to incorporate the
Strategic Plan. She commented on Performance Budgeting links: Planning, to achieve goals and objectives; Budgeting,
to ensure that resources were available to carry out plans; Measuring, to assess progress and link the resources actually
used to the results achieved; and Reporting, to present progress achieved and impacts on future efforts.
Ms. Martin discussed Program level budgeting as setting programs as the basis for budget appropriations, shifting focus
from line items to programs, was the basis for facilitating a cost allocation system and determining true cost of service and
creating greater transparency and fiscal accountability; the fact that the Performance Measures form answers the following
questions: (1) The purpose of the program; (2) How the purpose would be achieved; (3) What key results or outcomes
were expected to be produced and (4) How was the success of the program evaluated; the Service Delivery Plan, which
described the activities and be undertaken by each program in an effort to meet program and/or Town goals; the
Accounting Program -- "Provide the Town with efficient and cost effective accounts payable, accounts receivable,
accounting and financial reporting services;" Activities and Outcomes, which listed those items that went into providing a
specific service. This was the level at which performance was measured; Accounting -- "Process all authorized invoices
and issue checks to pay bills on a bi-monthly basis;" productivity and quality measurements.
Ms. Martin noted that at the last meeting the Council also had questions regarding the Comprehensive Fee Schedule and
said that in the past the various departments had individually brought forward resolutions establishing assorted fees for the
Town. She advised that the problem with doing it that way was that it resulted in contradictory fee schedules and so two
years ago staff incorporated the Comprehensive Fee Schedule (contained in the Town’s Budget document) so that the
public would be able to go to one place to find all of the Town’s fees. She said that the budget this year contained a
Comprehensive Fee Schedule with minor increases and added that it was staff's intent to do a comprehensive user fee
study during 2010-11 and so minimal changes were made at this time. She stated that the schedule incorporated two new
fees -- a Fire Safety Fee and a Commercial Photocopy Fee. She explained that in the past when someone came in for a
z:\council packets\2010\r8-5-10\100608m.docx Page 2 of 10
building permit, the Building Safety Department would assess fees for permits, inspections, etc. She noted that all of the
inspections that were conducted by the Fire Department (sprinkler systems, inspection of same, etc.) were done without
charge. She explained that staff was adding fees to the building permit process for those types of inspections. She further
stated that in the past there had only been one photo copy fee assessed; staff felt it was important to distinguish between
the photo copies requested by residents (for their own personal use and copies being requested by commercial enterprises
for profit-making uses) and so those two new charges had been incorporated into the new Fee Schedule.
In response to a question from the Mayor, Ms. Martin explained that the fees that had been added or slightly adjusted had
been highlighted in yellow (Pages 336-337 in the Budget).
Mayor Schlum said that he did not need an answer this evening but he wanted to bring up a fee that had been previously
discussed by a citizen regarding the rental fee at the Community Center being increased for his particular organization.
The Mayor stated that he had thought the cost was going down because they were dividing up the hours (people did not
have to reserve as large an amount of time) and thus decreasing the cost; however, this organization's fee was increasing
although they were utilizing the same amount of time. He added that he thought that the costs were incrementally going
down if people were incrementally staying the same but going down if people utilized less time.
Director of Parks and Recreation Mark Mayer addressed the Council and advised that they were now limiting the blocks
of time to one hour because they found out that people typically were not using all of that time but they would stay
anyway. He added that staff felt they could improve utilization of the facility by renting it on an hourly basis. He said
that he could not speak to this particular situation at this time because he was unaware of the organization but noted that
there were three different tiers in the fee structure and explained that local users and not-for-profit organizations received
a reduced rate. He added that a discount came into play if the organization was a not-for-profit and used it a certain
amount of times and noted that the person might not be aware of that fact. Mr. Mayer indicated his intention to follow up
on this particular issue and the Mayor advised that the gentleman represented the Fountain Hills Community Chorus. Mr.
Mayer said he believed that the organization would qualify for the discount opportunity and reiterated his intention to look
into the matter and contact the gentleman.
