Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010.0914.TCWSM.MinutesZ:\Council Packets\2010\R10-7-10\100914M.doc Page 1 of 16 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE WORK STUDY SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 AGENDA ITEM #1 - CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. Mayor Schlum called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Fountain Hills Town Council Chambers. Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Jay T. Schlum, Councilmember Dennis Contino, Councilmember Ginny Dickey, Councilmember Henry Leger, Councilmember Cassie Hansen, Vice Mayor Dennis Brown, and Councilmember Tait D. Elkie. Town Manager Rick Davis, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire and Town Clerk Bevelyn Bender were also present. AGENDA ITEM #2 - DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN CODE, CHAPTER 8, SECTION 8-3, SPECIAL EVENTS, AND RELATED FEE SCHEDULE WITH A REVIEW OF THE REVISED SPECIAL EVENT APPLICATION. Bryan Hughes, Recreation Supervisor, reviewed the items provided to the Council specific to this agenda item noting the document that had been redlined with proposed changes to the Town Code and one of the applications that staff had been trying out. He provided a status of the process pointing out that this was definitely a work in progress. Mr. Hughes stated that one of the objectives was to simplify the special events process and one of the steps was to establish a recognized committee. He explained that currently there was a group of staff members to meet but technically it was not codified nor were they technically authorized to make official recommendations or if possible administratively approve small events so that the Council did not have to receive each application that came in. He commented that there were numerous applications and suggestions that came in. Mr. Hughes also stated that another objective was to recommend proposed changes to the Town Code to simply the application. He pointed out that currently the application on the Town’s website was 30 pages in length with 10 pages of that as instructions, insurance requirements, etc.; the objective was to reduce the number of pages. He stated the opinion that people were intimidated by the length and staff no longer found that the application made sense but over the years it was not giving staff everything they needed to see in an efficient manner. He said staff also wanted to look at the fees as currently there were two fees ($100 or $500) and he felt that might be a deterrent to those who wanted to do events. He indicated that with reference to the Town Code one of the changes was the reference to “major and minor events” as everyone thought they had a minor event because they did not want to get into all the requirements that go along with major events. He stated that he had attended a Special Events Seminar with Captain Kleinheinz on security and it was noted that they did not refer to events as “major or minor” but defined an event as anything that impacted services, which he favored. He commented on the fact that it would be up to staff to determine what the public safety needs were and things like that. He said that as staff reviewed the applications there were triggers that determined if the applications needed to be brought to the Council for approval. Mr. Hughes reiterated that the purpose of the Special Events Committee would be to review the applications for compliance with Town Code; provide administrative approval of applications, for such events that take place entirely within the park, did not require road closures, nor public safety, but would typically be for such events as a small concert or all day jam at the amphitheater. He stated he did not consider those major events or a minor event as it was a rental of the amphitheater but that would require the applicant to provide more information in case anyone did inquire the Town would know what was going on and those questions could be answered. He said events to be brought before the Council for their consideration would be anything where there were street restrictions, closures or public safety issues. He pointed to a last minute addition to the September 16, 2010 Council meeting agenda was the Tour de Scottsdale bicycle race special event application that would go down Shea Boulevard as that would impact traffic and staff wanted the Council to know about the event and be comfortable with the event knowing that staff had done everything they had done everything they could to make that a safe event. Z:\Council Packets\2010\R10-7-10\100914M.doc Page 2 of 16 Mr. Hughes discussed a frequent complaint they hear and that they had been pretty lenient on was the submission lead-time of the application (currently at 90 days prior to the event), which was being proposed to be reduced to 45 days. He acknowledged that the committee met to review applications twice a month as a way to keep on top of all the different events, to get all the information that was needed, and to ensure that applications were being processed in a timely manner. He stated the opinion that as long as the committee met twice a month the submission lead-time did not need to be set at 90 days and that perhaps 45-60 days would be sufficient. He reiterated that he had been revising the application and trying to simplify it based on the City of Avondale’s application because their attorney was the Town’s attorney, which meant he was probably comfortable with the application. He stated that overall it was a pretty good application as it gave the applicant more check boxes as opposed to written responses and that most of the information was clearer for the applicant and staff. He indicated staff was recommending that the applicants use Google maps for exhibits as the required map of choice (as the standard) vs. the various maps as received in the past. He stated that Google maps provide maps with satellite imagery that show the intersections and it would be easier to see the proposed event routes. He indicated that he working to make the application a PDF document that applicants can download, complete, save, and return to the Town, which would provide an on-line application process and remove the applicant’s need to bring in or mail a hard copy of the application. Mr. Hughes discussed the current application fee schedule as being $100 for non-profit events and $500 for commercial events. He stated that few applicants fell into the commercial event category and that the only event known to him at this time that fell into the commercial event category was the Thunderbird Artists special event; every other application fell into some partnership with a non-profit. He indicated that, technically, the Chamber’s events were in the non-profit category so they paid only $100 for the fairs. He stated the opinion that the current fee schedule was not realistic and that was being reviewed; staff was researching as to what other municipalities charge. He reviewed options being considered: a base application fee of $75 for the larger events that were based on the event’s size and impact to the Town (i.e. street closures, law enforcement needs, etc); there would be additional fees for additional departmental reviews similar to an a la carte menu type fee schedule; the bigger the event the more fees would be paid. If it was a smaller event that took place in the park, perhaps it could be as simple as a $25 fee, back to back application as provided to the Council earlier (copy on file in the Clerk’s office). He indicated that this application was currently being used internally and might suffice for some of the smaller events. Mr. Hughes stated that if the applicant was renting the park, the user was already paying a park rental fee, fire marshal fees for tent inspections or for fireworks permits, which might not be an extra fee. He said moving forward staff would be working with the Town Attorney to ensure that the recommended changes were correctly translated into the proposed changes to the Town Code. He indicated his was his intent to ensure that the Council was comfortable with the direction staff was taking. He stated and that he would continue working on the application and evaluating the revised application that was being tested with different applicants (i.e. the Chamber, etc) for what works and does not work. Mr. Hughes indicated that over a year’s time he hoped the application would get to a point where all the issues and concerns have been worked out. He reiterated that he would be researching and evaluating the Town’s fee schedule for implementation with the next fiscal year fee schedule (July 1) so that it was not brought to the Council mid-year and surprising anyone who was planning an event for April or May. He indicated he was looking for Council direction as to whether or not staff was going in the right direction or if there was anything that they had heard that they would like to see made easier for applicants. He said that within the last year and a half they had worked harder to ensure that events were happening and worked with partners to make sure events were happening so he felt they were going in the right direction. He noted that staff needed to define the process itself and work on the application; he indicated his was willing to answer any questions. Councilmember Hansen pointed to a reference in the Town Code that referred to the event calendar regard 12 major events per year and asked if staff had given any consideration to changing that (not being so specific as to the number of events per month). Mr. Hughes responded that staff wanted to eliminate some of those types of things. He indicated that a calendar was maintained and that it was available on the Town’s website, which showed applications received and some of those events that were anticipated coming in. The intent was to have people be aware because a lot of questions were what dates were available because they wanted to do an event. He added that staff was open to doing multiple events and had strayed away from holding a specific number of events within the month. He gave the example of Ballet Under the Stars with the Oktoberfest event immediately following that event. He stated the opinion that could occur, if timed correctly with staff consideration and input; the Code provision Z:\Council Packets\2010\R10-7-10\100914M.doc Page 3 of 16 could be removed, however, staff did not want two great fairs to occur on back-to-back weekends because of street closures and things like that. Councilmember Hansen stated that situation could be controlled by monitoring the calendar and Mr. Hughes stated that was correct and if people were flexible when they inquire as to what their dates might be so staff could regulate that or make suggestions as had been done in the past. Councilmember Hansen discussed that the current Code language was pretty outdated and that the reason for even having that one event per month in the Code went back to the mid 90’s. Mr. Hughes stated that the timing of events would depend upon what services the applicant required from the Town. If applicants asked for street closures every weekend that was probably not something that the Town staff could handle, but if an applicant said they would provide the barricading company and that they would pay for all that separately, then it might be something that they could handle and staff would need to consider the impact might be on the residents. Mayor Schlum concurred that the limitation of 12 events a year was out of date. Councilmember Dickey asked if staff would be changing anything relating to noise, trash, and conflicts. Mr. Hughes said that staff had not given much consideration to noise, although they try to have events finish before a specific time at night and gave examples of Movie in the Park events and music events at the amphitheater. He noted they had not really received any complaints on Town events; however, when the committee reviewed applications he knew that Planning and Zoning staff was looking at those types of things (i.e. signs and noise). He indicated there were no recommendations for changes in those areas. He indicated that with regard to trash, staff was trying to implement the use of recycling and pointed to the fact they had the Town recycling cans. He gave the example of the Farmers’ Market event stating that to help get the event going staff had put the recycling and trash cans out. This year staff was working with the group to actually put the cans out themselves and collect them as well. Mr. Hughes indicated that was something staff wanted to require of all events that they have some sort of a realistic trash and recycling plan. He reiterated that staff was reviewing all events to determine what works, what the Town could reasonably host, and to welcome them, if possible, noting that the Town would not be able to do everything. Councilmember Dickey asked about events that involved animals and if the change in fees would really affect the budget. Mr. Hughes responded that he did not think they were planning on having a lot of animals at events necessarily. Councilmember Dickey asked about parades with horses and at Christmas and questioned if staff was proposing any changes to the Code. Mr. Hughes responded no, that if it was a realistic request, and something that was not out of the ordinary, then it would probably be allowed. Mr. Hughes stated that regarding the fees, they were neutral and might see only a little bit more depending on the type of events and if an a la carte menu were used. He indicated that currently the Town received the $100 fee per event whereas perhaps they should be receiving more because a lot more staff time was involved on the larger events. Councilmember Dickey commented that fees might be about the same pointing out that it appeared they were going the way that the Community Center had by charging for what was used; she indicated that she agreed with that direction because if the applicant were using the stuff, it made sense to charge. She indicated she had wanted to point that out because they had heard dissatisfaction with that part of it at the Community Center. Mr. Hughes reiterated that staff would be evaluating fees and things and based on what he has seen in the past the fees were probably reasonable (small base fee and then other fees depending upon what the applicant was requesting as far a review). Councilmember Elkie commented on the Special Event Committee and the proposed change that they be authorized to administratively approve events requiring limited Town resources. He acknowledged that he liked the idea of expediting so that the applicant did not have to wait for a Council meeting or something along those lines because that had been brought up a number of times. He asked for an example of an event that required limited Town resources that this committee could then approve without the application coming before the Council. Mr. Hughes responded that a good example would be a request to do a jam at the amphitheater or host local bands for the day (on a Saturday) that would not necessarily require a street closure, event security or law enforcement, but it would require rental of the park (with a staff person on duty) and he felt that was an example where staff could review and Z:\Council Packets\2010\R10-7-10\100914M.doc Page 4 of 16 decide what needed to be done. Councilmember Elkie asked what would happen if they (the applicant) wanted to sell alcohol. Mr. Hughes stated that the request for alcohol, street closures, and public safety items would trigger bringing the application forward to the Council for approval. Councilmember Elkie asked what the process would be if an application were rejected by the Special Events Committee and would they be able to bring the application before the Town Council. Mr. Hughes responded that he was working on the process so that the applicant had the ability to answer additional questions or provide more information; if it was still the committee’s decision to deny the event request, then the process would be in place that allowed the applicant to bring the application to the Town Manager’s office. The Town Manager could then make the ultimate decision or notify the Council if they wanted to consider even after staff made objections. He confirmed staff would need to formally put that process into the Town Code but it was something that staff was working on. Councilmember Elkie said it was important for the applicant to have the opportunity to be heard and have their application brought forward to Council even if staff said no. Councilmember Contino asked what it cost to rent the park and how it was parceled off. Mr. Hughes responded there were about 6 different sections, all with different names, which averaged in rental cost for residents for about $175 (for up to 4 hours) to approximately $250 (for over 4 hours). He estimated that for non-residents it would be about 30% more in both those areas. He pointed out that the amphitheater area was a little larger than the grass area due to electricity and other things that could be used in close proximity. Councilmember Contino asked what each section included. Mr. Hughes responded that they did not get a whole lot of items other than when someone reserved the area for either a Town event or a scheduled event it protected the user so that nothing else could be scheduled during that same period (so rental of the area included priority space use in the park). Councilmember Hansen stated that relating to streets and traffic there were a couple of the things that seemed a little cumbersome such as the requirement for a traffic control plan from a certified barricade company, which she felt were extreme. Mr. Hughes explained that the goal was to ensure whatever barricading was done was done correctly and did not affect traffic or public safety. If someone other than the Town’s street department was putting up barricades, the goal was to ensure they knew what they were doing. He indicated he did not know if that was over and above. Councilmember Hansen questioned if the applicant would submit a plan with their application as far as where they intended to