HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010.1021.TCRM.Minutesz:\council packets\2010\r11-18-10\101021m.docx Page 1 of 25
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE
FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
October 21, 2010
* CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Jay T. Schlum called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Fountain Hills Town Hall Council Chambers.
* INVOCATION – Pastor Mark Derksen, True North Congregation
* ROLL CALL – Present for roll call were the following members of the Town Council: Mayor Schlum, Vice Mayor
Brown, Councilmember Dickey, Councilmember Hansen, Councilmember Elkie, Councilmember Contino and
Councilmember Leger. Town Manager Rick Davis, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire and Town Clerk Bev Bender
were also present.
* MAYOR’S REPORT
i) The Mayor would read a Proclamation declaring October 24, 2010, “World Polio Day.”
Mayor Schlum said that the Fountain Hills Rotary Club & Four Peaks Rotary Club World Polio Day on October 24, 2010,
was a positive initiative to create awareness and educate the citizens of Fountain Hills about the importance of eradicating
polio worldwide. He noted that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation had awarded $355 million to Rotary International
in a global effort to eradicate polio and added that $200 million was a challenge grant to the Rotary (one of the largest
ever given by the Foundation). He said that the funds would provide critical support to polio eradication activities
spearheaded by Rotary International and its partners. Mayor Schlum advised that the Rotary Clubs of Fountain Hills
initiative was one more community effort to invite citizens of the Town to support the Rotary’s goal and encouraged
everyone to participate in meeting this critical goal. He said that it was his honor to declare October 24, 2010 World Polio
Day in Fountain Hills.
* SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS
i) Recognition of Jerry Caldwell, Gary Goodell, Sherry Leckrone and Paul McDonald honoring their service on the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mayor Schlum requested that Jerry Caldwell, Gary Goodell, Sherry Leckrone and Paul McDonald came forward at this
time if they were present in the audience. Mr. Caldwell joined the Mayor at the podium. The Mayor advised that Mr.
Caldwell had been a long-standing member of the Planning & Zoning Commission and had done a tremendous job since
2002. The Mayor read a list of Mr. Caldwell’s contributions to the Town, thanked him for his excellent service to
Fountain Hills and presented him with a Certificate of Appreciation.
Mr. Caldwell thanked Mayor Schlum and members of the Commission that he had served with and said it had been a
great eight years and that he appreciated the opportunity to serve the Town.
Mayor Schlum stated that the other outgoing members could not be present this evening but thanked them too for their
dedicated service to the Town of Fountain Hills.
ii) Presentation by Alice Brovan, a Fountain Hills Chamber Players’ representative, relating to their role in the cultural
life of Fountain Hills.
Alice Brovan, a Fountain Hills Chamber Players’ representative, addressed the Council relative to the group’s role in the
cultural life of Fountain Hills. Ms. Brovan provided background information on the organization and said that their
audiences were made up of Fountain Hills’ residents as well as residents from Scottsdale, Mesa and Phoenix. She advised
that this was the 14th year of the group’s existence in Town and noted that all of their musicians were professionals and
who a long list of artistic credentials. She discussed this year’s concert series and provided information on fall events.
z:\council packets\2010\r11-18-10\101021m.docx Page 2 of 25
She encouraged attendance at the various concerts so that residents would understand the contribution that the group
makes to the cultural life of Fountain Hills.
Mayor Schlum thanked Ms. Brovan for her presentation and for the wonderful work that her group carries out.
iii) Presentation by Economic Development Administrator Lori Gary on the Customer Loyalty Program.
Economic Development Administrator Lore Gary addressed the Council relative to the Customer Loyalty Program, a
partnership between the Town and Town Center Group. She explained that the purpose of the program was to encourage
shoppers to spend money locally and reward shoppers who patronized businesses in the program. Ms. Gary discussed
how the program worked and noted that Loyalty Cards were available at any participating business. (Copy of the
presentation available in the office of the Town Clerk.) She said that shopping participants had the opportunity to receive
prizes valued between $25 and $50 and added that the program had been in effect for ten months. Ms. Gary noted the
original six participating businesses and discussed marketing efforts, both to the businesses and to the residents. She
reported that since its beginning the program had gained the participation of 66 businesses (22.2% since June) and they
had received a total of 87 filled Loyalty Cards (128.8% increase since June). She advised that to date 11 residents had
been awarded prizes. She discussed a special promotion, “Bigger was Better,” and encouraged residents to pick up a card
and start shopping. She also encouraged Town businesses to become part of the program.
Suzanne Nan addressed the Council and said that on behalf of Gail Oliphant she would like to thank the Council for its
support of the program. She commented on the positive impacts of the program and commended Ms. Gary on her efforts.
She discussed the prizes that would be given as part of the “Bigger was Better” event and strongly encouraged citizens
and businesses to join and participate in this wonderful program.
Mayor Schlum thanked Ms. Gary for her presentation and her efforts to help local businesses and encouraged the residents
and businesses in the Town to participate in this very worthwhile program. He also thanked Ms. Nan and Ms. Oliphant
for their efforts. He said that it was all about shopping and supporting local businesses and stated that shopping locally
helped to keep the community healthy.
CALL TO THE PUBLIC
Don Long, Superintendent for Chaparral City Water (EPCOR Water Inc.) invited the Town Council and the public to
attend an open house for EPCOR Water, Inc., to be held on Tuesday, October 26, 2010, from 4 P.M. – 8 P.M. at the
Fountain Hills Community Center.
CONSENT AGENDA
AGENDA ITEM #1 – CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL EVENTS BEING COORDINATED BY THE TOWN OF
FOUNTAIN HILLS COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT: HALLOWEEN ON THE AVENUE
(OCTOBER 30, 2010) AND THE TURKEY TROT 5K RUN AND FITNESS WALK (NOVEMBER 25, 2010).
SECTIONS OF THE AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS would BE CLOSED DURING BOTH EVENTS.
AGENDA ITEM #2 – CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL EVENT APPLICATION FOR THE FOUNTAIN
FESTIVAL OF ARTS AND CRAFTS, SPONSORED BY THE FOUNTAIN HILLS CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE, TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 12, 2010 THROUGH NOVEMBER 14, 2010. SECTIONS OF THE
AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS, PARKVIEW AVENUE, VERDE RIVER DRIVE AND SAGUARO BOULEVARD
would BE CLOSED FOR THE EVENT.
AGENDA ITEM #3 – CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY GISELA H. NAVONE (AMERICAN LEGION AUXILIARY, UNIT 58) FOR THE PURPOSE
OF A FUNDRAISER THAT was SCHEDULED TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 12-13, 2010 FROM 9 A.M. TO 6
P.M. AND NOVEMBER 14, 2010 FROM 10 A.M. TO 6 P.M. FOR A BEER GARDEN TO BE LOCATED ON
SAGUARO BOULEVARD AT PALISADES BOULEVARD AND WEST OF FOUNTAIN PARK AS PART OF
THE FOUNTAIN FESTIVAL OF ARTS AND CRAFTS SPECIAL EVENT APPLICATION.
z:\council packets\2010\r11-18-10\101021m.docx Page 3 of 25
AGENDA ITEM #4 - CONSIDERATION OF AN APPLICATION FOR A PERMANENT EXTENSION OF
PREMISES/PATIO PERMIT SUBMITTED BY MERITA KRAJA FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING
SPACE BY ADDING 323 SQUARE FEET TO THEIR EXISTING PATIO AREA FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICE
ASSOCIATED WITH EURO CAFÉ, LOCATED AT 12645 N. SAGUARO BOULEVARD, #11, FOUNTAIN
HILLS, AZ.
AGENDA ITEM #5 - CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING THE EMERGENCY EXPENDITURE AND
ESTIMATED BUDGET AUTHORIZATION OF $20,000 FOR THE EMERGENCY REPAIR OF UTILITY
LINES TO THE MEDIANS FROM VERDE RIVER DRIVE TO LA MONTANA DRIVE.
Councilmember Hansen MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda as listed and Councilmember Dickey SECONDED the
motion. A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
Councilmember Dickey Aye
Mayor Schlum Aye
Councilmember Leger Aye
Councilmember Hansen Aye
Councilmember Contino Aye
Vice Mayor Brown Aye
Councilmember Elkie Aye
The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
REGULAR AGENDA
AGENDA ITEM #6 – CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY TAIT DANIEL ELKIE (REPRESENTING THE VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS, POST
#7507, LOCATED AT 1647 E. PARKVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 204, FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ) FOR THE
PURPOSE OF A FUNDRAISING EVENT TO BE SCHEDULED AND HELD ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY,
NOVEMBER 12 AND 13, 2010 FROM 9:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M. AND SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2010 FROM
10:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M.
Director of Parks & Recreation Mark Mayer addressed the Council and explained that this item was pulled from the
Consent Agenda because of the applicant.
Councilmember Elkie, the applicant in this case, advised that he would abstain from any discussion/consideration of this
agenda item due to a potential conflict of interest.
Councilmember Leger MOVED to approve the Special Event Liquor License Application and Councilmember Dickey
SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those voting (6-0) with Councilmember Elkie
abstaining.
AGENDA ITEM #7 – CONSIDERATION OF A FINAL REPLAT, TRACT C, PARCEL B, AT SUNRIDGE
CANYON. (THIS REPLAT SUBDIVIDES THE EXISTING TRACT C INTO TWO TRACTS – TRACT D AND
TRACT E.) CASE #S2010-01.
Mayor Schlum advised that one report would be presented on Agenda Items 7 and 8 and separate motions would be taken
on each.
Town Engineer Randy Harrel addressed the Council relative to Agenda Items 7 and 8 and stated that the Town had
historically, since the mid-90's, accepted ownership of open space and drainage parcels for preservation purposes, upon
requests from property owners and after rectification of known issues on the properties. He added that after this
ownership transfer request, the Town or the School District would own the entire length of their largest wash, Ashbrook
Wash, from North McDowell to the northwest corner of the Town into Mountain Park. He referred to the proposed plat
displayed in the Chambers and said that staff's recommended stipulations for transfer of the ownership of most of this tract
were compiled and re-stated in his March 23, 2009, letter to Cecil Yates, Treasurer of the SSCA. He noted that SCCA
z:\council packets\2010\r11-18-10\101021m.docx Page 4 of 25
had satisfactorily completed the items in that letter and had officially reiterated its request for the Town to assume
ownership of the Ashbrook Wash portion of Tract C. He added that the Town had also completed a satisfactory Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment for the property and staff recommended approval of the plat and the ownership transfer.
He indicated his willingness to respond to questions from the Council.
There were no citizens wishing to speak on this agenda item.
Councilmember Hansen MOVED to approve the final replat of Tract C, Parcel B, at Sunridge Canyon (Case # S2010-01)
and Vice Mayor Brown SECONDED the motion.
Councilmember Leger commented that he and Mr. Harrel had an opportunity to review this area with Mr. Yates some
time ago and said that the sidewalk had a lot of erosion and this was part of the stipulations as well as maintenance items.
He asked Mr. Harrel if they had satisfactorily met all of the stipulations and Mr. Harrel replied that they had and the
property was now without maintenance deficiencies.
The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
AGENDA ITEM #8 – CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2010-03, ACCEPTING OWNERSHIP OF TRACT
E OF THE FINAL REPLAT OF TRACT C, PARCEL B, AT SUNRIDGE CANYON FROM THE SUNRIDGE
CANYON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. REA#2007-01.
For discussion on this item, saw Agenda Item 7 above.
Councilmember Hansen MOVED to approve Resolution 2010-03, accepting ownership of Tract E of the Final Replat of
Tract C, Parcel B at Sunridge Canyon from the SunRidge Canyon Community Association (REA #2007-01) and Vice
Mayor Brown SECONDED the motion.
There were no citizens wishing to speak on this agenda item.
The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
AGENDA ITEM #9 – DISCUSSION OF AMENDING THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN CODE, ARTICLE 10-1,
RELATING TO SOLID WASTE REGULATIONS AND DISCUSSION OF ACCEPTING THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE REGARDING THE SOLID WASTE REQUEST
FOR PROPOSAL.
Town Manager Rick Davis addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and emphasized the importance of this
issue. He expressed his appreciation to the elected officials, staff and citizens for their time, energy and expertise on this
item. He noted that this item preceded his coming on board with Fountain Hills and said that the Town had gone to great
lengths to ensure that the process associated with the development of this initiative was inclusive and transparent. He
added that the chronology, included in his written recommendation, was a myriad of meetings/discussions that preceded
tonight's meeting and said that countless hours had been spent probing, debating, deliberating, planning and listening. (A
complete copy of the presentation was available in the office of the Town Clerk.)
Mr. Davis advised that his administrative role was to ensure that the governing body received the most comprehensive
information possible with regard to the advantages and disadvantages of this initiative. He discussed his extensive
involvement regarding this particular issue and said that this evening he would provide his advice and recommendations
on this important issue. He stated that he recommended implementation of the single-hauler trash initiative and based his
recommendation on three positive expected outcomes associated with the implementation:
* The preservation of the Town's roadway system
* The elevation of quality life
* The infusion of cash into their local economy
z:\council packets\2010\r11-18-10\101021m.docx Page 5 of 25
Mr. Davis discussed the importance of preservation of the Town's roadway system and advised that little controversy
surrounded the premise that large trucks, such as trash hauling vehicles, had an impact on the Town's roadway system. He
further stated that likewise, it was safe to assume that the more trucks that traveled the streets of Fountain Hills every day,
the greater the impact on their roads. He said that they had been successful in acquiring some interesting study findings
from across the country pertinent to the impacts of trash hauling on city roadway systems and noted that he had included
reference to this information in his written report.
Mr. Davis advised that it was apparent that trash-hauling vehicles caused a disproportionate amount of wear and damage
to streets. He said that it was also interesting and fairly conclusive that most of the studies had coalesced around the
figure or factor of 1,000 passenger cars per trash hauling vehicle to describe impact. He reported that based on internal
data, they also knew that five trash hauling entities currently served the Town; these companies, combined, placed 8 to 10
trucks in the Town daily. Consolidated hauling was expected to take that number to less than two per day, a more than
80% reduction; trash hauling was performed primarily five days a week and Town annual expenditures for road
maintenance and repairs averaged approximately $800,000.
Mr. Davis stated that their consideration of these facts, combined with findings associated with national private sector and
governmental studies, allowed them to conclude that the current road impact of trash hauling on the Town's roadway
system was approximately $92,000 annually. He added that a movement to consolidate hauling could be rationally
expected to yield roadway savings of $92,000, based on an expected 80% reduction in trash truck traffic. He said that as
the Town had considered methods for meeting the significant roadway needs of the community, and as significant
investments were made in the Town's roadway system, this number became even more significant.
Mr. Davis discussed the elevation of quality of life in Town and advised that he would like to specifically focus on four
elements that directly and significantly impacted the quality of life in their neighborhoods, namely neighborhood safety,
noise, aesthetics and air quality. He said that the first three elements could be addressed succinctly. He stated that when
everyday was "trash day" and as many at 50 garbage trucks meander the streets of Town every week, safety, noise and
aesthetics were directly impact. He added that many of their streets lacked walkways that allowed pedestrians to avoid
using the shoulder of roads for walking jogging or bicycling. He noted that close encounters between pedestrians and the
fleet of trucks that service the Town was common and safety was compromised with more trucks on the streets. He said
that since every day was indeed garbage day, the noise associated with the truck traffic was a constant. He further said
that next, the aesthetic quality of any given neighborhood was impacted by the reality that there generally exists no day
from Monday to Friday when refuse cans were not visible at curbside.
Mr. Davis informed the Council that perhaps the most impactful quality of life factor pertained to air quality. He advised
that the Town already suffered from geography and air currents that allowed a significant amount of emissions into the
community. He reported that the American Lung Association ranked the Mesa/Scottsdale area number one in year round
particulate pollution. He said that again, based on a factor of ten trucks per day and 50 per week, garbage trucks in Town
emitted 287.36 metric tons of carbon annually, based on an EPA formula. He stated that the fully implemented
consolidation would, as noted before, reduce truck presence to nine per week and this would reduce carbon emissions by
206.02 metric tons annually.
Mr. Davis advised that the EPA, on September 3, 2010, had issued a rejection of the County's PM-10 plan. He noted that
this edict held the potential of costing the State and communities of Arizona billions in Federal highway funding. He said
that the County would need to re-qualify with the EPA and recapture Federal funding by meeting particulate emissions
standards at each of the monitoring stations. He added that as they embarked on this endeavor, it was incumbent upon
them to do whatever they could to limit large truck activity within their jurisdiction.
Mr. Davis also discussed the economic impact and advised that as they studied the effects of single-hauler consolidation,
and as the specific elements of the current initiative became more apparent, positive economic impacts emerged. He
reported that these impacts were best articulated in terms of money returned to citizens and funds injected into the local
economy. He said that first, staff had determined, based on interviews with haulers and citizens, as well as a review of
current hauler pricing among haulers, that the average residence paid approximately $16.00 monthly for refuse service.
He stated that consolidation would bring that number to $11.44 per month, a savings of approximately 30% and
multiplied by 10,000 residences, the number of homes in Town that they estimated would be able to immediately
z:\council packets\2010\r11-18-10\101021m.docx Page 6 of 25
participate in the new initiative, it was reasonable to expect a more than half-million dollar savings annually to the
residents of Fountain Hills.
Mr. Davis further advised that as this initiative proposed participation in Recycle Bank, a program which incentivized
recycling by making retail coupons available to recyclers based on the amount recycled there emerged yet another way for
residents and ultimately the community to benefit economically. He added that in fact, staff discussions with
representatives of Recycle Bank had indicated that residents of the Town could expect from $5.00 to $7.00 per month in
coupons that could be used at local stores. He reported that an August 27, 2010, article published in a South Carolina
Newspaper, "The Island Packet," quoted another Recycle Bank representative as stating that the average Recycle Bank
participant (nationally) redeemed $250 per year or $20.83 per month.
Mr. Davis informed the Council that the benefits of Recycle Bank could be viewed in two ways: First, given a modest
estimate of $5 per month in local coupons, this program could infuse the community with as much as $600,000 annually.
He said that this figure did not include any multiplier effect or factor associated with this infusion of cash into their local
economy. He added that from another perspective, if in fact a resident were to receive a $5 discount monthly to a local
store, (a store of his/her choice), the net monthly residential cost of refuse service could be lowered to $6.44. He noted
that no other arrangement in the Town currently offered any such incentive.
Mr. Davis clarified that this report to the Council was not intended to accomplish anything beyond simply providing the
basis for why staff would support this initiative. He advised that studies, statistics, and conclusions could and would be
disputed and scrutinized long past any decision. He added that nevertheless, based on the information that became
available over the course of this two-year process, it supported the premise that the community would significantly benefit
from consolidated trash service, and said that staff recommended all actions necessary to implement this initiative. He
reiterated that their recommendation was based on the following outcomes:
* $92,000 annual savings in road maintenance
* 206 metric ton reduction annually in trash truck emissions
* $600,000 more annual infusion into local businesses
* $500,000 citizen savings associated with trash services
Mr. Davis said that after all the discussions, studies and research that had taken place, Council needed to know what
conclusions staff had come to and what they based their recommendations on. He added they were always enthusiastic
about carrying out the will of the Council. He noted that he believed the streets would be quieter, safer and cleaner as a
result of the recommendation and thanked the Council for the opportunity to address them at this time. He stated that
Environmental Planner, Raymond Rees, would now introduce some of the contractors and people who would be
associated with the implementation of this plan and answer any questions that the Council might have. He added that
Town Attorney Andrew McGuire was also prepared to respond to questions relative to the Code and the proposed
contract.
Mr. Davis informed the Council that staff was not seeking a decision from the Council this evening; staff wanted to
present the information, provide the Council an opportunity to consider all that they had heard and read and then staff
would bring this issue back to them on November 4th.
Mr. Rees addressed the Council introduced the following people from Public Services: Johnnie Perkins, Director of
Municipal Services for the western region; Ted Sholeff, the Division Manager; Kevin Flannigan, Operations Manager;
Stacey Loveland, Public Outreach; and with Recycle Bank, Axel Newe; and with Hudson Baylor, the material recovery
facility, Denette Dunn. He indicated his willingness to respond to questions from the Council.
Mayor Schlum thanked Mr. Davis for his presentation and Mr. Rees for the introductions.
Town Clerk Bev Bender advised that 13 speakers wished to address the Council relative to this agenda item including one
from a person by the name of Candace who did not want to speak but wanted the Council to know that she supported
curbside recycling.
z:\council packets\2010\r11-18-10\101021m.docx Page 7 of 25
Steve Jacobs addressed the Council and said that he and his wife were 14-year residents of the Town. He said that Mr.
Davis covered a majority of what he wanted to say and he thanked him. He provided a copy of his proposal (Copy on file
in the office of the Town Clerk) as well as a letter from a consulting engineer who provided a lengthy report on the
damage to streets caused by trash trucks. He added that the City Engineer had also confirmed the damage. He stated that
one truck was the equivalent of 2,100 cars. He pointed out that there was going to be an objection and the one thing he
had heard over the last ten years was the issue of "freedom of choice." He noted that the Town had municipal water,
sewer and electricity as well as police, etc. and said that he did not believe that was a very valid objection unless someone
was completely fond of his/her garbage man. He thanked Mr. Rees, Mr. Davis, and others who had worked diligently on
this and also expressed appreciation to the Council for allowing him the opportunity to address them.
Shawn Dow addressed the Council and said that he had several concerns regarding this proposal. He said that currently
the Town Code said that trash haulers would pick up regular trash two times a week or they could pick it up once a week
and do recyclables once a week. He stated the opinion that the proposal was removing the ability for twice a week
pickup. He added that if the Council approved this, he would only receive regular garbage pickup once a week and got
recyclable pick up added so he would have to take out and remove two cans. He explained that he lived on a wash and
had to deal with javelinas all the time and at least once a week he had to go out and clean up the garbage and so they
would be getting into it more often or he would have to put the smelly trash into his garage, making his vehicle smell. He
added that by the Council choosing which company picked up residents' garbage, their choice was eliminated and they
had no recourse. He further stated that if they went to one company, the other company would have to remove their cans
and that would cost thousands of dollars. He also discussed work layoffs that this would cause and said that those people
lived and worked here in Town and would be negatively impacted. He said that they would be shutting down four local
businesses. Mr. Dow expressed the opinion that they would not be cutting down the traffic if they approve this proposal
and pointed out that HOAs would still be getting trash pickup from these companies, commercial companies too and so
they would still be coming here every single day and driving on the roads twice a week; they were just going to be doing
it less. He reiterated that drivers would have to be let go and stated the opinion that the free market system worked and
when government chooses who to do business with they hurt the other businesses. He encouraged the Council to vote no
on this amendment and leave everything the way it currently was.
Hugh Henry addressed the Council and stated that whenever anyone was on a wash in this community government turned
around and called it a zone that they could now tax and said that had happened in his neighborhood because he backed up
to a wash. He advised that he did not support Item #9 as it currently was and indicated that he would like to maintain his
current services. He added that he did not like the billing method and he did not like one day a week pickup. He stated
that he wanted twice a week pickup and he had done his own recycling for years. He requested that the Council
reconsider this issue and if they could not come up with a better proposal then they leave it the way it was.
Nancy Ordowski addressed the Council and said that she was a capitalist and believed in business and business enterprises
having the opportunity to run businesses. She added that some of the incentives mentioned in this particular presentation
could be done by all of the companies if they wanted to enhance their business if some residents signed up for a certain
term of service (they would receive a reduced rate). She further stated that when government got involved in business
they mess it up and it costs business owners more money to operate. She stated the opinion that way too much big
government already existed and they needed to take it to the local level. She commented on the fact that they had water,
electricity, etc. all being managed by the government because the power lines ran through all of the systems but trash
hauling was a totally different issue. She agreed that recycling was important but said that she would like to have the
choice about where to recycle. She added that if the Town wanted a recycling program, they had one just a little while
ago, they should charge a little bit for that particular program and have it work like it did over in the Library system. Ms.
Ordowski stressed the importance of not taking away peoples' jobs and expressed the opinion that the proposal would not
solve any problem as far as the amount of traffic on the roads. She further stated that for all of only 3 minutes a week they
hear the garbage truck come around and that did not equate to a noise problem.
Tony Van Den Heuvel addressed the Council and advised that he had two garbage cans and paid a little less than twice the
amount for a single garbage can. He stated that he was fortunate to live on a very large lot and did a lot of his own
recycling instead of contributing to unknown persons. He said that he did not know how he would manage with only one
pick up a week let alone two for two garbage cans.
z:\council packets\2010\r11-18-10\101021m.docx Page 8 of 25
Peter Bardow addressed the Council and advised that he was also a capitalist and agreed with many of Shawn Dow's
comments. He expressed the opinion that in the current economic climate it was unwise to further the control of
government. He noted that they had one water and one electric company, etc. and he did not knew about the Council but
he could see how well that was going -- he had problems with the water company and had nowhere else to go and
problems with other sole providers as well. Mr. Bardow urged the Council to reconsider this.
Linda Bardow addressed the Council and stated that the first thing that got her attention was when the gentleman brought
up government studies that had been done. She said that was an immediate red flag for her particular in view of the way
things were going in Washington today -- it made her very skeptical. She added that as far as $11.00 a pickup, how long
would that last and how long would that contract component be in place. She spoke in support of recycling but noted that
there were other ways in which to accomplish that. She informed the Council that she had two cans and on one occasion
she had a lot of trash and left the lid ajar and received a note from Code Enforcement saying this was a problem and could
result in maggots. She stated that having people all over Town not being able to put their trash into one could for one
pickup would only increase those types of problems. She said that she also questioned the amount of money that it would
save the Town annually and added that the program would be great for businesses but asked what businesses had agreed
to this. Ms. Bardow also concurred with Mr. Dow's previous comments and urged the Council to not approve this
proposal. She added that the quality of life for herself had been improved on the occasion that she did hear the garbage
truck coming up the street and realized that she had not put hers out yet -- she was able to make it in time on those few
occasions.
Robert Schafer addressed the Council and said that he was the owner of Rubbish Solutions in Town. He added that he
had a local office in Town and did support the community. He advised that his main comment on this issue was the
contract the way it was currently written. He stated that he heard Mr. Rees introduce Public Services, but no one else in
the room so he wondered if progress was being made with Public Services and they were already getting the contract
because he knew a lot of time and money had been spent on this but based on the way the contract was written nobody in
this room could have bid on this contract. He referred to Sections 9.5 and 9.6, Disposal Facility and Site Facility, and said
that it clearly states that the facilities must be open seven days a week from 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. He advised that
there were no facilities around that offer that service. He explained that based on those Sections he did not bid on the
contract. He commented that any progress that had been made to select a hauler had to be rebid.
Andi Bell addressed the Council and stated that if she were a betting person she would bet that probably the Council had
had their minds made up prior to this Call to the Public. She said that she agreed with a great deal of what had been said
this evening and advised that she had an issue when government threw out statistics. She added that the statistic of
$92,000 for the road repair was unfounded and questioned what they were going to do when the lots in subdivisions again
began to develop -- were they going to have to calculate for all the new haulers and cement trucks and everything else
going on. She noted that they had been a Town for many years and it happened. She pointed out that they had just spent
tens of thousands of dollars to repave the back of Colony Drive (a small bit that became a big bit). She informed the
Council that she personally did not trust the road repair savings amount that was provided this evening and would like to
have the choice of having garbage picked up twice a week and would like to recycle where she wanted to recycle. She
reiterated her opinion that the Council's minds were already made up.
Linda Schwaba addressed the Council and said that she was President of the North Heights Property Association. She
noted that the Board was in favor of the Town having a one source garbage solution. She referred to positive comments
provided by the Town Manager earlier in the meeting and said that those comments, combined with her discussions with
Mr. Rees, only heightened their support. She thanked them for the time they had put into this and noted that North
Heights had a non-mandatory, volunteer program in place and the residents were asked to go to a one source garbage
solution and it had been about three quarters successful (the remaining one quarter had the same concerns as some of the
speakers here this evening). She noted that they had had wonderful success and the streets were cleaner, everything was
quieter, they felt safer and they were present this evening to support the proposed one source garbage solution.
Steven Hadley addressed the Council and said that he was also a resident of North Heights and it was the sixth community
he had lived in. He added that this was also the first community he had lived in that had multiple trash haulers and
advised that what he noticed on his street prior to going to a single hauler was the incredible amount of noise five days a
week as many as three trucks a day. He reported that noise and pollution had certainly been reduced and the streets were
safer and he believed it was a much better experience (not having to listen to so many trucks on a daily basis).
z:\council packets\2010\r11-18-10\101021m.docx Page 9 of 25
Jeffrey Cohen addressed the Council and said he would like to address the issue of cleaner streets. He noted that with one
day a week trash pickup that was not going to happen, particularly for large families. He stated that they needed two or
three cans and they had to be stored somewhere so that was a major issue. He added that the other issue he would like to
speak to had to do with pollution. He thanked Mr. Davis for his presentation but advised that Scottsdale and Mesa were
non-attainment areas for PM, which was pollution. He said that the major issue with pollution was addressed by the EPA
and it was dust and had nothing to do with PMs that came from diesel engines. He further stated that they had talked
about an 80% reduction in traffic going from five haulers down to two and noted that that was actually a 60% reduction.
He discussed his belief in a free market society and urged the Council to keep an open mind. He added that perhaps this
issue should go to a public vote.
Mayor Schlum thanked all of the speakers for their comments and input on this issue.
Councilmember Dickey advised that the portion of the contract that dealt with carts did not have information relative to
their size (the choice on two different sizes) and asked if she had just missed it.
Town Attorney Andrew McGuire replied that the cart sizes were in the exhibits (5 through 8). He stated that there were
two sizes, the 95 gallon and the 65 gallon.
Councilmember Dickey said that she had not seen anything about choosing the size and Mr. McGuire stated that the
default size would be the 95 gallon and the residents would get a one-time "change the size of my cart option" to go to the
65 gallon and vice versa. The one time change would be for free and Mr. McGuire advised that he did not remember what
the charge would be for subsequent changes but it was nominal.
Mayor Schlum commented that he would like staff to reiterate just what they were looking at here -- discussion on two
items, the Code and also the solid waste RFP. He added that this would be a good opportunity to talk about the outline of
the RFP, the scheduling, costs, etc. He said that some citizens had concerns about needing another pickup and those were
some items that should be further discussed.
Mr. Rees advised that the contract, as currently stated, would allow citizens to have one trash pickup a week and one
recycling pickup a week. He added that residents would have the option of having ala carte, where if they wanted green
waste they could request a green waste cart for their pickup. He said that there was also an additional cart that they could
request for their home and it would be picked up on the same day as the trash cart (picked up together). He stated that
they would have two containers picked up one day and then the recycling picked up another day.
Mayor Schlum advised that the individual customers would deal with the hauler to select their ala carte service and paid
them directly and Mr. Rees concurred. He said that this was just for the basic service and everything else was ala carte.
Basic service was one trash pickup and one recycling pickup per week.
Councilmember Elkie commented that the "devil was in the details" and said he appreciated the Town Manager's
presentation but what he did not hear was what was exactly in the Town Code and what they were looking to adopt here
specifically. He stated that it was one trash pickup and one recycling pickup per week and if a resident wanted an
additional trash pickup a week they would be given an additional can for an additional cost and the second can would be
picked up once a week as well. He added that the same situation would apply if residents wanted recycling twice a week;
they would have to pay for an additional can and it would be picked up once a week.
Mr. Rees replied that he was not sure that they had addressed the second can for recycling.
Councilmember Elkie discussed the green waste cans for trimmings that were a larger size than what was specifically
stated in the Code and said if they wanted a green bin that could be picked up once a week but at an additional cost as
well.
Mr. Rees concurred with Councilmember Elkie's statement.
Councilmember Elkie noted that in the Town Code they talked about who this was going to apply to and it talked about
residential service units, which were basically homes that had the ability to have one trash receptacle or one recycling
z:\council packets\2010\r11-18-10\101021m.docx Page 10 of 25
receptacle and Mr. Rees concurred. Councilmember Elkie stated that what they were excluding were the apartments that
had one single large bin or condos that had a single large bin.
Mr. Rees agreed that said that they were considered commercial accounts.
Councilmember Elkie advised that those residents who live in apartments or condos that had a single trash bin without
recycling would be exempt from this and Mr. Rees concurred. Councilmember Elkie further stated that those individuals
would be able to contract with whoever they want.
Mr. Rees explained that it was set up so that every unit that had a single cart for service was going to be in this contract
(one bin at one residence).
Councilmember Elkie said that a condo then that had one large trash dumpster would not be included in this and again Mr.
Rees agreed.
Councilmember Elkie stated that the other haulers (there were five in Town right now) theoretically could serve the
residents in the apartments and condos and Mr. Rees concurred.
Councilmember Elkie noted that the proposal called for criminal sanctions for non-compliance and said that that was
currently not in the Town Code. Mr. Rees replied that he believed that the Town Code said that "unless otherwise stated”
were criminal counts.
Councilmember Elkie apologized and said that he should have addressed the legal question to the Town Attorney and
would do so in the future.
Councilmember Elkie commented that as far as recycling was concerned, residents under the proposed amendment or the
proposed article would be required to clean out their recyclables and put them in the bin and not in a plastic bag.
Councilmember Elkie indicated his intention to pose additional questions later on in the meeting.
Councilmember Dickey noted that the County said that you had to bag and tie your garbage and she was unsure about the
recycling.
Mr. McGuire replied that he did not believe that the Maricopa County Environmental Services Division had a provision
relating to recyclables and how they were treated but they were required under the County's Health Code to bag any trash
that went into a trash can.
Councilmember Dickey pointed out that Maricopa County said "all refuse for collection must be bagged and clearly tied"
so she was not sure about the recyclable part but it was true about the refuse.
Mayor Schlum stated that that brought up a point that was made by one of the citizens during the Call to the Public and he
had heard it a couple of times as well -- namely, who was checking trash cans that were open and why did we do that. He
asked for input on this.
Mr. McGuire explained that back in the mid-90's the Town had applied for and obtained a variance from the Maricopa
County Environmental Services Division to allow from the variance for the required two trash pickups per week (to have
vendors provide one). He added that unless you received that variance approval you were not allowed to have a one and
one collection system over the last 15 years that it had been in place. In order to maintain the variance, they had to have
an inspection system and that system had a minimum requirement regarding cans that had to be inspected on a regular
basis to ensure that the recycling cans did not contain solid waste instead. That requirement under the contract was being
passed on to the vendor and the provider was going to be taking over the Town's responsibility for doing the inspections.
Councilmember Hansen advised that she had felt fairly optimistic after reading the Town Manager's report but then she
went on to read the amended Code provision and out of 15 pages three had to do with penalties. She had gotten the
feeling that they were really expanding government and doing more than just having a single-trash hauler that would
z:\council packets\2010\r11-18-10\101021m.docx Page 11 of 25
make the community better. She urged every resident to read this new Article 10-1 Code and see how many provisions
were being put in that would control where people put their trash and how they put it in the cans. It seems very "heavy
handed" and she would like the Council to have more time to delve into this document and the provisions contained
therein.
Mr. McGuire commented that one of the things that should be explained about the Code Amendment and the reason why
it was being presented tonight for discussion with no adoption until the next meeting was exactly for that purpose. They
wanted to be very careful to not make every violation of this provision criminal, because that was a default provision. In
the Town Code if you spit on the sidewalk today, because there was no specific violation for that, that was a Class 1
Misdemeanor. That was an extremely severe penalty for the violation. This provision was a Code Enforcement approach
that first attempted to obtain compliance and followed up with civil sanctions and then by criminal sanctions only if the
other attempts did not work. He said he knew it was a lot more regulation but it was really intended to go in the other
direction and make it more likely that there would be enforcement that did not reach the criminal level. This provision
was in place in other communities that conducted active Code Enforcement programs and it worked to keep it in the
notice of violation section more often than not.
Mr. McGuire further stated that they had used generic terms and whenever they came to who was responsible for
enforcement, they made it the Town Manager or designee. That was done for two reasons, one, the Town Manager was
the highest appointed official and the person the Council had the most control over and the most direct contact with. The
Codes sometimes lacked the actual organizational chart and the names of things that they did changed (titles for example)
then they had something in there that did not made sense any more. The designee of the Town Manager was always going
to be the person in the position that was suited for this.
Mayor Schlum advised that to speak to Councilmember Hansen's point, when you read through the Code it had extra
language in it pertaining to punishments or steps to follow that got more significant and the reason that was being added
was to soften it so it did not become a criminal offense right off the bat.
Mr. McGuire agreed and said they did not want to be charging criminal misdemeanors for people breaking their trash
cans.
The Mayor asked whether there was another way to work it so that they did not have a default to the misdemeanor and
Mr. McGuire replied that there were a number of different ways and that was why staff wanted to have a gap in time
between the two meetings so they could flush out all of the different issues. If it was the Council's determination that they
did not wanted to use the violation process that came before them and to issue a civil citation, staff would be happy to do
that. If they want to get to the point where they did not have a criminal penalty for repeat offenders, staff would be happy
to take that out. Tonight's purpose was to get that type of input so that when it came back for adoption it was in the format
Council desired.
Councilmember Hansen noted that there was one provision included that actually said that the contractor could take a
photo if he sees a violation and leave a citation on the can so they were actually turning their contractor into a "trash
gestapo." She said it just really hit her that there were so many things in here relative to "you would do things this way
and that way..." and it really bothered her. At the very end it explained that they could only have one recycle and one
trash pickup and if they wanted to have an additional trash pickup so they could have two a week, they would have to be
done on the same day. People would be paying for an extra can but the pickups would be on the same day so in essence
that meant they would be storing three trash cans in their garages and she did not knew how many people had room for
three trash cans.
Mayor Schlum commented that as far as the Town Code piece they would obviously have to come back to that because
there were a number of things to address so if they wanted to think through how they might address some of the items
then they could get some additional clarifications to make sure they did not miss any of those items that Councilmember
Hansen and others were going to bring up.
Councilmember Dickey referred to Title 49-765, which was about local operation of solid waste collection, and said she
was wondering when they were considering this over the next couple of weeks if Mr. McGuire could provide her with a
better idea of that. It referred to "ordinances that were more stringent than the State law" and it said that they had to reach
z:\council packets\2010\r11-18-10\101021m.docx Page 12 of 25
a minimum of what State law was and they (the Town) could be more stringent. She stated that additional clarification on
this would be appreciated (what existed now).
Councilmember Elkie advised that Councilmember Hansen had touched on some of his concerns and he did understand
the Town Attorney's point that this was subject to change but even if this Council did not adopt it or adjusted the Code and
adopted something else and they go to the single hauler, that did not preclude other Town Councils from adopting other
similar codes that were being proposed right now. He commended the residents from North Heights who spoke, as well
as everyone who offered their input this evening, and thanked the residents for taking it upon themselves to contract with
a single hauler. That was what residents should be doing and if they had an issue where neighbors have five different
haulers on the street they should take it upon themselves to go to their neighbor's homes, talk to them and see if they
would like to negotiate as a whole as HOAs did in Fire Rock and Eagle Mountain in an effort to reduce the trucks on their
street and improve costs. They should not look to the Town to do it for them. One of the things that concerned him in the
proposed Code was that it would allowed for the Director, at his sole discretion, to decide whether or not a resident
needed an additional trash receptacle. Some of the things that Mr. McGuire pointed out as far as the Code was concerned
(the process) was this: Code Enforcement decided that you have some type of violation and were issued a notice. You
did not necessarily have to have received the notice (a warning) and if the problem was not fixed within the time period
specified then a civil citation might be issued. You could either pay the citation or you could ask for a hearing. If in the
course of 24 months more than three citations were accumulated, people could be charged with a Class 1 Misdemeanor
that did carry penalties and was a criminal offense (the maximum penalty possibly being six months in jail and a $2,500
fine). He reiterated that the "devil was in the details" and agreed with Councilmember Hansen that everyone should
review the details of the proposal so they understand what they were getting.
Councilmember Elkie further stated that he did not believe there was anyone on the dais who did not agree that a better,
cleaner, safer environment was something that they all strive for and if they could save some money while doing it as well
that was a good idea too. But, in spite of all the money that had been spent on this it was flawed and there would be a
number of unintended consequences.
Councilmember Leger commented that he had a few questions and he would like to address some of the concerns that
were raised by residents this evening. First, he said he would like to clarify the process -- it was his understanding that
they had a draft ordinance before them and a contract that was subject to continued negotiations. He had the opportunity
to review both of them throughout the week as everyone did and he had made very specific recommendations and changes
to things that he thought were not appropriate from his perspective and from feedback he had received from his
constituents. As a matter of process tonight, he would like to recommend to his peer Councilmembers that they make
specific recommendations relative to the items that they disagree with and that they consider changing the draft ordinance
and/or changing the contract. That was his understanding of why they were here this evening.
Councilmember Leger noted that Mr. Schafer had made a comment this evening and what he had said concerned him and
he would like to refer to the Town Attorney. He stated that he was not quite following his argument; however, it had
caught his attention. He had mentioned that based on one of the criteria in the RFP the RFP should be deemed null and
void because it was inappropriate as written. He requested that the Town Attorney address that.
Mr. McGuire stated that this issue was raised during the RFP process and staff made it clear to all of the vendors that if a
provision could not be possibly met, it was something that they were obviously going to discuss with everyone who
submitted a proposal or came to the Council and asked to be considered. Staff was not considering it the type of item that
should scuttle an entire process and the amendments that were issued had addressed a number of different things that were
in the RFP. The contract, as it was currently before the Council, had clearly been amended to allow for the collection
days and the days the facilities were open. He said that he did not agree with Mr. Schafer's position and said that there
were ample opportunities during the RFP process for those things to be addressed and were.
Councilmember Leger advised that this evening he heard a concern about not being happy with a hauler and said that they
have all perhaps experienced that. He asked in the current contract being proposed whether any clauses were included
that address performance and consequences and, if so, who was held accountable for performing and were there standards
of performance and consequences for the chosen vendor if standards were not met.
z:\council packets\2010\r11-18-10\101021m.docx Page 13 of 25
Mr. McGuire responded that there were two ways this issue could be addressed according to the agreement. The first was
by having people available to address customer service issues and the second one, which he believed was the more
important one, was a very extensive set of provisions in Section 18 relative to liquidated damages for failure to perform a
number of different things. He believed that staff had covered just about everything that vendors could fail to do. They
all contained monetary penalties and some were severe in certain cases.
In response to a question from Councilmember Leger, Mr. McGuire agreed that there was no distinction as far as this
issue went between HOAs and non-HOAs. If they went with a single trash hauler they would be responsible for all
residences, including HOAs, even those in gated communities. He noted, however, that there had been a lot of discussion
with HOAs and others regarding contracts that were currently in place and the importance of having as little disruption as
possible to those contracts. The Code Amendment was set out to provide that anyone wishing to come on board at a later
date needed to submit their contracts to the Town Manager prior to a certain date and then a phase-in schedule would be
created for all of those people so they could come in at a later date. The date was no later than 2 years after everyone else
had come on board.
Councilmember Leger commented that if they moved in this direction there would be a rather long transition period while
contracts expired (it would be a while before they would experience the theoretical savings) and Mr. McGuire stated that
they did not know right now how many of the contracts had been extended and how many were going to be coming in.
He advised that Mr. Rees had worked extensively with the HOAs and could tell the Council how many contract with one
vendor or another. Staff did know that right now the low bidder had the contract for all of Eagle Mountain so clearly
there would be an easy transition for that entire community. Other than that they were leaving it in the hands of the
individual residents and HOAs to establish those contracts, knowing that the ultimate deadline would be two years
following the implementation.
Councilmember Leger said that there was a comment made this evening regarding costs and noted that this dialogue
began in 2004. He added that this was a citizen driven initiative (part of the Strategic Planning Process). He asked if
there was a provision in the contract for rate adjustments, and if so, was there a formula for that and what would that look
like.
Mr. McGuire responded that there was and reported that the cap on the rate adjustments was 5% per year so if the formula
resulted in something more than 5% it could not go up more than that. Right now after the third year (they got three years
at the same rate) the cost could go up at most 5% of the current contract. The increase was based on the consumer price
index and a number of other formula driven things in the contract. The formula as seen in the contract looked fairly
complicated but it was not; it was just a way to set an adjustment that everyone could see ahead of time.
Councilmember Leger stated that the 85% then was based on the consumer price index and 15% of it would be based on
diesel fuel and it was capped out at 5%. Currently in the free market, when he went back and looked at his service over
the last five years and he noted that he had realized increases of 7 to 8%; in the free marketplace his cost of service had
gone up close to 20% so that was how he was looking at how fair this formula might or might not be. He said that he
heard someone mention that they (the Town) would continue to have two haulers and said they were continuing to go for
a single hauler (is that correct?).
Mr. Rees replied that they would be going to one hauler if the Council approved the proposal.
Mr. McGuire provided a clarification on the CPI adjustment and noted that a CPI adjustment did not always go up noting
that in the past two years they have had a decline, which caught a lot of people off guard and so under the proposed
formula, they would have had zero increases over the last two years. The 15% fuel probably would have increased
because there had been a "bump" in that but that meant that the overall increase would have been nominal if anything at
all.
Mayor Schlum commented that after the first three-year period (in 2014), they were probably talking about an
approximate $0.60 increase at the max of 5%, if the CPI increased.
Councilmember Contino stated that this evening they had hassled over a lot of stuff but he would like to say to the people
on the dais that they were just talking garbage. He questioned whether they knew how much the RFP costs to do this
z:\council packets\2010\r11-18-10\101021m.docx Page 14 of 25
(how much did the Town got charged for the RFP?). He asked if they were going to have to have garbage police and
enforce it – were people going to be criminals. He asked whether this was Fountain Hills and was this capitalism and
commented that they were getting into areas that they should not get into. He reiterated that it was garbage and asked
whether anyone knew the definition of garbage. He stated the opinion that they were going overboard and stated that his
current provider picked up twice a week and picked up the garbage and went but now they were talking about policing
garbage and that was something that maybe you would see in Russia but not in America. He asked whether they had lost
their minds and who was going to handle the customer complaints -- was it going to be the garbage people or Code
Enforcement. And if they argued between themselves, who was going to decide it? Did it have to go before a Judge? He
questioned whether the Town was going to be making money off of this and what was going to happen down the road.
He added that they were going to be forced into something that was not a free enterprise -- it was called socialism. He
expressed the opinion that they were not looking at the whole picture and said that this was Fountain Hills, and he had
been here going on 31 years, and he had never seen anything like this until tonight. He added that they ought to be
ashamed of themselves that they were coming to this. He stated that this was ridiculous and it was not a free enterprise
system. He noted that he was a businessman and asked how many people on the dais were business people that had
businesses that had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in inventory to pay for and who did not have to worry about
it. He said that he did and he appreciated his garbage people who came out and removed the garbage from the dumpsters
from behind his business. He added that half the people in government did not work and he thought they needed to
address this and have the whole thing revamped because this was not Fountain Hills, this was something totally different.
He advised that he was really upset and thought they should just table this thing for a while and everyone on the dais
should be ashamed of themselves.
Mayor Schlum commented that the process that this had gone through had been a respectful one and it was disingenuous
to assume that anyone up here was looking at doing anything that was out of the character of Fountain Hills. He added
that if they were to change anything that was why they were having this discussion so he did not think there was anything
to be ashamed of and that certainly flies in the face of a lot of people who had done some good work trying to do what
they thought would improve the quality of life in Fountain Hills. The Mayor advised that he did not quite agree with what
Councilmember Contino had said but he thought he understood the position of the people who came to the meeting and
those who spoke because it was an interesting time that they lived in; however, he believed they did need to realize that
they were here in Fountain Hills and the decisions they make, codes that might be adopted or not, were their decision and
they had gotten great feedback from the public expressing that they were very fortunate in that respect. He noted that
nothing happened unless it was discussed here in the open; it took a process, particularly on things like this that it was
very slow and deliberate to ensure that if they made a decision that it was a good one. He said that there were always
going to be unintended consequences and they needed to know what those risks were as well. He added that in general,
the fear and the allegations about "rushing into something" he did not buy whatsoever and he thought this had been a great
process and they would came up with the right decision for the Town. He noted that there were a lot of good reasons to
consider this and there were some reasons to consider not doing it so that was why they were there tonight -- to try and
keep things calm and respectful and in line with the character of Fountain Hills. He said that in line with that he thought it
best to not call names and respect one another and not put down those who had expended some good efforts in response to
the Council's direction.
Councilmember Contino stated the opinion that he was not degrading anyone; what was done was done and
acknowledged that they had put a lot of work into it. He reiterated that they were talking garbage and tonight they were
talking about haulers to go along with that. He said that they ought to sit back and think about the whole situation in
general. He was not condemning anybody – it was garbage.
Mayor Schlum commented that it sounded as though Councilmember Contino was and that was why he wanted to state
that.
Councilmember Contino said that he would like to know the cost of the RFP and the Mayor replied that they could
probably get him that.
Councilmember Dickey agreed that this had been respectful and process oriented and in her opinion very business
oriented. They had started out looking at their bills from the past and she had looked at hers and she had one regular and
one recycle for $17.50 a month so even though the average in the Town was about $16.00 or so, and $11.50 was a good
deal probably for a vast majority of people, that was one way of looking at it. The other way was that the roads were their
z:\council packets\2010\r11-18-10\101021m.docx Page 15 of 25
responsibility and if people did not want to believe every single statistic that was their prerogative, but she thought they
had to use common sense to know that this many more trucks on the road, whether it was 2,100 cars or 1,000 cars, was
still a lot and maybe on Fountain Hills Boulevard or Saguaro Boulevard (the bigger roads) that would not made such a
difference, but neighborhood roads were not meant or built for that. She added that if they were going to go down the
road to maybe look at bonds for roads, they had a responsibility to look at a way to mitigate that the best they could.
Councilmember Dickey stated that when they looked at how much they might save or how many fewer trucks would be
on the road, they were doing apples to apples and asked whether the trucks were different (ones that collect from the
dumpsters). She said that even though they were going to have to be coming in, weren’t they coming in now and were
they really doing apples to apples when they talked about less trucks being on the roads.
Mr. McGuire commented on the commercial haulers and stated that up until this Legislative session a community the size
of the Town could limit the number of commercial haulers coming into the community but the 60,000 population
exemption was now gone so the presumed reasonable number of five haulers was gone and commercial hauling was wide
open.
Councilmember Dickey said that she thought their population was one of the ones that was exempt and Mr. McGuire
explained that they were until the Statute had been amended.
Councilmember Dickey noted that the trucks that collected residential refuse were different than the ones that collect trash
from the dumpsters and Mr. McGuire stated that in most cases that was correct. He added that the residential cart
collection was a different vehicle altogether.
Councilmember Dickey commented that the reduction in the number of trucks would still be significant.
In response to a question from Councilmember Elkie, Mr. McGuire confirmed that the additional cost for a second trash
bin was approximately $5.00 and that there was an option in the contract to suspend service for up to six months out of the
year.
Councilmember Elkie asked if residents living in HOAs paid their dues directly to the HOAs and Mr. Rees responded that
there were a number of people who paid directly to the HOAs. Councilmember Elkie asked Mr. Rees if it was his
understanding that the HOAs were going to be paying for all of the residents in their HOAs, if they were to go to a single
hauler, and Mr. Rees replied that there was an option for that (an HOA could pay one bill to the provider).
Councilmember Elkie asked if the HOAs would suspend service or offer a credit to their residents for the six months that
they were not in their homes and did not require the trash service. Mr. Rees stated that that would be a business decision
made by the HOA. Councilmember Elkie commented that there was the possibility then that people in HOAs might not
be able to realize the six months of suspended savings if they were out of Town because they lived in an HOA that did not
give them that credit. Mr. Rees said that was a possibility.
Councilmember Elkie stated that if he trimmed a bunch of trees and had pieces that would not fit into his receptacle would
he have to call the hauler that the Town had contracted with or could he call another hauler to pick it up.
Mr. McGuire replied that he did not believe that the contract addressed yard waste at that level. He added that the green
bins were offered as an option and people might want to utilize them and noted that the larger pickups were a convenience
to the citizens. He said that many residents had yard services and that would not have anything to do with this.
Councilmember Elkie asked whether any analysis had been done on potential legal challenges against the Town and, in
his opinion, would the Town be sued if they went to a single hauler.
Mr. McGuire advised that the Town could be sued for just about any reason and he believed that a move to a single hauler
was valid and supported by law.
Councilmember Elkie commented that the Town was very sensitive to and supportive of the various non-profit
organizations in Town. He said that one might be more inclined to use their recycling bin that was in their garage or
backyard rather than to take their items down to various churches and non-profits. He added that they had discussed the
z:\council packets\2010\r11-18-10\101021m.docx Page 16 of 25
cost savings that would be passed on to the residents but he could not name one resident who had come to him and said
they had come to the Town because they were paying too much for their trash service and could the Town do anything
about that to save some money. The questions and concerns raised by the residents included traffic and to a lesser extent
the wear and tear on the roads (as well as the safety issues that went along with that). He stated that he did not believe this
would address those concerns.
Mayor Schlum suggested that they spend some time on traffic and added that the hauler could add this to the list of things
to give some feedback on. He noted that HOAs were included in this unless they had a commercial type service, which a
lot of the apartments and condos had. Everything outside of a commercial pickup if they had a roll out can, would
generally be included in this and those with dumpsters that got picked up were not covered in the RFP or in this contract.
Discussion ensued relative to potential truck numbers and traffic, impacts, and anticipated feedback from the hauler; the
fact that typically there were 2,000 housing units per zone; the issue of choice and the fact that this would limit residents'
choices (and the fact that this was a big deal); anticipated discussion relative to the real benefits and whether utilizing a
single hauler was a choice that the Town was going to be comfortable with for the contract period; and the Mayor's
statement that they needed to made sure should they progress down this lane that they were not looking to put people in
jail or fine them for things that they were not doing today (in essence, things should not change so they had to made sure
that the Town Code did not concern them).
Councilmember Contino said that as far as traffic, it was his understanding that when there was a recycling truck coming
on the second day of the week that you also, if people had two pickups, could have a second one coming down so there
would be two trucks that day.
Mr. Rees replied that the trash pickup would be on the same day and the recycling would be picked up on the alternate
day. He clarified that if residents choose to have the additional pickup (a cart) that would be put out with the normal trash
cart and on another day the recycling would be picked up.
Councilmember Dickey asked for further clarification of the laws for the State or the County and whether the ordinance
would add a bunch of stuff that already existed. She also questioned how many of the customers now had one trash
pickup and just one recycling pickup.
Mayor Schlum commented on HOAs reduced fees and potential billing processes for the residents.
(Mayor Schlum declared a recess at 8:45 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 8:52 p.m.)
Mayor Schlum stated that citizens would have another opportunity to address the Council, if they so desired, since so
much information had been provided. He added that since a number of people were here from various hauling companies
it would be a good opportunity for them to respond to the questions that had been asked and provide additional input at
this time.
Mr. Rees reintroduced the various hauler representatives from Public Services and the Recycle Bank present at the
meeting.
The Mayor noted that these were the people who "touched" the contract, either in the capacity of hauler or recycler,
Recycle Bank, etc. He encouraged the representatives to respond to some of the questions/concerns they have heard this
evening and to provide additional information for consideration.
Johnnie Perkins addressed the Council (Republic Services) addressed the Council and said that solid waste and
recycling/sustainability was a very complicated subject and he admired the Council and staff for the extensive amount of
time they were putting into this important issue. He said that they took the issue of recycling very seriously and were
under very stringent requirements and regulations and did not mix solid waste or trash with recyclables. In some places
that was illegal and the law in some places carried heavy fines and punitive damages for doing so. The company was also
very concerned about the carbon footprint and the program that they were offering was a partnership with Recycle Bank.
In addition to the discussion that had occurred relative to the savings to the residents there was also a diversion element
and component to that -- they had seen diversion go up two or three fold in communities where that program had been
z:\council packets\2010\r11-18-10\101021m.docx Page 17 of 25
implemented. The other thing about initiating a recycling program was that it took waste out of the landfill so the
capacity of the landfills remained strong. The issue of recycling also reduced air emissions because they did not have as
many truck trips to the landfill when you were recycling more. They did take the recyclables to a local company that
recycled that product so they did not have to re-create and use virgin materials.
Mr. Perkins further stated that his company was very concerned about sustainability -- it was one of their top priorities in
addition to safety and customer service. He assured everyone that when the trucks pick up the recyclables they go to a
facility where it was processed, recycled, and not placed into a landfill for disposal. He asked Ted to come up and talk
about some of the traffic concerns that have been brought up this evening.
Mayor Schlum commented that discussion had taken place relative to the fact that the proposal would limit traffic as far as
the number of trucks on the roads, through neighborhood streets in particular, and to a lesser extent on arterial and
collector roads. He requested some input on this issue.
Ted Sholeff replied that they were proposing four zones for collection services for trash and recycling. He noted that with
their current studies they were looking at servicing about 2,000 homes per zone and that would cost them in terms of time
and efficiencies (a reduction in the fleet capacity) to service those residences. He said that seasonality would play a part
in this because there was a population that came to Town in the winter who left in the summer. They gave their proposal
to the staff, which basically said, for those zones, they were looking at two to three trucks or two to one trucks making
multiple trips. He added that they would probably hit the same street twice.
Vice Mayor Brown asked how many homes one truck would hold and Ted responded approximately 850 per day. The
Vice Mayor asked how many times they would have to go to the dump and Ted said one time for the 850 homes (one
trash bin per home). The total number of trucks going down to the dump in a day would be three.
The Mayor commented that a large subdivision would only see a garbage truck and a recycling truck once a week and
stated that that was far less than he had expected.
Mr. Sholeff reiterated that a lot depended on the time of year as mentioned before.
Councilmember Elkie said that if someone on his street decided that they wanted to have a green bin, how many times a
week would there be a truck on the street to pick up recycling, trash and a green bin.
Mr. Sholeff replied one time a week and all same day service. He noted that the green bins might be picked up by a
separate truck depending upon the volume. He also clarified for the Mayor that everything would be picked up on the
same day.
Mr. Rees noted that there was an option for the trash recycling to be picked up on the same day so there could be one-day
service.
Mayor Schlum asked if that would be at the discretion of the hauler and Mr. Rees replied yes, if that worked out best for
their routing. The Mayor commented that that would result in less traffic.
Discussion ensued relative to the fact that the hauler serviced five other municipalities and was the single hauler in all of
them; the fact that although some municipalities used multiple haulers, the trend was going towards a single hauler with
trash and recycling; the fact that the trucks that picked up from the dumpsters were different trucks (commercial pickup)
and they were going to come and go just like they did right now so they were not changing something there - they were
reducing residential but the trucks for commercial would remain the same; traffic routing and the fact that there were a
total of 8,100 homes in Town; the fact that the hauler was looking at four quadrants so when they were finished with
quadrant one the residential trucks would no longer be in that quadrant, they move onto quadrant two, three and four; the
fact that by having one hauler no other haulers were going into those areas; the fact that HOAs could receive one
combined bill or individual bills; back door collection service and the fact that Councilmember Leger had been contacted
by a number of senior citizens and people with disabilities and when they talked about what the Town wanted, this was
something that they advocated for in the contract; the fact that with back door collection services the drivers would get out
of their trucks and go up to the residents' doors, find their can, take it to the truck, service the container and then bring it
z:\council packets\2010\r11-18-10\101021m.docx Page 18 of 25
back to where it was found; the fact that the contract calls for this service to be provided to seniors and people with
disabilities at no additional cost; Councilmember Leger's desire to get the Town out of the middle of this process because
the contract now reads that the resident would call the Town and then the Town would made the arrangements with the
hauler and the fact that it would be possible to remove the Town from this process; performance (customer service and
customer satisfaction) and the fact that each driver had a route to follow each day and in the event there was an issue, they
had a call center as well as a website that people could utilize to call or send in any concerns and supervisors handle all of
the calls/e-mails that were received and resolved any complaints (follow up occurred to ensure that problems had been
alleviated); and the fact that in addition to the general call center, they also have what they call a weekly and monthly
scorecard that the drivers were responsible for through their operations manager that highlights any kind of issue that
needed to be resolved and filtered down throughout the organization to ensure that quality assurance was handled in the
appropriate and timely manner to the satisfaction of the customer.
Councilmember Dickey referred to the proposed ordinance and said that it looked a little overbearing. She asked how
much of that actually existed and was just not written in the Town Code (stuff that they were supposed to be doing
anyway).
Mr. McGuire responded that after Councilmember Dickey's initial question, he had checked the ordinance and
Environmental Services regulations to see what things they had that were different or more than what they were required
to do by the State. He reported that the only things that were significantly different at all were the "mischief provisions" –
such as not jumping on a can, riding a can down a hill, tearing the lid off and using it for a sled. He said that all the rest of
the things like spilling refuse during transport were required.
Councilmember Dickey commented that there were not a lot of new requirements here or new penalties and in fact they
were preventing a default to perhaps more stringent penalties.
Mr. McGuire said that he believed that was a fair characterization and the only thing that got criminal penalties under the
version before them tonight was the recidivist provision that Councilmember Elkie pointed out. He added that the
dumping of hazardous waste or putting hazardous waste in a can on property or letting it fall upon streets were the only
things contained in the criminal section.
Mr. Perkins advised that in all of their customer contracts the idea was never to be punitive -- that was not what they were
here to do and it was not what other municipalities did. He added that they wanted to educate and if they saw too much
waste going into a customer's recycling bin or recycling going into a waste bin, their job was also to provide information
and educate the customers in an effort to solve the problem.
Ms. Denette Dunn addressed recycling and explained that the materials that were picked up would come to their facility
located on the Beeline Highway (the closest location). She briefly explained the process that took place from that point on
and noted that glass was made into new bottles and everything was used. She invited the Council and citizens as well to
view a film that they had made that was very educational and informative and that showed the entire process, even
collection of the methane gas.
Additional discussion ensued relative to the Recycle Bank and the fact that that was a separate company and Axel Newe,
the Vice President of Operations for Recycle Bank, explained that they awarded points for virtuous behavior; the
company provided education and incentives for people to do recycling; the fact that there was intrinsic value in the
materials that people throw away and so if people were provided the right incentive to recycle and the right education
eventually it was going to stick; the different classes of rewards that were offered and the different partners they had; the
fact that they worked locally (signed up 100 companies in Phoenix); they recycle, obtain rewards at local
restaurants/businesses that received foot traffic, and the environment was improved; a conservative incentive was $5.00 to
$7.00 in the form of rewards (i.e. $5.00 off a $40.00 purchase, etc. all based on personal choice); last year the average
redemption was $140.00 per family in his region (the Western United States); the Green Schools Program, which allowed
a local school to apply for a grant with Recycle Bank (must be green related, i.e. a class wanting to grow a certain strain of
drought resistant bean) and they could apply for a grant up to $5,000 and those projects were reviewed and as long as they
were green related, about 95% of them were approved; the grants were placed on the company's website and local
communities could actually give away their points, which equate to cash, and the money could go to a school; last year
they gave $100,000 and next year they hoped to do approximately $400,000; efforts to educate and let people know what
z:\council packets\2010\r11-18-10\101021m.docx Page 19 of 25
they had to do to participate in the program; links that would be provided to assist people; the fact that the company had
contracted with the City of Phoenix and they have a national contract with Allied Waste but it was not exclusive and they
work in the United Kingdom as well; the fact that if the Town did not go with the single-trash hauler, the Recycle Bank
would still be available to the Town as well as other municipalities; and the fact that the company had the ability to pick
up from a recycling center if they partnered with a hauling company or a municipality (they need the trucks to pick up and
deliver).
Councilmember Dickey questioned if everyone had a different trash hauler how would the company be able to process
that and Mr. Newe's response that they have a very sophisticated back end system and their database had the ability to
differentiate individual recycling behaviors;
Mr. Perkins expressed appreciation for allowing them to address the Council this evening and said they understood that
the Council had a tough decision to make for the community. He stated that whichever way the Council decides to go
they would continue to proudly serve this community and they stand ready should the Council decide to move forward in
this direction to provide the best service they can well into the future.
Mayor Schlum thanked the group for their informative input.
Councilmember Dickey referred to Page 170 and a customer list -- under 14.1 it said that the Town would provide a
customer service list. She said that perhaps this was something that should not be in there.
Mr. McGuire advised that Mr. Rees had already provided the initial list and the information had been provided to them.
He added that they were going to refine the list and then the hauler was responsible for creating a customer list from that.
The Town's responsibility was just to provide all of the raw data that they had been collecting all of this time.
Ms. Bender advised that there were six speaker cards.
Jeffrey Cohen addressed the Council and said that the number of pickups per week, according to the hauler, was at the
discretion of the hauler. He stated that this took all the choices away from the Town's residents. He added that $11.55
was for half the service and if someone was only using half the service obviously there was going to be fewer trucks on
the road. He said that you could not equate two garbage cans a week at one pickup to one garbage can twice a week. He
noted that they had mentioned 850 homes but that was if there was only one garbage can per week so they had to look at
what happened if people needed two garbage cans or even four. He stated that if he consistently overfills his container the
Council, as it was written now, could impose a penalty but he called that a $500 tax. He added that after three offenses
that became a civil action. He also questioned how many accidents involving hauler trucks had been reported in Town
over the last ten years. He commented that their only recourse for unsatisfactory service was to take someone to court.
He discussed State subsidized light rail and noted that it was failing and so was the postal service, and Medicaid (all
government programs that were no longer paying for themselves). He advised that he had googled the Recycle Bank and
it talked about the fact that the cost of plastic containers and paper had dropped considerably to where they were no longer
profitable and urged the Council to look at free market principles and not subsidize companies.
Linda Bardow addressed the Council and stated that two cans picked up once a week in the summertime would result in
horrific odors. She asked whether they were going to be policing themselves and questioned the lack of checks and
balances. She also asked how much money was spent on this two-year study and did taxpayers' dollars pay for that. She
questioned money that would be spent on Code Enforcement activities as well. She further asked what impact this would
have on the courts if that was the only way to appeal. Ms. Bardow stated that she did not see a decline in the number of
trucks occurring and stated that she did not like or support this proposal.
Tom Zagurski, President of the Westwood Village HOA (a small 87-home Association), that began utilizing a single-
hauler service four years ago. He noted that they were responsible for their own streets because they were a gated
community. He advised that they used to have five haulers coming into their community, often several times, they now
had only one and it came with various options. He said that he was disappointed about the options he had heard discussed
this evening. He stated that he was very much in support of the single hauler but added that consideration should be given
relative to the options provided to the residents.
z:\council packets\2010\r11-18-10\101021m.docx Page 20 of 25
Steve Jacobs addressed the Council and noted that he had lived in a community for 23 years that had a single trash hauler
and a recycle bin and the Council would be amazed at how much the amount of trash went down when you started
recycling. He stated that most people would not need two trash cans. He also discussed safety and said that his big
concern was that someday there would be a fatal child accident because of the trucks making constant stops on the streets.
Robert Schafer addressed the Council and advised that he wanted to address the traffic issue. He commented that if you
picked up at 2,800 homes in the community about 450 of them recycled. The majority of the people doing the recycling
only use trash once a week and recycle once a week but that left 2,400 that still used trash twice a week. Right now they
were running five loads on a Monday and Tuesday to take care of 2,800 homes and then they ran four loads on Thursday
and Friday so basically that was nine loads and all of the haulers, like himself, all use the same trucks and same equipment
so he got about 450/500 homes per load. He said when he looked at the bid he knew how many trucks he would need and
he did not think that the number of vehicles being reported was accurate. He reiterated his previous comments relative to
why he did not bid on this and said he did not think a lot of issues had been addressed relative to hours and days of
operation.
Ralph Peterson addressed the Council and stated that they were very happy with their single hauler at Clear Aire and as a
Boardmember, they have a CC&R that required all cans to be placed out of sight. He noted that you could not get two to
three trash cans in a garage with two cars in his community. He said that the Mayor was quoted in the newspaper as
having said that there would be ample time to discuss the options together in the months ahead and said that they looked
forward to being able to participate in those discussions.
Mayor Schlum thanked the speakers for their input and said that the Council appreciated all of their feedback.
Mr. Davis suggested that the Council continue to review the materials provided by staff and consider the many important
points that were made here this evening. He said that staff would be happy to work with them to answer any questions
they might have regarding the Code Amendment itself and the contract and make any changes the Council would like
before their consideration at the November 4th meeting. He added that at this point they would leave this alone until the
4th barring any further discussions with the Council.
Mr. McGuire stated that he would like to address the Council relative to a couple of the Code Amendment issues. He said
that Councilmember Leger had brought up a couple of things and Allied said they had no problem with changes to the
contract so staff would send those out to the Council for review. He added that under violations and penalties if it was the
Council's desire that the only penalties be civil, he was perfectly fine with that and noted that Councilmember Elkie raised
a very good point about the language (not having it be less than $500) and a modification could be made to that if it was
the Council's desire. He said that he would not recommend that the Class 1 Misdemeanor be removed for certain
violations that were currently in the Code (should stay at that level). He advised that staff provided the Council with a
complete package so they could review it and let staff know of any changes they would like before it was brought back.
In response to a question from Councilmember Dickey, Mr. McGuire stated that the Town Code was missing a lot of
things (how they store their trash, what their responsibilities were, etc.) and all those things were included in the
Administrative Code. He said that if they were not going to change anything about what they currently did, he would at
least recommend that they put in those provisions from the Administrative Code so the Town Code mirrored those
provisions. He explained that the only real difference in having it be an Administrative Code regulation and a regulation
that was enforced by a County enforcement agent was that it would be local enforcement. He added that he was more
concerned about making sure that whatever enforcement tool staff brought back to them that it was something they were
all comfortable with.
Councilmember Elkie said that Mr. McGuire was then recommending that 10-1-6 and 10-1-7 remain the same and Mr.
McGuire agreed. He added that hazardous waste was not currently in the Town Code but was regulated by State
regulations.
Councilmember Elkie also referred to Section 10-1-15 and the procedures to be taken to issue a warning and then a civil
penalty that gradually could become a criminal penalty. He stated that Mr. McGuire and Councilmember Dickey were
discussing this and Mr. McGuire said that there were some that mirror the regulations by the State. He added that here in
z:\council packets\2010\r11-18-10\101021m.docx Page 21 of 25
this Section this was something new for the Town making it a misdemeanor -- they were creating a new code basically
that did not necessarily mirror the State's regulation.
Mr. McGuire said that he could not agree that that was entirely accurate.
Councilmember Elkie reworded his question and asked if there was a State provision for a penalty of $500 if someone
was found responsible for violating this Section of the Code.
Mr. McGuire replied that he could not answer that question because he did not know, in terms of the Administrative Code,
what their general penalty provision was. He added that obviously there were some penalties associated with violating the
health code but he would have to research it further and there were default provisions for certain types of violations.
Councilmember Elkie noted that State law allowed Towns to put into place their own laws and regulations regarding
waste pickup. He asked if Mr. McGuire was aware of any regulation that said after three violations of a civil penalty it
becomes a Class 1 Misdemeanor and Mr. McGuire said that he was not. He noted that that provision was distinctly a
provision of Code Enforcement regulations that they had seen in other communities; it was new. Councilmember Elkie
asked if they did not have that particular code in place was Mr. McGuire aware of a State code or law that would came
into play that was similar to that one and Mr. McGuire said that he was not.
Councilmember Elkie commented that it was important to recognize that they would be creating something new here, a
penalty of $500 for the first offense and then after three citations, the offender would be deemed habitual and that offense
would be filed as a criminal Class 1 Misdemeanor.
Mr. McGuire stated that everything they did when it came to the Town Code other than offenses that were booked under
the State Statutes generally came long form from the Prosecutor.
Councilmember Leger advised that he had not felt comfortable with the penalties since the first time he read them and
Councilmember Elkie had brought that to their attention again. He told Councilmember Elkie that if he had a
recommendation to present he would be open to hearing it and said he had respect for him as a lawyer.
Councilmember Elkie responded that his questions were more for informational purposes and he believed that he had
made it abundantly clear that he was not in favor of a single-trash hauler so he did not have any recommendations to
present because he did not want to see something like this go into place. He added that it was important that the residents
understand what this contained.
Councilmember Leger stated that he respected that and Councilmember Elkie's point of view. He said that he was trying
to be responsive to the Town Attorney who had asked for input and basically what he was hearing was that
Councilmember Elkie was opposed to the whole initiative, although they had not voted on it. He added that he was not
comfortable with the level of penalties and moving from civil to criminal so he would defer to legal counsel to come back
with something that was a bit more palatable and he would leave that up to his judgment. He stated that he was hoping
that they would have specific recommendations in that regard from those who had been critical of the penalties but he
would like to see what the Town Attorney came back with.
Councilmember Dickey commented that when people go to look at it they would saw that it was overwhelming to read so
she would suggest that the Town Code reflect what they had already been under the jurisdiction of the County or the
State, whatever those things were -- that they put that in writing. She clarified that she would like to saw the Town Code
reflect, as close as possible if not exactly, what they were already under the jurisdiction of because she did not knew why
having one hauler would made a difference. She added that the only caveat she would have was whether this changes
what the haulers thought because if they thought the citizens were not under the ordinances as they were seeing them,
would that change anything about how they felt.
Councilmember Contino said he went along with Councilmembers Elkie and Leger about all the penalties and added that
he believed the fine was too high.
Mayor Schlum stated that they were not looking to increase penalties.
z:\council packets\2010\r11-18-10\101021m.docx Page 22 of 25
Mr. McGuire advised that two of the items would remain criminal misdemeanors, Class 1, because that was what they
currently were.
Mayor Schlum said that the other item that had been discussed and brought up many times was two trash pickups per
week on separate days and noted that this would increase traffic and be more costly. He asked if there was any discussion
they could have that would be fruitful tonight relative to two trash pickups on separate days and added that he had a
feeling that this would not be financially beneficial to the Town.
Mr. McGuire advised that they did issue an addendum to proposers to ask them to give the Town a price on two garbage
pickups on two separate days with recycling on one of those days and they had received proposals with substantial
increases in costs. He added that if it was the Council's direction that that be added as an option to be considered that
could be done.
The Mayor said that he just wanted to bring it up and stated the opinion that many people would find that the once a week
pickup would work just fine for them and added that costs were a big factor in the overall picture.
Councilmember Dickey stated that she understood what the Mayor was saying but it would totally change the cost for
everybody. She expressed the opinion that the majority of people would support giving the single hauler a try. She added
that it was a business decision with several facets to it and they needed to quell the fear associated with that. She said that
if they were bagging their garbage and tying it, which they were supposed to do, it was just not an issue.
Councilmember Hansen stated that she would respectfully disagree with that and noted that her family bags and ties their
garbage and it still smells in the summer. She added that she had said from the beginning that she could not support this if
it decreased the service to their citizens at an increased cost. She noted that they had come back with a plan that had a
decreased cost but in her mind it was also a decreased level of service and she thought they should at least have that
option because if someone wanted to paid $20 or more a month to have twice a week service, they should be able to make
that decision and receive the service they wanted.
Mayor Schlum thanked everyone for being engaged and plugged in and working so hard on this important issue. He
added that the approach was obviously not one of government/municipal hauling; the Town was not interested in making
money off of trash. He said that they had strived to limit the amount of government involved in this consideration by
going out to bid. He also thanked everyone for being respectful on a sensitive issue and remaining so late into the evening
to discuss this important issue.
The Mayor announced that Town Clerk Bev Bender recently received her Master Municipal Clerk Certification and
commended her on this tremendous achievement.
AGENDA ITEM #10 – CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 10-05, AMENDING THE FOUNTAIN HILLS
TOWN CODE RELATING TO CONSUMER FIREWORKS.
Fire Chief Scott LaGreca addressed the Council and advised that he was here tonight on half of the Fire Marshall who was
out of Town. He stated that the proposed ordinance was before the Council and if they had any further questions he
would be happy to respond to them.
Mayor Schlum commented on the fact that they had discussed this item at the last meeting and noted that House Bill 2246
would become law on December 1st and allowed the sale and use of consumer fireworks in the State. He noted that they
could not affect the sale but they could regulate the use of fireworks to keep in on a par with where they were previously.
Mr. McGuire noted that some items have been moved to novelty that they did not have any regulation over at all.
Chief LaGreca advised that sparklers were in the novelty component and not the consumer component as previously
thought.
Councilmember Hansen MOVED to approve Ordinance 10-05 amending the Fountain Hills Town Code relating to
consumer fireworks and Vice Mayor Brown SECONDED the motion.
z:\council packets\2010\r11-18-10\101021m.docx Page 23 of 25
There were no citizens wishing to speak on this item.
The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
AGENDA ITEM #11 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2010-02, DECLARING AS A PUBLIC RECORD
THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK AND ENTITLED THE “TOWN OF
FOUNTAIN HILLS, DESIGN REVIEW REGULATIONS, FOR SINGLE FAMILY TRACT HOUSING.”
Mayor Schlum advised that there would be one report on Agenda Items #12 and #13.
Senior Planner Bob Rodgers addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and provided a brief overview of the staff
report. He noted that the Planning & Zoning Commission held a Work Study Session on June 10, 2010, in which they
discussed the potential benefits of adopting tract housing guidelines in anticipating of development on the large parcels
contained in the former State Trust Land. Staff presented a possible design ordinance that would assist the Town in
ensuring that any production (tract) housing being proposed would be of sufficient variety and quality so as to be an asset
to the Town. The Commission initiated the ordinance at that meeting.
Mr. Rodgers added that staff had designed tract housing regulations for the Town that required a variety of house facade
elevations and other design features that would provide for similar, but not identical, production residential designs.
Toward this end, staff reviewed a number of valley jurisdiction's regulations regarding tract housing standards and
guidelines in order to design an ordinance prior to the development of 1,350 residential units in the North East corner of
Town. While portions of the property would be developed with custom homes, other areas would/could be candidates for
tract housing. The ordinance provides an administrative process that would not necessitate additional public meetings or
time extensions.
The Planning & Zoning Commission voted at their August 26th regular meeting to forward a recommendation of approval
of the proposed Chapter 22 - Tract Housing Regulations text amendment.
Mr. Rodgers also discussed Ordinance 10-04 and the proposed provisions and benefits. He indicated that approval of this
ordinance would allow the Town to ensure that any new tract housing developments would maintain a high level of
aesthetic quality and variety. He noted that the staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval.
Councilmember Hansen MOVED to approve Resolution #2010-02 declaring as a public record that certain document
filed with the Town Clerk entitled, "The Town of Fountain Hills, Design Review Regulations, for Single Family Tract
Housing" and Councilmember Contino SECONDED the motion.
There were no citizens wishing to speak on this agenda item.
The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
AGENDA ITEM #12 – PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON ORDINANCE 10-04, ADOPTING
A NEW CHAPTER 22 – “TRACT HOUSING REGULATIONS, FOR SINGLE FAMILY TRACT HOUSING”
BY REFERENCE; ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF
FOUNTAIN HILLS; AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS. CASE #Z2010-01.
Mayor Schlum declared the public hearing open at 10:30 p.m.
There were no citizens wishing to speak on this agenda item.
The Mayor declared the public hearing closed at 10:30 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #13 – CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 10-04, ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 22
TRACT HOUSING REGULATIONS, FOR SINGLE FAMILY TRACT HOUSING” BY REFERENCE;
ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS; AND
PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS. CASE #Z2010-01.
z:\council packets\2010\r11-18-10\101021m.docx Page 24 of 25
For discussion of this issue saw Agenda Item #11 above.
Councilmember Hansen MOVED to approve Ordinance 10-04 adopting a new Chapter 22 - "Tract Housing Regulations
for Single Family Tract Housing" by reference; adopting amendments to the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Fountain
Hills and providing penalties for violations (Case #Z2010-01) and Councilmember Contino SECONDED the motion.
There were no citizens wishing to speak on this agenda item.
The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
AGENDA ITEM #14 – CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTING A NEW MUNICIPAL JUDGE FOR THE TOWN
OF FOUNTAIN HILLS FOR A TWO-YEAR TERM AND APPROVING AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT.
Councilmember Dickey MOVED to appoint Mitchell Eisenberg as the new municipal judge for the Town of Fountain
Hills for a two-year term and approving an employment agreement and Vice Mayor Brown SECONDED the motion.
There were no citizens wishing to speak on this agenda item.
The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
Mayor Schlum and the Councilmembers congratulated Judge Eisenberg on his appointment.
AGENDA ITEM #15 – QUARTERLY UPDATE BY THE TOWN MANAGER ON PROGRESS OF
IMPLEMENTING COUNCIL’S GOALS FOR FY 2010-11.
Town Manager Rick Davis addressed the Council and reported on the 1st quarter progress on Council goals for FY2010-
11.
Mr. Davis noted that during a goal setting retreat on January 14, 2010, the Council established eight primary goals for
Fiscal Year 2010-11. He said that management staff held a follow-up meeting to develop specific objectives and identify
resources necessary to carry out the goals established by the Council.
Mr. Davis referred to a graph in the report that depicted progress that staff had made toward achieving all goals since the
beginning of FY 2010-1. The identified goals were as follows:
* Education, Learning and Culture
* Environmental Stewardship
* Civility
* Civic Responsibility
* Economic Vitality
* Maintain and Improve Community Infrastructure
* Public Safety, Health and Welfare
* Recreational Opportunities and Amenities
Mr. Davis informed the Council that based on the reports he had received from staff they were well on track to completing
those goals. He advised that there might be a few that were a little difficult mostly because the goals this year were
heavily laden with words such as "empower" and "partner" and that implied that the other party or parties with which they
were empowering or partnering with also took up that initiative. He stated that at the end of the day they would complete
as many of those goals as possible, but again at this point they were well on their way to the realization of those goals by
the end of the year.
Mayor Schlum thanked Mr. Davis for his presentation.
z:\council packets\2010\r11-18-10\101021m.docx Page 25 of 25
AGENDA ITEM #16 – COUNCIL DISCUSSION/DIRECTION TO THE TOWN MANAGER
Items listed below were related only to the propriety of (i) placing such items on a future agenda for action or (ii) directing
staff to conduct further research and report back to the Council.
A. NONE
AGENDA ITEM #17 – SUMMARY OF COUNCIL REQUESTS AND REPORT ON RECENT ACTIVITIES BY
THE TOWN MANAGER.
The Mayor stated that Mr. Davis had a lot of work to do regarding the single-hauler issue prior to the next meeting based
on Council discussion and questions this evening.
AGENDA ITEM #18 - ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Elkie MOVED to adjourn the meeting and Councilmember Contino SECONDED the motion, which
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
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 Regular Session held by the
Town Council of Fountain Hills on the 21st day of October 2010, in the Town Hall Council Chambers. I further certify
that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present.
DATED this 18th day of November 2010.
_____________________________
Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk