No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005.1006.TCREM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR AND EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL October 6,2005 Mayor Nichols called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #1 — VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION: PURSUANT TO A.R.S. 38- 431.03.A.1, FOR DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATIONOF EMPLOYMENT, ASSIGNMENT, APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, DEMOTION, DISMISSAL, SALARIES, DISCIPLINING OR RESIGNATION OF A PUBIC OFFICER, APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE OF ANY PUBLIC BODY, EXCEPT THAT,WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SALARY DISCUSSIONS,AN OFFICER,APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE MAY DEMAND THAT THE DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION OCCUR AT A PUBLIC MEETING. THE PUBLIC BODY SHALL PROVIDE THE OFFICER, APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE WITH WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AS IS APPROPRIATE BUT NOT LESS THAN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS FOR THE OFFICER, APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION SHOULD OCCUR AT A PUBLIC MEETING. (SPECIFICALLY, DISCUSSION OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPLICANTS AND THE TOWN MANAGER'S ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION):AND PURSUANT TO A.R.S.38-431-03.A.4,FOR DISCUSSION OR CONSULTATION WITH THE ATTORNEYS OF THE PUBLIC BODY IN ORDER TO CONSIDER ITS POSITION AND INSTRUCT ITS ATTORNEYS REGARDING THE PUBLIC BODY'S POSITION REGARDING CONTRACTS THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF NEGOTIATIONS, IN PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION OR IN SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS CONDUCTED IN ORDER TO AVOID OR RESOLVE LITIGATION. (SPECIFICALLY, THE TOWN HALL LEASE AND A POSSIBLE PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE LAND DEPARTMENT.) (1 Councilman Archambault MOVED to convene the Executive Session and Councilman Kavanagh SECONDED Nor the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilman Archambault MOVED to reconvene the Executive Session after the regular session ended and Councilman McMahan SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Nichols recessed the Executive Session at 6:18 p.m. AGENDA ITEM#2—RETURN TO REGULAR SESSION Mayor Nichols convened the Regular Session at 6:30 p.m. Following the invocation by Pastor Mark Lansberry, Fountains Methodist Church, roll call was taken. ROLL CALL — Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Councilman Archambault, Mayor Nichols, Councilman Kehe, Councilman Kavanagh, Vice Mayor Schlum and Councilman McMahan. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire, Town Manager Tim Pickering, Town Clerk Bev Bender, and Rick Giardina,representing Red Oak Consulting, were also present. SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCED/PRESENTATIONS: (i) Presentation by Robert Hanford with Chaparral City Water Company regarding the past minor contamination. Mr. Robert Hanford, the District Manager of the Chaparral City Water Company, provided a brief overview of the quality of the water in Fountain Hills and discussed the Town's previous minor water contamination. He noted that all water systems are regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), a Federal requirement, and added that the State is allowed to enforce the Federal requirements and, in turn, the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department is given the authority to enforce the State requirements. He discussed the Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-3-05\Minutes 10-06-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 1 of 15 large volume of water samples that are taken by the Chaparral City Water Company on an annual basis, including total coliform samples. He pointed out that coliform in itself is not hazardous, but it does indicate that other organisms of greater concern may be present in the system. fikow Mr. Hanford explained the testing processes and distributed copies of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Quick Reference Guide regarding the Total Coliform Rule. He said that in August, during part of the Water Company's routine sampling process, two of the samples were reported to be positive for total coliforms. He emphasized that the coliform process is an extremely delicate operation and a thumbprint on top of the sample's vial cap and/or someone breathing into the vial is sufficient to compromise the sample and result in a false positive result. He discussed the process that was followed once the two samples tested positive and added that repeat samples were also taken from the same site (both upstream and downstream of the site). He reported that all of the repeat samples tested negative and the chlorine residual levels as well tested fine. He stated that although they were legally required to send out the notice regarding the total coliform, it was determined that everything was fine with the system and no contamination problems exist. Mr. Hanford expressed his willingness to respond to questions from the Council. Councilman Kavanagh commented that the reason he requested that the Town Manager schedule a presentation by a representative of the Chaparral Water Company was that the newspapers had reported the initial results of the tests and a number of constituents expressed concern about whether they had received notification in a prompt manner. In response to a question from Councilman Kavanagh, Mr. Hanford reported that each of the two samples were taken from different parts of the water system by the same operator. Mr. Hanford noted that if the system had been compromised from natural or man-made causes, the residual chlorine levels would have been impacted and that was not the case. He added that during his three-year tenure with the company, this was the first time he had experienced a false positive test result such as this. He reported that the retesting took place the following day and the turn around time was approximately 24 hours. He pointed out that the regulations allowed 30 days CL. for notification to occur. Councilman Kavanagh expressed concern regarding the fact that it could take up to 30 days for notification to occur. Mr. Hanford responded that if the retesting on two or more samples indicated positive results as well, the situation would have been deemed an acute violation and the company would have immediately implemented the automatic phone dialing system to alert all of their customers of the problem. Councilman Kavanagh said that in view of Mr. Hanford's responses, he was comfortable with the fact that the citizens would receive rapid notification should a problem in the water system be detected and thanked Mr. Hanford for his input. Mayor Nichols also thanked Mr. Hanford for his presentation. (ii) The Mayor presented outgoing Planning & Zoning Commissioner, Dr. William O'Brien, with a plaque of appreciation for years of service. Mayor Nichols requested that Dr. William O'Brien come forward. He provided a brief overview of the history of his service to the Town of Fountain Hills. He said that Dr. O'Brien spent endless hours on the Town's incorporation process and served from June 1990 through May 1998 as a member of the City Council. In addition, Dr. O'Brien served on the Planning & Zoning Commission since October 2001 and, during the last three years, had served as Vice Chairman of the Commission. Speaking on behalf of the Council and the citizens of Fountain Hills,the Mayor thanked Dr. O'Brien for his outstanding service to the Town and presented him with a plaque of appreciation. 1/4116, CALL TO THE PUBLIC: None. Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-3-05\Minutes 10-06-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 2 of 15 CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nichols advised that the Town Attorney had informed him that in accordance with the Council's revised L, Rules of Order, it was no longer necessary for them to read the Consent Agenda Items into the record. (The items are listed below for the record.) AGENDA ITEM #1 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 1, 2005, SPECIAL AND EXECUTIVE SESSION; SEPTEMBER 13, 2005, WORK STUDY SESSION; AND THE SEPTEMBER 15, 2005, REGULAR AND EXECUTIVE SESSIONS. AGENDA ITEM #2 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2005-58, REPEALING RESOLUTION 2005-36 AND PROVIDING NOTICE OF THE REGULAR (PRIMARY/GENERAL) ELECTIONS; ESTABLISHING POLLING PLACES AND THE TIMES THAT SUCH POLLS WILL BE OPEN; DESIGNATING THE ELECTION DTES AND PURPOSE OF ELECTIONS; DESIGNATING THE DEADLINES FOR VOTER REGISTRATION; AND DESIGNATING THE PLACE AND THE LAST DATE FOR CANDIDATES TO FILE NOMINATION PAPERS. AGENDA ITEM #3 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2005-56, ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE OF PLAT 505A, BLOCK 5, LOT 12 (15819 N. BOULDER DRIVE) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 158 OF MAPS., PAGE 40,RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY,ARIZONA. EA05-19 (BOVINETTE). AGENDA ITEM #4 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2005-57, ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF PLAT 603C,BLOCK 2,LOT 31 (15904 E. CHOLLA DRIVE) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 161 OF MAPS, PAGE 43, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY,ARIZONA,WITH STIPULATION. EA05-20(BUCUR). AGENDA ITEM #5 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE SPECIAL EVENT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THUNDERBIRD ARTISTS FOR THE FOUNTAIN HILLS FINE ART AND WINE AFFAIRE SCHEDULED FOR FRIDAY, SATURDAY AND SUNDAY, MARCH 24, 25 AND 26, 2006, FROM 10 AM TO 5 PM. THE EVENT WILL REQUIRE THE CLOSURE OF AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS FROM VERDE RIVER DRIVE TO LA MONTANA DRIVE. AGENDA ITEM #6 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE FOUNTAIN HILLS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS COMMUNITY FOR THE FINE ART AND WINE TASTING AFFAIRE SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 24,25 AND 26,FROM 10 AM TO 5 PM ON AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS. AGENDA ITEM #7 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE SUBMITTED BY BRUCE THULIEN FOR THE VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS POST 7507. THE REQUEST IS FOR A FUNDRAISER TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FOUNTAIN FESTIVAL SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 11-13, 2005, FROM 9 AM TO 6 PM ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY AND FROM 10 AM TO 6 PM ON SUNDAY. AGENDA ITEM #8 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE SUBMITTED BY BRUCE THULIEN FOR THE VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS POST 7507. THE REQUEST IS FOR A FUNDRAISER TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GREAT FAIR SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 24-26, 2006,FROM 9 AM TO 6 PM ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY AND FROM 10 AM TO 6 PM ON SUNDAY. AGENDA ITEM #9 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE SPECIAL EVENT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR THE THANKSGIVING DAY PARADE SCHEDULED TO BE HELD FROM 9 AM TO 11 AM ON THURSDAY,NOVEMBER 24,2005. Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-3-05\Minutes 10-06-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 3 of 15 AGENDA ITEM #10 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE SPECIAL EVENT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR THE STROLL IN THE GLOW ON THE AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS SCHEDULED TO BE HELD FROM 4 PM TO 8 PM ON SATURDAY, DECEMBER 3,2005. AGENDA ITEM #11 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE SPECIAL EVENT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR THE FOUNTAIN FESTIVAL SCHEDULED FOR FRIDAY, SATURDAY AND SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 12 AND 13, 2005, FROM 10 AM TO 5 PM. THE EVENT WILL REQUIRE THE CLOSURE OF SAGUARO BOULEVARD FROM PAUL NORDIN PARKWAY, AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS FROM SAGUARO BOULEVARD TO LA MONTANA DRIVE AND A PORTION OF VERDE RIVER DRIVE. AGENDA ITEM #12 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE SPECIAL EVENT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR THE GREAT FAIR SCHEDULED FOR FRIDAY, SATURDAY AND SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 25 AND 26, 2006,FROM 10 AM TO 5 PM ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY AND FROM 8 AM TO 5 PM ON SUNDAY. THE EVENT WILL REQUIRE THE CLOSURE OF SAGUARO BOULEVARD FROM PALISADES BOULEVARD TO PAUL NORDIN PARKWAY, AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS FROM SAGUARO BOULEVARD TO LA MONTANA DRIVE AND A PORTION OF VERDE RIVER DRIVE. AGENDA ITEM#13-CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR "CORNERSTONE CASAS CONDOMINIUMS," A 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 13862 HAMILTON DRIVE,AKA LOT 17,BLOCK 5,PLAT 111. CASE#S2005-16. AGENDA ITEM#14-CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR "SUNFLOWER I CONDOMINIUMS," A 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT ( 16029 E.SUNFLOWER DRIVE,AKA PLAT 601-A,BLOCK 2,LOTS 2 &3. CASE#S2005-14. err AGENDA ITEM #15 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH E-GROUP LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE/ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,950.00 FOR THE DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR FOUNTAIN PARK - PHASE III (PICNIC RAMADAS), ALONG WITH CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES. AGENDA ITEM #16 -CONSIDERATION OF CANCELLING THE OCTOBER 20, 2005 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. AGENDA ITEM #17 - QUARTERLY UPDATE BY THE TOWN MANAGER ON PROGRESS OF IMPLEMENTING THE COUNCIL'S GOALS. Vice Mayor Schlum MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda as read and Councilman McMahan SECONDED the motion. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: Councilman Kehe Aye Vice Mayor Schlum Aye Councilman Kavanagh Aye Mayor Nichols Aye Councilman McMahan Aye Councilman Archambault Aye The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(6 to 0). 1(460 Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-3-05\Minutes 10-06-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 4 of 15 ACTION AGENDA AGENDA ITEM #18 — CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTING THREE CITIZENS TO FILL THE CURRENT VACANCIES ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION; EACH INDIVIDUAL TO SERVE A 2-YEAR TERM. Mayor Nichols MOVED to appoint the following individuals to the Planning &Zoning Commission for a two- year term: John Ewald Michael Kasabuski Michael Downes Councilman Archambault SECONDED the motion. There were no citizens wishing to speak on this agenda item. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(6-0). AGENDA ITEM #19 - CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO DEVELOPMENT FEES WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING NOTICE OF INTENT AND ADOPTION SCHEDULE. Mayor Nichols clarified that this evening the Council was not discussing and/or approving the proposed development fees; they were going to give direction to Town staff to schedule public meetings to solicit input regarding the proposed changes to the fees. c Councilman Kavanagh MOVED that consideration of scheduling the hearings be tabled until such time as staff and Council could arrange for an independent review of the development fees, based on his concerns regarding their accuracy. Vice Mayor Schlum SECONDED the motion for discussion purposes. Town Manager Tim Pickering advised that Mr. Rick Giardina, the Vice President of Red Oak Consulting, the consultant who prepared the Town's original development fees that were put into place in 2000, was present to address the Council regarding this agenda item. Mr. Giardina stated that his company was retained to conduct a fee update based on the best available information associated with the Town's planned Capital Improvement Program. He added that their scope of services also included looking at two new areas and said that the report before the Council this evening documented the results of their findings. He added that subsequent to the delivery of that report,the consultants also met with the Homebuilders' Association (approximately two weeks ago) to brief them on the proposal. He advised that their report and the input from that Association supported a set of proposed impact fees for Council's consideration. He confirmed that the only action they were seeking this evening was nothing more than a Notice of Intent to adopt fees. He explained that in accordance with Arizona law, this action "starts the clock ticking"and ensures conformance to all legal requirements. Mr. Giardina commented that all of the proposed fees were contained in the report and added that the contents represented the maximum supportable fee for Council's consideration. He explained that based on the technical analysis that followed Arizona Statutes as well as impact fee guidelines and precedence set throughout the country, the proposed fees were the maximum supportable fees that he and his company could "stand behind." He noted that the Council had the authority to adopt any fee up to the recommended amount and said they were certainly not required to approve the recommended rates. He added that the "ticking clock" he previously referred to did not bind the Council to the fees contained in the report. He said that their report contained survey information associated with fees that were assessed by other communities and stated that there were two discrepancies in the survey (Page 3) and indicated his intention to provide a corrected survey document. He reported that the first correction had to do with the Town of Gilbert and said that their fees did not include their Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-3-05\Minutes 10-06-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 5 of 15 water and sewer utility fees but they were now reflected in a handout that he just distributed to the Council (under column labeled "Other"). He explained that "Other" represented impact fees and/or development fees that were assessed for water and wastewater service and for Gilbert, they had added the $8,300 (rounded off Lfigure). Mr. Giardina also discussed the Town of Fountain Hills and said that the Town did not assess a water or sewer impact fee; they did not have those operations. He stated that the water company did not assess a water impact fee but the Sanitation District did and that fee ranged roughly between $5,300 and $7,800. He noted that a variety of factors go into determining where a residential fee would lie. He said that for purposes of this survey, they chose midpoint of that range to illustrate now how the Town's fees would compare to those of the Sanitation District. He pointed out that under the "Other" column for Fountain Hills, they had a fee of$6,550. He stated that now that the Council had received the corrected information, he would also like to pass on his standard caution regarding surveys: (1) it was the last thing they were asked to provide in a study such as this and everyone was always interested in knowing what their neighbors were charging; and (2) it provided limited information in the sense that without fully knowing the cost of the other communities and their financing policies and practices, it was very difficult to say whether the cost of development in Fountain Hills compared favorably or unfavorably to another community. He emphasized that the full cost of development in a community goes way beyond these types of fees to things such as plan review, building permits, the overall financial practices of the community in terms of the manner in which they recover their other costs (sales tax, property tax, etc.). He said that he would be happy to respond to any questions from the Council. Mayor Nichols thanked Mr. Giardina for his presentation. Councilman Kavanagh asked when the revisions were made to the report and Mr. Giardina replied that they were brought to the consultant's attention this afternoon by Town staff. Councilman Kavanagh commented that that was probably just after he brought the errors to the attention of staff and said that the errors were not discovered by the consultants; the errors were brought to their attention by Town staff and were then corrected. Mr. Giardina concurred with Councilman Kavanagh's summation. Councilman Kavanagh advised that he was very uneasy about the study and said that although he was not a statistician, he did have some graduate training in a different field that involved statistics for his Doctoral dissertation and added that he also taught statistics at ASU for a while and was therefore somewhat familiar with the simple descriptive statistics that were used in the survey. He stated that there were issues of the wrong reporting, which had just been corrected, not including the sewage fees. He asked Mr. Giardina whether the company re-evaluated all of the towns or just the towns that were pointed out to him. Mr. Giardina responded that they looked at each of them to answer the question "Did we include all of the appropriate fees?" He clarified that they did not go back and recheck the data provided to them by Town staff or the data provided to the Town staff by the various municipalities. Councilman Kavanagh commented that theoretically the study might still contain errors and explained that he did not have time to check all of the data himself but a search on his computer resulted in locating the two errors already discussed very quickly. He said that this alerted him and caused him concern. He added that he would assume that further research was required in order to ensure accuracy. Mr. Giardina said that he would leave that decision up to the Council and reiterated his cautionary note that the survey could be 180 degrees wrong and in his opinion had very little bearing on the Council's decision in terms of the results of their report and the maximum supportable fee. He added that the process used to derive at that fee had absolutely nothing to do with what the Town's neighbors charged and,under Arizona law, they were not allowed to base the fee on what the neighbors charge. Legal requirements must be followed in terms of making a link between the fees that were assessed and the demands for services that the different types of customers placed on the Town's system. He added that survey information was anecdotal at best and was often the first question they were asked—how do we compare to our neighbors? Mr. Giardina advised that one of the problems with surveys that the development community recognized years ago was that many communities did not undertake a detailed comprehensive study; they based their fees on a Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-3-05\Minutes 10-06-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 6 of 15 "windshield survey". They would drive around and see what their neighbors charged and then they would charge something above,below, or equal to that. thaw Councilman Kavanagh reiterated that he had concerns because the information was included in the survey as part of the report, yet he was being told now that the information could be erroneous but they did not intend to make any changes. He said that he found this disturbing. Mr. Giardina stated the opinion that the QAQC that they applied to the report was indicative of the value that it had and he believed it to be substantially correct. He added that they were asked to provide this type of information at the request of the Town and it was not an actual part of the scope of their work. He said that therefore they did not apply the same type of due diligence and QAQC that they would to their own work. Councilman Kavanagh expressed the opinion that since the consultant put the information into the report, it was in fact his or her own work. Mr. Giardina said that he could appreciate that perspective and added that if Council were so inclined they would go back and contact each of the communities to verify that the information was correct. In response to a question from Councilman Kavanagh, Mr. Giardina said that Table 1 was a document that they created based on a table of data provided to them by Town staff. Councilman Kavanagh stated that his concerns "spill over" into the rest of the survey and explained that to him the omissions were glaring and questioned why Scottsdale was not included. He asked whether cities that did not have development fees were left out of the study and added that since they had presented a bar chart that showed erroneously that Fountain Hills had some of the lowest fees in the Valley, and even the proposed changes would not make the Town's fees "high," the exclusion of certain cities and towns demands an explanation. Mr. Giardina said that it was his understanding that this was a list of communities that the Town of Fountain Hills typically compared itself to. Councilman Kavanagh noted that Scottsdale was located right next to the Town and said that it was their most "typical comparison". Mr. Giardina advised that he would be happy to include that information. Councilman Kavanagh further stated that using the average when dealing with dollar figures, especially in a distribution that had an outlying area like Paradise Valley that was "off the chart", was inappropriate and the median should be used instead. He said that this example made him worry about other applications contained in the report. Mr. Giardina explained that the use of the average did not go beyond the table. They were not basing their fee recommendations on the average or suggesting that anyone base their fees on the average. He added that to the contrary, to base a fee on any information in the table might place the Town in legal violation of the Arizona Statutes. He said that the data was being provided solely for informational purposes and said that he could appreciate Councilman Kavanagh's concerns. He noted that the difference between the mean and the median in this case was less than 10%. Councilman Kavanagh said that he was hearing that if the Council looked at the comparative data and decided that the Town wanted to remain more competitive with surrounding communities by reducing the fees, as they did last time, because they were relying on the information provided they would be in violation of the law. Mr. Giardina clarified that no, to the extent that they sought to implement a fee that was above the calculated fees, they would be in violation of the law. He reiterated that the Council was free to adopt any fee up to the calculated fee. Councilman Kavanagh commented that although the consultant could not use this type of information, the Council desperately needed it and that was why accuracy was extremely important. Mr. Giardina stated the opinion that within "reasonable accuracy" the information provided in the study was correct. He added that within two to three more days they could provide the Council with additional information that he would be willing to say was accurate. Councilman Archambault stated that he was hearing that Mr. Giardina stood behinds the fees contained in the report and believed they were defensible. Mr. Giardina said that Councilman Archambault's summation was coy correct. Councilman Archambault commented that being in the construction trade, he could state that a 2.5% increase per annum did not even come close to covering what construction costs were doing. He added that it seemed they were "trying to de-rail a train with a penny on the track" and all they were going to do was "squish the penny and flatten it out". He stated the opinion that the chart referred to by Councilman Kavanagh was Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-3-05\Minutes 10-06-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 7 of 15 probably included because staff knew that that was a question that the members of the Council were going to ask. He said that if Councilman Kavanagh had some data that disputed that Mr. Giardina was presenting, he would like him to bring that information forward. Councilman Kavanagh said that he did and he would present the information. Councilman Archambault also noted that the report did not take into consideration any fees for property owners who were buying in or new homeowners. He said that they could not charge an impact fee on something that was being charged on property taxes. Mr. Giardina concurred. Councilman Archambault stated that even on that scope nothing was really accurate; it was really a gauge, something to look at. Councilman Kavanagh advised that he was bringing this up because it pointed to the quality of the overall report and if areas of the report with which he was familiar contained gross omissions and errors, all favoring the implementation of higher fees, then he had to wonder if the areas of the report that he was not qualified to look at (accounting and development fee computations) similarly contained such errors. He said that this was his concern. Councilman Archambault noted that Mr. Giardina stated that he would stand behind the figures and the report. Councilman Kavanagh pointed out that he would because he was obviously the author of the report but questioned whether he was standing behind the use of the means instead of the median. He noted that the report cited in Table 1 that the commercial development fee was $2.25 per square foot and the industrial development fee was .88 per square foot. He asked whether Mr. Giardina was aware of the fact that the commercial development fee in Fountain Hills was .51 and the industrial fee was also .51. Mr. Giardina responded that that information was brought to their attention and early on in the study they were provided information to the contrary and what had happened was that that information was what was originally adopted by ordinance and staff who provided that information were not aware of the fact that the amounts had been reduced. Councilman Kavanagh asked whether Mr. Giardina felt he was not responsible for the error because the information had been provided by staff and he responded that when it came to the assessment of the current fees, he would take some responsibility and say, "yes, maybe we should have asked for a copy of the then current ordinance." Councilman Kavanagh asked who provided the other backup data regarding population, expenditures, values, etc. and Mr. Giardina advised that the information was provided by the Town. Councilman Kavanagh commented that the same people who provided erroneous information on the development fees in the Valley and the same people who gave them erroneous information on the Town's current fees, gave Mr. Giardina the information that his entire report was based on, yet he felt perfectly comfortable that everything was valid and reliable. Mr. Giardina responded that he did and he would like to explain why. He said that they went through a discussion and data review process with the information that they believed to be the most critical to any decision that would be made regarding the fee recommendation. He added that the current fees, when they asked the question "please provide us with a listing of your current fees", they believed that the information provided was accurate. He said that when they were asked to include in the report information regarding survey information, it was a frequent request and in some instances they actually conducted the surveys themselves but in this case they did not. He emphasized that that was not information they were relying on for their recommendation in any way, shape or form. He stated that it was therefore reasonable to expect that it would not go through a second thorough review. He noted that the information that they were basing their recommendations on went through a thorough review; it has "source" in terms of the budget for the Town, which was reviewed by the Council and adopted. He added that those types of"checks" provided them with some assurance. He pointed out that they questioned staff long and hard about some of the details of the inclusions of certain projects and, more specifically, whether those projects were to meet the demands of today's customers or future customers. That was the "heart and soul" of this analysis. He said that he felt very confident that the data they relied on and the manner in which they allocated it was accurate and sufficient and supported the recommendations that were before the Council this evening. Councilman Kavanagh commented that they obviously disagreed but at least had the opportunity to present their positions. He said that the next items he would like to bring up did not reflect on Mr. Giardina's company's Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-3-05\Minutes 10-06-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 8 of 15 performance, but rather on the information that was put into the report, which also concerned him. He stated that there was no comparison on commercial fees and added that some of the members of the Council were concerned(and the public would be if they decided to support this) and wanted to know where they would stand with the commercial fee in relation to people they competed with for businesses to relocate. He expressed the opinion that this omission represented a deficiency in the study. He commented that at least one other Councilmember had expressed an interest in knowing where Fountain Hills stood in relation to other towns. He said that the information might not be important to Mr. Giardina for his purposes because he had to comply with the law and not have unjustified expenditures but stated that the Council would have to vote and they were not bound to vote on the recommendation. They could reject it or lower it. He added that he believed this to be important information and they should be advised of what the commercial fees would be and whether businesses that they wanted to relocate in Fountain Hills would go elsewhere. Mr. Giardina responded that in studies such as this there were always additional requests for information that they received from the Councils and the public and said that they would be more than happy to respond to the requests and provide the information. He added that he objected to the characterization of"an omission" in the study when they were seeking clarification information. Councilman Kavanagh stated that there was an "important missing segment" that should not necessarily be attributed to Mr. Giardina or his company because they did not specifically request the information. Mr. Giardina said that they would certainly be willing to provide the requested information. Mayor Nichols summarized that Councilman Kavanagh would have liked the report to contain a Figure 2, dealing with commercial fees (comparison). Councilman Kavanagh added that he also had some concerns regarding the way the fee was calculated and said that if they looked in the Parks &Recreation, an aquatics and fitness center was included. He said that if they were already prepared to issue development fees to collect monies on an aquatic and fitness center, what were they telling the people to whom they were sending the survey regarding whether they thought this was needed. He asked what the whole purpose of the strategic plan or the survey was if before it was already out, they were already taxing people for something they might not ( want. He expressed the opinion that this appeared insulting to the strategic planners and the public to pass something that pre-supposed that they were going to have a particular amenity. Councilman Archambault commented that they would be remiss if they did not include it and the survey came back and the citizens indicated that they wanted it. He added that they also had the opportunity, when they were looking at the development fees for final approval, to take that out if the survey came back indicating that the citizens did not want it. Councilman Kavanagh asked why they didn't put the performing arts center in it or any number of a dozen items asking people whether they had any interest in them. Councilman Archambault pointed out that the fees ranged five years down the road and Councilman Kavanagh asked whether they could only envision a pool five years down the road. Town Manager Tim Pickering noted that they did include the theatre (Page B-26). Councilman Kavanagh explained that he was looking on Page 18 (Major projects planned over a 20-year period including improvements to existing parks), and Councilman Kavanagh said he did not remember the Council ever voting for two new parks. Mr. Pickering advised that many of the items came from the discussions that occurred as a result of the Strategic Plan and added that the parks items came specifically from the Council's request at their Retreat to look into and expand the amount of acreage they would need in order to meet the national average. He noted that they had about half the amount of acres they needed to meet the national average. Councilman Kavanagh said that it was his understanding that the Strategic Planning process, the meetings, were supposed to identify potential projects and then projects would be decided upon by the people as a result of the survey. Mr. Pickering concurred. Councilman Kavanagh asked why they were already allocating funds for them by enacting a development fee. Mr. Pickering responded that they were not enacting a development fee and explained that they would not enact any fees until after the survey had been completed. He added that if the survey came back and the citizens indicated that they did not want an aquatics center, that item would then be Okiry removed. He noted that this was just the maximum amount and they included all possibilities that could occur; they were occurring at the same time. Councilman Kavanagh expressed the opinion that people should know what the fees would actually be and the process should have waited until the people decided on what they Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-3-05\Minutes 10-06-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 9 of 15 wanted rather than having the Council or staff make arbitrary decisions to include certain projects and omit others. He added the opinion that they had"put the cart before the horse". 41600, Mr. Pickering pointed out that nothing had been decided upon yet and Councilman Kavanagh stated that perhaps they should table the entire discussion and have the survey redone after they received the results. Mr. Pickering said that the results would be received in less than a month and the fees would not have been adopted. He added that the survey would go out at the end of this week and results would be back by the end of October and the fees would not be adopted until December. He stated that they would know the results of the Strategic Plan before then. Councilman Kavanagh asked whether the fees included a performing arts center, a senior citizens' center, etc. Mr. Giardina said that the easiest thing to do would be to show Councilman Kavanagh the list and noted that on Page B-6 there was a listing under the heading Parks & Recreation. Mr. Pickering clarified that the list was actually on Page B-9 under General Government. Mr. Giardina thanked Mr. Pickering and advised that the aquatics center is on Page B-6 and the other items were on Page B-9, under General Government, and included the senior center and the performing arts building. Councilman Kavanagh commented that basically every conceivable project had been included in the plans, even though the public might decide they did not want any of them. Mr. Pickering concurred with Councilman Kavanagh's statement and said that if the public said that they do not want them, the projects could be easily removed, but they could not add them once notice had gone out. Councilman Kavanagh expressed the opinion that a more logical sequence would have been to wait a couple of months until the survey was in and they would what the citizens wanted before they included the list. Councilman Kavanagh summarized his remarks by stating that the methodological problems, the omissions, the procedural/physical problems and, to a certain degree the addition of the items that"cloud"these things because the citizens might reject all of the items,resulted in doubts regarding the quality of the study, which was why he had requested that they have an independent auditor who was familiar with the issue check the figures and methodologies to ensure accuracy. He added that that he would also like to wait and see what the results of the Strategic Plan were because he did not see the purpose of putting very expensive, "big ticket items" into a study and presenting it to the people to discuss when half of them might not even wind up being part of the overall Town development. He added that he did not know whether the errors he identified in the study had been transferred elsewhere and said he would feel a lot more comfortable if they had an independent person check the figures before they were released to the citizens and ask them to make a decision on possibly flawed and certainly possibly inflated(since every project had been included)figures. Councilman Kehe asked Mr. Giardina whether he had ever performed this type of study before and Mr. Giardina responded that he had. Councilman Kehe asked Mr. Giardina to provide brief history of the projects he had been involved in and Mr. Giardina noted that he had been involved in this type of work for 27 years. He advised that he was a certified public accountant and some of the other comparable studies they had conducted in the area included the same type of studies for the cities of Chandler, Gilbert,Lake Havasu,Prescott, Prescott Valley, Phoenix,Tucson, Salt Lake City, etc. He confirmed that he had used essentially the same procedure in the other communities and added that they were not proposing some new, innovative, untested methodology. Councilman Kehe asked whether residential growth ever paid for itself and Mr. Giardina responded that through the implementation of these types of fees, residential growth could come close to paying the capital costs associated that that type of development. He said that if there were no fees in place to generate revenue, in order to maintain the desired service level throughout the community, the Town would have to identify alternative revenue sources, i.e. sales tax dollars, property tax dollars, etc. Councilman Kehe asked whether it would be appropriate to state that if they did not establish an appropriate level of development fees, the rest of the community would have to pay for growth and Mr. Giardina concurred with this statement. Councilman Kehe asked whether it was a generally approved concept that growth should pay for itself and Mr. Giardina replied that the concept and philosophy varied by community. He added that these types of fees were widely used throughout the State of Arizona and were growing in terms of popularity throughout the country. He noted that they had their"birth" in Florida as a result of rapid growth in that state, and they had been in place there for 15 to 20 years. He confirmed that there was a basis in law for these fees. Councilman Kehe referred to the different categories in the study and asked if each category reflected the cost of growth. Mr. Giardina said Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-3-05\Minutes 10-06-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 10 of 15 that they did and explained that they looked at each category separately because they could not use fee revenues from one category to fund facilities in another. He added that they had created "silos" and segregated the costs associated with growth in each of the fee areas and then based their fee analysis and recommendation on that cost allocation. He confirmed that all data was specific to Fountain Hills with one exception — assumptions made regarding average or typical square footage of residential and multi-family homes. He explained that national industry data had been used for that. Vice Mayor Schlum stated that opinion that Councilman Kavanagh has raised some good points and said that he was glad that he had delved into the report as much as he did. He asked whether the figures that were utilized from the "dream CIP list"were typically used by other cities and towns as well for a recommendation regarding the implementation of impact fees. Mr. Giardina responded that they were in the sense that they typically start with an approved Capital Improvement Plan, which might vary from a one-year snapshot to a five-year window. He added that typically for these types of fee areas they were looking at, the CIP did not go beyond five years. He noted that because they were looking at a scenario that takes the community through buildout, they asked staff to develop a CIP that would take them through buildout and the fees were based on that. He pointed out that the fees would be updated periodically and explained that the City of Chandler, by ordinance, was required to review their fees every other year; they conduct a comprehensive study. He emphasized that it was incumbent upon the Councils to regularly review the fees, particularly in rapidly growing communities. He further stated that if they changed their community philosophy regarding a service level, they would want to reflect that in the updated fees. Vice Mayor Schlum commented that the dollar amounts reflected in the study were today's dollars and asked whether that was an accurate way to look at this. Mr. Giardina replied that that was the starting point and noted that they had inflated the numbers to the estimated year of expenditure using an inflation index so that they had a more appropriate financial measure of the cost when the expenditure was made. Vice Mayor Schlum stated that he took some comfort in the fact that the Town of Fountain Hills had a policy in (Lio, place to look at the fees on a regular basis as well so they would not be waiting another fifteen years before looking at the numbers again. Mr. Giardina explained that the primary advantage of calculating the fees the way they did, with the inclusion of all the other projects, was that if they were excluded and the survey came back and the community said that they wanted the projects, they could very quickly go back and put the projects in and recalculate the fees. He noted that the fees would then be higher than what they had started the process on, which meant they would have to start the entire 120-day process all over again. He pointed out that they would lose revenues that otherwise would have been received and in order to be conservative in a fiscal sense they included all of the projects so that the clock was "ticking". He added that if the survey came back and the community did not want the projects, they would take them out but the clock was still "ticking" and they would not have to start all over again. Councilman Archambault commented that that was exactly one of the points he was going to bring up; they would have to start the clock all over again if they took the fees out. He said that what he liked about the timing was that it chimed in with the Strategic Plan. He added that they had done their five-year financial plan and knew how short they were on the streets. He said that each day that they did not get the appropriate fees out there (and they would know the appropriate fees by December) they were costing the citizens of the Town. He noted that they had to review the fees every five years. He pointed out that in 2009-1010 they were talking about finishing the widening of Fountain Hills Boulevard at a cost of$2.8 million. He said that he would differ with Mr. Giardina regarding the 2.5% and stated that he believed the figure was extremely low. He also clarified that it was implied that they were charging the residents this fee and said they were not going to charge the residents who were currently here this fee but they were charging a `buy-in fee,' similar to what someone paid when they joined a country club to play golf, an up-front fee to cover costs associated with the development of that country club and then they paid golf fees. He expressed the opinion that this action would not deter business and discussed the tremendous strides the Town had made; they had a Fire District that the citizens were no longer paying for. He stated that if they did not charge the fees now, if they took things out or delayed the process, they would only be costing the citizens of the Town money and not the new people who were moving here. Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-3-05\Minutes 10-06-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 11 of 15 Mr. Pickering asked Mr. Giardina to clarify an important point he made about when they met with the contractors regarding the fact that if they started charging for the aquatics center as an example, but eventually it was never built, what happened to that money. Mr. Giardina replied that there was the potential that the Town would have an obligation to refund that money to the people who paid it, that element of the parks and recreation fee that was represented. He said that the possibility existed that they would have to pay for it if they promised a certain service level and then did not provide it. Councilman Kavanagh commented that basically he was saying that if they followed the recommendation that also called for reducing the open space development fee, they would be required to identify everyone who paid that fee and issue rebates. Mr. Giardina stated that he would differ on that particular fee because they were providing that level of service,they were merely changing the manner in which it was financed, and therefore he did not believe they had a legal obligation because the service level would not change. Councilman Kavanagh added that for a certain number of years, people had been paying "X amount" and now, because of a different funding mechanism, future people would be paying less than that. From the point of basic equity it appeared that the people who paid the original amount paid too much. Mr. Giardina responded that if a community decided to abolish a fee, it could be argued that someone who paid yesterday's fee was entitled to a refund but said it was the same concept; they had not changed their cost basis or service level, they had just made a decision about whether they were going to charge a fee in his analogy or in the case of the open space, how they were going to finance it. He said that he did not believe they had a legal obligation to issue refunds in that area. He noted that the City of Chandler was going to abolish its library fee and the day after they abolished that fee, the people who paid the fee last month were not entitled to a refund because the service was being provided. He agreed that there was a perception of inequity but there was no legal obligation. Councilman Kavanagh concurred that it created the possibility of perceived inequity. Councilman Kavanagh stated that another problem lay in the way the fees were being computed and noted that Mr. Giardina said that communities typically gave him a list of items that they wanted him to create fees for. He asked whether these were usually items that the community had indicated they wanted to have or was it like in their case where they got a group of people together and said "Give us your wish list" and sooner or later decided whether we were going to have all of these things but in the meantime you took everything on the"wish list" and created fees for them. Mr. Giardina replied that he had seen a mixture of both and added that he had worked with a CIP that was reviewed, debated and approved by the community, signed, sealed and delivered. He emphasized that that would be the perfect plan in his opinion. Councilman Kavanagh noted that the conversation had moved into whether development fees were good or bad and who was paying whom but said he would like to refocus on the fact that there was a motion on the floor to table because of his concerns regarding the accuracy of the fees and additionally what had been included in the study. He reiterated that un-excusable errors were made that cast doubts in his mind on the rest of the study. He added that he was also concerned about the inclusion of a lot of items that had "jacked the fees up" that they might not put there. He stated that when they passed the fees they were sending a message out; a message to the State Trust Land about how they were going to treat future residents, a message to commercial people who wanted to locate in Town. He added that they had a downtown project that seemed to be teetering in terms of finance and he did not know how they were going to take the sudden inclusion of over $7.00 a square foot of development fees for commercial space. He expressed the opinion that what they did today had consequences and the fact that there were concerns regarding accuracy as well as the inclusion of many items that might not make the cut and made the fees unnecessarily high, was going to result in giving a poor impression to the State Land Department and to businesses. He stated that he would like to get back to his motion to table this matter and allow an independent evaluation to occur to check the accuracy of it. He added that perhaps they should also determine whether they should put all of the items in now or wait until the people decided what they really want. Mayor Nichols called the question. 4610, A roll call vote was taken with the following results: Councilman Archambault Nay Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-3-05\Minutes 10-06-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 12 of 15 Vice Mayor Schlum Aye Councilman Kehe Nay Councilman Kavanagh Aye Councilman McMahan Aye Mayor Nichols Nay The motion FAILED for lack of a majority vote(3-3). Mayor Nichols asked for a motion to consider giving staff direction to set up the public hearings for this item. Councilman Kehe MOVED and Councilman Archambault SECONDED a motion to direct staff to set up the public hearings for this item. Councilman Kavanagh requested that there be two separate motions; one to proceed with the hearing to reduce the Open Space fee and the second to proceed with the hearings for the other fees. Mr. Giardina advised that it was his understanding that according to Arizona law a hearing process was not required to reduce a fee. Councilman Kehe requested clarification as to what the next step would be if the motion he made passed. Mr. Giardina responded that the next step in the process in accordance with Arizona law was for the Council to adopt a Notice of Intent to assess new development fees. He added that this would start the clock "ticking" in terms of the approval and adoption process and said that it did not send the Council or the community on a path that they had to adopt the fees, it began the discussion period for consideration of fees. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire stated the opinion that the motion probably was divisible and said that the only question was if it was divided out, and they did not have to go to a public hearing to reduce the fee, it might f not be a component in any way other than just a courtesy to the citizens that when they went to the increase in the fees there might also be a reduction in one fee. He said it would require a majority vote. Councilman Kavanagh MOVED that the motion be divided into two parts. The motion DIED for lack of a second. Town Clerk Bev Bender advised that she had not received any requests to speak from the public. Mayor Nichols asked the Council to vote on the main motion at this time (direct staff to set up the public hearings). Councilman Kavanagh stated that he would hope that those who shared his concerns about the problems with the study, etc. and who had concerns about the value, would stand their ground and vote not to proceed so that they could develop a motion that was more stable and less upsetting to commercial people and the State Land Department. Vice Mayor Schlum asked whether they would be setting this in stone this evening by moving forward and asked whether corrections/additions to the study would be made based on the discussion they had this evening. He commented that the hearings would provide an opportunity to talk more about this issue. Mr. McGuire said that they were simply "shooting the flare up into the air" to let the people know that there were meetings coming up. He noted that there was a meeting scheduled in the future to obtain input on the maximum allowable fees. He added that prior to that meeting, they would most likely have the survey results back so any adjustments to the fees could reflect the results of the survey. He emphasized that the public hearings were still to come along with the Council action after that. Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-3-05\Minutes 10-06-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 13 of 15 Vice Mayor Schlum stressed that they were simply starting the process. He added that he was appreciative of the items brought up by Councilman Kavanagh and felt comfortable that they would be addressed along with other items. He said he would have been comfortable delaying this until the next meeting but would agree to move forward. Councilman Archambault commented that moving forward with this motion also served another purpose. He referred to discussions he had had with some of the Town's contractors and noted that a lot of their jobs came to them in the December/January timeframe when plans were drawn up. He added that by February there was a bidding frenzy and if the contractors knew that the fees were coming down the road, they could add the costs in at that point in time. He said that the longer they delayed and the longer they got into the summer months, they tended to surprise the construction industry because they were not bidding projects at that time. He stressed the importance of providing them ample notice. Councilman Kavanagh stated that "you don't start a journey on a leaking ship," and expressed the opinion that they were sending a bad message out in terms of the maximum levels and added that no one believed that all of the"wish list"items would "come true." He stated that this was a bad message, a bad study, and a bad start. He said that there was sufficient time to settle the issues first and, out of respect to the citizens, wait until they made their decisions. Councilman McMahan commented that he agreed with Councilman Kavanagh's concerns and he wished they had delayed the report until after the Strategic Planning survey had been received. He said, however, that he would vote to move ahead and added that discussions could take place during the public hearings. He also concurred with Councilman Archambault's comments regarding the contractors and the important timeframe. Vice Mayor Schlum agreed with Councilman McMahan's statements. ( Councilman Kehe requested that the Mayor move the question and he complied. The motion was APPROVED by majority vote with Councilman Kavanagh voting Nay(5-1). AGENDA ITEM #20 - COUNCIL ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW OF THE MEETING TO IDENTIFY PROCEDURAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES AND DISCUSS POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS. None. AGENDA ITEM #21 — COUNCIL DISCUSSION/DIRECTION TO THE TOWN MANAGER. ITEMS LISTED BELOW ARE RELATED ONLY TO THE PROPRIETY OF (i) PLACING SUCH ITEMS ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION OR (ii) OR DIRECTING STAFF TO CONDUCT FURTHER RESEARCH AND REPORT BACK TO THE COUNCIL: Mr. Pickering advised that staff would get two documents. The contractor had agreed to get the information regarding residential development fees in other communities and verify them as well as the commercial development fees. He noted that they were not asked to do that as part of their contractual services and thanked Mr. Giardina for his willingness to provide the information. Mayor Nichols questioned whether they would delay putting together the communications document for the public hearings until the Strategic Planning survey was done. Mr. Pickering advised that staff had put a notice out but agreed that the public hearing would not take place until after the surveys had been received so that they would have more data to work with. He confirmed for Councilman Kehe that the clock started "ticking" this evening. Councilman Kavanagh asked whether they could get a hearing and a motion to "roll back" the Open Space fee that was no longer needed; that part of the Open Space fee that was no longer needed. He added that it was his understanding that all they needed at this point was a hearing and a motion and since the full amount was not Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-3-05\Minutes 10-06-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 14 of 15 needed, he felt it would be a shame to make some new people building homes unnecessarily pay a fee. He added that they should move as quickly to give money back as they did to collect it. IL Mr.McGuire commented that it appeared to be the consensus of the Council and he believed they would see this issue placed on the next available agenda. AGENDA ITEM#22—SUMMARY OF COUNCIL REQUESTS BY TOWN MANAGER. None. AGENDA ITEM#23—ADJOURNMENT Councilman Archambault MOVED that the Council adjourn and Councilman Schlum SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The meeting adjourne 7:48 p.m. TOWN OF TAI ILLS By Wall icho , or ATTEST AND PREPARED BY: Bevelyn J. e er,Town Clerk CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular and Executive Session held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills on the 6th day of October 2005. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 3RD day of November 200 . Bevelyn J. B der, own Clerk Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-3-05\Minutes 10-06-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 15 of 15