Councilmember Hansen referred to Page 338 in the budget and noted that the cost of CDs for documents such as the
Town Code was the same as a hard copy ($25.00) and said that the cost seemed to be high since it took a lot less time to
burn a CD than to make copies.
Ms. Martin explained that staff was trying to make the cost consistent because some CDs were $25.00 and others were
less so now they were all the same. The Mayor noted that the cost for the Annual Budget CDs was $45.00 and stated that
he understood that staff was attempting to cover costs (staff time, paper costs, etc.).
Ms. Martin advised that the costs of the CDs was less in prior years but noted that the fee was an interim one since staff
has not yet conducted a fee analysis to determine true costs. She added that if the Council would like to see this item
deferred until the cost study was done they would be happy to do so.
Mayor Schlum commented on the fact that most of the documents were available on line for free and said that he believed
it was appropriate to make sure that actual costs were being recovered.
Ms. Martin stated that it was difficult to determine true costs until they actually conduct a true cost allocation process and
user fee study. She added that currently staff was doing their "best guessing" to determine marketplace values.
Mayor Schlum thanked Ms. Martin for her explanation.
Councilmember Hansen referred to Page 339, which reflects a $30 charge for Adopt a Street signs. She said that she was
not aware of the fact that the volunteers were required to pay for their signs.
z:\council packets\2010\r8-5-10\100608m.docx Page 3 of 10
Ms. Martin stated that staff passed through the cost of the production of the sign to the person who was participating. She
noted that they passed on the actual cost and no markup was added.
Councilmember Hansen said that one of the Council's goals this year was to expand the program into residential areas and
questioned the appropriateness of asking volunteers to clean up their own streets and pay for their own signs. She added
that she would prefer an alternative method so that the volunteers did not have to put out their own money.
Mayor Schlum commented on the fact that either the volunteers bought the sign or the Town did. He said that they could
absorb that money (make it a Town cost) and agreed that they wanted to encourage citizens to volunteer.
Councilmember Dickey stated that she wanted to differentiate between residential and commercial because in commercial
areas as the signs did serve as a type of ad. The Mayor agreed.
Ms. Martin said that if the Council would like to see two fees, one for commercial and one for residential, staff would be
happy to prepare them for review and consideration.
Councilmember Leger commented that the reason for the charge, whether residential or commercial, was because there
was a high turnover and questioned whether the Town should absorb the cost every time the names on the signs changed.
He noted that the change process was labor intensive and added that perhaps charging a fee provides incentive to remain
involved. He stated that he would not be opposed to charging for commercial signs because they were in fact an
advertisement and said they might want to have a generic sign for residential streets instead of name specific (and a lower
fee).
Councilmember Contino expressed the opinion that the turnover occurred every year if business licenses were not
renewed.
The Mayor said that in the absence of a motion for changes at this time he would assume the Council would wait for the
user fee study to be conducted and initiate changes if the Council felt it appropriate to do so at that time.
Mayor Schlum referred to Pages 349 and 350 and asked whether the ramadas were used a lot. He noted that the
residential rate was less than the non-residential rate and asked if many non-residents were utilizing the ramadas. He also
requested feedback from staff relative to the fee structure that was in place.
Parks & Recreation Director Mark Mayer addressed the Council and said that it depended on the location of the ramada;
one extreme location was the Kiwanis shelter, which was next to the splash pad and therefore the most popular ramada.
He said that it could probably be rented at twice the current cost and on the other extreme there were ramadas on the west
side of the park that were not as busy. He noted that as they increase the number of shelters based on the demand that
existed and people were less likely to rent them than before because if they came across one that someone has not rented,
they just utilized it and did not pay a fee. He stressed that people were using them although they did not always generate
additional revenue.
Mr. Mayer explained that the front of the ramadas contained little boxes and if it had been reserved, that was noted there
as well as the time. He said that they did this to help the people who actually reserved the ramadas but it also let people
know when a ramada had not been reserved and he acknowledged that some people utilized them for free.
Councilmember Contino noted that the ramada by the splash park was frequently utilized and asked how they could
control it so that users paid the required fee.
Mr. Mayer responded that aside from the reservation notice that was currently in place on reserved ramadas, there was
really no way to prevent other people from utilizing the site when it was not actually being rented out. He said that any of
the ramadas, benches, etc. could be utilized by anyone unless they had been reserved. He added that most people were
z:\council packets\2010\r8-5-10\100608m.docx Page 4 of 10
understanding and when someone came along who had reserved the ramada, they typically would pack up their stuff and
move along.
Discussion ensued relative to the Community Center's Service Fees and the fact that facility renters oftentimes wanted
certain equipment to make their meetings more effective; the importance of ensuring that the equipment was available and
lowering the costs on equipment such as the screens and the video projector; the fact that replacement of the bulb for the
projector was $500; fees and Mr. Mayer's opinion that the Parks & Recreation Commission, the Community Center
Advisory Commission and others were supportive of them; Councilmember Hansen's comment that some felt that the
Town was very competitive but added that they needed to look at the declining rentals at the Center in an effort to get a
handle on why that was happening; the Mayor's concurrence that they had to expend effort to make sure that the rooms
were being utilized to their maximum potential; Councilmember Hansen’s comments regarding Temporary Vendor
Permits (Page 340) and the $50.00 associated fee (for special events only) and the fact that this represented an accelerated
process for events like the fair when the vendor was in Town for one day or one weekend; Councilmember Hansen’s
questions relating to Special Event Application Fees (Page 341) and the fees for commercial and charitable organizations
and the possibility of adding a third category (at a lesser fee) for some of the Town's non-profits -- i.e. the Car Club and
other similar "mini events to encourage some activities;" the fact that one of the Parks & Recreation Department's goals
this year was to look at the application process for special events and one of the things that they were considering was
more tiers; Councilmember Elkie's question about the difference in fees for waste collection and recycling; Ms. Martin's
response that fees for heavy duty trucks were increased due to the damage they cause to the streets; the importance of
assessing higher fees without discouraging recycling efforts; the fact that this information was not reflected in the RFP;
Councilmember Elkie's opinion that the recycling truck fees should be more in line with the waste collection truck fees if
they were trying to recoup the cost to repair roads; staff's feeling that the Council would not want to discourage recycling;
single haulers and the Town Attorney's opinion that the RFP was to select a single provider but that was still subject to all
of the business license requirements of the Town; Councilmember Dickey's statement relative to determining the actual
"nuts and bolts" relative to this issue and the fact that she was unsure of this rationale and required additional information;
Councilmember Hansen's comment regarding the fact that this information was not included in the RFP (the extra cost)
and the fact that last year they had a $50 application fee and not a per truck fee; the fact that the fees had been published
on the Internet since the tentative budget was published; Councilmember Hansen's question as to whether they should wait
on the fees until they decided how to move forward and Mr. Davis' comment that the revenue generated from this type of
fee would not cover the costs of repairing the streets but would help to cover staff time, etc.; Mr. Davis added the opinion
that it was advisable to look at the fees and compare them to other cities and the fact that staff would provide the Council
with additional information relative to this issue.
Councilmember Contino said that he believed that the $50.00 per truck fee was really low and said they were penalizing
one company for everybody else.
Mayor Schlum stated that they would keep the fees as they were until the Council obtained more information and Ms.
Martin advised that staff would provide additional information at the next meeting on June 17th.
Vice Mayor Brown commented that if he had filled out the RFP and was unaware of the fees he would "yell foul" and said
he thought they needed to back off on the fees altogether until they saw how the single hauler situation worked out. He
added that if they knew about the fees going into it, it would be a little different than slapping them in the face after they
had put their proposal together.
Councilmember Elkie agreed that it was important to remove the fees until they received additional information and
determine which direction they were going to proceed in.
Councilmember Dickey stated the opinion that they should keep the fees as they were and said they needed more
information but she did not want to remove the fees at this time.
z:\council packets\2010\r8-5-10\100608m.docx Page 5 of 10
Vice Mayor Brown suggested that they place the fees on the commercial trucks and not the residential trucks -- he said
that he would like to have discussion relative to this.
Mayor Schlum summed up that they would leave the $50.00 application fee in place for solid waste and recycling and not
charge annual per truck fees. He added that they would then hear more information on June 17th that might make a
difference.
Councilmember Leger commented that this was just a proposal based on the current situation and Ms. Martin said that the
fee schedule was put together back in September prior to the talk about a single trash hauler.
Councilmember Leger stated that if they did not go with a single trash hauler and they went back to business as usual he
would like to know how they were going to deal with that. He questioned whether they wanted to have an application fee
as well as a truck fee and they might want to look at the discrepancy between $750.00 and $50.00. He added that part of
the rationale for going with a single hauler was to recover costs by minimizing the number of trucks on the street and then
perhaps there was no need for the $750 charge but they were talking about two very different scenarios. He said that
historically, there has been a real effort to lower fees across the board for anything to do with environment and discussed
the significant gap that existed between the two fees being discussed ($750.00 and $50.00).
Mayor Schlum noted that additional information relative to this matter would be provided by staff at the June 17th
meeting.
Councilmember Leger referred to Page 346, the Landscape Plan Review, and said that it was a relatively new ordinance
passed by the Council. He asked why this item was highlighted.
Ms. Martin replied that the highlights also indicated items that had come before the Council during the course of the year
but were not incorporated in the fee schedule last year (Development Fee and Landscape Plan Review).
Councilmember Leger said that some of the comments he had received from the community had to do with the fact that
the Town was encouraging xero landscaping and they were trying to decrease the cost of plan review. He added that a
number of people he has heard from were trying to do low budget xero landscaping and they just could not afford the
$2,500 deposit.
Bob Rodgers addressed the Council relative to this item and advised that the deposit was refundable and was only
required when people wanted to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy prior to completing their landscaping. He stated that
once they completed their landscaping the entire deposit was refunded.
Councilmember Leger thanked Mr. Rogers for his input and said he was comfortable with the response.
Councilmember Hansen referred to Page 349, Fire Safety Fees, and asked how they came about (particularly the two
annual inspections for residential group care and the commercial business safety).
Fire Chief Scott LaGreca addressed the Council and advised that Chief Roberts conducted a study on the fees and
Fountain Hills was the only Fire Department community that did not charge a fee. He added that they took a close look at
Scottsdale's fees and cut them in half to come up with what was being proposed in the budget. He emphasized the fact
that the fees were much lower than any other community.
Discussion ensued relative to residential group homes and required inspections; annual inspections for businesses; hood
inspections and the importance of ensuring that businesses were doing what they were supposed to be doing to prevent
fires; the fact that staff was working on finding the most equitable way to transition as far as collecting the fees; the fact
that if you had a business license in a multi commercial occupancy building each business would be subject to the fee; the
fact that the Fire Department could report on how many businesses they had inspected annually over the last five years
z:\council packets\2010\r8-5-10\100608m.docx Page 6 of 10
and if they went into ABC Realty for example, they were doing one inspection -- they just did legitimate, target
inspections; cost recovery; Councilmember Brown's support for the fee and his suggestion that they look into inspecting
vacancies -- he asked whether the fee assessments for those inspections would go to the building owner; Chief LaGreca's
comment that people were opening businesses without pulling any kind of license/permit and so this allowed them to see
if anyone was getting ready to open up a business and the fact that they would have to decide who to charge for vacancy
inspections; cam costs (triple net) and the fact that they could bill the landlord of the building in those instances (one fee
per year for each tenant); the fact that the inspections did not apply to residential homes but that people could call the
Department and invite them to come in and perform an inspection if they so desired; Councilmember Elkie's hesitancy to
charge businesses for this since they rely so heavily on them for revenues (on top of business license fees that were
already in place); Chief LaGreca's comment that the billing process would be a learning process because in some cases
there were vast differences and the fact that they would learn from their mistakes; their intention to work with the Finance
Department on collections to ensure that it was fair and equitable and the fact that the low price of $25.00 was extremely
fair but staff was always open to input from the Council; the fact that the inspections would take place whether the
Department charged $25.00 or not; the importance of establishing clear parameters so everyone knew who the fees
applied to and Chief LaGreca's assurance that this would be done; the fact that right now the inspections were being done
because it was required in the Code and the proposal was to apply those charges to the businesses directly (rather than
having the Town pay for them through their contract with the Department); the importance of ensuring that the correct
people were billed (and not double billed); the fact that cam charges were more of an HOA charge but in a commercial
setting; the Council's request for more clarification on this issue (fees, billing, etc.); the importance of identifying a
vehicle that would let the Department know about various lease agreements; Councilmember Dickey's support for moving
forward with this proposal and allowing the Department and staff to work it out as they move forward; the fact that some
service on equipment was required twice a year; and the fact that the $25.00 fee covered everything.
