HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003.0320.TCRM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
Ler MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE
FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
March 20,2003
Mayor Beydler addressed the members of the audience and stated that the Town of Fountain Hills initiated
appropriate action to prepare for and address any safety issues that may arise as a result of the country's
current conflict with Iraq. Channel 11 and the Town's website have the steps necessary. Local media will
also publish the information.
Mayor Beydler called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. Following the invocation by Minister Don
Lawrence,Christ's Church,roll call was taken.
ROLL CALL - Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council:
Mayor Jon Beydler,Vice Mayor Susan Ralphe,Councilmembers Rick Melendez,Leesa Stevens, Kathleen
Nicola, Michael Archambault, and John Kavanagh. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire, Town Manager
Tom Pickering, Public Works Director Tom Ward, Senior Planner Dana Burkhart, Director of Parks and
Recreation Mark Mayer, Acting Supervisor Julie Ghetti and Bevelyn Bender, Town Clerk, were also
present.
Mayor Beydler read Proclamations and declared the month of April 2003 "Child Abuse Prevention Month"
and"Life Donor Month" in the Town of Fountain Hills.
AGENDA ITEM #1 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE MEETING MINUTES OF
MARCH 6,2003.
AGENDA ITEM #2 - CONSIDERATION OF THE SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE
SUBMITTED BY AMERICAN LEGION POST 58, 16837 E. PARKVIEW AVE. THE REQUEST
IS FOR A FUNDRAISER SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 12,2003 FROM 9:00 A.M.TO 11:00 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM #3 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE TOWN'S LETTER OF
REQUEST TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO RETURN THE COPS
GRANT ACCEPTED IN NOVEMBER 2002.
Councilwoman Stevens MOVED to approve the consent agenda as read (Items 1-3) and Councilman
Kavanagh SECONDED the motion.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
Vice Mayor Ralphe Aye
Mayor Beydler Aye
Councilman Melendez Aye
Councilwoman Nicola Aye
Councilwoman Stevens Aye
Councilman Archambault Aye •
Councilman Kavanagh Aye
The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
•
• AGENDA ITEM #4 - UPDATE BY THE COMMITTEE TO SAVE OUR COMMUNITY ON
THEIR PROGRESS IN PURSUING THE FORMATION OF A NEW FIRE DISTRICT WITH
POSSIBLE DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL.
•
•
Hugh Henry,Chairman of the Committee to Save Our Community,addressed the members of the Council.
The Committee delivered a copy of the Impact Statement to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
yesterday. He reported that the document was accepted without any changes or discussion from the floor.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regulr Session 3-20-03.doc Page 1 of 17
He added that April 16, 2003, was selected as the date for the public hearing. The meeting will be open to
Low the public. He reported that Don Anderson, with the firm of Anderson Nelson, prepared a "meets and
bounds" summary and said that this document was submitted to the County and accepted by them with a
request for one minor change One portion of the community was still owned by the City of Scottsdale and
was never appropriately dedicated. He said that the document was revised, resubmitted, and accepted by
the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Henry clarified that the Committee to Save Our Community did not receive any funds from the Town
or the County to cover the cost of the mailing. He said that the Committee expected to receive a $10,000
bill next week and noted that it must be paid in order for the mailing to take place. He stressed the
importance of generating funds to cover the cost of the mailing and said that the Committee had worked
diligently to accomplish this goal.
Councilman Kavanagh asked how many petitions had to be filed. Mr. Henry responded that the figure
waspossibly 1 with 6500 signatures. He added that the County had indicated that all three petitions
(essentially there were two, but there were two on one) must be done. He added that there were issues
remaining to be resolved.
Town Attorney Andrew McGuire recommended that the members of the Committee meet with Staff to
review the items that had been requested by the County. Mr. Henry said that as soon as all of the
information had been received from the County,he would pursue scheduling a meeting as recommended by
Mr.McGuire.
Tammie Rothermel, a member of the Committee, addressed the Council and asked the Town to consider
covering the cost of the mailing and the printing. She stated the opinion that the payment of this
expenditure would be appropriate based on the fact that the purpose of the mailing was to accommodate
State law and educate the citizens of the Town on the Fire District issue and process. She stated the
opinion that since the Town planned to spend money to educate the public relative to the proposed property
tax, their approval of the funding for this mandated public information issue as well would be appropriate
and beneficial to the entire community.
Mr. McGuire explained that State.statutes prohibit the Town of Fountain Hills from contributing funds to
cover any costs associated with the formation of a new Fire District.
Councilman Archambault asked whether a maximum amount of funds might be contributed by citizens to
the Committee towards covering the cost of the publishing/mailing, Ms. Rothermel explained that because
the matter was not a ballot issue,no maximum limits had been imposed.
AGENDA ITEM #5 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2003-09, ADOPTING AN
INVESTMENT POLICY.
Town Manager Tim Pickering commented on the proposed investment policy that had been presented to
the Council for their consideration. He noted that in the past the Town of Fountain Hills experienced a
number of investment problems. Although the Town was able to overcome those difficulties, he stressed
the importance of having a consistent and secure long-term plan to govern future Town investments. He
explained that the proposed policy was drawn from several different policies including one developed by
the Government Finance Officers'Association and other towns that had adopted policies. He noted that the
policy covered different financing aspects, including who had the actual authority to make investments. It
outlined a number of institutions that the Town was allowed to invest in, and covered collateralization and
diversification.
Mr. Pickering commented on the subject of collateralization and recommended that it consist strictly of
Federally backed investments rather than stocks and bonds. He noted that Moody's reviewed the Town.
One of their major recommendations was that the Town would begin documenting some of its major
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regulr Session 3-20-03.doc Page 2 of 17
policies. He noted that Staff would also be bringing forth a Fund Balance Policy in the future for Council
consideration and action.
In response to a question from Councilwoman Nicola, Mr. McGuire stated that in terms of the "nuts and
bolts"of the policy,he did not have any problems with what had been presented by Staff.
Councilwoman Nicola asked whether the adoption of the policy would substantially change the manner in
which the funds were held in a pool. Mr. Pickering responded that the Town was currently part of the
State's pool,which does not collateralize their investments with only Federally backed collateralizations but
noted that the State does have a separate pool that does this. He indicated the Town's intention to switch to
the pool that was deemed more secure and better met the goals of the Town.
Councilwoman Nicola commented that more risk generally resulted in more income. As part of the budget
review she noted that the Town's anticipated interest was higher than the amount of actual interest earned.
She questioned whether switching to a more secure investment method would again reduce the amount of
revenues that could be generated. Mr. Pickering responded that the number one priority should be
"security" rather than "return on investment" and stated that although some income might be lost, he
believed that switching to Federally backed collateralization was the safer,more secure manner in which to
proceed with the Town's investments.
Vice Mayor Ralphe MOVED and Councilman Ralphe SECONDED to adopt Resolution No. 2003-09 as
presented.
The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
AGENDA ITEM #6 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2003-10, ADOPTING A
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT POLICY.
Lor Mr. Pickering stated that in response to a request from a developer relative to the establishment of a
Community Facilities District, Staff contacted other communities within the State and obtained/reviewed
copies of their policies governing this issue. Input was also received from Bond Counsel and the Town's
Financial Advisor. He stated the opinion that the proposed Community Facilities District (CFD) Policy
was all encompassing and would serve the Town of Fountain Hills extremely well in the future. He added
that policies from the Cities of Mesa, Scottsdale, Goodyear, Marana and Peoria were reviewed in great
detail. He said that Mr. McGuire and Mr. Scott Ruby from the firm Gust-Rosenfeld, who worked with the
Town on the Eagle Mountain CFD, were also heavily involved in the process.
Councilman Kavanagh commented on the fact that the property owners were the ones who will actually
"pay" and the Town would be a property owner because it would own the trailhead. He asked whether the
Town would also be assessed as part of this process. Mr. Pickering responded that the policy did not
address the individual application of the Adero Canyon CFD. He said that this question could not be
addressed until the actual application was received from the developer identifying the boundaries and
indicating whether the Town's land was included within the District. He added that initial discussions
indicated that the Town was not included and that only the 171 lot owners were involved. He noted,
however,that he had not had the opportunity to review the actual application.
In response to a question from Councilman Kavanagh relative to whether the Town would be assessed if
portions of its land were included in the District, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire stated the opinion that
he did not believe that an assessment would be brought to bear against the Town of Fountain Hills. He
indicated that he would like more time to research this issue and report back on his findings.
Discussion ensued relative to the fact that ongoing operational costs would be built into the assessment, the
fact that a settlement agreement existed with MCO relative to Adero Canyon, the fact that the settlement
agreement very likely "froze" land use measures for that time period but would not impact the CFD policy,
Mr. Pickering's opinion that risks were somewhat reduced as a result of having a written policy in place
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regulr Session 3-20-03.doc Page 3 of 17
stating that the Town was not responsible for the developer's costs, and the Town Attorney's opinion that
the real protection for the Town lay in the guarantees provided by the entity proposing the CFD.
Councilwoman Stevens commented on the fact that the Town received a two-page letter of concerns from
the developer and indicated support for reviewing each of those concerns in order to determine whether the
Council would like to initiate changes to the policy.
Mr. Pickering stated that he would review each of the points as requested by Councilwoman Stevens. He
added that point 1 pertained to the question of who would pay for the ongoing operations and maintenance.
He reported that the proposed policy included an additional charge that would cover those costs. He added
that the developer did not want to see that item included in the cost of the CFD.
Mr. Pickering discussed point 2 raised by the developer suggesting that language be added to the policy
indicating that Town Staff would review applications in a timely manner. He stated the opinion that the
language should not be included as part of the policy and emphasized that although every effort would be
made to process all of the applications in a timely manner, Staff did not believe it appropriate to place
language in the policy that might be used in the future to negatively impact the Town.
Councilwoman Stevens expressed the opinion that guidelines were appropriate for all applications coming
into the Town. She believed they provided clarification and direction. Mr. Pickering clarified that
providing a timeline was much different than stating that an application would be reviewed in a timely
manner. He said that Staff did not have any problem stating in the Town's policy that they would provide
timelines once the applications had been received. He added that a change could be made to the policy
indicating that Staff would provide a timeline to an applicant if it was the desire of the Council.
Mr. Pickering noted that a disagreement existed relative to point 3 raised by the developer and stated the
opinion that the language was far too broad (i.e. to say that anv bond proceeds). He added that Staff
believed that the proceeds from a CFD should go for brick and mortar and not any legally permissible costs
that someone could attempt to place in there. He reiterated that the money should pay for the amenity and
not for every conceivable administrative cost that might arise.
Mr. Pickering referred to No. 1 in Specific Language Topics and stated that this represented language that
Staff added in response to additional questions that were posed by the members of the Council. He said
that several members asked, "What if we don't do this project, when would the project be built?" He
expressed the opinion that this was a very legitimate question and should be asked of anyone who came
before them.
Councilwoman Stevens disagreed with Staffs opinion relative to this matter and stated the opinion that
although the Council would like to know the answer to this question, it was really none of their business
and developers should not be required to provide the answer to this question. She suggested that language
be crafted stating that the Town would be "appreciative of a timeline" if the proposal did not go through.
Mr. Pickering indicated that he did not support Councilwoman Stevens' point of view on this matter and
expressed the opinion that it was appropriate to request this information based on the fact that the Town
was being asked to go through required steps. He added that it was the Town's right to render a decision
based on the facts and the facts were that if the developer stated that the project would be delayed for one
year,this information should be known and considered as part of the decision making process. He said that
on the other hand if a developer stated that the project would never come forward without benefit of a CFD,
this information was critical and must be made known. He added that he had seen this type of language
included in economic development incentives wherein developers certified that they would not proceed
with a project unless the incentive was in place. He said that this was similar in that the Town was saying
"If you are not going to do it,when will it be done or was it not going to be done at all?"
Mayor Beydler commented on the fact that during the last meeting on this matter,he posed that question to
Mr. Bielli. He said that he then read in the newspaper that it could be five or six years before the project
went forward. He agreed with Mr. Pickering that reason existed to pinpoint and tie this matter down. He
E:\BBender\Docurnents\Current Minutes 2003\Regulr Session 3-20-03.doc Page 4 of 17
stated the opinion that developers were seeking CFDs to assist them with financing projects and to handle
some of the"big ticket" items that might not otherwise be able to be financed.
Councilman Archambault asked whether the intent of the language under No.2.9 was to hold the developer
to a specific date. Mr. Pickering responded that they were trying to determine how much need was really
there. He stressed the importance of being provided some type of assurance since this was on what the
Council was basing its decision. Councilman Archambault added that he would not like to see penalties
imposed and Mr.Pickering said that penalties were not being proposed. He reiterated that Staff would like
to obtain a reasonable assumption and estimate of their timeline if the proposal did go through so that an
informed decision could be made.
Councilman Kavanagh stated that he concurred with the remarks presented by Councilwoman Stevens and
asked whether it was legal to ask for this information and whether the matter was legally enforceable. He
also asked whether other towns had included a request for this information in their policies. Mr. McGuire
expressed the opinion that there was no impediment to requesting the information or making it a
requirement but added that he always cautioned against having something in place that was unenforceable.
He commented that if you ask the question, and the response was "25 years from now," there was no
process in place that could ensure the accuracy of the estimated response.
Mr. Pickering responded to Councilman Kavanagh's other question and said that he did not research other
towns to determine whether they requested this information as part of their process. He noted that three or
four members of the Council had requested that he pursue language to this effect. He added that at each of
the presentations the developer had made on this subject, this same question had come up. He agreed that
there was no way this could be enforced but added that if the developer was offering that information, he
believed it would be appropriate and beneficial to document that information.
Mayor Beydler commented that according to the documents the Council had received,the CFD process had
been used approximately 25 times•in the State of Arizona. He added that the Town of Fountain Hills has
been involved in such a process before (Eagle Mountain). He stated the opinion that developers were not
rampantly misrepresenting their need when they were looking to use this process and added that it was a
selective tool that was used when necessary and appropriate. He indicated that he supported the language
proposed by Staff.
Councilwoman Nicola also agreed with the comments offered by Councilwoman Stevens relative to the
fact that the language could not be enforced and asked that it be removed from the proposal. She added
that she was uncomfortable with the fact that the Town was not being required to provide any timelines but
wanted to require the developer to do so.
In response to a question from Councilman Melendez, Mr. McGuire advised that the first time he had an •
opportunity to review the entire policy was mid-week last week.
Councilman Melendez stated the opinion that the proposed policy required additional legal review, based
on the comments contained in the letter received from the developer. He said that he wanted to hear what
the applicant had to say and added that he had a hard time voting on something like this when adequate
review time has not been provided.
Mr.Pickering proceeded to highlight the points contained in the letter and said that in point No. 2 under the
language,the developer was attempting to reduce the administrative up-front fee to$25,000 rather than the
$60,000 that had been set by Staff. He commented on the fact that a correction needed to be made(on Page
8) of the policy and clarified that although a $25,000 figure was included once, the actual figure was
• $60,000 and that figure was previously included in the proposal. He added that Staff supported the$60,000
figure and reported that this figure was also the one used by two or three other communities for their
administrative review deposit.
Mayor Beydler asked how much up-front monies developers were required to pay when they applied for a
CFD. Mr. Pickering responded that Staff was recommending that they pay $80,000 up front and
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regulr Session 3-20-03.doc Page 5 of 17
commented on expenses associated with the extensive review process that was involved with CFD's,
including outside bond and legal counsel and financial advisors.
Mayor Beydler asked whether an expense analysis was performed and Mr. Pickering indicated that the
figure was taken from the .policies in place in other communities. The Mayor said that he was
uncomfortable with the numbers since they had not been reviewed specifically in association with the
Town of Fountain Hill's budgetary/fiscal perspective. Mr. Pickering stressed the importance of leaning on
the side of protecting the Town. He emphasized that no out-of-pocket expenses should be borne by the
Town as a result of this process. He added that as the process continues,an additional$25,000 deposit was
also required if costs justified that amount.
Councilman Kavanagh commented on all of the questions and issues surrounding this matter, in addition to
the points raised by MCO in their letter, and recommended that this issue be reviewed at a Work Study
Session. He stressed the importance of sitting down at the table with MCO to address all the points. He
suggested that an expedited Work Study Session be scheduled for this purpose. He added that if the matter
came to a vote this evening,he would be forced to abstain since there were so many outstanding,confusing
issues that remained to be clarified and addressed.
Mayor Beydler agreed with Councilman Kavanagh's overview but clarified that the Council was discussing
a policy and not an application specific to MCO. He said that he would prefer to open the discussion up to
a broader spectrum of participants and added that the Workshop should include other individuals as well.
Mr. Pickering stated the opinion that the Council should exercise caution in this area and pointed out that
this was not a "negotiation process" but rather a Town policy. He added that the policy was not being
developed for MCO. He clarified that MCO had expressed concerns regarding the proposed policy and
stated the opinion that the points that had been raised could be overcome with additional time. He said that
he would not recommend that a Workshop be scheduled for the Council to meet with a developer who had
an application before them in an effort to "work out points of contention." He added that this was a
cer decision that had to be made by the Town since it would affect all CFDs in the future. He said that some of
the concerns were legitimate and that he did not believe the proposal should be approved this evening. He
indicated his willingness to address the issues raised by MCO and the members of the Council,but stressed
the importance of rendering decisions based on the Town's desire rather than the desire of an individual
applicant.
Councilman Archambault agreed with Mr. Pickering's comments and said that he did not believe this
should be discussed at a Workshop.
•
Councilwoman Stevens agreed that they were discussing a policy for the_entire Town and stated that the
changes that were proposed during this meeting could be incorporated by Staff and the proposal could be
placed on the Consent Agenda of a future meeting.
Vice Mayor Ralphe also agreed with Mr. Pickering's comments but said that scheduling a Workshop to
further address this issue might be a good idea. She agreed that a number of the issues raised in MCO's
letter might not be in the best interest of the Town.
Mayor Beydler said that dual direction was being given, to schedule a Workshop and for Staff to take
Council's suggestions this evening and incorporate them, along with input from other concerned parties,
into the proposal for future review and consideration.
Councilman Kavanagh commented that based on the fact that the only two major developments left in
Town were on land owned by MCO, that entity appeared to be the major CFD player. He said that
although he did not want to exclude anyone from the process, he did believe that input should be provided
by MCO during a Work Study Session. He added that complex legal issues also came into play and noted
that the policy must interact with the Settlement Agreement. He added the opinion that Mr. McGuire was
not prepared to address those legal issues at this time.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regulr Session 3-20-03.doc Page 6 of 17
Councilwoman Nicola stated that she would not be comfortable scheduling a Work Study Session, having
just MCO at the table,and not providing members of the public an opportunity to comment. She stated the
opinion that the Council should expend effort to provide Staff with direction and then the matter could
either be placed on a future Consent Agenda or it could be continued for further discussion.
Councilman Kavanagh recommended that a Special Council Meeting be scheduled to discuss this issue but
that an action item not be part of the agenda. He said that this would provide MCO and anyone else who
wished to comment an opportunity to do so. He estimated that it would take another three hours to
adequately discuss this matter.
Mr.Pickering stated the opinion that another three hour discussion was not necessary and said that he had a
discussion today with Greg Bielli relative to the fact that although some revisions would be made, there
were going to be items included in the policy on which they disagreed. He noted that MCO had reviewed
the proposed policy in depth and noted that all of their comments were contained in the letter that was
currently being discussed. He stated the opinion that another Workshop was not necessary and said that
based on the extensiveness of the policy, it appeared that only a few minor issues needed to be discussed
and addressed. He commented on the trailhead and clarified that the costs associated with that were the
responsibility of the Town.
Councilman Kavanagh said that he was talking about the road and added that his question to Mr. McGuire
was if the Town was a property owner in the CFD, would the Town then also have to share in the costs
with other CFD property owners. He commented that if this was the case, the Town was going to wind up
paying for a road, which, if the CFD did not exist, would not cost the Town any money. Mr. Pickering
indicated Staffs intention to research the matter and get back to him.
Councilwoman Stevens recommended that the Town Manager complete his review of MCO's list, that
members of the audience who wished to provide input be allowed to do so, and that the Council then •
review the remaining items in an effort to reach.a consensus and provide direction to Staff. She added that
Low if the information compiled by Staff was non-controversial, the item could be placed on a future Consent
Agenda and if further discussion was needed, the members of the Council could address them during a
Regular Council meeting.
Mr. Pickering said that the next item on MCO's list involved pre-approval and post-approval fees. He
commented that MCO's contention was that cities did not require the fees but pointed out that at least three
of the other cities he had contacted do impose those fees.
Mr. Pickering stated that he,strongly disagreed with the last point raised by MCO, that there should be a 4
to 1 ratio for a public offering and a 3 to 1 for a private offering. He said that, in an effort to remain
conservative,the Town's ratios had been set at 6 to 1 for a public offering and,for a private offering 4 to 1.
He commented on the fact that MCO was an extremely reputable developer and added that the Town was
extremely fortunate to have them. He added, however, that in the future there was no way of knowing who
might apply for CFDs and that was the reason why the higher ratios had been included in the proposal. He
commented that the higher the ratio, the safer the development. He noted that other cities had included
similar ratios in their proposals as well.
Mr.Pickering said that this concluded his review of MCO's letter.
Councilwoman Stevens MOVED and Councilman Archambault SECONDED to approve Resolution
2003-10 as presented.
•
In response to a call from the Mayor,no citizens came forward indicating their desire to speak on this issue.
Councilman Kavanagh commented on the fact that one of the issues raised by MCO was start-up costs. He
said it was his understanding that the developer would have to bear these costs, which were not eligible for
reimbursement. Mr. Pickering clarified that a $20,000 fee was required up-front and added that the
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regulr Session 3-20-03.doc Page 7 of 17
additional fees were to cover administrative costs that would be borne by the Town once they were
involved in the process of putting together the CFD.
Councilman Kavanagh said he was referring to initial costs to get the CFD up and running and questioned
five to ten years down the road. When lawyers were needed to provide occasional legal opinions, who
would be responsible for covering those costs. Mr. Pickering responded the people involved in the actual
CFD would be responsible. He clarified that the policy stated that the district would pay for the operational
and maintenance costs. He noted that the developer would like to see this changed and discussions had
occurred regarding this point.
Greg Bielli,President of MCO Properties,addressed the Council relative to this agenda item. He said that
for the most part, MCO supported Staffs policy as presented with few exceptions. He said that they
reviewed the proposal in the context of a Town-wide policy and added that there were items specific to
MCO's application that would come forward after the policy was adopted. He clarified the issue raised
under point No. 1 in the letter and said that MCO did not oppose the language that Staff had proposed,
relative to operations and maintenance. He stated that the Town might in the future, on a policy-wide
community basis,want to form a CFD that simply was an operations and maintenance CFD and would deal
with the assessment of the .30 per$100 valuation. He added that the proposed policy also articulated that
there could be exceptions to the policy in these areas when an application came in.
Mr.Bielli explained that MCO included point No. 1 because they did not want anyone to be misled that on
MCO's application that would come forward in the future,and said they would be sticking to the settlement
agreement. He said that the Eagle Ridge Drive extension up to the trailhead was a public road and was
going to continue to remain a public road. He said it was MCO's understanding that because of the
trailhead and the traffic that goes up there, that the road was going to be maintained by the Town. He said
that was why they made the statement they did in point No. 1 and clarified that MCO was not opposed to
the Town having a policy in place that stated that in future CFD's across the community, the Town wanted
to gauge whether maintenance responsibilities existed for the CFD. He added the opinion that a public
road up to a trailhead should not be MCO's responsibility and said that they are also looking at the fact that
in the future, the 171 property owners would already be paying taxes to the community to pay for the
public road system, and would also be forced to pay another tax for the maintenance of that road. He
expressed the opinion that those buyers should not be responsible'for costs associated with the maintenance
of that road. He reiterated that MCO did not object to the language contained in the policy that was before
the Council at this time, particularly in view of the fact that exceptions could be granted when warranted
and deemed appropriate,such as in MCO's case.
Mr. Bielli also commented on point No. 2 and said that the language Staff prepared relative to timeframes
that would be used when an application was received was acceptable. He said the company believed it was
important to have some understandable timelines in place and that as drafted there were no timelines.
MCO used the generic term that they would work in a positive manner. He said that the language
previously discussed by Mr.Pickering and the Council was acceptable.
Mr. Bielli referred to the language that pertained to reimbursement and said that there were legal
requirements under the CFDs and there were permissible expenses. He added that it was implied that when
MCO came in with a detailed application, Staff and MCO would look at those issues and what should or
shouldn't be included in the bond issue. He said that they simply wanted to provide up-front notice of what
MCO would like to see down the road.
Mr. Bielli also commented on the issue of the timeline and said that in an effort to clarify what Mayor
Beydler read in the newspaper, what he said to the Mayor was what he had been telling everyone, that it
would be delayed possibly for months. He added that there was discussion at the meeting relative to going
with Eagle's Nest and the question arose what would happen to Adero Canyon. He stated that the Town
could only do one of the projects at a time and Adero Canyon would possibly be delayed for four to five
years. He added that time estimates had remained consistent but pointed out that he could not tell the
members of the Council honestly what the exact delay would be because it was a financing delay and his
best estimate was that it would take months.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regulr Session 3-20-03.doc Page 8 of 17
Mr. Bielli commented on the fact that confusion also existed on page 7 (paragraph 3.2) of the policy. He
cov clarified that MCO was not saying that they wanted to reduce the figure from a$60,000 to$25,000 deposit.
He said that they were talking about the inconsistency in the paragraph itself and if you look at the
intervals,the$20,000 to be paid and the$60,000,as Mr.Pickering said,for a total of$80,000. He said that
the last part of the paragraph was what was confusing because it talked about $25,000 increments and if
you had $80,000 in deposit and then you go in $25,000 increments, it did not work. He added that MCO
understood that the Town was going to have an application fee and stated that they did not have a problem
paying that. MCO simply had concerns regarding the increments and the inconsistencies they reflected.
He suggested that the $60,000.figure be dropped down to $50,000 and then every time Staff needed
additional funds,that$25,000 increments be used.
Mr.Bielli also discussed pre and post approval fees and said that they were addressing the tandem nature of
the two paragraphs. He said that MCO had consistently said that the ongoing operational and maintenance
costs of the CFD could be borne by the tax on the district. He added that the district people should pay that
and not the Town.
Mr. Bielli commented on the ratios and noted that the Town's proposed policy stated "a minimum." He
added that Staff was recommending a 6 to 1 and 4 to 1 ratio based on the public offering. He said that the
public offering was 6 to 1 and private was 4 to 1. He stated that because the policy did say a minimum,
when an applicant brought in an application, many issues were going to be weighed by the Town. He
stressed the fact that the policy was just that, a generic policy, and said that MCO was asking that
applicants not be precluded and stated the opinion that the proposed 4 to 1 ratio might in fact do that. He
commented that a 3 to 1 ratio would address the policy without having to having an amendment in the
future and asked the Council to consider MCO's thoughts on this issue.
Mr.Pickering stated that Mr. Bielli was correct and that Paragraph 3.2 needed further clarification as to the
fact that the Town required$20,000 and$60,000 and that after that, $25,000 increments would occur. He
said that he still believed that the actual numbers should remain the same, although the payments needed
clarification. Mr. Bielli said that Staff might want to consider $20,000, $60,000 and then $20,000
increments.
Councilman Archambault said that he would like to make a motion to change the figure in the last sentence
of Paragraph 3.2 to$20,000.
Councilman Archambault MOVED that the figure in the last sentence of Paragraph 3.2 of the proposed
policy be changed to$20,000.
•
Councilwoman Nicola cautioned against offering motions that represent numerous amendments to the
policy and stated the opinion that it might be more effective and productive to give direction to Staff and
then let them prepare an updated policy based on that direction for future review and action.
Councilman Archambault agreed with Councilwoman Nicola's statement and WITHDREW his motion.
He added that Staff should include that revision in the updated policy.
Councilwoman Stevens stressed the importance of ascertaining that there was consensus among the
members of the Council relative to the direction that was given to Staff. She added that she believed a
motion to amend was a good idea and added that members of the public should also be provided an
opportunity to provide input prior to delving into an amendment process.
In response to a call from the Mayor for public input, there were no citizens who wished to speak on this
issue.
Councilwoman Stevens expressed the opinion that the first thing MCO was referring to was the first
sentence which stated: "A community facilities district("CFD")provides a funding mechanism to finance
construction, acquisition, operation and maintenance of public infrastructure," and said that perhaps the
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regulr Session 3-20-03.doc Page 9 of 17
Council could change this sentence to state: "A community facilities district("CFD")provides a funding
mechanism to finance any or all of the following"instead?
Mr.Bielli clarified that he was referring to other portions of the document,specifically Paragraphs 1.5, 1.10
and 4.2 that addressed maintenance issues. He reiterated that MCO agreed with the policy as written;
however, when MCO came in with a case in hand,it was the company's intention to ask for an exception in
accordance with paragraph 1.11.
Councilwoman Stevens thanked Mr.Bielli for his clarification.
Councilwoman Stevens MOVED and Councilman Kavanagh SECONDED that the sentence on the top of
Page 5 be amended to state: "Additionally, the applicant shall be encouraged to submit a timetable showing
the project schedule should a CFD not be granted."
MOTION CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE(6 to 1)with Councilman Archambault voting Nay.
Councilwoman Stevens MOVED and Councilman Kavanagh SECONDED that Paragraph 3.2 on Page 7
be amended to state: "$20,000 down and an additional $50,000" and that the $25,000 remain in place so
that the numbers remain even.
MOTION CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE(6 to 1)with Vice Mayor Ralphe voting Nay.
Councilman Kavanagh noted that on Page 1, under Paragraph 1.1, the word "substantial" only applied to
commercial developments and asked whether this was on purpose or whether it inadvertently occurred. He
questioned whether the word "substantial"should be moved and placed before the word "residential." Mr.
Pickering agreed that the word should be moved to accurately reflect the intent of the sentence.
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED and Councilwoman Stevens SECONDED that Paragraph 1.1 on Page 1,
should be amended to state: "CFD's should be utilized in connection with the financing of infrastructure
for development of substantial residential projects, master planned communities or projects involving
commercial development."
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilwoman Nicola also indicated concern relative to the wording contained in Paragraph 3.2 on Page 7
(third sentence) where it states "by the Town in its sole discretion"and stated the opinion that the wording
should be struck. She also commented on Paragraph 3.6 on Page 7 and stated the opinion that the first
sentence should be amended to state: All costs and fees related to the application must be paid by the
Applicant...."
Following discussion, it was determined that Paragraph 3.2 on Page 7 (third sentence) should remain
unchanged.
Councilwoman Nicola MOVED and Councilwoman Stevens SECONDED that Staff be directed to
rephrase Paragraph 3.6 on Page 7 to reflect that all costs must be paid by the applicant.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilman Kavanagh stated the opinion that Paragraph 2.16 on Page 6 should be amended too for
consistency purposes.
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED and Councilwoman Stevens SECONDED that Staff be directed to amend
Paragraph 2.16 on Page 6 to reflect that anv and all sellers are required to provide the disclosure statements
and that the requirement would obviously expire with the expiration of the CFD.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regulr Session 3-20-03.doc Page 10 of 17
Councilwoman Nicola said she would like to offer a friendly amendment to the effect that the fourth
llbor sentence in Paragraph 2.16 on Page 6 (beginning "Upon each sale of the property in the CFD....") be
deleted from the document.
Mr. Pickering explained the reason that sentence was included was so that there would be some proof that
when they were selling to a landowner that they made the new owner aware of this fact. In that way, when
people came in to complain to the City, there was a signed document on file to show them as proof that
they were made aware of this fact.
Councilwoman Nicola stated the opinion that it would be easier on Staff to mail out a statement every year
during tax time rather than monitoring and maintaining records on the 171 parcels. Mr. Pickering said he
preferred that the burden be placed on the landowner rather than on the Town.
•
Following additional discussion, Councilman Kavanagh stated that he would like to remove his "friendly"
amendment to reword Paragraph 2.16 on Page 6 from the floor. Councilwoman Stevens agreed to the
withdrawal.
In response to a question from Councilman Melendez, Mr. McGuire stated that Staff would attempt to
ensure that whatever disclosures they were proposing,as far as the closing documents, would be a separate
disclosure and not "grouped"with other disclosure statements.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilman Archambault MOVED and Councilwoman Stevens SECONDED that Paragraph 4.1 on Page
8 to be amended to reflect the same figures that were to be included in Paragraph 3.2 on Page 7 ($20,000
and$50,000).
Mr. Pickering explained that these were "post fees" and should be much less and therefore the current
figures contained in Paragraph 3.2 on page 7 should remain unchanged.
Councilman Archambault stated that he would like to withdraw his motion and Councilwoman Stevens
agreed to remove her second.
In response to a request for clarification from Mr. McGuire, the Council stated that following Staffs
amendments to the policy as recommended this evening, a revised policy should be placed on the Consent
Agenda of the next meeting.
•
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED and Mayor Beydler SECONDED that this issue be continued to the next
'Regular Council meeting.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
AGENDA ITEM #7 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2003-05 REGARDING PROPOSED
CHANGES TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER FEES.
Mark Mayer, the Director of Parks and Recreation, addressed the Council relative to this agenda item. He
reviewed the contents of a Staff report and noted that it was anticipated that the fees would reduce the
Center's annual deficit, would be more in line with comparable facilities and rates, would lower dependence
on the annual contribution from the General Fund and were reflective of Staffs experience in operating the'
facility over the last 18 months.
Mr.Mayer noted that the facility opened in 2001 and at that time rates were proposed and approved. Since
that time, however, one adjustment to the rates had taken place and this evening a second adjustment was
being recommended. He noted that the earlier budgeted deficit for this Fiscal Year was in excess of
$300,000 and said that the figure was reduced to a figure in the range of slightly over$200,000 as a result
of a number of budget cuts as well as additional fees. He added that Staff anticipated that with the
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regulr Session 3-20-03.doc - Page 11 of 17
reductions that had already taken place as well as the additional recommended fees,the deficit for next year
will be in the less than$200,000 range.
Mr. Mayer reported that the proposed rate increases involved the costs associated with meeting room
rentals,ballrooms and categories associated with outside uses and rental potential for utilizing the lobby, a
request which had been received from members of the public. He commented on the fact that fees were
divided into two categories, (1) resident, and (2) not-for-profit, which were typically the higher rate and
were associated with a non-resident and commercial rate.
Mr. Mayer noted that fees for residents were approximately half of those charged for commercial uses and
added that Staff was recommending an approximate 18% rate increase. He said that Staff estimated that
with adjustments to those rates for meeting space and ballroom uses, an estimated $23,000 in additional
revenue would be generated. He commented on additional adjustments, such as bartender rates, which
were now paid by the Town, and said that they would be transferred to the groups renting/utilizing the
facilities as well as liquor security, which was required at major liquor events. He noted that this service
that had historically been borne through the Sheriffs Department would now be passed on to the
participants. He also commented on the elimination of liquor splits and a modest fee increase associated
with fees for coffee service.
Mr. Mayer reported that the combination of proposed fees would generate an estimated $43,000 of
additional revenue for the facility. He added that in response to questions previously posed by members of
the Council relative to facility rates compared to those in effect in other cites, information was included in
the packets comparing Fountain Hills'facilities with facilities located in Mesa and Phoenix.
Mr. Mayer informed the members of the Council that with him this evening was the Chair of the
Community Center Advisory Commission,Wally Nichols,and noted that the members of that Commission
had reviewed the proposed fee increases and supported Staffs recommendations. He added that language
was included in the resolution for Council's consideration relative to considering fees on an annual basis
from this point forward.
Mr.Nichols addressed the Council and spoke in strong support of the fee increases that were recommended
by Staff. He noted that the proposed rental rates would bring the commercial rates up to competitive
standards in the Valley. He pointed out that the increase for commercial rental rates was twice as much as
it was for residential, which was still a bargain and remained at a level that was approximately half of the
commercial rates. He commented that the Staff of the Community Center had done a good job controlling
costs through revenue enhancements and noted that the original subsidy when the Center was established
was estimated to be approximately $350,000 a year. He reported that with all of the combined efforts of
staff, the forecast was that the subsidy would be below $200,000, at the $170,000 level, almost half, and
commended Staff on their outstanding efforts in this regard.
Mr. Nichols commented that the Commission would like to request two things from the Council this
evening; first, that they approve the new rental rates and, second, that they reaffirm or change the
Community Center Mission Statement for the Community Center during the upcoming budget process. He
urged the members of the Council to review the Center's proposed Mission Statement and stated that Center
Staff needs direction on how to operate on an ongoing basis so they could plan out for a year,two or three.
He thanked them for their support and cooperation.
Councilwoman Nicola said that she did not see a Mission Statement included in the materials that had been
provided this evening. Mr. Nichols noted that one would be supplied to the Council for review during the
budget process.
In response to a request from Councilwoman Nicola, Mr. Pickering stated that he would provide the
Council with copies of all Mission Statements for their review.
Councilwoman Nicola asked how Staff verified the status of non-profit organizations and Mr. Mayer
responded that they were required to show proof of 501-3C tax-exempt status in accordance with IRS
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regulr Session 3-20-03.doc Page 12 of 17
regulations. In response to a question from Councilwoman Nicola, Mr. Mayer stated the opinion that
residential rates were established in an effort to provide residents with rates that were significantly less
expensive than typical rates.
Councilman Kavanagh requested that the members of the Commission provide the Council with
suggestions as to needed revisions in that organizations' Mission Statement. Mr. Nichols responded that
the members concur with the contents of the current Mission Statement and said they were seeking
reaffirmation on the part of the Council that the Mission Statement was in fact true and correct.
Mayor Beydler asked what the utilization rate was at the Community Center. Mr. Mayer stated that he did
not believe the actual number of booking hours for the facility had been analyzed but noted that the figure
continues to increase. The Mayor said that he would be interested in finding out this figure from a business
perspective. He added that he would also like to know what the anticipated negative impact might be as a
result of the proposed fee increases.
Mayor Beydler also commented on the fact that Staff compared the use and computed it on a square
footage basis of the Community Center to larger facilities such as the Phoenix Civic Plaza and Mesa's
Centennial Hall. He said that he would be curious to know (based on the assumption of the economy of
scale) whether it related to the retail rate that those facilities charge. He added that a direct correlation
might not exist and challenged Staff to pursue this issue and find out more information in an effort to
determine whether the square footage rate was in fact an accurate or good indicator of what the market
might bear.
Councilwoman Nicola added that she did in fact read past monthly reports the Council received relative to
facility utilization and said that she would appreciate receiving those reports again as well as an accounting
of Staff and operational costs. She stated the opinion that the information would assist her in evaluating
proposed costs and recommended fees.
Lov Councilman Melendez commented that he had requested that the Council be provided a different type of
report that reflected net dollar amounts and added that he believed Staff had already provided this
information.
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED that the Council accept and approve the proposed changes to the
Community Center fees,as presented. •
Councilman Kavanagh expressed concern relative to imposing a $35.00 an hour security charge and
eliminating the 50/50 liquor splits for non-profit organizations. He said that he was deeply concerned that •
these revisions would negatively impact the non-profit organizations and prevent them from holding events
at the Center and instead move their functions to other facilities.
Councilman Kavanagh stated that he would like to place a stipulation on his motion to the effect that the
Community Center contact the large non-profit users and poll them as to the effects the proposed fee
changes would have on their future bookings at the Center and report the results of their surveys to the
Council.
Councilwoman Nicola commented that she had never liked the liquor split and added that she did not
understand the reason for it. She added that if the reason behind it was just to generate money, she did not
like it and added that if it was a security issue, she believed that the person throwing the party should pay
for security.
Councilwoman Stevens SECONDED the motion.
Councilwoman Nicola indicated that she could not support the motion in its current form based on her
previous remarks.
Councilman Archambault concurred with the remarks offered by Councilwoman Nicola.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regulr Session 3-20-03.doc Page 13 of 17
Councilman Kavanagh clarified that he was not eliminating the liquor split provision and said that his
motion would allow the liquor splits to end. He added that he would like the larger, non-profit users to be
polled now to find out what the effects of this action would be on them. He said that he would rather find
out now because he might want to bring the liquor splits back if the larger users were going to go
elsewhere. He clarified that his motion would eliminate the liquor splits but require that polling take place
among the larger non-profit users to determine potential negative impacts of this action.
Mayor Beydler noted that there were representatives from non-profit organizations present at this meeting
to address any concerns.
Councilwoman Stevens clarified that the motion currently before the Council was to approve the
recommendations as presented. She added that direction had also been given to Staff to contact the larger
non-profit groups, determine their response to the action that the Council had taken, and report their
findings to the Council.
In response to a question from Vice Mayor Ralphe as to the motivation that existed for non-profit
organizations to support the fee increases, Councilwoman Nicola pointed out that the organizations were
also not sharing in the liability issues with the Town. She added that she was also not interested in finding
out their opinion relative to the 50-50 split.
Councilman Kavanagh clarified that the poll question was to determine whether the organizations would
still utilize the Community Center for their functions or would go elsewhere.
Mayor Beydler commented that this was a sales and marketing issue and noted that the Town appeared to
be co-dependent upon the larger non-profit organizations. He said that this brought up a point he had made
earlier today to Mr.Mayer relative to the fact that they were not talking this evening about the development
of a sales and marketing program to bring in new users, but added that he would hope that they would get
into a competitive situation where groups were booking in advance in order to use the facilities. He
(0410 commented that he could not support the motion in its current form.
Councilman Kavanagh noted that the Community Center was not a private, commercial profit making
organization and was built with taxpayers' money. He added that as far as he was concerned, that building
existed for the residents of Fountain Hills and the commercial dollars that were generated were a "bonus."
He indicated that he would rather see nothing other than local non-profits utilizing that facility,even if less
revenue was generated.
In response to a request from Councilman Melendez, Mr. Nichols read the Community Center's Mission
Statement into the record.
The Mayor clarified that the motion currently on the floor was to approve Staffs recommendations with the
caveat that non-profit organizations be polled in an effort to determine whether they would still use the
Community Center despite the fact that the 50-50 liquor split was eliminated as well as the fact that they
would now have to cover costs associated with providing security at events.
In response to a question from Councilwoman Nicola relative to the loss of the 50-50 split, Mr. Mayer
estimated that the organizations would have to spend an additional $7500 for 8 to 10 events over the course
of a year.
Mayor Beydler commented on the fact that the deficit represented taxpayers'dollars as well and pointed out
that Fountain Hills was the only community that offered residents special rates for the facility's use. He
recommended that the Council adopt the policy as recommended by Staff and that the poll of non-profit
organizations not be conducted. He said,that input would be received from the community as well as the
Advisory Committee and indicated that this was the most appropriate manner in which to proceed.
Councilman Kavanagh clarified that if any of the groups indicated that they did not want to respond to the
poll,they should not be pressed to do so.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regulr Session 3-20-03.doc Page 14 of 17
Councilman Melendez noted that press representatives were present and would sufficiently and
expeditiously get the word out.
Mayor Beydler moved the question and said that the motion was to approve Staffs recommendation and to
poll non-profit organizations.
MOTION FAILED(6 to 1)with Councilman Kavanagh voting Aye.
Mayor Beydler MOVED and Vice Mayor Ralphe SECONDED that the proposed changes to the
Community Center fees be approved as presented.
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED to amend the motion to remove the provision which eliminates the 50-50
liquor split.
AMENDED MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Mayor Beydler said that they would now vote on the main motion.
MOTION CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE(6 to 1)with Councilman Kavanagh voting Nay.
Mayor Beydler thanked everyone for their efforts.
•
AGENDA ITEM #8 - COUNCIL ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW, OF THE MEETING TO
IDENTIFY PROCEDURAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES AND DISCUSS POSSIBLE
IMPROVEMENTS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS.
Councilman Melendez commented on the fact that the Council was not given sufficient time to review the
documentation on Adero Canyon and said he felt rushed. He added that when that happened, there was a
greater likelihood that bad decisions would be made. He asked the Town Manager to make a concerted
effort to ensure that meeting materials were presented to the Council far in advance of meetings so that they
would have sufficient time to review the documents.
Mr. Pickering explained that the developer delivered the materials today and agreed that the Council did
not have sufficient time to review the materials.
Rita Brown, 16738 East Nicklaus Drive, stated that she had the opportunity to attend a meeting of the
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors yesterday and noted that the Board utilized an excellent procedure
for solving time problems associated with conducting their extensive meetings. She reported that a very
controversial issue was on the agenda and the members of the public were requested to fill out speaker
forms. She added, however, that the speaker forms also included space for the citizens to indicate whether
they were for or against the issue and also to indicate whether they wanted to speak. She said that all of the
forms were presented to the Chairman and noted. She added that many of the citizens indicated their
support or opposition but added that they did not wish to speak,and this resulted in allowing them to be •
included in the meeting, but allowed the meeting to end in a much shorter period of time. She suggested
that the Council consider utilizing a similar process in Fountain Hills.
AGENDA ITEM #9 - SUMMARY OF COUNCIL REQUESTS REVIEWED BY THE TOWN
MANAGER.
Mr.Pickering indicated Staffs intention to revise the CFD policy and place it on the Consent Agenda of the
next Regular Council meeting.
He added that Staff would also prepare information on the utilization rate at the Community Center. as
requested,and would obtain copies of various Mission Statements to present to the Council for their review
during the budget process.
•
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regutr Session 3-20-03.doc Page 15 of 17
Councilwoman Stevens said that she also requested that the Council be provided a copy of guidelines for
submitting timely applications. Mr. Pickering indicated that he had already requested that the Planning
Department put together a report on this issue.
Mr. Pickering also commented on Staffs intention to send out a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice
relative to the grant.
Councilwoman Nicola requested that the Council be provided a copy of the final letter that was sent out to
the Justice Department and commended Staff for their hard work on Resolution No. 2003-09 and 2003-10.
AGENDA ITEM#10-CALL TO THE PUBLIC:
Cindy Bonomolo, 15809 E. Cholla Drive, referred to a Letter to the Editor that was in the newspaper last
week that was basically addressed to her and said that she wanted to publicly respond to that letter and did
so in yesterday's paper. Ms. Bonomolo commented that the recall had been completed and the committee
to recall Mayor Beydler ran a successful campaign. She added that as Chairperson of that Committee, she
recognized the difficulties associated with that task and added that she and her family were placed in the
public eye and under close scrutiny. She stated the opinion that based on her findings and her beliefs, she
felt and still feels that Jon Beydler should be removed from the office of Mayor before the Town falls
victim to what she termed his unethical business practices.
Ms. Bonomolo reiterated previous comments relative to her dissatisfaction with Mayor Beydler's
performance and said that she has not withdrawn the recall. She reported that her committee came together
in January to bring to a close their political relationship and added that she reported at that time that Wally
Nichols was an appropriate candidate to run for the office of Mayor. She added that although she did not
know Mr.Nichols at that time,she had had the opportunity to look into his background and believed that he
was what the Town of Fountain Hills needed. She asked the citizens to vote for Wally Nichols for Mayor
on May 20th.
Ms.Bonomolo also announced that the recall remains in effect and negatively referred to a paid political ad
she read in the newspaper in support of Jon Beydler for Mayor. She presented a number of allegations
against the Mayor and spoke in opposition to his continuing to serve in the capacity of Mayor of the Town
of Fountain Hills.
Phil Gaziano, 14946 E. Sierra Madre Drive, addressed the Council and said that he was present at the
meeting when a vote to censure was taken. He noted that four members of the Council abstained from the
vote and three voted to censure. He pointed out that a question was raised as to whether or not the censure
should go forward. He added that this question had never been answered and they had been waiting for
months for someone to come forward, state that the issue had been looked into, and report their findings as
to whether or not the Mayor was censured.
Mr. Gaziano added that a suit was filed by three firemen against Councilwoman Nicola and stated that he
did not know whether the Town defended Councilwoman Nicola in this action, what the suit was about,
and what the final determination was in this action. He said that if this was a private suit and the Town was
not involved, then he had no questions to pose. However, if the Town spent money defending her, this
action was similar to action undertaken by previous Councils and he would like to know the status. He
asked specifically whether the Town was involved in Councilwoman Nicola's defense and whether funds
were spent for this purpose.
In response to a request from the Mayor,Town Attorney Andrew McGuire recommended that Mr. Gaziano
contact him at his office for information relative to the issues he raised.
AGENDA ITEM#11 -ADJOURNMENT
Councilwoman Stevens MOVED that the Council adjourn and Councilman Archambault SECONDED the
motion,which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regulr Session 3-20-03.doc Page 16 of 17
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
By: . ih _ -
Jo :eydler, ayor
ATTEST AND
PREPARED BY:
7
de-l-
Bevelyn J.Bejtd T6wn 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 20th day of March 2003. I further certify that the
meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. •
DATED this 3rd day of April 2003.
��A '
,/t/ ..1,-3-7(#00d6L
Bevelyn J.Bender,Town Clerk
•
•
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regulr Session 3-20-03.doc Page 17 of 17