put barricades. Mr. Hughes said yes and staff would review. He pointed out that could be part of what they where they (the applicant) would be an extra fee for the street superintendent to review their plan to make sure it worked for what the Town needed (impact to Town streets). He suggested that staff to review that specific point to see if that was necessary. Councilmember Hansen questioned if the number of parking spaces available was really a requirement for the applicant to know and if the Town needed to get that specific. Mr. Hughes responded not necessarily although on the Town’s website under special events the Town provided a generic map that showed where all the public parking was located and available for events that happened in the downtown. He commented that perhaps that map was good enough for events that occurred downtown; however, anywhere else staff might need additional information. He suggested that staff could look at that area too. Councilmember Hansen referred to page 7 and asked about the last item, alternate routes, where it requested a list of specific traffic controls for area residents from the applicant. She felt that was quite a responsibility to put on an applicant who was not a traffic engineer. Mr. Hughes commented that staff was working to try and bring back the Mountain to Fountain event back to the Town and there would be streets impacted so staff had talked with them about putting up those event notification signs similar to those down at Fountain Hills Boulevard and Shea during the construction there so people would know what the alternate routes might be. Therefore, when impacting major intersections for a long period of time and over the course of a morning such as this event, something was needed to notify citizens as to what those alternate routes might be. Councilmember Hansen clarified that she was talking about not leaving the plan up to the applicant. Mr. Hughes stated that the applicant usually presented the plan and that it was ultimately the street department and MCSO who approved or denied the proposal or requested changes. He indicated that staff could again look at the wording and find out what the requirement should be. In response to a question from the Mayor, Councilmember Hansen stated that it had been her impression from the way it was currently worded that the applicant was coming up with the alternate route and so she had felt the people Z:\Council Packets\2010\R10-7-10\100914M.doc Page 5 of 16 with more expertise (such as staff who do events) should provide suggestions of what routes worked rather than the applicant coming up with the plan. Mr. Hughes clarified that the process was a little bit of both as hopefully when the applicant came in with the plan they had thought about a lot of different things and if staff saw things as they were reviewing the application, they could make the suggestions to the applicant. He commented on the fact that staff did not want to do all the work for the applicant; however, in certain cases staff would make suggestions. In response to Mayor Schlum as to what the current wording was, Councilmember Hansen read the current section being discussed regarding alternative routes found on page 7. She indicated that she saw the process as being more of working with the Town vs. as to what works for an area. The Mayor concurred as staff was skilled in that area. Mr. Hughes reiterated staff would look at the wording in that section. Vice Mayor Brown commented that staff was on the right track and had made big strides with the proposed changes. He said he had concerns with the base fees as it would be a challenge as that would take as much time as what had been done and he did not know what the thought process was as to how staff would attach fees. He asked if Mr. Hughes planned to contact other towns and look at their fee schedule. Mr. Hughes confirmed that the plan was to do some research as to what other municipalities charged and determine what was realistic for Town as far as staff time review and things like that. He felt the research would encompass comparisons and a determination of what it takes on staff’s part to do it. Vice Mayor Brown stated he did not want the fees set too high but he did not feel they should be giving staff’s time away for the events. Vice Mayor Brown addressed the barricading item noting that his company routinely worked with barricading companies. As part of the rental fee they had their engineer do the barricade designs and flows etc. because it was a public safety matter and then submit it to the town for his company so they did not have to mess with it. The Vice Mayor stated he understood staff’s intent and it was something that the applicant they would not have to touch it. He expressed that was a good thing. Councilmember Leger commented on the nice job of putting the information together and said that when he was looking at the objective of simplifying the process he had started to reflect on amount of time he had spent on the Council and he could not recall a time when a special event had not been unanimously approved and even prior to his time of servicing on the Council. Therefore, he questioned the necessity of special events coming before the Council for approval. He indicated that he would like to see a process where applications were approved internally and maybe it could go through the committee, directors, and then finally to the Town Manager and as Councilmember Elkie referred to the only time applications would come before the Council would be for appeal of denial by the committee. He said the application was pretty thorough and the Codes are pretty straight forward; therefore, he viewed this as being administrative expressing that he was very confident that Mr. Hughes, the committee, his director and the Town Manager had the expertise and authority to approve things like this. He asked if this would also expedite the process depending upon the event itself and noted that he had seen where timing was such and applicants had to wait two weeks for a Council meeting and they were unhappy, etc. Noting that he was thinking outside the box he had wanted to throw that out. He acknowledged that he would be more than happy to relinquish that decision making power and felt staff had the expertise to do that. Town Manager Rick Davis addressed the Council stating he was in favor of that type of process, as simplifying the process was a big objective for staff as the Council wanted to empower people to present these events. He pointed out that staff utilized the ability to come to Council meetings as a means to provide information about the events. He commented that he was ok with the process in giving staff more latitude to approve events as long as on occasion and regularly staff had the opportunity to give the Council a heads up on the kinds of events that were coming so that the Council was not caught off guard and to receive feedback with regard to the appropriate nature of the event. He indicated that one thing that staff did not want to do was to embarrass the Town by having a certain type of event that was not evident to staff in keeping with the character and culture of the community that could cause a problem. He stated his appreciation of the latitude as suggested by Councilmember Leger in providing staff with the opportunity to do that as it would simplify the process; however, he pointed out that staff liked to share with the Council what was coming forward and the specifics as then the Councilmembers were ambassadors for the Town and staff wanted to ensure that the Council was as informed as possible and not taken off guard regard events. Z:\Council Packets\2010\R10-7-10\100914M.doc Page 6 of 16 Councilmember Leger acknowledged that was probably the only downside as he went through the thought process but he stated there were ways of communicating that information. He stated that one of the benefits was that the Mayor had the opportunity to announce events as approved but he reiterated that there could be a way of communicating that either in advance or perhaps in a Council packet; Mr. Hughes could come before the Council at a meeting to give a schedule and heads-up of what had been approved. He stated the opinion that would be even more proactive as oftentimes there was an event on the agenda and the event was to occur in two days; this could provide an opportunity for Council input into the event. He reiterated that he could not think of an event historically that even Councils prior to his serving on the Council where a special event had not been approved. He proposed that this was just his recommendation and he was not sure how the other Councilmembers felt about it. Councilmember Hansen stated the only other thing that would be lost if the Town had significant events (major event) where streets were closed simply because that was allowing anybody from the public to speak at a meeting in opposition to an event (such as they had had enough of events, the street has been closed too many times, etc). She suggested that perhaps street closures and number of attendees (100,000-150,000 people) should be the type of event that would be more appropriate to bring before the Council Councilmember Elkie discussed the type of events that did not take a lot of Town resources and asked if those types of events previously were required to come before the Town Council (example given - jam session down at the performance pad). Mr. Hughes clarified that was an example of an event that someone had proposed but it would not necessarily come before the Council if it were more like a park rental. However, the event did require staff to sign off on the application and collect the fees for the rental and as long as there was not anything that was of public safety concern (i.e. street closure, alcohol) he stated the opinion that he did not know if that event would necessarily be brought before the Council. He explained that even in some cases, based on the history of the events the Town has had, the street department pretty much had it down as far as the streets being closed for certain events (i.e. Movie in the Park). He mentioned the closure used for Movie in the Park would be the same closure used for Ballet Under the Stars (pretty routine) and he reiterated those type of events might be able to be eliminated from bringing it before the Council. Councilmember Elkie spoke to the one of the main goals not only for staff but one of the requests of the residents was to expedite the process a bit so they did not have to wait to get the application on a Council meeting agenda. He acknowledged that hopefully what staff was proposing, the way he was reading it, would at least expedite the process and alleviate some phone calls and complaints to staff. Mr. Hughes agreed it would help a bit and addressed Councilmember Leger’s comments stating that in the past there had been events that had been administratively approved, which occurred the following week. He discussed that staff had been trying to avoid that as much as possible because staff knew what the events were on the calendar and that did not change significantly year to year. Staff worked to try and get the applications before the Council in a timely manner and if the committee was meeting the first and third Tuesdays of the month (current meeting schedule) staff could anticipate what those applications were and get through the review process rather quickly if the applications were more routine in nature (i.e. done this event before, discuss proposed changes to a reoccurring event). He reiterated that the process could make review quicker not only for staff but for the applicant and the Council as well. Mayor Schlum asked about the internal event application and asked if it would be similar for an applicant. Mr. Hughes responded that it could be. He noted that staff was trying this application because of events such as Movie in the Park. Staff needed to be aware of what was going on but it provided only basic information and so far it had worked well over the last year. In response to a questions by the Mayor, Mr. Hughes stated that the objective was to reduce the number of pages in the application, which was currently at 17 to about 10 -12. He explained that there was some information that staff did not want to miss out on obtaining from the applicant and there was a need to know exactly what applicants were planning. Mr. Hughes said that with regard to what further Council direction was needed staff’s unofficial policy and the way the Code was currently written provided for if there were street closures, those event application would be brought to the Council for approval. If the Council wanted to simplify the process even more and formalize the committee providing them the authority so not all applications were brought to the Council that could be done, but that would require a change to the Town Code to reflect that. Z:\Council Packets\2010\R10-7-10\100914M.doc Page 7 of 16 Councilmember Hansen noted that most of the events were on the calendar and suggested that the events that were ongoing or repetitive (even if they did have street closures) probably would not have to come before the Council. She commented on a prior event from 1989 (Fourth of July Fireworks) when the Town had over 150,000 attendees. She proposed that if a new event came forward, perhaps that would be a trigger that the application would come before the Council. Mayor Schlum said that he liked that idea as the big events were on-going and held year-to-year. Mr. Hughes stated they were referenced now in the Town Code as grandfathered events but that was an event that happened consecutively for 10+ years. Mayor Schlum asked Mr. Hughes what had been the biggest complaint from the public relating to a small event. Mr. Hughes responded there were times when applicants came in with an idea and had not really thought it all the way through; once they talked with staff they had their eyes opened to level of detail needed and it was noted their event was not as simply as first thought (i.e. timing of the event not taken into account). He indicated staff had not received too many complaints; sometimes fees were questioned for the smaller events as applicants would like to see smaller fees. However, in general, if staff was a little flexible with the timing (90 days application submission requirement), if staff worked with the applicant, if staff planned ahead, and if the events were repeating he noted that should not be an issue either. Mayor Schlum reiterated that staff would be researching the fees charged and Mr. Hughes concurred. Mr. Hughes, in response to a question from the Mayor stated that fees were not charged for use of park space (ramada, etc) if someone were to just show up and use that facility as it would be on a first-come-first-serve-basis. However, Mr. Hughes said that if someone were planning a major event (wedding, birthday, etc.), staff wanted the detail and it would be in the applicant’s best interest to take the time to submit an application in order to ensure use of a specific area or any other facility in the park. Mayor Schlum asked about the barricading issue brought up by Councilmember Hansen and asked anything further needed to be done on that. He thanked her for those comments and Councilmember Hansen stated that Vice Mayor Brown’s remarks were good. Mayor Schlum asked that the proposed costs be brought back to Council once the frame of reference was completed and that the benefit to the community be kept in mind when someone was putting an event together (i.e. sales tax revenue, adding to the character of the community) as they did not want to disqualify ourselves for a non-profit event or convention from being held because the amphitheater was too costly. Councilmember Contino commented that he liked the theory of working on the K.I.S.S. aspect. Mr. Hughes agreed and said staff would keep it simply. Mr. Hughes thanked the Council for their input and said staff would keep working on this. He reiterated that the goal was to have something ready for the Council and the new fee schedule as part of the budget process with the changes implemented as of July 1 next year for the next year’s events. AGENDA ITEM #3 - DISCUSSION OF INCREASED MARICOPA COUNTY ELECTION SERVICE FEES, THE OPTION OF CHANGING TO THE FALL ELECTIONS CYCLE WITH INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THE COST OF ALL MAIL BALLOT ELECTIONS. Town Clerk Bev Bender addressed the Council relative to this item and reviewed a PowerPoint (copy of file in the Clerk’s office). She explained that this item had been brought to the Council before and was being brought back at this time due to the County’s increase in election service fees. She noted that in the packet the pros and cons of each had been provided as well as the in-direct impacts for consideration. Ms. Bender stated that the per active registered voter cost increased to $1.37, the early mail ballot cost increased to $2.12 each, and the consolidated ballot county wide ballot per active registered voter increased to $.50. She discussed that Maricopa County Elections held their election in the fall of even years and if the Town were to utilized that election cycle the Town would precluded from holding an all mail ballot election because the County did not have the ability to hold a mail ballot election (no provisions in State Statute to allow). She noted that other items to keep in mind were that Sanitary District Z:\Council Packets\2010\R10-7-10\100914M.doc Page 8 of 16 held their election in the fall on odd years, the School District held their election in the fall in even years, bond elections were required to be held in November and property tax election were required to be held in May. Ms. Bender mentioned that cities’ and towns’ original incorporation date played a part in determining when they held their initial elections and displayed a recap of that information calling attention to those municipalities that were highlighted as physically surrounding Fountain Hills. She stated that out of the 90 Arizona cities and towns: 11 utilized the fall election cycle – even years; 6 utilized the fall election cycle – odd years; 40 utilized the spring cycle –even years (the Town’s current cycle); and 39 utilized the spring cycle – odd years, and commented that the Town of Star Valley had recently incorporated and had chosen the spring election cycle – even years. Ms. Bender discussed the election deadline chart noting that it had been prepared so there was an opportunity to compare the various deadline that impact candidates and the public at election time. She reviewed the election cost comparison chart noting that the Town’s March 2010 Primary Election cost to the Town was $23, 236 and change and the Town’s May election on the county consolidated ballot cost had been $4800. However, when comparing apples-to-apples using the new fee schedule and by using a snapshot in time (using data as of August 25) relating to the active number of registered voters and voters on the permanent early voting list (PEVL) the Town would have a saving of $30,000 on the county-wide consolidated ballot and about a savings of $4,100 on an all mail ballot election vs. the cost of a ground election (stand-alone Town election). Ms. Bender commented on voter turnout and reviewed the chart that showed Town’s vs. the County’s election turnout rates since 2002. It was noted that the County’s election turnout for their August Primary Election was recently added (29.04%). She noted that the Town’s largest voter turnout had been the last General Election (50%) but it had had the State’s sales tax increase question on the ballot. She pointed out that the number of voters that went to the polls on Election Day were less than those who cast their ballots by mail. Ms. Bender discussed a slide which displayed a recap of voter turnout % from cities and towns that held all mail ballot elections (the before and after turnout rates) and indicated a willingness to answer any questions. Mayor Schlum asked about the recent legislation that required larger cities to go a certain election cycle. Ms. Bender explained that if their population was 175,000+, then they were required to go to the fall election cycle. She indicated that the City of Gilbert would probably be next after the release of the 2010 census results. The Mayor stated that there were really two items to be discussed (i) changing the election cycle and (ii) all mail ballot elections. Ms. Bender agreed but noted that was after considering all of the pros, cons and in-direct impacts for those two options. Councilmember Dickey emphasized that 6 cities out of those eleven and now Gilbert had been affected by that law and were on the fall election cycle: Mesa, Chandler, Scottsdale, Phoenix, Tucson, and Glendale. She expressed that one of the minor reasons to like all mail ballot elections was for when there were really cold election days as it was this past March. She indicated that with an all mail ballot election polls were not needed or the signs necessarily; it appeared that the all mail ballot turnouts were pretty good and expressed the opinion that it was something to consider. Ms. Bender pointed out that up until 2008 when the permanent early voting list came into play the all mail ballot option had been more expensive for the Town but now that the Town had that fee any way the cost gap had closed quite a bit. Councilmember Contino commented that the early ballot turnout was greater and asked if people could vote at different places and could walk-in and vote. Ms. Bender clarified that voters would utilize the Z:\Council Packets\2010\R10-7-10\100914M.doc Page 9 of 16 Maricopa County early voting sites to vote in person; however, voters would have the ability to drop off their voted ballot at Town Hall, which had been offered as an option for the last two Town elections when the Town did not offer in person early voting on site. Councilmember Elkie asked if there was a trend with cities and towns going towards all mail ballot elections or was it mixed. Ms. Bender stated the opinion that more cities and towns would move in this direction as a way of reaching out to more voters and noted that the Town had about 16,000 registered voters out of a population estimated at about 26,000. Councilmember Elkie commented on voter turnout stating that he found it remarkable that even in those municipalities who conducted a mail ballot election where the voter merely needed to check a box and not even stick a stamp on the envelope they had about a 25-28% voter turnout in those instances. Ms. Bender interjected that there was no way to make a voter return the ballot but it could be sent to them. The Mayor discussed that moving to the fall election cycle would result in more voters casting their ballots. Ms. Bender stated that the biggest reason against the fall cycle was because of the partisan elections. She discussed concerns that the City of Mesa had with the recent Primary Election, lack of communication with the County and the fact that voters who were registered as an independent or another party needed to be informed quickly about their ballot options, the need to request a party specific or a non-partisan ballot so they could cast their ballots for city candidates/issues. Councilmember Elkie stated that obviously with increased voter turnout that meant the number of signatures would be increased on petitions to get on the ballot. He questioned if that was a fit for the small town feel the Town wanted and f they wanted a situation where only those with a large amount of money or support would seek election as that could eliminate some from running. Councilmember Leger thanked Ms. Bender for the presentation. He said in reviewing the information provided that it appeared that the majority of the towns that had gone to an all mail ballot election, if not all, had increased voter participation in their elections significantly, which he stated was critical. He noted that over the years they had talked about voter apathy and the fact that there had been different initiatives to try and increase participation. He expressed that he favored at this point at least considering an all mail ballot simply because it did increase participation. He stated he did not favor rolling the Town into the fall election cycle and noted that the City of Gilbert was going to the fall cycle screaming and yelling and cited that a lot of the communities were very unhappy with that move. He commented on the size of the fall ballot and the issues not to mention the partisan concerns. Councilmember Leger spoke about the expense to candidates for municipalities who had gone to the fall cycle as they were spending a lot more money noting it was not an issue of name recognition anymore when they were up against legislative initiatives, federal and so forth. He said he understood that elections were getting more costly and that by going to the fall cycle the Town could save money; however, he expressed the opinion that in a municipality a local election was a sacred cow and it needed to be preserved at all cost, noting he felt the cost was still reasonable. Councilmember Leger stated that in respect to costs, referencing the City Scottsdale, the Town had a primary for the local elections and if someone did not get the 50% + 1 at the primary the general election was held. He asked what it would take from a legal perspective or if there was interest to just to have a local general election, keeping it in the spring, and having the top vote getters win rather than having to go that extra step (that extra election); he stated that would save money. Councilmember Leger pointed out that had not been necessary the last couple of elections but there were other times when the Town had to go in the other direction. He stated the opinion that the all mail in ballot was something that the Council should take a serious look at referencing the number. He noted that for those Councilmembers who ran Z:\Council Packets\2010\R10-7-10\100914M.doc Page 10 of 16 the last time only 900 people voted at the polls and in looking at the numbers (mail ballots) he made the observation that the Town was almost already there and he felt the Town would see a higher turnout % with a mail ballot election. He stated that was democracy in action, which was extremely important. Councilmember Leger asked the Town Attorney if it was only charter cities that could do that or would something have to be changed, was it a legislative thing if the Town wanted to have a general election or just go with the top vote getters. Town Attorney McGuire responded that the option to go to a single election was for a small community (5,000 population) so it would take a legislative fix to have the ability for the Town to have a single election and even with that option, the Town would be required to have 3/5’s elected in that election in order to not be required to go on to a general election. Mr. McGuire said he did not know what the legislative mood was as they amended that section in State Statute just last year to ensure that charter cities were clear that they were covered by it as well. However, he was not sure what the Legislative’s current mood was to allow cities to just hold a single election as