In response to a question from Councilmember Leger, Ms. Martin advised that the Town charged a $50.00 application fee
and a $35.00 per year renewal fee for business licenses in Town. Councilmember Leger stated the opinion that the dollars
were not that significant and suggested that the Council either make a motion to move in this direction or not and move
on. He asked how the business permit fee compared to other communities and Ms. Martin advised that the fees varied.
He agreed that they needed to work on the process but reiterated that he was fine with the fees as recommended.
Vice Mayor Brown commented on the fact that neighboring communities had been conducting inspections and billing the
businesses for years. He added that he was sure that Randy, if present, could have answered a lot of the billing questions
and that was really the only unanswered item at this time.
Vice Mayor Brown MOVED to approve the Fire Safety Fee Schedule as outlined on Page 349 of the budget and
Councilmember Leger SECONDED the motion.
Mayor Schlum noted that the work was already being done and the Town was paying for it. He said that they were
looking to absorb the cost of what was already required and the cost was minimal.
Chief LaGreca pointed out that this was also one of the Department's performance measures.
The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
Councilmember Hansen stated that there was a fee for running the Fountain and asked if it would be possible to add a fee
to add color to the Fountain (Page 351).
Mr. Mayer replied that this could be done -- the cost would be approximately $1,500 (the cost of a 55 gallon drum of dye
plus labor). He said it was cheaper to run the Fountain than to dye it.
z:\council packets\2010\r8-5-10\100608m.docx Page 7 of 10
Councilmember Hansen said that she had a citizen ask if it could be dyed pink for a cancer function and the Mayor
suggested bringing the idea forward to Parks & Recreation. He said if someone was interested in doing so, they could
contact Parks & Recreation and tell them they were willing to pay the associated costs.
Mr. Mayer explained that staff looked at any and all requests. Bryan Hughes clarified that it costs approximately $2,500
for a 55 gallon drum of dye.
Ms. Martin advised that the last item that the Council had requested additional information on last week was the Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) projects on Page 286. Ms. Martin referred the Council to the funding fee matrix (Page 290) and
provided a brief explanation on its contents.
Councilmember Elkie asked how long it would be until they received an answer from the Feds regarding the Fire Station
relocation stimulus funds and Chief LaGreca advised that he received an e-mail from FEMA three weeks ago saying that
the Town would receive a "turn down letter" if they were going to receive one within one week and they had not yet
received one. He added that he did not believe that anyone has received a "turn down letter" and said that he was told by
their west coast FEMA representative that they were having some difficulties and angst with this program because they
were finding out that some of the awards that had already been given out had either moved forward successfully, the
communities had decided that they could not move forward with the projects and returned the money, and/or some
communities got so backward with the Federal requirements to meet the request that the government pulled the grants
back. He stated that he believed they were trying to figure out how many dollars they really had left in this pot of money,
who was performing and who was not, and who could possibly get the opportunity to perform with a grant award. He
expressed the opinion that they were still in the game and awaiting word.
Mayor Schlum noted that the money would only be spent if the Town was awarded the grant -- if they received it that
would be great news since they had only spent money on the cost of the design to qualify. He added that the good news
was that they had not been rejected yet and if others were backing out and/or being rejected, most likely there would be
more dollars available so they would just have to wait and see what happens.
Chief LaGreca stated that it was frustrating to know that they had a project ready to go out to bid in 30 days and said that
he would keep the Council informed of any new information received.
In response to a question from the Mayor, the Chief advised that 90% of the municipalities that were being awarded had
already been awarded.
Councilmember Hansen noted that the budget indicated that for the Fire Station a complete set of design plans had been
delivered and approved and she asked how some of the utility issues had been resolved.
Chief LaGreca replied that on the Federal plan they put in the cost to go down Shea Boulevard and that was why they had
asked for $2.2 million. He stated that they could build the station for a lot less than that but there were a lot of
requirements (duplicate engineering studies, auditing requirements, etc.).
Additional discussion ensued relative to whether there was a building permit for the project; the sewer stub that would end
at Shea Boulevard; the fact that they did not have a complete set of fire sprinkler plans; future determinations that would
have to be made; Project S6046, the Fountain Hills Boulevard sidewalk, and Ms. Martin's comments relative to the fact
that this was part of the overall fill in sidewalk gap project and Randy would have more details on it; the fact that most of
the project in the coming year was for the design phase (a two-year design phase) and construction would take place in the
third year; Councilmember Hansen's suggestion that the Councilmembers drive down that little stretch because she
believed that a sidewalk could be put in a better place; the fact that the timeline with MAG projects was their timeline and
for most of the projects that the Town did with them they had to apply for the grant five to six years in advance of their
estimated construction time just to get it in the TIP and so a lot of times they might be a little premature because when
z:\council packets\2010\r8-5-10\100608m.docx Page 8 of 10
they get to the top and funds were available, it might be a little bit out of their preferred timeframe and so they continue to
do the design and keep the project moving in order to keep the funding in place; Councilmember Hansen's request that the
Council be given an opportunity during the year to review the sidewalk plan and the fact that although it was presented,
she did not believe it was ever formally approved; Mr. Davis' comment that a few months ago, in cooperation with the
Town Engineer and Public Works Director, they assembled a draft for a policy that would bring a myriad of facts into
consideration when bringing forward to the Council a sidewalk for consideration (i.e. the character of the neighborhood,
State and Federal requirements, etc.); the fact that the map was designed and although not formally adopted by the
Council, it has served as a guide to determine where sidewalks should be constructed; the fact that the top priority was
safe pedestrian conveyance, particularly around schools; and the fact that the policy would be used to ensure that future
sidewalks made sense.
Councilmember Leger agreed with Councilmember Hansen that the sidewalk plan should be the topic of discussion at a
future Work Study Session. He said that there were sidewalks that neighbors simply did not want.
Mr. Davis advised that one of staff's goals this year was to create an Urban Trail Master Plan and he believed it would be
a good idea to "envelope in" that same kind of review.
Councilmember Hansen referred to Page 302, Project 6005, and asked whether the access issues had been resolved with
the businesses.
Ms. Martin responded that she was not part of those activities but believed that Randy Harrel and Tom Ward did conduct
meetings (open houses) with the residents in that area to discuss all of their concerns.
Mr. Davis said that Mr. Ward discussed the amount of outreach that had been done to date, which would continue as they
moved forward.
Discussion ensued relative to the new intersection and the striping on Shea; staff's intent to meet with the Fort McDowell
Indian community to see if they wanted to work with the Town in paving their side of the road; the fact that the gaps in
the sidewalks were due to the fact that there were gaps in businesses and the businesses had built the sidewalks when they
built their properties; the importance of filling in those gaps; Mr. Davis urged the Council to consider that there were
options available to the Town to move forward and construct the sidewalks and then have a developer in the future
participate in the construction or cost of same (recouping costs at a future time).
Town Clerk Bev Bender advised that there were no citizens who wished to address the Council at this time.
Councilmember Hansen referred to Pages 42 and 43, Public Safety, and commented on how much of the Town's budget
was dedicated to that area. She noted that there had been discussions about the possibility of exploring a district to fund
their public safety services. She said she was not sure whether they wanted to look at that but she did think that they
wanted to look at possible revenues over the next few years and this might be an area that was worthy of some scrutiny
because it had the potential to free up a lot of General Fund money because it would be its own district. She questioned
whether the Council believed that this was something worth spending time on and pursuing during the next fiscal year.
Mayor Schlum said absolutely and that one of their goals was to put a blue ribbon task force committee together to look at
financial sustainability and he thought that this would definitely be an area that they should look into to determine
opportunities, challenges, consequences and those types of things.
z:\council packets\2010\r8-5-10\100608m.docx Page 9 of 10
Councilmember Hansen stressed the importance of expediting this discussion and drilling down on what needed to be
done and could be done (could a Community Facilities District be used for this type of thing?) and the possibility that it
would dovetail into lowering the sales tax.
Mayor Schlum advised that he would discuss this with the Town Manager and bring something back to the Council for
consideration.
Councilmember Dickey said that one way or another it would still have to be paid for and it also removed the Council as
the governing body of public safety for the Town. She added that once they received the nuts and bolts on what it would
require they could discuss it further.
The Mayor said that they would have to discuss this item again and he believed that a lot of the Councilmembers were on
the same page regarding this issue.
Councilmember Hansen clarified that she was referring to a district of the municipality that would be under the Council.
Councilmember Contino stated that he believed it was time that they moved forward on this because the residents that live
in Town year round were bearing the brunt of both fire and police and the costs should be shared equally by those who
own property.
Mayor Schlum said he wanted staff to be ready to talk about the General Fund in general and how they were doing with
their balancing of the budget at the next meeting.
Ms. Martin advised that from the changes that had been made to the budget so far and based upon the presumptions of the
bed tax increase and the reduction in the transfer of construction sales tax to the CIP, it appeared that the budget was
balanced and could be adopted at any time and there would be no negative consequences.
Mayor Schlum advised that additional items would be included on the next agenda following the budget adoption, which
assumed those items had actually passed as well. He added that he just wanted to be sure that the Council had an
opportunity to meet with staff and were comfortable.
Councilmember Leger stressed the importance of the Council understanding the resolutions and suggested that the
resolutions precede the budget approval.
Councilmember Hansen said that they had previously discussed the Vehicle Replacement Program and the possibility of
foregoing placing any money into it this year, which would free up about $142,000. She stated that she did not know if
that money could go into the General Fund Contingency so that, if a resolution did not pass next week, there would be
additional funds available.
Mr. Davis advised that they had talked about the possibility of foregoing or taking those funds out that were previously
tagged for vehicle replacement but his last report from Ms. Ghetti indicated that that might not be necessary this year and
staff would continue to monitor that situation. He added that ideally they would like to continue along the path of putting
money away to replace the fleet and stressed the importance of doing so. He noted, however, that that was a "rip cord"
should they need the funds.
Councilmember Hansen asked how the census would impact the Town as far as State Shared Revenues and Mr. Davis
responded that a lot of the Town's revenues were based on population and they would not really know anything until all of
the numbers were back. Mayor Schlum responded that he believed that they would hear something by November of 2011.
z:\council packets\2010\r8-5-10\100608m.docx Page 10 of 10
Mr. Davis stated that he did not believe there would be an immediate impact on the Town but said that staff would be
watching it very closely.
The Mayor said he was surprised to hear how long it would take to hear the results and noted that the Town was
approaching build out.
Mayor Schlum thanked staff and the Council for their discussion and input and said the next meeting would take place on
June 17th.
AGENDA ITEM #2 – ADJOURNMENT.
Councilmember Contino MOVED that the Council adjourn the meeting and Vice Mayor Brown SECONDED the
motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). The meeting adjourned at 7:42 p.m.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
By_____________________________
Mayor Jay T. Schlum
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 Special Session held by the
Town Council of Fountain Hills in the Town Hall Council Chambers on the 8th day of June, 2010. I further certify that
the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present.
Dated this 5th day of August 2010.
_____________________________
Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk