Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004.0318.TCRM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS DOWN COUNCIL kiw MARCH 18, 2004 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Nichols called the meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. INVOCATION: Following the Pledge of Allegiance, Reverend Mark Lansberry (The Fountains, A United Methodist Church) presented the invocation. ROLL CALL: Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Wally Nichols, Councilwoman Leesa Stevens, Vice Mayor Rick Melendez, Councilman John Kavanagh, Councilwoman Kathleen Nicola, Councilwoman Susan Ralphe,and Councilman Mike Archambault. Also present were Andrew McGuire, Town Attorney; Tim Pickering, Town Manager; Mark Mayer, Parks & Recreation Director; Bevelyn Bender, Town Clerk; Jim Strickland, Peacock and Hislop; and Molly Bosley, Planning and Zoning Administrator. CALL TO THE PUBLIC: As there were no residents present to speak during the"Call to the Public",Mayor Nichols proceeded to the Consent Agenda. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Nichols advised the Council that#10 of the Consent Agenda,considering approval of the CUT AND FILL WAIVER, had been REMOVED at the request of Councilwoman Ralphe and would be the first item discussed during the regular agenda. AGENDA ITEM #1 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 2, 2004 AND MARCH 4,2004. AGENDA ITEM #2 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2004-12 CANVASSING THE RESULTS OF THE MARCH 9,2004 PRIMARY ELECTION. AGENDA ITEM#3—CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2004-13 ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT,TITLE, OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 59, BLOCK 2, PLAT 62D (15302 E. THISTLE DRIVE) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 166 OF MAPS, PAGE 34, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, EA04-01 (BRADY). AGENDA ITEM#4—CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2004-14 ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT,TITLE, OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 22, BLOCK 6, PLAT 432 (15234 N. BAHIA DRIVE) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 151 OF MAPS, PAGE 43, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, EA04-02 (MUSA). AGENDA ITEM#5—CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2004-15 ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT,TITLE, OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS LOCATED AT THE EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 26, BLOCK 3, PLAT 602C (15934 E. THISTLE DRIVE) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 166 OF MAPS, PAGE 33, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, EA04-03 Maly (GAETH). AGENDA ITEM #6 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2004-16 ABANDONING PORTIONS OF THE NO VEHICULAR ACCESS RESTRICTION ON SHEA BOULEVARD AT KERN PLAZA. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Town Council Meeting 3-18-04.doc Page 1 of 15 AGENDA ITEM#7—CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2004-21 ABANDONING THE"FINAL PLAT OF EAST ALAMOSA PLACE CONDOMINIUMS" AS RECORDED ON BOOK 176, MAP 04, OF THE RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY,ARIZONA. AGENDA ITEM #8 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE EMULSION SEAL BID IN THE AMOUNT OF $37,543.50 AND AWARDING THE CONTRACT TO ENGINEERING BY ARRID ZONE. AGENDA ITEM #9 — CONSIDERATION OF A FINAL PLAT, FOR "THE VILLAGE AT TOWNE CENTER", WHICH IS A REPLAT OF FINAL PLAT 208, A PORTION OF BLOCK 1, BLOCK 8, AND THE PREVIOUSLY ABANDONED PORTION OF VERDE RIVER DRIVE, A 15.6-ACRE, 145-UNIT CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION PROPOSED IN A"C-2"COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT.CASE#S2003-02. Councilman Archambault MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda as read (Items #1 through #9 with Item #10 removed). Councilwoman Stevens SECONDED the motion,and it was voted upon as follows: Councilwoman Stevens Aye Vice Mayor Melendez Aye Councilman Kavanagh Aye Councilwoman Nicola Aye Mayor Nichols Aye Councilwoman Ralphe Aye Councilman Archambault Aye The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7 to 0). AGENDA ITEM#10—CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A CUT AND FILL WAIVER TO PERMIT A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM CUT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 15605 FIREROCK COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE,AKA PARCEL"I",LOT 17.CASE NUMBER CFW2004-01. Planning and Zoning Administrator Molly Bosley presented the Council with background of this agenda item, indicating that the cut was necessitated due to the fact that the ridgeline ran directly through the lot. She continued that if the lot were required to be raised, it would cause an 18% excess in soil, which then would be in disagreement with the driveway policy. Also, Ms. *440 Bosley explained that a situation in the rear of the lot would require a piercing of retaining walls that would create more horizontal disturbance. Staff recommended approval for the agenda item based on the facts that(1)there was no external evidence of the cut,and(2) it would help minimize driveway sloping and create less horizontal disturbance, therefore not requiring the piercing of the retaining walls in the rear of the lot. Ms. Bosley advised the Council that the type of cut-and-fill waiver in question was one that would be approved administratively in the future, as discussions on a basement ordinance were presently being held and reviewed by counsel.Ms. Bosley continued that she anticipated that ordinance to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission at their April 8 meeting and brought before Council at their May 6 meeting. Councilwoman Ralphe had asked that the agenda item be pulled from the Consent Agenda,but after Ms.Bosley's explanation, she noted no further questions. She did, however, comment that she was aware of changes in the ordinances that had not yet taken place and continued that the present ordinance stated that "no cut or fill in excess of 10 feet without Council approval". She was not comfortable with the 15-foot figure, as well as the fact that the area in non-compliance was in excess of 22% of the footprint of the building. Councilwoman Ralphe suggested that the Council uphold the current ordinance until it was formally changed. Councilman Kavanagh MOVED that Agenda Item #10 be approved, and Councilwoman Nicola SECONDED the motion. The vote was as follows: Councilwoman Ralphe Nay Councilwoman Stevens Aye Councilwoman Nicola Aye Councilman Kavanagh Aye Nod Councilman Archambault Aye Vice Mayor Melendez Aye Mayor Nichols Aye E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Town Council Meeting 3-18-04.doc Page 2 of 15 The motion CARRIED by a vote of 6 to 1. AGENDA ITEM #11 —CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 04-06 APPROVING THE CIVIC CENTER PHASE II FUNDING SOURCE. Town Manager Pickering explained that through the suggestion of Councilwoman Ralphe, the Town had engaged the services of a financial advisor(Tom Hocking,T L Hocking& Associates)to advise the Town regarding potential funding for the Civic Center Phase II Project. (Mr. Hocking is the former Assistant Finance Director for the City of Phoenix and brought forth an extensive background in bonding.) Mr. Hocking addressed the Council and further advised that he had participated in the public sector for many years, participated in the investment banking community, and was currently consulting with local governments in Arizona. Mr. Hocking noted that his firm had conducted an analysis with respect to financing the Civic Center Phase II Project and would recommend the most efficient and flexible manner in which the project could be financed. He reviewed the fact that the yearly lease payments on Town offices were approximately$650,000,of which $100,000 was in taxes (not subject to payment when owning property), and that the Town continued to pay into an asset with no equity. The Civic Center Phase II Project would cost approximately$5.3 million and would be at a cost that would provide equity benefits to the Community. Mr. Hocking congratulated the Town on its new outlook from Moody's. In that regard, his firm had determined that the Town's fund balances needed to be maintained,and nothing should be done to jeopardize the Town's bond ratings. As the lease on the current property could be cancelled with 30 days' notice, Mr. Hocking suggested that the Town be proactive in order to respond in the event that should occur. He advised Council that his firm had reviewed all financing with the current debt structure in order to retain the existing bond ratings, i.e., Series 2000 bond with a balance of approximately $4.2 million and the Series 2001 bond with a balance of approximately $7.2 million. Both bonds were very manageable in terms of the Town's"debt to revenue"position.Historically,he noted,the amount of revenues generated by the Town from the excise taxes used to pay debt service on the bonds had been stable and had increased in enviable amounts.Projecting that sales tax into the foreseeable future, he had estimated sales taxes to blend financing into a manageable sales tax system in order to prevent an undue burden on current revenues. Mr.Hocking disseminated the information through a PowerPoint presentation(copy on file in the Clerk's office). Mr.Hocking noted that two different components had been used when analyzing the financing, (1) the pledged revenues, and (2) the source of payment to make those revenue payments. He added that when analyzing financing,those two numbers were not always the same (such as in the Town of Fountain Hills). The Town of Fountain Hills had pledged all of its excise taxes (sales, State- shared revenues,and all of its uncommitted general funds);however,the source of payment was less than the full excise tax.In reviewing the .03% sales tax earmarked for the mountain preserve, his firm reviewed the balances available in that particular dedicated revenue source to see if there was an opportunity to place financing into that dedicated revenue source. In focusing on that revenue source,three funding options were developed. ➢ Option#1: Approximately one-third of the project could be funded by cash, and two-thirds could be funded by debt. That portion of the debt would be financed through an excise tax pledge or municipal property corporation bond,and the debt service payment would be structured so that the Town could have those payments grow with the growth of the sales tax.One of the goals of this funding scenario was to keep that dedicated source of revenue of.03%to be able to increase $200,000 annually, maintaining balance to grow the fund even after the debt service was paid. Mr. Hocking displayed a PowerPoint presentation where he explained that the coverage (more revenue than debt service) maintained itself at 1.5 to 1.6 times coverage, at least two times coverage after subtracting debt service on the new bonds through 2011 or 2012. He noted that on that schedule, the cumulative balance within that fund actually would grow by more than$200,000 per year,over$300,000 in 2008 through 2010.If there were no other expenditures out of the fund,a cumulative fund balance would be nearly$15 million by the end of the term of the issue of 15 years. > Option#2: Increase the amount of cash to be contributed,and decrease the amount of bonds to a 50/50 ratio.The debt service payments would then be level as opposed to growing with sales tax increases,and the balances would increase as the sales tax grew. A spreadsheet showed that coverage would be larger as the debt was smaller, so the amount of Lor available revenue for debt service would be at a higher rate. The flip side of this option, however, would be that an increased amount of cash would need to be used. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Town Council Meeting 3-18-04.doc Page 3 of 15 ➢ Option#3: Finance the project completely with bonds and have no cash contribution. Since the debt service would be significantly higher,a shortfall was estimated in the second year in which there would not be sufficient revenues in the fund to make the debt service payments. On the other hand,no cash would be needed. Given the overall financial structure of the Town and the importance of fund balances, it was the recommendation of T L Hocking & Associates that the Town seriously consider Item#1 as the most viable option and the one that would provide the most flexibility. It would also balance the cash form of capital improvement financing, "pay as you go", with "pay as you use" or debt.The reason debt was overloaded was,as with any asset,people want to maximize the efficiency of the asset by paying for it as you use it.His firm focused on the dedication of the .03% sales tax as the dedicated source of revenue to prevent stress from any other revenue items within the General Fund, and those revenues were earmarked to pay the debt service on the project.He concluded that because fund balances were extremely important,Option#1 would provide the most preservation of fund balances,as a smaller amount of cash would be required.He continued that even though Option#3 called for no cash,the debt could not be supported with the.03%tax. Vice Mayor Melendez asked Attorney McGuire if there was any legal language that would not allow the Council to dedicate a portion of the .03% after the obligation had been met for the mountains. Mr. McGuire responded that the mountains were financed by pledging all of the Town's sales tax, and it was not an issuance with a specific .03%. The .03% was the Town Council's action to assure that there were additional sales tax revenues to pay for those bonds, but the actual issuance was on the entire sales tax amount for the Town. There was no commitment to keep the .03% intact other than the financial understanding that the right amount of coverage would be needed with each specific bond issuance and the overall bond coverage between the Town's excise tax collections and the total bond indebtedness. Mayor Nichols made reference to Page 9 of the presentation and asked Mr. Hocking if the revenue projection shown on the estimated sales tax was a conservative estimate,as no increase in sales tax revenues were shown in the Year 2008,but the sales tax revenue projection in 2008 through 2019 were the same each year. Mr.Hocking indicated that Mayor Nichols was accurate in that the most realistic way to look at revenue projections would be within a five-year horizon;beyond that point it would be purely speculation.For purposes of the analysis,he continued,he basically froze the revenues beyond the five-year time period from year five(5)through year fifteen(15). Mayor Nichols noted that the projections were very conservative and Mr. Hocking affirmed that they were. Mayor Nichols added that repayment of the debt service numbers increased yearly according to the terms of the bonds and Mr.Hocking confirmed that was correct. Councilwoman Ralphe stated that she had reviewed percentage rates from materials obtained prior to the mountain bond election and asked if it were possible to consider refinancing or early payment of various Town bonds, using the proceeds to help finance the Civic Center Phase II Project. In that regard, Councilwoman Ralphe had submitted a proposed alternate resolution based on that concept and asked for comments on that refinancing component. Mr. Hocking indicated that in the process of analyzing current debt and adding new debt,the possibility of refinancing existing bonds was researched. There was,however,a certain time period within any maturity in which the bonds cannot be called,and the Town could not call those "non-callable" bonds (usually 10 years). It was his opinion that the Town could not refinance those "non-callable" bonds since they were 10-years out. Therefore, the Town was stuck with those interest rates. He continued that when doing a refinancing,all debt service from that point until maturity, "advance refunding"would be done by issuing new bonds and putting the proceeds of those bonds into an escrow account to pay for the remaining debt service at the point that the bonds would be callable. The escrow would then sit in an account and be used to pay off the bonds when called, so a new bond issue would replace the old bonds. In that scenario, the funds in the escrow account must be invested at a rate that would be at least the rate on the old bonds, and the Town would not be able to earn as much as those bonds would require that we pay. That would be called "negative arbitrage", and more bonds would need to be issued to make up the difference. Borrowing is then higher than what would be held in savings, and in the Town's refunding, minimal savings would be realized by refinancing the bonds,not meeting the current Town policy. He said they would continue to monitor that as markets change and interest rates change. In conclusion, savings would not be adequate due to the long period remaining on the non-callable bonds, and the structure that Councilwoman Ralphe recommended would not work in any of the scenarios developed, as debt service would be done by either deferring the debt service or paying a level debt service. In today's market,refinancing in his opinion was a moot point. Mr. Hocking added that he had considered a combination "new money" and refinancing, thereby spreading the cost of the "new money"on the refinancing side which might generate savings,but based on current rates it was inadequate savings,only $116,000, which is only slightly more than 1% NPV. He continued that "negative arbitrage" kills most refundings in today's market for advance refunding for bonds recently issued, and it would work more effectively for bonds with a shorter non-call period. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Town Council Meeting 3-18-04.doc Page 4 of 15 Councilwoman Ralphe asked if paying off existing debt early would be an option, i.e.,paying off the .03% bonds in 2010. Mr. Hocking indicated that as long as bonds could not be called, the money would merely go into an account that earned interest that would pay it off when it became due,and it wouldn't serve any purpose. Councilman Archambault asked if the principal that was paid off in 2010/2011 were placed in the reserves (leaving $5.4 million to pay $5 million in bonds off), if that would free up more revenue so that the Town would not be debt laden. He suggested reducing the sales tax revenue by .01%, then raising it .01%, and using that as a dedicated source for the bonding capacity. Mr. Hocking responded that the Town has pledged the entire pot of excise taxes, which would give the bond owners the greatest amount of security, the highest bond rating, and the lowest interest rate. He added that if only a particular portion of the sales tax were pledged, the bond would then be less secure and would require higher interest rates. Reducing and increasing the tax would have the same net effect and not worth the effort and would not be recommended. He recommended only pledging the current excise tax base, but by policy either .01% or .03% could be earmarked to pay the debt service as a source of payment,but not pledged. Councilman Archambault noted some confusion regarding a dedicated funding source.Mr.Hocking responded that,in general, the most secure type of bond issued would be a general obligation bond, and the reason it was secure was that the pledge was an unlimited tax pledge on the entire secondary assessed value of the community.Property taxes could be raised sufficiently to pay general obligation bonds, but the pledge would be the entire tax base of the community. The pledge would provide the lowest interest rate and the highest bond rating. Revenue bonds could be issued where the entire excise tax base could be pledged, but because it would be much more subject to change due to economic fluctuations, it would have a higher interest rate. Reducing the pledge would cause higher risk and higher interest rates. He indicated that many communities earmarked specific revenues to make debt service payments, but when bonds were issued, there would be a much broader base. Many communities would not issue new bonds unless there was a new revenue source to accompany it. Pledging brought lower interest rates even though dedicated funds would be used to pay the bond. Councilman Archambault clarified that on the open market, Fountain Hills was pledging all of its revenue, but on the Town funding level, a dedicated revenue source was being pledged. He then asked if another .01% of the current revenue could be dedicated for the bonds. Mr. Hocking responded that when the bonds were sold, the bond holders would be promised that if that dedicated source were not sufficient, other revenue sources were available for payment — and that's where the pledge would come in. Mayor Nichols asked for comments from the public: Lori Noss appeared before the Council stating that several Council members had run their campaigns deriding taxes,claiming an incompetent Council,and opposing any taxpayer funding for fire protection. She stated that the Council had helped"poison the well" and had assisted in "souring"the voters with their hype against opposing tax, yet searching for a way to pay for the Civic Center Phase II Project.She opposed the Council's viewing the mountain tax as a source of payment for the Civic Center Phase II Project and asked what the Council would do if the economy fell and payments could not be made. She asked if using funds earmarked for the mountains struck any Council member as dishonest and noted that taxpayers would lose their trust in the Council if that action were taken. She added that she felt that since the mountain bond was issued at a higher interest rate, common sense would indicate that using the surplus money to pay down the higher-rate loan sooner and eliminate the.03%tax early would gain voter confidence. Edwin Kehe appeared before the Council stating that the consultant wished to utilize certain excesses in the collection from the municipal facilities revenue bonds Series 2001 that was used for the acquisition of a 200-acre land mountain preserve. He suggested that the excess of the .03% sales tax be allowed to accumulate with interest and retire the bond on the call date. If that were done,he calculated that the current balance on the mountain debt was$7,200,000;payments on the principal for F/Y 2004/2005 through 2010/2011 would be$2,133,000, and the excess of the .03% tax over debt service through F/Y 2010/2011 would be$5,064,215,and if principal payments and excess were both utilized,it would exceed the balance,providing a surplus on paying off the bonds of$19,213.00, i.e., pay off the bonds in 2010 with current assets and currently collected assets, and that would not include any interest on the excess funds that they accrue. He then noted that the savings in interest if the bonds were paid in 2011 through 2021/22 would be$1,604,934.He asked that more time be invested in considering this issue. Councilman Kavanagh MOVED that Ordinance 04-06 be accepted using Option #1 as recommended by staff and the independent financial consultant suggested by Councilwoman Ralphe. Vice Mayor Melendez SECONDED the motion, and discussion ensued. Councilman Kavanagh urged the Council to understand that the $6 million in mountain funds approved by voters was not Vir being considered, as they were general obligation bonds that could only be spent on mountain preservation costs. He clarified that what was being discussed were additional funds that would permit the expenditure of$13 million instead of the$6 million approved by the voters. He reiterated that the Council was committed to pay the mountains off and build the trailhead. He E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Town Council Meeting 3-18-04.doc Page 5 of 15 reviewed that at the time the mountain bond was passed, the actual cost of the mountains was unknown, and there were many avenues assessed for their purchase,i.e.,development fees, .03% sales tax,and general obligation bonds. Also placed aside was $1 million from the General Fund. Due to a series of events, the Town found itself in a situation where actually more money had been collected than was required, and that trend would continue to provide funds for the mountains and the Town Hall. Conservatively,the excess would protect all investments. Councilman Kavanagh continued that a greater breaking of faith with residents would be the collection of unneeded tax and placing it in a fund where nothing could be done with it for ten years, when other items were needed. He stated that his suggestion to accept Ordinance 04-06 using Option#1 was a compromise between those who didn't want to do any spending and those who wanted to save all the mountain money. If the 50/50 mix were adopted, reserves would be lost. If the project were totally financed with bonds, the debt payments would become too great. Option #1 would totally protect the mountain funding and was the best path for the Town to take to protect its credit rating and care for the Town Hall and Senior Center.He added that Option#1 was fiscally prudent, and most conservationists had no problem with the option as long as the mountains were funded with a safety cushion. The financial consultant indicated, he added, that the .03% that was not committed by the voters but only by Council,it could be freed up for other needs. Councilman Archambault disagreed, indicating that the Council had discussed citizen input on their vision of the Town. He stressed the need for trust with citizens in order to complete future projects.If a dedicated property tax were passed,the income from the tax would also increase, and it would enable bonds to be paid off early. He felt that was the intent when the Council passed the original .03%. Regarding "draining the reserve", he continued, the Town currently had $552,400 in rebates and refunds this year,and currently$392,700 had been collected in development fees for a total of$945,000,not touching the 10% that Moody's wanted to see held in reserve. The Council would have to dedicate another revenue source to pay for the Town Hall. Councilman Archambault then noted that using a portion of the mountain tax was a conflict of interest and did not fit with what could be done. He felt that other revenue sources needed to be dedicated for the Civic Center Phase II Project and that additional cash must be used,whether it was a dedication of.01%or 1.02%.He continued that in 2010 the debt capacity would be preserved for future improvements, and the roads would be one of those future improvements. In 2009 the shortfall for the road would increase to $5 million, and he suggested that the Town might want a 30-year bond for the roads, which could be done with the funds as they were freed up. Also, the sales tax rate could be lowered which would help Town businesses. He reiterated "debt policy", was a "pay as you go" debt policy, "The council approved a program of ranking criteria that would give greatest way to those projects which would protect health and safety for citizens."Councilman Archambault indicated that sid a fire station would possibly need to be built,and he felt that "pay as you go"financing should be given the highest priority,as sufficient cash would be available for the project.Next year$1,071,000 would be dedicated from reserves dedicated for capital expenditures, and the $601,000 in revenue enhancements recently passed were available — for a total of $2.6 million. He suggested dedicating.01%of the sales tax to raise the other funds required. Councilwoman Ralphe suggested that the motion made for using dedicated tax revenue would waste money, adding that the existing .03%debt was at a high rate of interest being paid by the citizens, and that rate would increase to approximately .05% at the end of the term. She suggested consideration of retiring the bonds in 2010 and borrow at today's interest rates. Councilwoman Ralphe then indicated that,per the Town's computations,if the Town were to accumulate funds and pay off the .03% bonds in 2010, the Town would save more than $1.5 million of the taxpayers' money. She asked for more detailed information on other possibilities and asked the Town for a detailed analysis on paying the bonds early. Mr. Pickering indicated that it would take approximately one month to complete an additional analysis but pointed out that the financial analyst had already completed an analysis and offered his opinion, indicating that because the interest rate was frozen until 2010,it would not make sense to refinance those bonds. Mr.Pickering added that Option#1 would allow the Town to eliminate the bonds and pay them off in 2014. In a memorandum from Julie Ghetti, she stated that, "The schedule also includes a projection of the cumulative remaining fund balance which will continue to accrue to $4.2 million in FY 2014 at which time the 2001 bonds can be retired in full."Mr. Pickering agreed with Councilwoman Ralphe that paying off debt at a higher interest rate would be a good thing, but that could not be done legally until 2010/2011.Conservative estimates show that both the Civic Center Phase II Project and bonds could be paid off in 2014,and if the sales tax were to increase as in the past,it could be done in 2010/2011. Councilman Kavanagh commented that due to better interest rates, more funds were available, and those funds needed to be used for what was required now. He also explained that funds would not be required from sales tax to build a new firehouse (required from new MCO developments), as new development homeowners would fund that firehouse with development fees. He then strongly opposed using the sales tax money needed at this time for seniors and children to pay for a firehouse needed due to new development. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Town Council Meeting 3-18-04.doc Page 6 of 15 Councilman Kavanagh then noted that the suggestion was made to save the sales tax money to pay off the mountains early. He suggested that income from development fees could be used to pay off the bonds, and if the sales tax money were used to pay the bonds early, the development fee money would have to be refunded, as those fees could only be used for what they were assessed,i.e.,mountain preservation. (60 Councilman Kavanagh then referred to a suggestion made that the long-term payouts were higher, indicating that older mortgages were lower. Regarding the suggestion that the Council would be "robbing" money from the mountain fund, some people making the suggestion were the same individuals requesting use of the money to purchase State trust land, i.e., a dual standard. He asked attendees if they placed a pay raise or unexpected refunds in a fund to repay their mortgage in ten years or used it to take care of current needs.He concluded by saying that he supported the fiscally approved and prudent motion. Mayor Nichols commented that in viewing the amount of excess tax generated that was not being used today or in the next 15 years to pay debt service on the mountain bonds, the Town would save$600,000 per year at .03% in excess funds for the next 15 years, a conservative figure. When following the suggestion of the financial analyst, the $300,000 excess would still be created by the fund each year after paying for the debt service on the new Civic Center Phase II Project. The mountain preserve fund and the Civic Center Phase II Project could be funded with the additional $300,000 per year generated. As Mr. Pickering suggested, the mountain preserve bonds could be paid off early in 2013, so Mayor Nichols suggested that both assets of the Town be funded, as well as paying off the bonds early. He had requested that Mr. Pickering search the minutes of the time of the approval of the original bond to see if there was anything indicating that the Council approved that bond with the idea that it would be paid off early, and there was nothing in the minutes indicating that the bond was to be paid off early. Mayor Nichols also indicated that an expert had been hired to provide a recommendation, and he supported the recommendation by Councilman Kavanagh in order to take action and move forward with the Town of Fountain Hills. Councilwoman Ralphe indicated that a little discussed portion of the debt policy set the standard for consideration of refunding old bonds, a .03% savings or $750,000. She reiterated that the consultant had indicated that refinancing or calling the bonds could realize no immediate savings. She still felt that in 2010 there was one bond that could be refinanced, and no data had been analyzed recently as to the savings of retiring the debt on the Community Center. She stated that unless a full report was received on paying off the old bonds, no responsible decision could be made at that time. She noted the need to act on all information,not partial information. Councilwoman Ralphe MOVED to TABLE the discussion for two to four weeks until further information was receiving on calling existing debt and/or refinancing was obtained. The motioned DIED for lack of a SECOND. Councilwoman Nicola attempted to second Councilwoman Ralphe's motion but did so after it had died. Councilwoman Nicola advised that she supported the Civic Center Phase II Project and that all options needed to be reviewed for an informed decision. She noted the expert's suggestion that general obligation bonds were the best method to use for the project, the lowest rate, and providing the highest rating. She advised that, as it would be a secondary property tax, it could only be voted on at a May election. She stated that she did not support the current ordinance because she felt that excess tax dollars/tax surplus was an oxymoron due to the fact that a 1% sales tax increase had to be implemented to cover the cost of fire service, which was the basis for much of the money. Should that 1%disappear,she added,so would that sales tax revenue.No historical data was available to provide information on the new advertising sales tax or rental tax, and the strategic plan was n the works so that the citizens might provide input on their goals for the Town, what amenities they would like to support. She noted that she could not support Councilman Kavanagh's current motion,as she felt that all options had not been considered. Councilwoman Stevens indicated her understanding that nothing could be done with any of the bonds until 2008 and asked if there was more information on refinancing early. Mr. Hocking responded that his scope of analysis was to determine possible financing alternatives for the project, but as a secondary component he had researched the possibility of refinancing the existing Series 2000 bond and Series 2001 bond. Based upon that analysis,refinancing those bonds did not make sense due to the long call period. Moving beyond that, he added, was not part of the scope of his study, so if there were other bonds outstanding, those bonds were not taken into consideration, as they had different sources of revenue and payment. He offered to continue his project by reviewing that type of information in the changing markets. However, he added, the way it was currently structured,and given current interest rates,it would not make economic sense to do so. Councilwoman Stevens confirmed that the Series 2000 bond was for the Community Center,and the Series 2001 bond was for the mountain bonds. She then asked what the library and museum and the view were funded with, and the response from Mr. Pickering was that they were general obligation bonds that were restricted,and that savings would merely reduce the property tax that was paid for those bonds to be paid off, therefore no savings from there would be in the General Fund. He then suggested looking at those bonds,as that would reduce the property tax to individuals,but as far as a savings or revenue source for the Town,nothing would be accomplished with those bonds. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Town Council Meeting 3-18-04.doc Page 7 of 15 Councilman Kavanagh indicated that paying off the general obligation bonds would only shift the property tax to the sales tax, further increasing the burden. If the general obligation bonds were refinanced, the last remaining amounts of money received from property tax would disappear,requiring a refinance with more sales tax revenue,which is exactly what Moody's indicated was the town's problem,over-reliance on sales tax revenue. ,441) Mr. Pickering responded that if the Town refinanced it would continue to be paid with property tax, but those bonds were strictly a property tax and could not be used if saved. If there were a savings in that regard, he added, that should be done for the taxpayer,but it would not be a revenue-producer for the town. Vice Mayor Melendez stated that there were three dividing issues in Fountain Hills: mountains, law enforcement, and fire service. Many comments had been given on the mountains, and he felt that it would be a disservice to wait any longer on the subject. He continued by reading the "Purpose of Item and Background Information" for the agenda item: "A professional financial consulting firm was hired at the suggestion of Councilwoman Ralphe to provide the Council additional statistics and expert testimony on options for financing the Civic Center Phase II Project". Vice Mayor Melendez supported the motion by Councilman Kavanagh at the recommendation of expert testimony. Councilman Archambault advised that the need for the Civic Center Phase II Project was agreed upon, but the Council could compromise on the bonding mechanism to pay for the project. He pointed out his opinion that the differences in opinion arose from the .03%,and that he and Councilwoman Ralphe had offered a compromise,as it would benefit the Town in many ways. He felt that waiting until 2014 and pay an additional $3 million for those mountain bonds was not advisable and that revenue could be freed up for capital projects. Councilwoman Stevens asked Councilman Archambault what he was proposing and how it was similar to Councilwoman Ralphe's proposal. She continued that she didn't understand how what was done in 2010 would help the Town of Fountain Hills during the short-term. Councilwoman Ralphe indicated that none of the Council members understood what they had hoped to understand,and that was why she moved to table the subject for further information. She added that the motion on the table would keep in place old, high-priced debt for the citizens and suggested that the bonds be refinanced. She wanted additional figures on restructuring debt and agreed with Councilwoman Stevens that they did not have sufficient information. Councilman Kavanagh indicated that a 15-page report had been received from a financial analyst, specifically requested by Councilwoman Ralphe, and that the analyst had given a presentation on the subject. The reason there was no information on refinancing was because the analyst stated that refinancing was definitely not advisable and would cost more money than not refinancing. He reiterated that the refinancing issue should not be a misunderstanding and was very straightforward. Councilman Kavanagh reiterated that the financial analyst stated that his recommendation was the compromise between cash and financing. He also noted that the wording states that the mountain funding would receive first priority, and there was no threat to the mountain funding in the recommendation. Councilwoman Stevens replied that she understood the materials but did not understand Councilman Archambault's proposal. As the Council had been working on the project since September, it was her opinion that all options had been researched. Councilwoman Stevens then MOVED to AMEND the resolution to "limit the amount of the .3% that would be used as the dedicated revenue source for the Civic Center Phase II Project to a maximum of 1% and that the resolution to be passed would set the new split, in that any of the money already in the mountain fund stay in the mountain fund and that they be paid off early. The surplus there now would not go to toward the Civic Center Phase II Project. Additional money from this maximum of 1% would go to the Civic Center Phase II Project." Mayor Nichols SECONDED the amendment. Councilwoman Nicola asked for clarification regarding the percentage. Didn't Councilwoman Stevens mean to say .1% instead of 1%? Councilwoman Stevens confirmed the percentage was to be .1%. Mr. Pickering clarified that 33%of that fund was to be used as a dedicated revenue source with .1% maximum going towards this project. Councilwoman Stevens agreed with his clarification. Councilman Kavanagh asked what would occur if more funds were needed for financing.Mr.Pickering indicated that no funds would be needed,and that the .1%covered the financing. If more funds were needed,they would need to be retrieved from the General Fund. Councilman Kavanagh asked if it was understood that the Council could not bind future councils and if the need was very high in the future,development fees could not be used,and it was not binding to future Councils. Vice Mayor Melendez noted his relief that Councilman Kavanagh allowed the Council to vote on the project as opposed to waiting for the incoming Council.Councilman Kavanagh responded that waiting might have been quicker. The AMENDMENT to the motion was APPROVED with 5 to 2 as follows: Councilman Kavanagh Aye Councilwoman Ralphe Nay E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Town Council Meeting 3-18-04.doc Page 8 of 15 Vice Mayor Melendez Aye Mayor Nichols Aye Councilwoman Nicola Aye Councilwoman Stevens Aye Councilman Archambault Nay Mayor Nichols then called a vote on the main motion as amended as follows: Councilwoman Stevens Aye Councilwoman Nicola Aye Vice Mayor Melendez Aye Councilwoman Ralphe Nay Mayor Nichols Aye Councilman Kavanagh Aye Councilman Archambault Nay The amended motion CARRIED on a vote of 5 to 2. Mayor Nichols thanked Mr.Hocking for his presence and participation in the meeting. AGENDA ITEM #12— CONSIDERATION OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION'S AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE LOCATION, TYPE, FUNDING, AND DESIGN OF A POTENTIAL SKATE PARK. Park and Recreation Director Mark Mayer provided the Council with an overview of the issue. Parks and Recreation Chair Dick Schmidt was also present to provide input. Previously, the Council had asked the Parks and Recreation Commission to determine what type of Skate Park they would recommend and where they recommended it be located. Mr. Mayer advised the Council that the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed the matter,and(1) voted 7—0 to recommend that the location of the skate park be at Desert Vista Park, (2) voted 7—0 to recommend that an excavated concrete skate park be installed, and (3) recommended that the skate park be constructed potentially utilizing donated funds raised by the Skate Park Committee and, hopefully, town matching funds. The Commission also suggested that the Council also consider placing the onus for fundraising on the Skate Park Committee who had previously committed their willingness to raise the necessary funds. They asked that the scenario be created so that if the Skate Park Committee was successful in raising the first $100,000, either in donated funds and/or labor through a written commitment, the Council would consider utilizing a portion of the previously set aside fees of $60,000 toward the actual further development of the detail design for a concrete skate park. For each additional $50,000 raised by the Skate Park Committee,the Commission recommended that the Town commit an additional$50,000 up to a maximum of$250,000. Mr. Mayer indicated that$60,000 had been set aside,and his concern was that in the event that the Skate Park Committee was not successful, how that $60,000 could be protected and still have the opportunity to build the skate park. Based on consultant's input, Mr. Mayer indicated that the fee to complete what they were asking for was the 25% completion of detail design which would provide an analysis of the recommended site of Desert Vista to determine whether or not that was a reasonable site based on soils and utilities, and it would provide schematics to show what a skate park might look like with different levels of funding, and it would also provide information on the amount of materials necessary as well as information on quantities.He added that both the schematics and quantities would be helpful for the perspective of the fundraising effort. Mr. Mayer continued that if the decision were made to pursue the skate park, the Commission would seek to receive requests for qualifications from concept firms;therefore, when the skate park was then negotiated, they would have a firm price on the cost of services—30%completion of the project,as well as detailed design should the entire$100,000 be raised. Mr. Dick Schmidt, Chairman of the Parks & Recreation Commission, advised the Council that it was the intent of the Commission to bring the project to fruition.He stated that it was important to know what was included in the 30%drawing/bill of materials in order to offer the community the opportunity to donate toward the project. He hoped that professionals could design a skate park of eventually 18,000 square feet,possibly moving in segments of construction. Mayor Nichols indicated that three items would be discussed in the agenda item: location, structure, and funding. He then asked the speakers from the public to provide comments. Town Clerk Bender stated that Mary Williams did not wish to speak; however, she presented her position in favor of the decision of the Parks&Recreation Commission,supporting the Desert Vista location. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Town Council Meeting 3-18-04.doc Page 9 of 15 Tom Jensen addressed the Council, indicating that the subject could be referred to the voters for their consideration due to the changes in form the matter has taken. Mr. Jensen distributed written material regarding this referral to the voters, as well as information on funding the park itself. Councilman Kavanagh clarified that only the location had been approved by the voters,not the details or price of the park. Phyllis Kern, Chairman of the Skateboard Committee, addressed the Council and indicated that she was not satisfied with the proposed location (Desert Vista) and suggested that an expert provide an opinion. She recommended that the Town create a "full" skate park and that the project be done properly, allowing parents to participate in the area while the children play nearby. Ms. Kern continued that the Desert Vista location was a congested area and could be dangerous for children. It was her opinion that the people of the community wanted a skate park,and the fund raising could be accomplished easily. Andrew Lang addressed the Council, indicating his support of the Desert Vista Park location, as the Community needed to work in harmony with law enforcement, and the visibility would be greater in that respect. He felt that the location of a commercial area was a positive point,and there was an access road off Saguaro.He suggested that he wanted the park's growth possible,as opposed to being surrounded by the elementary school and Boys&Girls Club. Don Williams addressed the Council indicating his support of Desert Vista Park as the location of the proposed skate park.He noted that individuals in the Community simply wanted to know where the park would be located, and they would begin the fundraising.He also asked that the Skate Park Committee get the project under way.Safety,he added, would be an issue in the Four Peaks area as well as the Desert Vista area. Town Clerk Bender indicated that Joanna DeNinis did not wish to speak but was present to show her support for the Desert Vista location. Mayor Nichols asked that the first subject to be discussed on the agenda item be that of"location". Councilman Archambault asked exactly where the park was proposed at the Desert Vista Park. Mr. Mayer displayed the master plan map displayed and noted that the proposed water feature for that area was being considered at Fountain Park instead of Desert Vista Park. In that event,an area of Desert Vista would be available.He then pointed out the demographics of the area. Councilman Archambault asked what other amenities were available in that area, and Mr. Mayer described the various sports areas. Councilwoman Stevens asked Mr. Mayer to discuss why Desert Vista was chosen as opposed to the other sites under consideration. Mr.Mayer displayed each park master plan. He indicated that there were only four choices of location: > Golden Eagle Park had experienced"build-out",and the only open spaces were associated with either an athletic field or a picnic ramada. ➢ Four Peaks Park, originally chosen, was rejected due to neighbor concerns. He continued that if the in-line hockey rink were eliminated, there would be additional space if areas were reconfigured to relocate the skate park further away from residential areas,plus adding parking. Also included on this site are the Boys&Girls Club and the various park amenities already in use. > Fountain Park was in the process of construction of a performance pad and an extension of sidewalk. The park is considered a"passive park",and Commission and staff received the most feedback against development/programming that would take place in this park. > Desert Vista Park was chosen for the Skate Park. Councilwoman Stevens asked if there were any other town-owned sites or vacant land that might have lent itself to the facility. Mr. Mayer responded that they had considered vacant land, i.e., State land, but that option was not likely to occur in the near future. Other sites considered were small in size and not stand-alone facility sites. Councilwoman Nicola asked if off-street parking and restrooms would be part of the RFQ. Mr. Mayer responded that the Commission was currently recommending only a skate facility, but their recommendation was to allow the group to do fundraising up to a year. Also considered would be additional restroom facilities, which were also in the master plan for Desert Vista Park, which would accommodate all park users. He also responded that parking would be street-side, but parking stalls were also being considered. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Town Council Meeting 3-18-04.doc Page 10 of 15 Mayor Nichols asked if the basketball courts had been considered at the old middle school, which already were equipped with lights and security. Mr. Mayer indicated that a concern expressed by the Skate Park Committee was that if a temporary facility were placed on that site, it would likely preclude the development of an excavated site, as it was school property rather than Town-owned property and would complicate their ability to raise funds for something larger. Mayor Nichols then asked if that 46110 site were used with steel modulars would the skate park be operational soon,and Mr. Mayer responded in the affirmative. Councilwoman Nicola asked if any study had been done to see if municipalities charge an access fee for usage of the skate parks. Mr. Mayer indicated that none were found that were publicly owned and charged a fee, most likely due to the open nature of the park. Vice Mayor Melendez asked the Parks & Recreation Commission if they had withheld data from the Skate Park Committee. Mr.Schmidt advised that all discussions had taken place at open public meetings,and there was nothing withheld. Councilman Archambault then MOVED that the Council accept the recommendation of the Parks & Recreation Commission and locate the proposed skate park in Desert Vista Park. Councilwoman Nicola SECONDED the motion, and further discussion ensued. Vice Mayor Melendez then asked Mr. Pickering if the site had been considered from a law enforcement standpoint. Mr. Pickering indicated that no complete analysis had been made,but that the Desert Vista site was the most open and easiest to see from the street. Councilman Kavanagh voiced his opinion that the skate park should be located where younger people could easily get there, and he felt that Desert Vista Park was not the appropriate place for the park. Mayor Nichols felt that moving the proposed site from one neighborhood to another was simply moving the problem from one site to another. He noted that there wasn't any good place in any of the current parks. His opinion was that the old middle school was his preferred location,and he would not support the motion. Councilman Kavanagh felt that the old middle school location was a good location, but it would eliminate two basketball courts and there was not enough room at that site.He felt that the most logical place was Four Peaks Park as that was where the kids were. It has plenty of room and the skate park had been planned for that site. Councilman Archambault asked if they could put up a temporary structure and begin the planning process for a larger skate park. He asked that the Parks & Recreation Commission be given recognition for their participation in locating a proper site and getting the project under way; however, he felt that they should create a temporary structure and develop a plan for the area. Vice Mayor Melendez asked what percentage of the population would be using the facility. Mr. Pickering noted that the response to the question could be formulated on the basis of: ➢ The number of children in Fountain Hills > The number of skate shops in the area > Sales in the skate shops > How often you see skateboarders in town. Mr. Mayer advised the Council that the stereotypes of skateboarders were broken down when visiting other skate parks, i.e., individuals from 3 or 4 years to 30's and 40's were actively skateboarding. While there was a perception that skateboarding was strictly for younger children,there were a significant number of older individuals skating. Councilman Archambault added that from information received from Prescott Valley, of approximately 10% of 4200 individuals (420) of the age group up to 24 years in Fountain Hills, 10% of those 420 (42) would be at skate parks on a continuing basis. Councilwoman Nicola asked Councilman Kavanagh how he determined that a largest portion of the young people live in the northeast section of the Town. Councilman Kavanagh responded that there was a larger concentration of houses in that area, and there was a major school on that site which lent itself to students playing on-site after school. The motion to accept the recommendation of the Parks & Recreation Commission to place the proposed skate park at the Desert Vista Park was DEFEATED by a vote of 3 to 4 as follows: Vice Mayor Melendez Nay E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Town Council Meeting 3-18-04.doc Page 11 of 15 Councilman Kavanagh Nay Councilwoman Nicola Aye Councilwoman Stevens Nay Councilman Archambault Aye Mayor Nichols Nay Councilwoman Ralphe Aye Councilman Kavanagh asked if the Parks & Recreation Commission had a second choice for the Skate Park. Mr. Schmidt responded that they had screened all locations many times, and only four facilities were available for consideration. He added that those four facilities had been presented to the Council,and only two locations were remotely possible for an 18,000 square foot in-ground type of Skate Park(Desert Vista and Four Peaks). He also advised that the Skate Park Committee was adamant about creating the project properly. He continued that there was no further land available in Fountain Hills, and they felt that they were not effective in initiating the project at Four Peaks. Councilman Kavanagh asked if it was not an issue of the correct size or location, and Mr. Schmidt announced that the Parks & Recreation Commission was anxious to get the project under way. He added that the Commission had requested funds for a consultant to assist them in finding the proper location, and the Council refused that request and asked the Commission to choose the location themselves; the Commission had voted unanimously for Desert Vista. Councilman Kavanagh asked if their objections to Four Peaks were more political as opposed to operational and demographic. Mr. Schmidt responded that it was a political issue, but it was also a space issue; Desert Vista Park gave the most flexibility that might not be available in any other location in Fountain Hills.He advised that they had been working on the project for years, and that he was disappointed that the Council had asked them for their recommendation but were unwilling to support that recommendation. Mayor Nichols asked if a part of the Commission decision was that they were not willing to take a modular unit,as only an in- ground facility was requested. Mr. Schmidt responded that based on the opinions of the people questioned as to their preferences, and it was unanimous that they preferred in-ground parks. Mr. Schmidt continued that they could have placed a modular unit,but they were concerned that they would face the same obstacles as they did a few years ago at Four Peaks, i.e., no one used the facility after a certain time period. He concluded that Desert Vista Park was a good location and provided the most flexibility in terms of space and distance from residences, noting that most skate parks are located a distance of least several hundred feet from residences. Councilwoman Nicola MOVED that the last vote be RECONSIDERED,as she had asked the Council months ago to support a joint work-study session to alleviate the embarrassing discussion. Attorney McGuire pointed out that a motion to reconsider was only available to someone who had voted with the majority,and Councilwoman's Nicola's motion was improper. Councilwoman Stevens acknowledged the recommendation of the Commission but indicated her uneasiness with young people traveling on Saguaro Blvd. Mr. Schmidt responded that the Commission had discussed that issue, indicating that at some point in time a series of bike/walking/running trails would be requested that would connect all the parks and major areas. The time has not come for that request yet due to the pressure to create a skate park. He added that most skate park users were driven by their parents, and the envisioned design would include an area for the parents to visit while their children were using the skate park, i.e., a family usage park. These family-oriented plans were one reason the Commission chose Desert Vista Park. Safety wise, the children are either being driven by their parents or traveling below the fountain to the skate park, not along Saguaro Blvd. Councilwoman Nicola noted that it was not the position of the Council to absolve parents of their rights to supervise their children and provide chauffeuring for their children. She continued that children arrive at Golden Eagle Park safely, and she felt that children could arrive at Desert Vista Park just as safely. Councilman Kavanagh responded that there were a tremendous number of children who were stuck in their homes because they could not get rides places and felt that the needs of those children must also be met. He then asked Mr.Mayer if there was more flexibility in the Four Peaks area for the skate park if the hockey rinks were removed. Mr. Mayer responded that the elimination of the in-line rink would open up acreage in that area,but it was closer to residential(directly across the street)than Desert Vista. The other issue in the Four Peaks location was the requirement for law enforcement to actually pull into the facility in order to monitor safety,and that was not an issue with the Desert Vista location. Councilman Kavanagh commented that he had felt that law enforcement stopping and walking through the park was good community policing. He also stated that people who moved close to a park should have expected there to be noise. He then MOVED that the location issue be referred back to Parks&Recreation to discuss more workable areas in the Four Peaks area. The MOTION DIED for a lack of a SECOND. Councilwoman Stevens felt that there was no win/win solution presented and MOVED that a neutral expert be hired to provide a recommendation of a location and type of facility. Councilman Kavanagh SECONDED the motion. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Town Council Meeting 3-18-04.doc Page 12 of 15 Councilwoman Nicola stated that she would not support the motion, as there was only $60,000 available, and if$9,000 were spent to obtain a recommendation after discarding the recommendation from the Commission, it would be fiscally improper. Councilwoman Stevens indicated that the$9,000 figure included design, and she was not recommending that advice be sought on design. Councilman Kavanagh supported the idea of a consultant, as he felt it was a technical issue and would cost money. He said he heard that Councilwoman Stevens would support a consultant's recommendation. He asked if there were two more people who would support"go with the pro". If so,he would vote for this. Councilwoman Nicola called for a point or order, indicating that she considered Councilman Kavanagh's current attempt to poll this Council and the previous attempt to poll future Council by asking the candidates questions, a violation of the Open Meeting Law. She noted her consideration of his act "polling on a future agenda item" and she was uncomfortable with this action. Town Attorney McGuire stated the opinion that this was probably not a valid "point of order". Councilman Kavanagh continued by stating that he would not waste money by continuing to hire consultants. He felt that the voters of Fountain Hills had already approved Four Peaks in the Master Plan, and plenty of consultants and public input had been gathered. His expectation was for a consultant to create movement in order to begin the project. He also responded that "polling" was only when people were asked how they would vote on an issue. Vice Mayor Melendez brought up the issue of vacant land and asked Mr. Pickering what was available and the cost of same. Mr. Mayer responded that Engineering identified all properties, and most areas were wash areas, abandoned rights of way, easements, all of which were relatively small parcels - no viable areas of sufficient size to accommodate the park, restrooms, and drinking fountains. Mayor Nichols asked if the Commission agreed that it would be ideal if State trust land were used. Mr. Schmidt noted that it would be acceptable in other park locations such as the Golden Eagle Park.Mayor Nichols added that this option would not be available for awhile and suggested using a modular facility at the middle school on a temporary basis until a new general park were available. He felt it was tough to place the skate park anywhere. The question was called: "Approve a consultant to recommend location and type of facility up to a limit of$4,000." (Mr. Pickering advised that he estimated the cost of consulting of that type would cost between $3,000 to $4,000.) Councilman Kavanagh stated that the SECOND would concur with the change in the motion. The MOTION passed with a five of 5 to 2 as follows: Councilwoman Stevens Aye Councilwoman Nicola Aye Vice Mayor Melendez Aye Councilwoman Ralphe Nay Mayor Nichols Aye Councilman Kavanagh Aye Councilman Archambault Nay A break was called at 9:10 p.m.,and session was reconvened at 9:20 p.m. AGENDA ITEM#13—DISCUSSION/PRESENTATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE TRAILHEAD DESIGN. Chairman Roy Kinsey, McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission, was present to introduce Commission members and present their report to the Council. The 2004 Report and Forecast of that Commission had been distributed to Council members. Initially,he stated,the Commission had requested a work-study session,but Mr. Pickering suggested that it be made as a presentation to Council in order to inform other individuals attending that session. The report, he noted, would also be available for pickup at the Town Hall Reception Desk. (A copy is on file in the Clerk's office.) A video was shown for ease in identifying preserve areas. Chairman Kinsey introduced Jeff Ingleman, Landscape Architect and Vice President of J2 Engineering,the firm engaged to review the site and create a concept that would enhance and preserve the beauty of the McDowell Mountains.Mr. Inglemen noted that: ➢ The initial parking lot would accommodate 30 vehicles,as well as two school buses. ➢ The main entry would be from the south where a cul-de-sac built by MCO Properties would lead into the trailhead. ➢ The wash would be preserved as a pipe under the road for drainage, and it would exit into a rusted metal unit that would be covered with vegetation. tikkor ➢ Pavement surfaces would be a soil/cement mixture that would perk and accommodate emergency vehicles. ➢ The width of the road would be approximately 24 feet. ➢ A second parking area would be angled for approximately 10 to 15 cars, and a natural wash would be protected with natural drainage where it would then be piped to its natural location. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Town Council Meeting 3-I8-04.doc Page 13 of 15 ➢ Any trees/cactus that were disturbed would be salvaged and planted on the site. ➢ A drop off zone would lead to the trailhead recently built, a .4-mile hike. Picnic ramadas would be available. Further parking would be available behind a knoll,shaded and screened from the lower areas. ➢ The park will be gated. ➢ Restrooms and drinking fountains would be available. Mr.Ingleman acknowledged the Commission for its part in moving the project into creation. Councilman Kavanagh asked if soil cement was as durable as regular concrete.Mr.Ingleman responded that it was as durable. Councilwoman Ralphe asked if the washes were Town-owned. Mr. Ingleman responded that the washes were in the mountain preserve, and the Town owned the mountain preserve. Councilwoman Ralphe then asked how the plan fit with the current ordinances, and Mr. Kinsey responded that the wash in question was a two-foot deep channel across the roadway, and not the type of wash to be bridged. The dip would be buried under the road from a maintenance point of view and to meet the needs of emergency access. Chairman Kinsey noted that a six-year plan was being implemented, with six phases. The Open Space Development Fees would carry the entire cost of the project, and construction would be scheduled relative to funds available annually and the schedule of MCO's development plans. The final estimate of cost would be $1.3 million over a period of six years. This estimate did not include soft costs,design fees,construction administration,and construction contingency,estimated at 30%. Councilwoman Stevens thanked Chairman Kinsey for his effort on the project through the past few years. Chairman Kinsey passed that comment on to the full Commission. Councilwoman Nicola also thanked Chairman Kinsey and the Commission. She asked how the timeline correlated with the need to use development fees within six years. Mr. Pickering noted that it would be fine, as funds were used each year, and obligations to spend would be paid down from six or seven years ago. Vice Mayor Melendez noted that he hoped that Mr. Kinsey would continue through the entire project. Mayor Nichols complimented Mr. Kinsey and the Commission for formulation of the report. Mr. Kinsey indicated that ,44) Michelle Carlson in Parks&Recreation had put the book together. AGENDA ITEM #14 — COUNCIL ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW OF THE MEETING TO IDENTIFY PROCEDURAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES AND DISCUSS POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS. There were no comments. AGENDA ITEM #15 — COUNCIL DISCUSSION/DIRECTION TO THE TOWN MANAGER. ITEMS LISTED BELOW ARE RELATED ONLY 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. REQUESTED BY COUNCILWOMAN STEVENS — PLACING THE ITEM OF INCREASING THE ANNUAL BUSINESS LICENSE FEES ON A FUTURE AGENDA. Town Manager Pickering asked if the Council wanted to proceed with the subject.Mayor Nichols responded in the affirmative, and Vice Mayor Melendez agreed. AGENDA ITEM#16: SUMMARY COUNCIL REQUESTS BY TOWN MANAGER. Mr.Pickering reviewed he would begin the process of hiring a skate park consultant. Councilwoman Stevens asked that hiring an unbiased consultant be paramount in the process. Mr. Pickering stated he would also work on the issue as stated in Agenda #15. AGENDA ITEM#23—ADJOURNMENT. Councilwoman Archambault MOVED adjournment at 9:50 p.m. Councilwoman Stevens SECONDED the motion, and it PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Town Council Meeting 3-18-04.doc Page 14 of 15 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS By: -"‘) Wall Nichols, ATTEST AND PREPARED BY: /l_.fiL Bevelyn J. nd5i!Town Clerk CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular session of the Fountain Hills Town Council on the 18`h day of March 2004. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 1st day of April 2004. /66 )1,k (f..4 ) Bevelyn J. Be er,town Clerk L L E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Town Council Meeting 3-18-04.doc Page 15 of 15 J „a.)