he had not been to the Legislature on that issue. He indicated that was something that could be presented and if there was a lot of interest, and because of the increased election costs, it was possible that the Town would have a lot of friends that would want to talk about that. Councilmember Contino commented on voters’ complaints of being in the wrong precinct as being an item that could be eliminated with this type of election (all mail ballot election). Councilmember Dickey discussed the fact that there might be more voter turnout in a November election (fall cycle); however, when municipalities were that far down on the ballot people might not vote the entire ballot and candidates could be required to obtain more signatures because of a larger turnout when, in fact, those voters did not even voted for the Town’s race. She stated that it might be a purer election even if one of the consequences was that candidates were required to obtain more signatures because that meant more people turned out for the election. At least they would be turning out for a municipal election and not because it was a November election but they did not bother to vote for Council anyway. She indicated a preference for the mail in ballot even if the consequence was that more signatures were required. Councilmember Hansen stated that one of the problems with the fall was that people could get really cranky and might be a worse mood in going to polling place. She stated that the savings going to the fall cycle was compelling, but when reviewing the election results provided and you go page by page before you finally get to the local election results and how many days would you wait for it. The all mail ballot provided a little savings but at least it was a savings. Councilmember Elkie asked when mail ballots are required to be turned in. Ms. Bender clarified ballots would be required to be submitted on Election. Councilmember Elkie asked when the mail ballots would be sent out in relation to Election Day. Ms. Bender said that was something the Town could determine – ballots could be mailed between 26 and 15 days prior to the election. It was a specific period so that people would be looking for the ballot. She explained electors sometimes were not looking for them or they had received them and they call for a replacement. She stated that specific period would be helpful for candidates as well. Councilmember Elkie said he would have concern as to when the ballot was due back because sometimes folks like to wait until Election Day to drop it off because they wanted to make their decision on the day of. Ms. Bender stated that was available now but staff counseled voters who held on to their ballots not to mail them but to bring them in and drop them in the ballot box as the ballot box would be pick-up and transported down to the County for processing. That way the ballot would not lag in the mail and find out that their ballot was not counted. Z:\Council Packets\2010\R10-7-10\100914M.doc Page 11 of 16 Councilmember Elkie said it was important to note that about 20% of the actual votes cast (857 of the total votes cast of 4,540) were those who came out on Election Day to vote. Although it was not a significant overwhelming number but it was still important to note. Mayor Schlum commented that that number had been dropping a lot. The Mayor asked if the Town went to an all mail ballot election, would there be a place on Election Day to drop off a ballot. Ms. Bender stated the Town would still maintain a ballot box at Town Hall. Councilmember Hansen said that would still satisfy the voters’ need to take their ballot and put it in the box. Ms. Bender interjected that would satisfy those who had a concern that their signature appeared on the outside of the affidavit envelope. Mr. Davis made the observation that the consensus of the Council was to move forward with plan for an all mail ballot that would take place in the spring and with regard to an all mail ballot he noted that Utah was the first state to give women the right to vote. Councilmember Leger discussed the timing of going to an all mail ballot, asked if this would take away the early voting process and inquired when early voting started. Ms. Bender responded that early voting started 26 days prior to the election. Councilmember Leger noted that the timeframe was within that window and as Councilmember Hansen had mentioned that having a place to go and to drop something off for those who were traditionalist, as he was, still satisfied that need of having something paper and walking in and going through the process. Councilmember Leger asked if that box would be in one location. Ms. Bender responded yes and stated the box would probably be located on the 2nd floor behind the secured area. Councilmember Leger asked if it would be possible to still give a sticker as there were some people who enjoyed doing that and he did not want to take that experience away from them. He referenced a comment made by Councilmember Contino noting that every time he voted the people running the thing complained how much heat they were getting, the voters were in the wrong place, etc. He expressed the opinion that it was getting worse. Ms. Bender said that the concern she has heard is that the Town has changed the voters’ polling place and she explained that polling places were determined by who was running the election. She noted that the Town tried to consistently use the same locations; however, if there was an election in-between, polling locations could change. She pointed out that the Town was not the only authority that held elections in Town. Councilmember Leger commented that people could still early vote or hold on to it or drop it off, which was the best of both worlds and Ms. Bender concurred. Councilmember Leger said he liked the window of early voting to be less than it was now because it gave the candidates an opportunity to get their viewpoints out there as voters have cast their votes prior to debates and wished they had not done so and would have liked to change their minds. Councilmember Elkie asked about what they should say to the residents when they come to them and say I have to sign my ballot, my ballot is suppose to be secret, and I have to put my signature on the outside and now someone will know what may vote is. Ms. Bender acknowledged she had heard that concern too. She stated that the voter needed to remember that what they voted appeared on the ballot that they had placed inside the envelope. The only thing showing was their signature on the affidavit envelope, which needed to be verified at the County level as they maintain the signature database and when the envelope/ballot went to the County to be processed someone first looked at the signature and then it was moved along to other boards so it was not the same board who was processed the ballot. The Mayor asked if the ballot was then separated from the envelope and Ms. Bender stated that was correct. Ms. Bender stated that the change to an all mail ballot would require adoption by ordinance so it would be brought back a subsequent meeting. Z:\Council Packets\2010\R10-7-10\100914M.doc Page 12 of 16 AGENDA ITEM #4 - DISCUSSION REGARDING THE OPTION OF CHANGING THE MAYOR TERM TO 4 YEARS. Mr. McGuire addressed the Council relative to this item noting that the question had been raised at least three times and each time the Councils had declined to move forward. He noted that the last time this topic had been discussed was in 2008. He said the Council recently received a memo from him that had been prepared for the Town Manager in 2009. He said the memo described the process that would be involved, indicated that the statutes did not specifically address it, and he acknowledged that it had taken a little bit of an interpretational bridge to get to the conclusion as to how the Council could change the Mayor’s term from 2 to 4 years. He acknowledged that his predecessor had come to a different conclusion than he had; however, Mr. McGuire stated the opinion that the Council needed to hold an election to do it, noting that his predecessor had not believed that to be necessary and that the Council could make the change. Mr. McGuire stated that because the Mayor was a member of the Council and the requirement to change the terms of councilmen (from two to four years) required an election he believed it would be the same thing for the Mayor was one of the seven. He explained that the Statutes did not directly talk about making the term from two to four years anywhere in the Statute and that those other communities that had gone that route had done so by election; therefore, he was of the opinion that that was the prudent route to go. He noted that the change could not affect the seated Mayor and discussed how the City of Tempe had gone through the process and how they had handled a lawsuit over it. He discussed that Tempe had come to the conclusion that the election at which the Mayor was elected could then move on and serve the longer term. Mr. McGuire stated he was not comfortable with that interpretation explaining that State Statutes and the Constitution were clear that they could not affect the change to the Council that they served on so he expressed that he would be more comfortable if the election were held on the same ballot as usual where the Mayor was being elected, unless a special election were held, and that the ballot question reflected it would be for one full term ahead; so that whoever was running the election would be for a two year term and if that item passed, the next Mayor election (two years later) would be for a four year term. He stated that was the more cautious approach and provided less exposure to someone trying to undo it later on and causing all kinds of turmoil if the Mayor’s four year term was declared invalid. He explained that it would give the voters a fairer look at it letting them know they would decide this issue separate and apart from the personality who might be involved in the election. Mr. McGuire reiterated his opinion that this was a decision to be made by election and it would be an election subsequent to an election at which it was passed that the Mayor’s term would change to four years. Councilmember Dickey referred to a possible bond election to be held in November 2011 and asked if the question could be on that ballet with the Mayor term being for 4 yours for those running for election in 2012. Mr. McGuire stated that he believed it could be; however, the only constraint that they had was that the current term could not be affected. He indicated that he had stayed away from the special election topic for a multitude of reasons (i.e. cost if it were by itself; and because of the type of things that were sent to the special election ballot, like a bond issue) as it had been somewhat of a politically charged issue the last couple of times that this topic had been talked about. Councilmember Dickey stated that they were really separate items (bond vs. the 4 year Mayor term) so she did not necessarily see how one would affect the other except there might be a good turnout, which was what they wanted. Mr. McGuire clarified that he just did not want to be the one who recommended the timing of such an election; however, if the Council decided that was how they wanted to precede, that was their prerogative. In response to a question by the Mayor, Mr. McGuire stated that of those municipalities who switched from a two year mayor term to four years they had found used an election and used the election of a subsequent year. He stated Z:\Council Packets\2010\R10-7-10\100914M.doc Page 13 of 16 that generally that was how everyone had done it in the valley (research was done based peer communities). He commented on the fact that the number of two year mayor terms was shrinking, more were leaning towards a four year mayor term, and some communities had all seven members elected at one election and the members picked the Mayor from the group. He noted that Paradise Valley recently made the switch to directly elect their mayor and reiterated that this was entirely a policy decision of this Council as to how long the Mayor’s term was. Mayor Schlum commented on the fact that there was a way to do it and to have it done in a not so controversial way, except for the actual question itself. Mr. McGuire covered that the City of Tempe was challenged on their election, that it was upheld, and that theirs had the transition happening to that mayor as they had leaned a little on their charter provision. He expressed the opinion that the City’s rationale was a little off and the court’s rationale was odd as they had said it was a savings of resources so they did not have to have the mayor elected again, but the two year would have fallen on another council election day; however, they had gotten to the result that they wanted with a little extra discussion. He restated his opinion there was no reason to go down that road; the risk was small, but why take any risk. Councilmember Leger said that when you start talking about these types of things oftentimes the notion of term limits came up and when terms move from two to four years people start thinking in terms of “term limits”. He was unsure if they had ever had that discussion. Mr. McGuire responded that it might have come up in the other discussions but it had never been one of the main topics. Mayor Schlum interjected that he thought it may have been brought up last time when he had queried the former mayors; he noted they (the former mayors) had been on both sides. He noted that one of them had suggested that if the Mayor’s term went to four years, to include a two term limit as something to consider. Mayor Schlum said he thought he had brought that up the last time. Councilmember Leger asked if they had that dialogue and decided to move in that direction (term limits), would that be something that the Council agreed to or would that be something that the electorate would have to agree to or vote on, and could the Council do term limits without necessarily doing them for Council. Mr. McGuire said he would be reluctant to recommend that it be put on the ballot simply because then a voter protected initiative would have been created that might at some point might not serve the community. He indicated that the Council at the time might have a different idea on what they wanted to do eight years after that initiative took place; he mentioned that in other communities they work with and where term limits exist they were charter provisions that require a vote to change. He said that if the Council decided to go down that path, his firm had a considerable amount of experience with all the different things that you never thought could possibly happen that did when calculating term limits and would be able to provide that background information. He said he would have to get back to the Council as to if it had to be voter approved for term limits, but there certainly could be a voter initiative that imposed term limits as that was not outside the scope and it was within their legislative authority to put that on themselves so the voters had that authority as well. Mayor Schlum spoke about the benefits of a four year Mayor term as providing less opportunity for being involved in an election, but the more relevant benefit was the opportunity to be more involved in regional efforts (participating on boards, commissions) as their cycle for which they pick someone to chair or serve on a board, executive committee or one thing or another did not follow the election cycle so the mayor might not have an opportunity to be involved in such things not to mention that some of the feedback from previous mayors by the time the mayor who was not a previous councilmember gets their feet underneath them it was almost time for a new election; and the precedent set that most of the mayors elected in the past for two years were re-elected for two more years (it was somewhat of a trend). However, the main reason as to why not consider it, was that since there were three councilmember every two years who came up for election and the mayor it was an opportunity for the public to change out the majority of the council should they feel that desire. He noted that was a benefit that would not be there through an election process; however, he noted there were other processes to remove councilmembers. He indicated those were the main items that he had wanted to bring up. Mayor Schlum reiterated that he was not going to push hard in either direction as it could appear to be self-serving although he indicated that he did see benefits and he did not see an issue for the community if the Town had a four year for mayor. Town Manager Rick Davis made the observation that the communities that he had seen who prospered the most were the ones that had been able to provide stability in the chief elected position. He shared there was a very close correlation in this area (between cities who had really made a lot of progress and those who had not) even though Z:\Council Packets\2010\R10-7-10\100914M.doc Page 14 of 16 the leader might not be a strong mayor but a ceremonial leader who provided a certain political stability and calm to the town so that a lot of good things could take place. He said there was a lot of clarity that came to staff as well when the same person was there for a certain period of time; from a staff perspective it was a good thing to see stability in that particular seat. Councilmember Dickey stated that the Mayor should not be looking at this as self-serving as this was a policy decision as to what was best for the operation of Town in general, which was something that the Mayor did all the time. She said she did not see it that way and actually if it was not going to be until 2012 and there was another two years after that, it really was a separate item. She indicated that it was not anymore self-serving than it was for any one of the council or anybody else who thought they might run for office. She said regarding turnover, again having four turnovers at an election, basically what you would be saying was that if someone was unhappy with the Council, it would be exactly those four people who were up for election at the exact same time that everyone was mad at and who everyone was trying to get rid of; the chances of that was odd and was something that would not happen that often so she also did not think that was part of it. If talking about if this should be put on the ballot at the same time as the bond that was indicative of highly political thinking and that was what the Council did; however, if every two years, and it really did not take two years as it would be 18 months at the most when the Mayor would not be thinking that way. She said that situation had been seen in the Legislature (the two year terms were killers) and she noted that the trend was that they did not like term limits anymore as they did not serve the public; with these two year terms it was a natural thing to say “what do I have to do to get re-elected” as that was in the back of your mind. She indicated that she absolutely did not think the Mayor was being self-serving at all and stated that she was in favor of moving forward with this noting that it did not have to be on the 11/11 ballot. She reiterated that she favored looking at it and stated she was not in favor of term limits as they had not helped the Legislature. Mayor Schlum indicated that he had meant to say it would give the self-serving perception but he now felt that with the other constraints that had been talked about, he would advise having it on the future election and not have it kick in until a future election. Councilmember Elkie questioned besides the point that the Mayor had brought up regarding the cycles to sit on certain boards and committees (MAG and other organizations) that might hindered and besides the knowledge that the Mayor would be campaigning again if running again for re-election, what other negatives were there that would be faced by the Town. He stated the opinion that turnover was a good thing and having voter opportunity to come in and vote for their Mayor (CEO of the Town) was important. He asked what personally had the Mayor experienced that the Council should know about that the Town somehow hindered. Mayor Schlum said he had not noticed that as he had run uncontested last time so he did not get that. He said the election process for which was largely a volunteer position had become more than it was in the past. He expressed it could become quite an ordeal at times but it had its very positive elements as well. He stated the opinion it was a great process in general to go through as well. He said personally he had not felt a great deal of negative because he did not have anyone run against him so he did not have to go through all the additional evenings, nights, and weekends that those who ran for council positions in this last election had. He indicated that would be one of the bigger negatives outside of what he mentioned about not being on a regional council or board or having the impact in the regional way that would perhaps benefit Fountain Hills. He reiterated that the benefits outweighed any negatives, but there was kind of a desire not to change it because it seemed in the public’s eye that it was just benefiting someone to let them have an extra two years. He stated it would be to the Town’s benefit to have a four year term Mayor as long as they followed the process and it was not a controversial process in changing it to that. Councilmember Hansen acknowledged that the Mayor position was certainly a more time consuming position than the rest of the Council; people want the Mayor everyone, to attend meetings, ribbon cuttings and all of that. She stated the opinion that it could be a deterrent to some people who might consider running for Mayor if it were four years as opposed to two, because of the time commitment. She saw that as a possible downside as they might feel like they would be able to make it for two years, especially if they were working full-time, had to go to the valley and were just not available. Z:\Council Packets\2010\R10-7-10\100914M.doc Page 15 of 16 The Mayor concurred with Councilmember Hanson that was something to consider as it was realistic. He discussed that if you were a Councilmember running for Mayor, they would certainly have their legs under them and in two years they might be able to affect something as opposed to if you came on as a new Mayor. In that instance, he stated the opinion that it would take some time to get your legs, which had been commented on by past Mayors to him directly; he felt those points were valid. Councilmember Dickey said she liked the idea of somebody who wanted to do it for more than two years as it was a commitment. She said she was judging that from those things that they had tried to do here and she pointed to strategic planning and to the fact that it really took time to get stuff done. Unless it was felt that council people should have two year terms she did not really see the difference between them other than the fact that the Mayor had more responsibilities. She questioned why it was OK for the Council job to be for four years and not the Mayor’s; she did not see the rationale for that and proposed that the change would be better for everyone involved. Councilmember Elkie asked what the rationale was when the Town charter was put together; why did they want councilmembers to be for four years and the mayor for two. He suggested that the rationale might have been to ensure that there was regular turnover at the CEO position of the Town. He asked Councilmember Hansen for the historical point of view of why the decision was made that way. Councilmember Hansen clarified that it was because Wally Hudson would not vote for it until the position’s term was for two years and the majority of the Council had agreed with that. Mayor Schlum asked if she recalled the reasoning. Councilmember Hansen responded that his rationale was that there would be that turnover ability and he saw the position of the Mayor as being not setting more policy than the Council but certainly setting the tone and being more involved in the day-to-day operations when it came to the agenda or anything like that. She said the bottom-line was that the Council could talk about this a number of more times but suggested that they could just let the voters decide and if they wanted the Mayor term to be two years, so be it. Councilmember Leger agreed. Councilmember Elkie commented that would take away the appearance that the Council was trying to do a favor for one of us on the dais for present or future so if they left it up to the voters that would be the best decision. The Mayor asked Councilmember Elkie to clarify his statement to which he responded that it would be something that went on the ballot and leave it up to the voters to decide if they want the Mayor term to change from two to four if that was something that the Council could put on the ballot. Councilmember Leger said that did not look like the Council was stacking the deck, especially if it were to be on the ballot in 2012 and the new term went to 2014, as 2012 would be the end of Mayor Schlum’s current term. If Mayor Schlum decided to run in 2012, he would only be running for a two year term and if approved by the voters, the new term in 2014 would be for four years. He felt that scenario pulled Mayor Schlum away from the perception of being self-serving as he had referenced. Councilmember Leger agreed with the process of letting the voters decide. He said he liked the stability of a four year Mayor’s term; he felt it took about 6 months to hit the ground running, a year to get your stride, and then the person was already thinking about the election and that could cloud how one behaved. He pointed out that seemed to happen and he would like to remove that. He reiterated that he would be in favor of letting the voters vote on that. He stated the opinion that the self-serving thing was very distant by the time you get out there. Mr. McGuire summarized what he was hearing as in March of 2012 put the question on the ballot, which would go into affect two years later if approved by the voters (affecting the 2014 term). Councilmember Leger asked if they needed to vote on that. Mr. McGuire stated that it would come back as an ordinance at a subsequent meeting and that he wanted to ensure that he had it correct when he brought it back. Councilmember Hansen clarified that it was in 2009 not 2008 where it was brought up that there was always recall. AGENDA ITEM #5 – ADJOURNMENT. Councilmember Contino MOVED to adjourn the meeting and Councilmember Elkie SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Z:\Council Packets\2010\R10-7-10\100914M.doc Page 16 of 16 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS By __________________________ Jay T. Schlum, 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 Work Study Session held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills on the 14th day of September 2010 in the Fountain Hills Council Chambers. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 7th day of October 2010. _____________________________ Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk