HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020.1006.TCRM.Packet
NOTICE OF MEETING
REGULAR MEETING
FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
Mayor Ginny Dickey
Vice Mayor Mike Scharnow
Councilmember Dennis Brown
Councilmember Gerry Friedel
Councilmember Alan Magazine
Councilmember David Spelich
Councilmember Art Tolis
TIME:5:30 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING
WHEN:TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2020
WHERE:FOUNTAIN HILLS COUNCIL CHAMBERS
16705 E. AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS, FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Councilmembers of the Town of Fountain Hills will attend either in person or by telephone conference call; a quorum of the
Town’s various Commission, Committee or Board members may be in attendance at the Council meeting.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to A.R.S. §1-602.A.9, subject to certain specified statutory exceptions, parents have a
right to consent before the State or any of its political subdivisions make a video or audio recording of a minor child.
Meetings of the Town Council are audio and/or video recorded and, as a result, proceedings in which children are present
may be subject to such recording. Parents, in order to exercise their rights may either file written consent with the Town
Clerk to such recording, or take personal action to ensure that their child or children are not present when a recording may
be made. If a child is present at the time a recording is made, the Town will assume that the rights afforded parents
pursuant to A.R.S. §1-602.A.9 have been waived.
REQUEST TO COMMENT
The public is welcome to participate in Council meetings.
TO SPEAK TO AN AGENDA ITEM, please complete a Request to Comment card, located in the back
of the Council Chambers, and hand it to the Town Clerk prior to discussion of that item, if possible.
Include the agenda item on which you wish to comment. Speakers will be allowed three contiguous
minutes to address the Council. Verbal comments should be directed through the Presiding Officer
and not to individual Councilmembers.
TO COMMENT ON AN AGENDA ITEM IN WRITING ONLY, please complete a Request to Comment
card, indicating it is a written comment, and check the box on whether you are FOR or AGAINST and
agenda item, and hand it to the Town Clerk prior to discussion, if possible.
REGULAR MEETING
REGULAR MEETING
NOTICE OF OPTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the Town Council, and to the general public, that at
this meeting, the Town Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for legal advice
and discussion with the Town's attorneys for legal advice on any item listed on the following agenda, pursuant to A.R.S.
§38-431.03(A)(3).
1.CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Mayor Dickey
2.MOMENT OF SILENCE
3.ROLL CALL – Mayor Dickey
4.REPORTS BY MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS AND TOWN MANAGER
A.PROCLAMATION - October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month
B.PROCLAMATION - October as Fire Prevention Month.
C.PROCLAMATION - October as Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
5.SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS
A.PRESENTATION of National Weather Service Storm Ready Designation for Fountain Hills.
B.PRESENTATION on Epcor Operations and Proposed Rate Case before the Arizona
Corporation Commission by Epcor Representatives.
C.PRESENTATION of General Plan Video.
D.PRESENTATION of Valley Metro transit analysis.
6.CALL TO THE PUBLIC
Town Council Regular Meeting of October 6, 2020 2 of 4
6.CALL TO THE PUBLIC
Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.01(H), public comment is permitted (not required) on matters NOT listed on the
agenda. Any such comment (i) must be within the jurisdiction of the Council, and (ii) is subject to reasonable
time, place, and manner restrictions. The Council will not discuss or take legal action on matters raised
during Call to the Public unless the matters are properly noticed for discussion and legal action. At the
conclusion of the Call to the Public, individual councilmembers may (i) respond to criticism, (ii) ask staff to
review a matter, or (iii) ask that the matter be placed on a future Council agenda.
7.CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
All items listed on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine, noncontroversial matters and will be
enacted by one motion of the Council. All motions and subsequent approvals of consent items will include all
recommended staff stipulations unless otherwise stated. There will be no separate discussion of these items
unless a councilmember or member of the public so requests. If a councilmember or member of the public
wishes to discuss an item on the Consent Agenda, he/she may request so prior to the motion to accept the
Consent Agenda or with notification to the Town Manager or Mayor prior to the date of the meeting for
which the item was scheduled. The items will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its
normal sequence on the agenda.
A.CONSIDERATION OF approving the meeting minutes of the Regular Meeting of September
15, 2020.
B.CONSIDERATION OF adopting Ordinance 20-23 to Amend Town Code, Chapter 9, Article
9-5, Section 1, Purpose and Intent; Section 2, Definitions; Section 3, General Preserve
Regulations; and Section 4, Central Trailhead Regulations.
C.CONSIDERATION OF approving a Liquor License Application for Georgie's, located at 16725
E. Avenue of the Fountains #C110 Fountain Hills, Arizona, for a Series 12 (Restaurant)
license.
8.REGULAR AGENDA
9.COUNCIL DISCUSSION/DIRECTION to the TOWN MANAGER
Item(s) listed below are related only to the propriety of (i) placing such item(s) on a future agenda for action,
or (ii) directing staff to conduct further research and report back to the Council.
10.ADJOURNMENT
Town Council Regular Meeting of October 6, 2020 3 of 4
Town Council Regular Meeting of October 6,2020 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF NOTICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing notice was duly posted in accordance with the statement filed
by the Town Council with the Town Clerk.
Dated thi�jd day of 20.
El' abeth A. r e, MMC,Town Clerk
The Town of Fountain Hills endeavors to make all public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities.Please call 480-816-5199(voice)
or 1-800-367-8939(TDD)48 hours prior to the meeting to request a reasonable accommodation to participate in the meeting or to obtain
agenda information in large print format.Supporting documentation and staff reports furnished the Council with this agenda are available
for review in the Clerk's Office.
ITEM 4. A.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 10/06/2020 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting
Agenda Type: Reports Submitting Department: Administration
Prepared by: Angela Padgett-Espiritu, Executive Assistant to Manager, Mayor/Council
Staff Contact Information: Angela Padgett-Espiritu, Executive Assistant to Manager,
Mayor/Council
SPECIAL PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS (Agenda Language): PROCLAMATION -
October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month
Staff Summary (Background)
Mayor Dickey will be proclaiming October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
Attachments
Proclamation - Domestic Violence Awareness Month
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Director David Pock 09/24/2020 05:42 PM
Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 09/24/2020 07:27 PM
Town Manager Grady E. Miller 09/24/2020 10:06 PM
Form Started By: Angela Padgett-Espiritu Started On: 09/24/2020 01:55 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/25/2020
ITEM 4. B.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 10/06/2020 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting
Agenda Type: Reports Submitting Department: Administration
Prepared by: Angela Padgett-Espiritu, Executive Assistant to Manager, Mayor/Council
Staff Contact Information: Angela Padgett-Espiritu, Executive Assistant to Manager,
Mayor/Council
SPECIAL PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS (Agenda Language): PROCLAMATION -
October as Fire Prevention Month.
Staff Summary (Background)
Mayor Dickey will be proclaiming October as Fire Prevention Month.
Attachments
Proclamation - Fire Prevention Month Month
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Director David Pock 09/24/2020 05:42 PM
Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 09/24/2020 07:27 PM
Town Manager Grady E. Miller 09/24/2020 10:07 PM
Form Started By: Angela Padgett-Espiritu Started On: 09/24/2020 02:05 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/25/2020
ITEM 4. C.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 10/06/2020 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting
Agenda Type: Reports Submitting Department: Administration
Prepared by: Angela Padgett-Espiritu, Executive Assistant to Manager, Mayor/Council
Staff Contact Information: Angela Padgett-Espiritu, Executive Assistant to Manager,
Mayor/Council
SPECIAL PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS (Agenda Language): PROCLAMATION -
October as Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
Staff Summary (Background)
Mayor Dickey will be proclaiming October as Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
Attachments
Proclamation
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Director Elizabeth A. Burke 09/29/2020 04:54 PM
Town Attorney Elizabeth A. Burke 09/29/2020 04:54 PM
Town Manager Grady E. Miller 09/29/2020 05:06 PM
Form Started By: Angela Padgett-Espiritu Started On: 09/29/2020 04:21 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/29/2020
ITEM 5. D.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 10/06/2020 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting
Agenda Type: Public Appearances/Presentations Submitting Department: Administration
Prepared by: David Trimble, Deputy Town Manager/Admin. Serv. Dir.
Staff Contact Information: David Trimble, Deputy Town Manager/Admin. Serv. Dir.
SPECIAL PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS (Agenda Language): PRESENTATION of Valley
Metro transit analysis.
Staff Summary (Background)
A few years ago, the Town of Fountain Hills joined and became a member of Valley Metro, the regional
transit provider in Maricopa County. Membership in Valley Metro entitles the town to a seat on the
board of directors which allows Fountain Hills to participate in regional transit policy and service
decisions. Membership in Valley Metro also has granted Fountain Hills a comprehensive transit
study at no cost to the Town.
Valley Metro recently completed a transit study in order to provide background and potential transit
options for the Town of Fountain Hills. A representative from Valley Metro will be presenting the
findings and recommendations from the transit study at the Town Council meeting on October 6, 2020.
The Valley Metro feasibility analysis report is attached.
Attachments
FH Transit Analysis - Valley Metro
PowerPoint
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Director David Pock 09/23/2020 01:08 PM
Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 09/23/2020 03:44 PM
Town Manager Grady E. Miller 09/24/2020 09:55 PM
Form Started By: David Trimble Started On: 09/17/2020 07:21 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/24/2020
Table of Contents | 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 3
1. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE ...................................................................................................................... 6
Population Change and Density ............................................................................................................................ 7
Transit Dependency Indicators ............................................................................................................................. 8
Household Vehicle Ownership ............................................................................................................................... 9
Age Cohort Trends ...................................................................................................................................................... 11
Low-Income Population ........................................................................................................................................... 13
Population with Disabilities .................................................................................................................................... 14
2. EMPLOYMENT PROFILE ...................................................................................................................... 15
Employment Changes Compared to 2014 Study ........................................................................................ 15
Employment Characteristics .................................................................................................................................18
Commute Patterns ................................................................................................................................................... 29
Discussion and Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 37
3. LAND USES ............................................................................................................................................. 38
Existing and Future land uses ............................................................................................................................. 38
4. TRANSIT SERVICES ............................................................................................................................. 46
Existing Transit service options ...........................................................................................................................46
Implementation Status of Recommendations from the 2014 Fountain Hills Study ................... 53
Potential Transit Service Concepts ...................................................................................................................64
5. FINANCIAL PLAN AND FUNDING STRATEGIES ....................................................................... 84
Eligible Funding Sources ........................................................................................................................................ 84
Existing Funding Sources and Uses .................................................................................................................. 85
Funding Strategies ................................................................................................................................................... 86
Demographic Profile | 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Fountain Hills Transit Feasibility Study is intended to identify opportunities, challenges, and
overall demand for providing public transportation service and multi-modal transportation
investments in the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona. This study builds upon Valley Metro’s 2014
Fountain Hills Transit Feasibility Study.
Located in the northeastern portion of Maricopa County, the Town of Fountain Hills has
experienced substantial population growth over the last few decades. Despite the Town’s
significant growth, transit options in Fountain Hills remain limited. Through an analysis of existing
and future development patterns and demographic trends, this study identifies key transit service
options that most effectively satisfy these needs both for existing and future year trends. A primary
goal of this study is to explore a variety of mobility options, both traditional fixed route services as
well as innovative and flexible service options.
KEY FINDINGS
Demographic Analysis
Population
• 2035 MAG Planning horizon projects that Fountain Hills’ residential population will
grow to 35,346, increasing 47 percent above the current 2017 population
• 7 percent increase in total population since 2014 study
• In 2017, 14 percent of the Fountain Hills population is disabled; 61 percent of this
group were age 65 and over.
• Compared to 2011 ACS data, residents with disabilities has increased 72 percent
Vehicle Ownership
• Only 2.2 percent of FH residents do not have a personal vehicle
• Households reporting owning one vehicle increased by 43 percent between 2011
and 2017
• Nearly half of the housing units surveyed indicated access to at least 2 vehicles (48
percent), well above the 2-vehicle average of 39 percent for Maricopa County
Age Cohorts
• Compared to the 2014 study, the ACS 2017 data shows approximately a 44 percent
(2,530) increase in the population of residents over 65, and over 9 percent (359)
decrease in the population of residents under 19
Income Below Poverty
• In 2017, the low-income population accounted for 6 percent (447) of families and 9
percent (2148) of all individual residents in Fountain Hills
• Since 2011, the population of Fountain Hills residents below the poverty level has
risen 115 percent (239) for families and 79 percent (949) for individuals
Demographic Profile | 4
• While these figures are well below the county averages of 19 percent (families) and
25 percent (individuals), they still highlight a population in Fountain Hills more likely to
rely on transit than the general population
Land Use
• The key ingredients of the Downtown Vision Plan work in tandem with transit
services to provide residents with a downtown the supports connectivity, accessibility
and livability. Over the past few years, the Town has implemented elements of the
Downtown Vision Plan, including:
o First bus shelter and designated park-and-ride, located at the Town Hall,
Library and Community Center
o Constructed The Park Place multifamily, multiuse development located on the
Avenue of the Fountains west of Saguaro Blvd and Fountain Park
Employment Analysis
Employed Fountain Hills residents
• Typically travel westward to regional employment centers in Phoenix and Scottsdale
• More than 50 percent of residents work in Phoenix and Scottsdale
• 26 percent travel under 10 miles to work
• 61 percent travel between 10-24 miles to work
Workers employed in Fountain Hills
• Typically commute from southern and western cities (Chandler, Mesa, Gilbert, etc.)
• 30 percent of workers are Fountain Hills residents
• 35 percent live under 10 miles away
• 40 percent live 10-24 miles away
• 17 percent live 25-50 miles away
Employment Characteristics
• The largest age cohort of both employed residents and workers is 30-54
• While both work and home areas have high concentrations in downtown Fountain
Hills, both residents and workers are spread out throughout the Town, especially the
middle-income and senior cohorts
• Over 50 percent of residents can be classified into a high-income cohort
• The three most popular industries for both workers and residents are
Accommodation and Food Service, Healthcare and Social Assistance, and Retail
Trade
Existing Transit Options
Route 514 Scottsdale Express
• 61 Average Daily boardings (4 in Fountain Hills, 5 in Maricopa County, 29 in Phoenix
and 23 in Scottsdale)
Demographic Profile | 5
RideChoice
• RideChoice was implemented in Fountain Hills in July 2015
• Steady growth since implementation - 126 percent since FY15
• As projected in the 2014 Study, many Fountain Hills customers use RideChoice to
travel to the Mayo Clinic for medical appointments and to Mustang Transit Center to
connect to the region’s public transit network
Vanpool
• Two vanpools originate in Fountain Hills and commute to the Mayo Clinic
• There are no vanpools that commute to Fountain Hills
SERVICE OPTIONS AND NEXT STEPS
Successful transit service hinges upon appropriate concentrations of people, jobs, and services
that can be linked. Given the urban/rural setting of the town, coupled with the population
characteristics, it is important to focus on services that may be tailored to the specialized mobility
needs of the population, and be cognizant of the costs public transportation services have.
This study analyzed transit options that would best serve the Town based on the demographics,
work locations and transit propensity, as well as direction from Town of Fountain Hills staff, input
from Phoenix and Scottsdale staff and the availability of transit funding.
The following potential transit service options were developed for consideration. The options
include:
• Four Community Connector alternatives
• Three route modification alternatives to the existing Route 514 Scottsdale Express
• Two new Fountain Hills to Mesa Crosstown Express alternatives
• A Downtown Circulator
• A Microtransit Service
• Third-Party Partnerships
The following service options emerged from the study for consideration as the most capable of
satisfying the current and future travel needs of Fountain Hills’ residents with eligible funding that
is currently available to support the services. These services include the Fountain Hills to Mesa
Crosstown Express, RideChoice expansion, Give-a-Lift Expansion and a third-party partnership.
The report includes funding strategies for each of these service options.
The Town’s available funding sources are constrained and cannot support all the service options
explored in the section on Funding Strategies. This section is meant to illustrate different options
for spending existing funding sources. This section also touches on strategic considerations for
the MAG’s Regional Transportation Program update and the extension of Proposition 400.
Demographic Profile | 6
1. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
An analysis of the Town’s current socioeconomic characteristics was conducted to compare how
the Town’s characteristics have changed since the 2014 Fountain Hills Transit Feasibility Study
was published. This chapter identifies trends in population dynamics that may affect future
demand and potential markets for transit services as well as community and regional destinations
that warrant consideration as potential transit service options are developed.
Population demographics can serve as an important indicator of potential demand for public
transportation services. As the Town of Fountain Hills and the region continue to grow,
understanding the population trends will be important for identifying a range of actions necessary
to expand mobility options. Thus, relevant demographic data for the Town of Fountain Hills was
collected and is summarized herein. This analysis principally uses 2013-2017 American
Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates—a revolving survey of households conducted
annually—to identify current trends and population characteristics. The 2014 Fountain Hills
Transit Feasibility Study used 2000 and 2010 Census data, as well as 2007-2011 ACS data. For
purposes of comparison, this study update will compare current data with the 2011 ACS data
reported in the 2014 study.
Figure 1-1 provides a high level summary of the demographics information covered in the
following sections of the Demographic Profile.
Figure 1-1. General Overview of Fountain Hills Demographic Characteristics
ACS 2011 ACS 2017 % Change Maricopa County
ACS 2017
General Characteristics
Population 22,489 23,995 7% 4,155,501
Occupied Households 10,030 11,642 16% 1,489,533
Workers 10,768 14,593 36% 1,902,120
Population with Disabilities 1,951 3,358 5% 453,320
Means of Transport to Work
Drive Alone 8,214 8,156 -1% 1,453,191
Carpool 761 716 -6% 208,230
Public Transit 33 3 -91% 42,262
Worked from Home 1,214 1,581 30% 121,301
Walk 79 208 163% 29,186
Vehicles per Household
Zero Vehicles 238 324 36% 94,126
One Vehicle 3,183 4,546 43% 546,849
At Least Two vehicles 4,829 4,754 -2% 579,531
Three or More Vehicles 1,780 2,020 13% 269,027
Age Cohorts
Over 65 5,767 8,297 44% 586,644
Under 19 3,845 3,486 -9% 1,139,765
Income Below Poverty Level
Individuals 1,199 2,148 79% 254,057
Families 208 447 115% 192,839
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011 and 2017 5-Year Estimates.
Demographic Profile | 7
POPULATION CHANGE AND DENSITY
According to 2017 ACS 5-year estimates, the population of Fountain Hills is 23,995, a four percent
increase since the 2014 study. In this same period, Maricopa County witnessed a similar five
percent increase in population. Looking forward, population forecast data for planning horizon
year 2035 provided by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) projects that Fountain
Hills residential population will grow to 35,346, increasing approximately 47 percent above the
current 2017 population (see Figure 1-1).
While understanding gross population numbers are important, population density provides more
insight about where people are concentrated and is thus more useful from a transit planning
perspective. Figure 1-2 depicts Fountain Hills’ population per square mile, demonstrating that
the moderate to very high density areas are primarily to the east of Fountain Hills
Boulevard/McDowell Mountain Road, in the downtown Fountain Hills area.
Demographic Profile | 8
Figure 1-2: 2017 Population Density
TRANSIT DEPENDENCY INDICATORS
Transit dependency refers to populations for whom mobility may be limited, either by access to
private transportation or the ability to drive independently, and whom rely on transit services to
Demographic Profile | 9
meet their basic mobility needs. Several factors can contribute to transit dependency and usually
include the following criteria:
• No access to private transportation
• Seniors (65 and over)
• Youths (under age 18)
• Below the poverty level
• People with disabilities
The mobility needs of transit dependent populations vary considerably, it is important to consider
and plan a variety of mobility options when planning public transportation service.
HOUSEHOLD VEHICLE OWNERSHIP
According to 2013-2017 ACS 5-year estimate data, nearly 324 (2.2 percent) of the 11,642
occupied housing units in Fountain Hills had no available personal vehicles, which lower than the
6.5 percent Maricopa County average. Lacking a private transportation option, these residents
may rely on public transportation, carpools, car sharing, or non-motorized modes for mobility.
Nearly half of the housing units surveyed indicated access to at least 2 vehicles (48.1 percent),
well above the 2-vehicle average of 39.4 percent for Maricopa County. Those that had access to
one vehicle accounted for 31.7 percent of housing units, while 17.7 percent had access to 3 or
more vehicles (see Figure 1-3).
Figure 1-3. Vehicles per Household in Fountain Hills, ACS 5-year Estimates
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011 and 2017 5-Year Estimates.
Notably, households reporting owning one vehicle increased by 43 percent between 2011 and
2017. The increase in vehicle ownership is often attributed to a healthier economy and decrease
in fuel prices, though other factors may be at play. The increase in vehicle ownership most likely
contributed to the decrease in ridership on Route 514 starting in 2013. Additionally, Chapter 4 of
this report explores the historical relationship between gas prices and Route 514 ridership,
showing that as gas prices rise and fall, Route 514 ridership responds with the same trend.
238
3183
4829
1780
324
4546 4754
2020
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
pop w/ no cars*one vehicle*at least 2 cars*3 or more cars*
2011 2017
Demographic Profile | 10
Figure 1-4 depicts the density of zero vehicle households in Fountain Hills in 2017. The moderate
to higher density areas of zero vehicle households are generally north of Shea Boulevard and
east of Fountain Hills Boulevard, with a very high density of zero vehicle households just south of
downtown Fountain Hills.
Figure 1-4. Zero Vehicle Households in Fountain Hills (2017)
Demographic Profile | 11
AGE COHORT TRENDS
Taking a closer look at the Town’s population trends, the trends by age cohorts suggest that rapid
population changes are occurring in the Town that will likely increase the demand for a variety of
transportation modes to satisfy basic mobility needs going forward. According to 2017 ACS data
estimates, residents 65 and over accounted for roughly 35 percent (8,297) of the Town’s total
population, while residents under 19 accounted for 15 percent (3486) of the Town’s total
population, respectively. Compared to the 2014 study, the ACS 2017 data shows approximately
a 44 percent (2,530) increase in the population of residents over 65, and over 9 percent (359)
decrease in the population of residents under 19 (see Figure 1-5). The observed trends in
population age suggest that as the Town of Fountain Hills population grows, there will continue
to be strong growth in the number and seniors and retirees. This trend demonstrates that there
will be a continued and growing demand for transportation options that serve seniors and people
with disabilities.
Figure 1-5. Age Cohorts in Fountain Hills, ACS 5-year Estimates
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011 and 2017 5-Year Estimates
Figure 1-6 depicts the population density of individuals aged 65 or older in Fountain Hills. As with
the overall population density map, the area with high or very high density is near downtown and
east of Fountain Hills Boulevard/McDowell Mountain Road.
5767
3845
8297
3486
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Over 65 Under 19
2011 2017
Demographic Profile | 12
Figure 1-6: Population Density of Individuals Aged 65 or Older (2017)
Figure 1-7 depicts the persons under 19 years of age per square mile. Moderate to high densities
of this cohort are located throughout the town, with a very high density of this group located east
of Fountain Hills Boulevard and north of Palisades Boulevard.
Demographic Profile | 13
Figure 1-7: Population Density of Individuals Aged 18 and Under (2017)
LOW-INCOME POPULATION
Individuals with income below the poverty level are also more likely to be transit dependent. In
2017, the low income population accounted for 6 percent (447) of families and 8.9 percent (2148)
of all individual residents in Fountain Hills. While these figures are well below the county averages
of 18.9 percent (families) and 24.9 percent (individuals), they still highlight a population in
Fountain Hills more likely to rely on transit than the general population. Since 2011, the population
Demographic Profile | 14
of Fountain Hills residents below the poverty level has risen 114.9 percent (239) for families and
79.1 percent (949) for individuals (see Figure 1-8).
Figure 1-8. Population with Income at 150 percent of Poverty Level
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011 and 2017 5-Year Estimates
POPULATION WITH DISABILITIES
Another factor known to contribute to transit dependency is the prevalence of persons with
disabilities living in a community. The Census Bureau breaks disabilities down into the following
categories: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care
difficulty, and independent living difficulty. In Fountain Hills in 2017, 3,358 people fell into one of
these categories, which accounted for approximately 14 percent of the population. A majority of
these, 2051 (61 percent), were age 65 and over. Compared to 2011 ACS data, there has been
over a five percent increase (1,407) in the population of residents with disabilities in Fountain Hills
(see Figure 1-9). These citizens may require more specialized transportation services to assist
them with their mobility needs.
Figure 1-9. Population with Disabilities in Fountain Hills, ACS 5-year Estimates
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011 and 2017 5-Year Estimates
1199
2148
208
447
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Individuals Families
Individuals Families
1,951
3,358
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
2011 2017
Employment Profile | 15
2. EMPLOYMENT PROFILE
In the 2014 Fountain Hills Transit Feasibility Study, the focus was primarily placed on the Town
of Fountain Hills’ existing commuters, the senior and disabled population, and had a brief
employment analysis. This report provides a more an in-depth look at employment inside and
outside of Fountain Hills, examining the commute patterns, age, income, and industry sector of
Fountain Hills residents and workers employed in Fountain Hills.
EMPLOYMENT CHANGES COMPARED TO 2014 STUDY
This section provides a picture of employment changes that have occurred in Fountain Hills since
the 2014 Fountain Hill Transit Feasibility Study was published. The 2014 study used ACS 5-year
estimates from 2011; in order to provide a complete “update” on employment statistics, this
section compares ACS 2011 data to ACS 2017 data.
Workers
Figure 2-1 compares the changes in the share of eligible workers and employed workers living in
Fountain Hills. Since 2011, the population of residents eligible to work has increased by 1,635
(8.29 percent). However, the number of employed workers in 2017 has remained at a similar level
as 2011. In 2011, nearly 55 percent of all eligible workers were employed, while in 2017 this
decreased by 50 percent.
Figure 2-1. Comparison of Eligible Workers and Employed Workers Living in
Fountain Hills
ACS 2011 ACS 2017 % Change
Workers 19,720 21,355 8.29%
Employed 10,768 10,698 -0.65%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011 and 2017 5-Year Estimates
Industry
Figure 2-2 compares the changes in industries that employ Fountain Hills residents. Notably, the
Information industry, decreased by 202 workers (-56.27 percent). An industry that shows notable
increase is Wholesale Trade, with an increase of 190 workers (95 percent increase).
Figure 2-2. Industries that Employ Fountain Hills Residents – ACS data
Industry ACS 2011 ACS 2017 % Change
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting,
and mining 16 0 -100.00%
Construction 714 562 -21.29%
Manufacturing 667 640 -4.05%
Wholesale trade 200 390 95.00%
Retail trade 1256 999 -20.46%
Transportation and warehousing, and
utilities 390 601 54.10%
Information 359 157 -56.27%
Employment Profile | 16
Finance and insurance, and real estate and
rental and leasing 1298 1,353 4.24%
Professional, scientific, and management,
and administrative and waste management
services
1285 1,584 23.27%
Educational services, and health care and
social assistance 2456 2,305 -6.15%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and
accommodation and food services 999 1,184 18.52%
Other services, except public
administration 722 575 -20.36%
Public administration 406 348 -14.29%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011 and 2017 5-Year Estimates.
Income
Figure 2-3 compares the changes in Annual Household Income of Fountain Hills residents.
Between 2011 and 2017, the most drastic change occurred in the “Less than $10,000” cohort,
which saw an increase of 347 people (357.73 percent increase). Other notable increases are
seen in the “$20,000 to $24,999” cohort with 228 people (63 percent increase), and the “$100,000
to $124,999” cohort with 417 (53.32 percent increase). A notable decrease of 360 (26.34 percent
decrease) is seen in the “$60,000 to $74,999” cohort. For the most part, there is a trend of
increase in each income cohort. As mentioned previously, lower income households often use
transit at a higher rate than others, an indication that there may be a growing need for transit in
the area.
Figure 2-3. Annual Household Income in Fountain Hills
Household Annual Income ACS 2011 ACS 2017 % Change
Less than $10,000 97 444 357.73%
$10,000 to $14,999 285 222 -22.11%
$15,000 to $19,999 427 370 -13.35%
$20,000 to $24,999 362 590 62.98%
$25,000 to $29,999 352 425 20.74%
$30,000 to $34,999 437 461 5.49%
$35,000 to $39,999 319 498 56.11%
$40,000 to $44,999 364 433 18.96%
$45,000 to $49,999 363 387 6.61%
$50,000 to $59,999 670 848 26.57%
$60,000 to $74,999 1,367 1,007 -26.34%
$75,000 to $99,999 1,457 1,676 15.03%
$100,000 to $124,999 782 1,199 53.32%
$125,000 to $149,999 818 779 -4.77%
$150,000 to $199,999 1,032 1,045 1.26%
$200,000 or more 898 1,293 43.99%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011 and 2017 5-Year Estimates.
Employment Profile | 17
Age of Workers
Figure 2-4 compares the age of employed workers in fountain hills. Between 2011 and 2017,
there has been considerable growth of workers in the 55 years and older and 65 years and over
populations, while all other age cohorts show decreases. This shows that increasingly retirement
age (55+) populations are working longer past the traditional retirement age or are working at
least partially during retirement. The most drastic decline is seen in the 24 to 44 age cohort, which
decreased by 66 percent.
Figure 2-4. Age of Employed Workers in Fountain Hills
Age ACS 2011 ACS 2017 % Change
16 to 19 years 331 323 -2.42%
20 to 24 years 660 224 -66.06%
25 to 44 years 3272 2765 -15.50%
45 to 54 years 2932 2821 -3.79%
55 to 59 years 1152 1737 50.78%
60 years to 64 years 1257 1227 -2.39%
65 years and over 893 1421 59.13%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011 and 2017 5-Year Estimates
Means of Transport to Work
Figure 2-5 compares the means of transport to work in Fountain Hills. There has been little change
in those who drive to work alone and those who carpool. Some of the most drastic changes are
seen in the population that takes public transit, telecommute and those who walk to work. In the
2014 study, the population that took public transit comprised of 33 workers (0.3 percent), and this
number has dropped to 3 workers in the 2017 ACS estimates (90.9 percent decrease). A further
discussion on public transit usage in Fountain Hills can be found in Chapter 4.
Likely a result of the increased employment and housing densities in the core of Fountain Hills,
there was an increase in the number of workers who walk to work (163.3 percent increase).
Additionally, there was a significant 30.2 percent increase in the population that telecommutes,
increasing to 1,581 people.
Figure 2-5. Means of Transport to Work in Fountain Hills
ACS 2011 ACS 2017 % Change
Drive Alone 8214 8156 -0.7%
Carpool 761 716 -5.9%
Public Transit 33 3 -90.9%
Telecommute 1214 1581 30.2%
Walk 79 208 163.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011 and 2017 5-Year Estimates.
Employment Profile | 18
EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS
This section provides an in-depth employment analysis primarily using 2015 Longitudinal
Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) data, via OnTheMap, a free web tool provided by the
U.S. Census Bureau. The most recent LEHD available is from 2015. This section also sources
ACS 5-year estimates from 2011 and 2017. Each section below includes an analysis of:
• Employed Fountain Hills residents – the employment locations and characteristics of all
workers living in Fountain Hills, including workers employed in Fountain Hills and outside the
Town.
• Workers employed in Fountain Hills - the residential locations and employment characteristics
of all workers employed in Fountain Hills, including residents and non-residents.
Age of Workers – Employed Fountain Hills residents
The largest age cohort of workers living in Fountain Hills is ages 30 to 54, comprising of
approximately 48 percent of the total. The second largest age cohort to follow is ages 55 or older,
comprising of 36.1 percent of the total (Figure 2-6). All age cohorts have high density clusters in
downtown Fountain Hills, and are dispersed throughout the Town. The most dispersed cohort is
the Age 55 or older cohort (see Figure 2-7).
Employment Profile | 19
Figure 2-6. Ages of workers living in Fountain Hills
Age Range Count Share
Age 29 or younger 1,362 15.90%
Age 30 to 54 4,105 48.00%
Age 55 or older 3,086 36.10%
Source: Census Bureau, LEHD 2015 Estimates
Figure 2-7. Age Cohorts of Employed Fountain Residents
Employment Profile | 20
Source: Census Bureau, LEHD 2015 Estimates
Age of Workers – Workers employed in Fountain Hills
The largest age cohort of workers employed in Fountain Hills is ages 30 to 54 and 55 or older,
comprising of 48.5 percent and 28.3 percent respectively (Figure 2-8). The highest density cluster
for all age cohorts is located in downtown Fountain Hills, with other significant clusters located in
the southern areas of the Town (see Figure 2-9).
Employment Profile | 21
Figure 2-8. Ages of workers employed in Fountain Hills
Age Range Count Share
Age 29 or younger 949 23.20%
Age 30 to 54 1,988 48.50%
Age 55 or older 1,162 28.30%
Source: Census Bureau, LEHD 2015 Estimates
Figure 2-9. Age Cohorts of Fountain Hills Workers
Source: Census Bureau, LEHD 2015 Estimates
Employment Profile | 22
Income of Workers – Employed Fountain Hills residents
Of 8,553 employed residents, over 50 percent can be classified in a high income cohort (earning
more than $3,333 per month) (Figure 2-10). Since this analysis does not consider household size
and number of workers per household, the income cohorts are not necessarily indicative of the
socioeconomic status of the residents. Residential locations for all income groups are dispersed
across the town, with highest density cluster located in downtown Fountain Hills. Lower-income
groups tend to cluster around the downtown area moving northward, while middle- and higher-
income groups have higher density clusters south of the downtown area (Figure 2-11).
Employment Profile | 23
Figure 2-10. Income of workers living in Fountain Hills
Income Range Count Share
$1,250 per month or less (Lower income) 1,645 19.20%
$1,251 to $3,333 per month (Middle income) 2,367 27.70%
More than $3,333 per month (Higher income) 4,541 53.10%
Source: Census Bureau, LEHD 2015 Estimates
Figure 2-11. Income Cohorts of Employed Fountain Hills Residents
Source: Census Bureau, LEHD 2015 Estimates
Employment Profile | 24
Income of Workers – Workers employed in Fountain Hills
Of all Fountain Hills, 35.5 percent workers fall into a middle income cohort (earning between
$1,251 to $3,333 per month) (Figure 2-12). There is little variance in between cohorts, indicating
mixed-income employment in the Town. Similar to the Home area analyses, work locations for all
income groups are clustered around downtown Fountain Hills and extend south (Figure 2-13).
Employment Profile | 25
Figure 2-12. Income of workers employed in Fountain Hills
Income Range Count Share
$1,250 per month or less (Lower income) 1,196 29.20%
$1,251 to $3,333 per month (Middle income) 1,455 35.50%
More than $3,333 per month (Higher income) 1,448 35.30%
Source: Census Bureau, LEHD 2015 Estimates
Figure 2-13. Income Cohorts of Fountain Hills Workers
Source: Census Bureau, LEHD 2015 Estimates
Employment Profile | 26
Industry – Employed Fountain Hills residents
Highlighted in Figure 2-14 below, over half (52 percent) of the industries that employ Fountain
Hills workers are made up of a mix of professional services, education and service industry jobs.
The Health Care and Social Assistance industry is the largest employer of Fountain Hills
residents, with approximately 1,344 (15.7 percent) employees. This correlates with the high-
density job location cluster located at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, as shown in Figure 2-15. The
second largest employer is the “Retail Trade” industry, with 998 (11.7 percent) employees.
Employees in the Retail Trade industry are concentrated in downtown Fountain Hills. Traditionally,
retail workers earn low income, and when comparing Fountain Hills ACS income and industry
data, there is a correlation of residents earning a low income residents working in the Retail Trade
industry living the in the same area.
Figure 2-14. Industries that employ Fountain Hills residents
Industry Count Share
Health Care and Social Assistance 1,344 15.7%
Retail Trade 998 11.7%
Accommodation and Food Services 733 8.6%
Administration & Support, Waste Management and
Remediation 704 8.2%
Educational Services 663 7.8%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 634 7.4%
Finance and Insurance 618 7.2%
Wholesale Trade 451 5.3%
Manufacturing 409 4.8%
Construction 322 3.8%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 297 3.5%
Transportation and Warehousing 277 3.2%
Public Administration 276 3.2%
Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 240 2.8%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 205 2.4%
Information 187 2.2%
Management of Companies and Enterprises 105 1.2%
Utilities 65 0.8%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 21 0.2%
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 4 0.0%
Source: Census Bureau, LEHD 2015 Estimates
Employment Profile | 27
Figure 2-15. Industry Cohorts of Fountain Hills Residents
Source: Census Bureau, LEHD 2015 Estimates
Industry – Workers employed in Fountain Hills
Highlighted in Figure 2-16 below, over half (58 percent) of the industries that employ Fountain
Hills workers are made up of a mix of professional and technical services, education and service
industry jobs. The industries with the highest share of workers in Fountain Hills are the “Retail
Trade” industry, with 745 (18.2 percent) employees, followed by Accommodation and Food
Services with 651 (15.9 percent) employees. These two service industries make up 34 percent of
the jobs in Fountain Hills and are primarily located in downtown Fountain Hills. Retail also has
Employment Profile | 28
large clusters in southern Fountain Hills along Shea Boulevard (Figure 2-17). Health Care jobs
are clustered in the downtown area, but are also generally dispersed across the town.
Figure 2-16. Industries that Employ Fountain Hills Workers
Industry Count Share
Retail Trade 745 18.2%
Accommodation and Food Services 651 15.9%
Health Care and Social Assistance 494 12.1%
Educational Services 471 11.5%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 311 7.6%
Construction 224 5.5%
Wholesale Trade 199 4.9%
Finance and Insurance 175 4.3%
Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 174 4.2%
Administration & Support, Waste Management and
Remediation 172 4.2%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 141 3.4%
Manufacturing 98 2.4%
Public Administration 76 1.9%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 60 1.5%
Information 50 1.2%
Utilities 48 1.2%
Transportation and Warehousing 8 0.2%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 1 0.0%
Management of Companies and Enterprises 1 0.0%
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 0 0.0%
Source: Census Bureau, LEHD 2015 Estimates
Employment Profile | 29
Figure 2-17. Industry Cohort of Fountain Hills Workers
Source: Census Bureau, LEHD 2015 Estimates
COMMUTE PATTERNS
As of 2017, 6,644 Fountain Hills residents work outside of the Town and 1,031 Fountain Hills
residents worked within the Town. 2,720 workers who live outside the Town commute to Fountain
Hills for work. (Figure 2-18)
Employment Profile | 30
Figure 2-18. Inflow/Outflow Job Counts for Fountain Hills, 2017
Source: Census Bureau, LEHD 2017 Estimates
Commute Patterns – Fountain Hills Residents
As of 2015, there are 8,553 employed residents living in Fountain Hills, of which 1,362 (15.9
percent) work in the Town, and 4,574 collectively work in Phoenix (30.6 percent) and Scottsdale
(22.9 percent) (Figure 2-19). Within Fountain Hills, there is a high density cluster of jobs located
in the downtown area, and smaller clusters located in the western portion of the town (Figure
2-21). From a regional perspective, 88.4 percent (7,564) working residents travel up to 25 miles
westward to neighboring cities, with large job clusters in Scottsdale, Phoenix, Mesa, and Tempe
(Figure 2-22). In Scottsdale, a large cluster of Fountain Hills residents’ employment is located at
The Mayo Clinic.
Figure 2-19. Location for Fountain Hills Working-Residents
Count Share
Total Primary Jobs 8,553 100.0%
Phoenix city, AZ 2,616 30.6%
Scottsdale city, AZ 1,958 22.9%
Fountain Hills town, AZ 1,362 15.9%
Tempe city, AZ 711 8.3%
Mesa, AZ 525 6.1%
Chandler, AZ 173 2.0%
Glendale, AZ 108 1.3%
Town of Gilbert, AZ 107 1.3%
Tucson city, AZ 80 0.9%
Peoria city, AZ 54 0.6%
All Other Locations 859 10.0%
Source: Census Bureau, LEHD 2015 Estimates
Figure 2-20. Work Commute Distance Share for Fountain Hills Residents
Employment Profile | 31
Count Share
Total Private Primary Jobs 7,675 100.0%
Less than 10 miles 1,984 25.9%
10 to 24 miles 4,658 60.7%
25 to 50 miles 571 7.4%
Greater than 50 miles 462 6.0%
Source: Census Bureau, LEHD 2017 Estimates
Employment Profile | 32
Figure 2-21. Pattern of Locations Where Fountain Hills Residents Work, Local
View
Source: Census Bureau, LEHD 2015 Estimates
Employment Profile | 33
Figure 2-22. Pattern of Locations Where Fountain Hills Residents work, Regional
View
Source: Census Bureau, LEHD 2015 Estimates
Employment Profile | 34
Commute Patterns – Workers employed in Fountain Hills
Of the 4,099 workers employed in Fountain Hills, a majority (66.8 percent) of workers commute
from cities west and south of Fountain Hills. 77 percent (3,158) of the workers commute up to 25
miles one-way for work. Workers commuting into Fountain Hills specifically from Phoenix, Mesa,
and Scottsdale comprise 35.2 percent (1,441) of Fountain Hills workers (Figure 2-23). Roughly
33 percent of workers are also Fountain Hills residents, a large cluster of which live in downtown
Fountain Hills (Figure 2-25 and Figure 2-26).
Figure 2-23. Distribution of Home Location for Workers Employed in Fountain
Hills
Count Share
Total Primary Jobs 4,099 100.0%
Fountain Hills town, AZ 1,362 33.2%
Phoenix city, AZ 605 14.8%
Mesa city, AZ 484 11.8%
Scottsdale city, AZ 352 8.6%
Gilbert town, AZ 152 3.7%
Chandler city, AZ 88 2.1%
Glendale city, AZ 77 1.9%
Tempe city, AZ 76 1.9%
Tucson city, AZ 61 1.5%
Surprise city, AZ 58 1.4%
All Other Locations 784 19.1%
Source: Census Bureau, LEHD 2015 Estimates
Figure 2-24. Work Commute Distance Share for Fountain Hills Workers
Count Share
Total Private Primary Jobs 3,751 100.0%
Less than 10 miles 1,311 35.0%
10 to 24 miles 1,484 39.6%
25 to 50 miles 643 17.1%
Greater than 50 miles 313 8.3%
Source: Census Bureau, LEHD 2017 Estimates
Employment Profile | 35
Figure 2-25. Residential patterns of workers employed in Fountain Hills, Local
View
Source: Census Bureau, LEHD 2015 Estimates
Employment Profile | 36
Figure 2-26. Residential patterns of workers employed in Fountain Hills, Regional
View
Source: Census Bureau, LEHD 2015 Estimates
Employment Profile | 37
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Based on the demographics and land use analysis conducted, the Town of Fountain Hills can be
described as a low-density suburban residential community with local employment industries.
Employment activity within Fountain Hills is heavily centered in and around the downtown area,
with some activity centers to the southern and western areas of the town. Fountain Hills residents
that commute to work outside of the Town are typically travelling westward to regional
employment centers located in Scottsdale and Phoenix, while a majority of workers employed
within Fountain Hills are commuting from southern and western cities. It is also important to note
that while a majority of Fountain Hills residents that are commuting out of the Town are from
middle- to high-income groups, workers that are commuting to Fountain Hills work predominantly
in service industry jobs and are of a lower-income group. This is a group that could potentially
take advantage of regular public transit service connecting to Fountain Hills. As of 2019, the only
transit service in the Town is Express Route 514, a commuter route two AM outbound and two
PM inbound trips that transport passengers to westward regional employment centers. There is
currently no transit service that serves workers commuting to Fountain Hills for work. Increasing
transit options would benefit Fountain Hills’ growing low-income resident and worker cohorts.
Land Uses | 38
3. LAND USES
EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USES
Transportation and land use are directly related – the greater the presence and proximity of
compatible land uses, the greater the inclination to use alternative modes of transportation such
as transit, walking, and biking. Transit and land use create synergy when there is a sufficient mix
of land uses such as residential, mixed-use, commercial, office, retail, and open space (i.e. parks).
This type of mix creates places where people want to travel to and from. Existing and future land
uses in the study area are illustrated in Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2, respectively. Both of these
datasets reside with MAG, the existing representing 2017 land uses conditions and future
representing build-out land use conditions with no particular date assigned.
Land Uses | 39
Figure 3-1. Existing Land Use (2017)
Land Uses | 40
Figure 3-2. Future Land Use (not dated)
Land Uses | 41
Downtown Vision Plan
The Fountain Hills Downtown Vision Plan was developed in 2009. The plan envisions the future
of the downtown area and identifies key ingredients, including:
• Key districts
• Compact Development
• Integrated Mixed-Use
• Green Streets
• Friendly sidewalks
• Brand Identity
• Destination Program
The key ingredients of the Downtown Vision Plan work in tandem with transit services to provide
residents with a downtown the supports connectivity, accessibility and livability. Over the past few
years, the Town has implemented elements of the Downtown Vision Plan. The Town Council
directed staff to gather information and begin the discussion of installing roundabouts on the
Avenue of the Fountains at major intersections. The Town constructed its first bus shelter and
designated park-and-ride, located at the Town Hall, Library and Community Center on La
Montana Dr and El Lago Blvd. The Park Place multifamily, multiuse development located on the
Avenue of the Fountains west of Saguaro Blvd and Fountain Park has also been constructed.
The residential units appear to be mostly occupied, and the commercial storefronts on the first
floor are beginning to be filled as well. The land closest to Saguaro Blvd remains vacant, but
developers are planning to build similar multiuse/multifamily units for this area.
Activity Centers
After work and home, activity centers are the next most common origins and destinations for
transit trips. Activity centers include shopping centers, educational facilities, major employers,
medical facilities, and civic facilities. As the facilities identified below represent destinations
frequently accessed by Town residents, understanding their geographic distribution helps in the
development of transit services most beneficial to the Town. For the purpose of this analysis,
major destinations include shopping centers, community facilities, schools, medical centers,
senior living facilities, and key employers. Activity centers were identified by drawing on MAG
activity data, as well as input from Town of Fountain Hills staff. Examples of activity centers in the
study area the Palisades Plaza, Fountain Hills Plaza, Downtown Fountain Hills, Community
Center, Golden Eagle Park, Fountain Hills School District schools, and the Mayo Clinic, just to
name a few. Figure 3-3 through
Figure 3-7 list major activity centers in Fountain Hills by activity type. Figure 3-8 depicts the
distribution of activity centers through the town.
Land Uses | 42
Figure 3-3. Commercial Shopping Centers in Fountain Hills
Shopping center/anchor Location
Palisades Plaza / Safeway Fountain Hills and Palisades Boulevards
Town Center I
Includes all businesses bordered by Palisades Blvd, Fountain
Hills Blvd, Avendia Vida Buena, La Montana Dr and Avenue
of the Fountains
Fountain Hills Plaza / Bashas’ Palisades Blvd and La Montana Drive
Downtown Fountain Hills Includes all businesses bordered by Saguaro Blvd, Palisades
Blvd, La Montana Dr, and Avenue of the Fountains
Four Peaks Plaza / Target Located on Shea Blvd just west of Saguaro Blvd
Eagle Mountain Village Plaza / Fry’s On Shea Blvd at the southwest edge of Fountain Hills
Figure 3-4. Community Facilities in Fountain Hills
Facility Address
Community Center 13001 N La Montana Dr
Library 12901 N. La Montana Dr
Post Office 16605 E. Avenue of the Fountains
Town Hall 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains
Fire Station 1 16246 E. Palisades Blvd
Fire Station 2 10650 N. Fountain Hills Blvd
Boys & Girls Club 14605 N. Del Cambre
Golden Eagle Park 15680 E. Golden Eagle Blvd
Fountain Park 12925 N. Saguaro Blvd
Desert Vista Park 11800 N. Desert Vista
Four Peaks Park 13700 N. Fountain Hills Blvd
Adero Canyon Trailhead 14800 N. Eagle Ridge Drive
Golden Eagle Trailhead 14425 E. Golden Eagle Blvd
Land Uses | 43
Figure 3-5. Schools in Fountain Hills
Public Schools Address Enrollment
Fountain Hills High School 16100 E. Palisades Blvd 557
Fountain Hills Middle School 15414 N McDowell
Mountain Rd 353
McDowell Mountain Elementary School 14825 N. Fayette Drive 402
Anasazi Elementary school 12121 N 124th St,
Scottsdale, AZ 570
Mountainside Middle School 11256 N 128th St,
Scottsdale, AZ Not available
Desert Mountain High School 12575 E Vía Linda,
Scottsdale, AZ 2244
Fountain Hills Charter School 16811 E. El Pueblo Blvd 116
Basis Charter School-Scottsdale Primary East (5-12) 10400 N 128th St,
Scottsdale, AZ 739
Basis Charter School-Scottsdale Primary West (K-4) 7496 E. Tierra Buena Ln.
Scottsdale, AZ Not available
East Valley Institute of Technology Vocational Center 14615 N. Del Cambre
Avenue Not available
Enrollment source: Public Schools Review, 2019
Figure 3-6. Medical Facilities in Fountain Hills
Hospitals/Medical Centers Address
Mayo Clinic 13400 E. Shea Blvd, Scottsdale, AZ
Scottsdale Healthcare Shea Medical Center 9003 E. Shea Blvd, Scottsdale, AZ
Fountain Hills Medical Campus 16605 E. Palisades Blvd, Suite 150
Fountain Hills Family Practice, P.C. 16838 E. Palisades Blvd, Building C, Suite 153
Fountain Hills Pediatrics & Internal Medicine 13620 N. Saguaro Blvd, #50
Sunrise Assisted Living 14654 del Cambre Ave
Fountain View Village 16455 E. Avenue of the Fountains
Desert Paradise Assisted Home 17409 E. San Marcos
Fountain Hills Manor 14280 N. Fountain Hills Blvd
Sunflower Assisted Living Home 16312 E. Crystal Point Dr
MorningStar Assisted Living & Memory Care 16800 E. Paul Nordin Pkwy
Tucson Manor Assisted Living 16948 E. Windchime Dr
El Pueblo Assisted Living 14030 N. El Pueblo Blvd
Land Uses | 44
Figure 3-7. Major Employers in Fountain Hills
Employer Address Approximate Number of
Employees
Fountain Hills Unified School
District 16100 E. Palisades Blvd 321
Rural Metro Corporation 16426 E Palisades Blvd 111
Firerock Country Club LLC 16000 E Firerock Country
Club Dr 100
Target Stores Inc. 16825 E Shea Blvd 98
Safeway Stores Inc. 13733 N Fountain Hills Blvd 95
We-Ko-Pa Resort and
Conference Center 10438 Wekopa Way Unknown
Fort McDowell Casino 10424 N. Fort McDowell
Road Unknown
Fry’s Food Stores 14845 E Shea Blvd 85
Bashas Inc 16605 E Palisades Blvd 75
Eagle Mountain Golf Club 14915 E Eagle Mountain
Pkwy 70
United States Postal Service 16605 E Ave of Fountains 65
Town of Fountain Hills 16705 East Avenue of the
Fountains 61
Palm Valley Golf Club 13100 N Sunridge Dr 59
Land Uses | 45
Figure 3-8. Fountain Hills Activity Centers (2019)
Transit Services | 46
4. TRANSIT SERVICES
EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE OPTIONS
Fountain Hills is connected to the regional transit system via limited stop, peak hour express bus
service. Additionally, Fountain Hill’s residents who are seniors or people with disabilities have the
option to use RideChoice or the Give A Lift program for rides. This chapter will provide a review
of the existing transit service options and provides the implementation status of transit service
recommendations from the 2014 Study.
514 – Scottsdale Express
History of the Route
In 2012, Valley Metro Express Routes 510 (Scottsdale Express) and 512 (Scottsdale/Fountain
Hills Express) were consolidated to create the new Route 514 Express. The number of trips
serving Fountain Hills stayed the same with this reconfiguration - two inbound/AM trips and two
outbound/PM trips. The consolidation of Express Routes was part of a network-wide effort to
streamline service, reduce travel time and grow ridership by removing Express routes from slow-
moving, congested arterial roadways to higher-speed freeways. Additionally, the 514 Express
route consolidation removed a duplication of service with the SR-51 RAPID route.
Ridership Analysis
Currently the Route 514 carries approximately 61 riders a day (Figure 4-1) and Fountain Hills
accounts for four of the rides (Figure 4-2).
Transit Services | 47
Figure 4-3 shows that transit ridership in Fountain Hills on Routes 512 and 514 have declined for
more than a decade. There are a few trends worth noting. The ridership on the Route 512 began
to tick upward after 2009, presumably due to onset and impacts of the Great Recession. There
was a significant bump in ridership in 2013, after routes 512 and 510 were consolidated to create
the Route 514. However, ridership plummeted the following year in 2014 and the downward trend
continued in 2015. After 2015, the ridership started ticking upward very slightly. When comparing
the Fountain Hills ridership trend line to the rise and fall of gas prices during the same period, it
shows a very similar trend line with the entire route 514 ridership and all Express routes, making
the case that there is a strong relationship between gas prices and ridership on Express route
transit service. As shown in Figure 4-4, the higher gas prices rise, the more willing residents are
to ride transit. However, as gas prices began to rise again from a low in 2015, the uptick in transit
ridership does not appear as strong. The ridership on all Express routes has continued to go down
as gas prices rise. However, ridership on the route 514 has increased slightly for the last couple
years. To understand the relationship between gas prices and transit ridership more fully and
project the future ridership trends, the analysis needs to be expanded to include the impacts of
inflation and consumer pricing.
Transit Services | 48
Figure 4-1. Total Average Daily Boardings Per Trip on Route 514 (October 2018
Sign-Up)
Trip Total Average Daily Riders (October 2018)
AM Outbound 1: 5:34-7:04AM 8
AM Outbound 2: 6:16-7:46AM 22
PM Inbound 1: 4:42-6:18PM 18
PM Inbound 2: 5:12-6:48PM 13
Total 61
Figure 4-2. Total Average Daily Boardings at Each Bus Stop on the Route 514
Location Average Daily Boardings (October 2018)
Fountain Hills 4
Palisades Bl & La Montana Dr 2
Palisades Blvd & El Lago Blvd 2
Maricopa County 5
SCC Park N Ride Outer Circle 5
Phoenix 29
3rd St & Roosevelt St 1
52nd St & McDowell Rd 2
5th St & Van Buren St 4
Central Ave & Adams St 1
Central Ave & Jefferson St 2
Central Ave & Van Buren St 4
Eb Jefferson St Ns 17th Ave 2
Jefferson St & 15th Ave 3
Jefferson St & 3rd Ave 7
Jefferson St & 5th Ave 1
Jefferson St & 7th Ave 1
McDowell Rd & 52nd St 1
Washington St & 1st Ave 0
Scottsdale 23
90th St & Mountain View Rd 0
90th St & San Victor Dr 0
90th St & Shea Blvd 1
E McDowell Rd & N 70th St 1
E McDowell Rd & N Hayden Rd 3
McDowell Rd & Galvin Pkwy 0
McDowell Rd & Granite Reef Rd 0
McDowell Rd & Hayden Rd 5
McDowell Rd & Scottsdale Rd 8
Palisades Blvd & Eagle Ridge Dr 2
Shea Blvd & 92nd St 2
Transit Services | 49
Figure 4-3. Fountain Hills Ridership on Routes 512 and 514 from FY06-FY18
Figure 4-4. Comparison of Gas Prices and Transit Ridership Trends from FY06 to
FY19
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
FY06
(512)
FY07
(512)
FY08
(512)
FY09
(512)
FY10
(512)
FY11
(512)
FY12
(512)
FY13
(514)
FY14
(514)
FY15
(514)
FY16
(514)
FY17
(514)
FY18
(514)
Transit Services | 50
Route 514 Costs and Funding
Regional funding for public transportation is often referred to as Proposition 400 dollars, TLCP
dollars, the public transportation fund (PTF), etc. These references are to the Maricopa County
half-cent sales tax passed through Proposition 400, a third of which goes to the public
transportation fund, with a portion for bus and another for rail. Since 2006, Routes 510, 512, and
514 were all funded using entirely PTF funds. In the latest FY19 cost reconciliation, the total net
cost of the Route 514 is $222,715 (Figure 4-5).
Figure 4-5. Route 514 Net Cost Breakdown by Jurisdiction
City Funding Net Cost
Fountain Hills RPTA $34,073
Phoenix RPTA $62,145
SRPMIC RPTA $54,125
Scottsdale RPTA $72,371
Total $222,715
RideChoice
RideChoice is a Valley Metro on-demand cab voucher service that is offered to ADA paratransit
certified people with disabilities and seniors age 65 and above residing in Fountain Hills.
RideChoice costs $3 for each trip up to eight miles, with any additional miles costing $2 per mile
and residents can take up to 20 trips per month. Wheelchair accessible taxi service is made
available at no additional cost.
RideChoice was implemented in Fountain Hills in July 2015. Fountain Hills is one of the smaller,
if not the smallest, RideChoice programs in the region, however the program has seen steady
growth since implementation. Figure 4-6 shows the annual number of RideChoice trips completed
by Fountain Hills residents and growth of ridership year over year. The number of one-way
RideChoice trips has grown 126 percent since FY15. As projected in the 2014 Study, many
Fountain Hills customers use RideChoice to travel to the Mayo Clinic for medical appointments,
and to Mustang Transit Center to connect to the region’s public transit network. The Town’s
Arizona Lottery Fund funds the RideChoice trips for the Town’s residents (Figure 4-7 and Figure
4-8).
Figure 4-6. RideChoice Ridership by Fountain Hills Residents
Year Total # of trips % Increase in trips
FY15 225
FY16 321 43%
FY17 395 23%
FY18 400 1%
FY19 509 27%
Source: Valley Metro RideChoice Data FY15-19
Figure 4-7. Fountain Hills Resident RideChoice Trips – Pick-Up Areas
Transit Services | 51
Source: Valley Metro RideChoice Data FY19
Transit Services | 52
Figure 4-8. Fountain Hills Resident RideChoice Trips – Drop-Off Areas
Source: Valley Metro RideChoice Data FY19
Transit Services | 53
Give A Lift
The Give A Lift program is a program that matches seniors and people with disabilities with
volunteer drivers who can provide rides to the grocery store and medical appointments. Give a
Lift was created in 2009 in response to Maricopa County eliminating the Special Transportation
Services (STS) transportation program, which served a similar purpose, and is managed by the
Town’s volunteer coordinator. As of 2019, there are approximately 120 rides provided every
month. However, there is no fixed ridership estimate because many riders establish friendships
with the volunteer drivers and directly contact them instead of the program coordinator to schedule
rides. Consequently, it is estimated that an additional 50 “unrecorded” rides are provided every
month. The program currently has a pool of over 890 riders, of which 250 are active riders. There
are 38 drivers in the winter, and 20 in the summer, due to low ridership during the summer months.
Many seniors and people with disabilities in the Town use a combination of RideChoice and Give-
A-Lift for transportation needs, typically using Give-a-Lift for short in-town trips and save
RideChoice for longer trips because of the cost structure.
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE 2014 FOUNTAIN HILLS STUDY
The 2014 Fountain Hills Transit Feasibility Study studied the Town of Fountain Hills’ existing and
projected population dynamics to assess its transit needs, and proposed seven potential service
option recommendations for consideration:
1. Doubling the number of trips made by Express Route 514 (the only Valley Metro route
currently serving the Town of Fountain Hills)
2. Extending the Route 80 from its current peak period stop at the Mayo Clinic to the Target
shopping plaza in Fountain Hills
3. Implementation of a new community connector shuttle service (three options were developed)
4. Joining the Valley Metro RideChoice program
5. Purchasing vans for the Fountain Hills Activity Center to use for transporting community
members locally as available
6. Enhancing Park-and-Ride as a commuting option
7. Pre-scheduled Shuttle Service Option
The 2014 Study included an additional recommendation to encourage Town residents to join the
Valley Metro ShareTheRide program, which allows commuters to find carpools and vanpools that
suit their time and destination needs. Of all these proposed transportation option
recommendations, two were fully implemented. While the Town was keen on implementing other
recommendations, obtaining the necessary funding was a challenge and resulted in the lack of
implementation of some transit service recommendations. Another challenge, particularly in terms
of modifying existing routes 514 and 80 was low ridership and lacking support by neighboring
cities that these routes operate in and are financed by.
Transit Services | 54
Figure 4-9. Implementation Status of 2014 Fountain Hills Transit Feasibility Study
Recommendations
Recommendations Implementation Status
Doubling the number of trips made by Express Route 514 Not Implemented
Extending the Route 80 from its current peak period stop at the
Mayo Clinic to the Target shopping plaza in Fountain Hills Not Implemented
Implementation of a new community connector shuttle service Not Implemented
Joining the Valley Metro RideChoice program Implemented
Purchasing vans for the Fountain Hills Activity Center to use for
transporting community members locally as available Modified Implementation
Enhancing Park-and-Ride as a commuting option Implemented
Pre-scheduled Shuttle Service Option Not Implemented
Option 1: Doubling the number of trips made by Express Route 514 – Not Implemented
The only fixed-route transit service currently available in the Town is Route 514, an express route
that consists of two morning and two afternoon trips from Palisades Blvd and La Montana Drive
in Fountain Hills to Downtown Phoenix. Since it is an Express service, it only stops at the Fountain
Hills Library Park-and-Ride on La Montana Dr and Parkview Ave (
Transit Services | 55
Figure 4-10). The 2014 study proposed doubling the number of trips to four morning and four
afternoon trips to meet the Valley Metro Transit Standards and Performance Measures (TSPM)
standard for limited stop express service. Increasing the trips could attract new transit users who
wish to arrive in Phoenix later and return home later in the evening than is possible with the current
service. However, it would double the cost to operate the route. If the cities of Scottsdale and
Phoenix are not willing to fund their portion of the additional trips, Fountain Hills would have to
cover the entire cost of adding the additional trips.
This option was not implemented due to several reasons. Riders have complained that the travel
time from Fountain Hills to Phoenix takes too long and the route operates on local arterials when
it could travel on a freeway. Due to these reasons and low ridership on the route, there is a lack
of interest from neighboring cities (Scottsdale, Phoenix) in increasing the number of trips on the
Route 514. The City of Scottsdale also proposed to eliminate the route 514 in 2018 due to the
ridership, but the public and riders pushed back on the proposal to eliminate the route. Going
forward, Valley Metro has committed to continue evaluating route 514 modifications that can save
time and better serve riders. Additionally, there is a desire to better market the service to Fountain
Hills residents.
Transit Services | 56
Figure 4-10. Route 514 Scottsdale Express
Option 2: Extending the Route 80 from its current peak period stop at the Mayo Clinic to the Target shopping plaza in Fountain Hills – Not Implemented
In 2014, Route 80 provided service to Glendale, Phoenix, and Scottsdale, where it stopped at 90th
St and Shea Blvd. The Route 80 weekday peak service offered four morning and four afternoon
trips that deviated to the Mayo Clinic. The 2014 Study proposed extending the weekday peak
service to the Target store located at intersection of Shea and Saguaro Boulevards in Fountain
Hills. The proposed extension would also add eight trips to Fountain Hills on Saturdays and
Sundays. This recommendation would bring another transit service route into Fountain Hills, and
better connect The Town to the greater regional transit network, especially for those commuting
into the Town for work and are not currently served by fixed route transit options.
Option 2 was not implemented because the City of Scottsdale discontinued Route 80 deviated
trips to the Mayo Clinic starting October 2018 (Figure 4-11). This was one of several cost-saving
measures to allocate local funds for the city of Scottsdale’s local circulator routes. Discontinuing
the extension to the Mayo Clinic means that any extension to Fountain Hills would start at 90th
Transit Services | 57
St/Shea Blvd. Scottsdale may also not financially support the extension, placing additional
financial burden on Fountain Hills to add the service to Fountain Hills
Figure 4-11. Route 80 Northern Ave/Shea Blvd
Option 3: Implementation of a new community connector shuttle service – Not implemented
A community connector is a locally-funded circulator service typically used to provide connections
to local destinations or to regional transit services. The 2014 study proposed three circulator route
alignment alternatives that could connect Fountain Hills to different areas of the regional transit
network. Alternative 1 (Figure 4-12) would provide four daily peak period round trips from
Transit Services | 58
Downtown Fountain Hills to the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale. Weekend trips would extend to 90th
St/Shea Blvd to connect riders to the regional transit network. Since the Route 80 no longer serves
the Mayo Clinic, this service option will need to be updated to include weekday trips to the
Mustang Transit Center.
Figure 4-12. Alternative 1
Alternative 2 (Figure 4-13) is shorter and would provide service from Saguaro Blvd/Shea Blvd to
the Mayo Clinic. Similar to Alternative 1, it would provide four daily peak period round trips, and
weekend trips would extend to 90th St/Shea Blvd to connect riders to the regional transit network.
However, unlike Alternative 1, it lacks connection to residential areas in Fountain Hills. This
recommendation will also need to be updated to extend service to the Mustang Transit Center.
Transit Services | 59
Figure 4-13. Alternative 2
Alternative 3 (Figure 4-14) is designed to serve as a direct connection to the regional light rail
and bus network, and it extends from Downtown Fountain Hills, travels south on the Beeline
Highway to the Sycamore/Main St Light Rail Station, with possible routing to the new Country
Club or Gilbert Road light rail stations. Alternative 3 would offer four morning inbound and four
afternoon outbound trips, seven days a week.
Transit Services | 60
Figure 4-14. Alternative 3
Transit Services | 61
All of these local circulator alternatives provide connections to the regional transit network, and
Alternatives 1 and 2 can would also connect Fountain Hills residents to local destinations within
the Town. These recommended community connector routes were not implemented because
Fountain Hills was not able to allocate funding to add the service.
Option 4: Joining the Valley Metro RideChoice program – Implemented
The 2014 Study found that seniors (ages 65 and older) accounted for a quarter of the Fountain
Hills’ population, and they were the fastest growing age cohort in the Town. Additionally, 8.6
percent of the population in 2011 was disabled. Due to the lack of local fixed-route transit services,
there are no paratransit services available in the Town. Therefore, the study recommended that
Fountain Hills join Valley Metro’s RideChoice program - an affordable, on-demand taxi service
available to eligible seniors and people with disabilities. Customers can take up to 20 trips per
month and may qualify for additional trips for work, school or medical appointments. RideChoice
customers pay $3 for each trip up to eight miles, with any additional miles costing $2 per mile.
Wheelchair-accessible service is available within RideChoice for no additional charge.
The primary drawback to this recommendation is that RideChoice only serves the transit needs
of eligible seniors or ADA paratransit certified people, and people who are not part of these groups
cannot qualify to participate in the RideChoice program. Additionally, RideChoice is ideal for short
trips (under 8 miles), and if trips are typically longer than 8 miles the cost to travel increases. The
nearest medical facility to Fountain Hills is the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, which is at least 12 miles
away from the Town. The nearest service to connect residents to the regional transit network is
also at least 12 miles away.
Option 5: Purchasing vans for the Fountain Hills Activity Center to use for transporting community members locally as available – Modified Implementation
The study recommended that the Town provide the Fountain Hills Activity Center with a commuter
van for transporting community members locally. The operators would be volunteer drivers in
order to minimize operating costs. The Town would shoulder all costs related to this option, as
well as program creation, administration, marketing and maintaining a volunteer base of operator
and schedulers, etc.
This option had a modified implementation. Fountain Hills has a similar volunteer-based shuttle
service called Give-a-Lift, a volunteer-based service that provides transportation to seniors,
people with disabilities, or disadvantaged community members to medical appointments, grocery
shopping and other needs. Give-a-Lift serves a similar purpose as the recommendation, but since
it only serves a select group of people, we have listed it as a modified implementation.
Option 6: Enhancing Park-and-Ride as a commuting option – Implemented
Park-and-ride lots are centralized locations where commuters can park their vehicles and transfer
to transit services and alternative commute modes, such as carpooling or vanpooling. According
Transit Services | 62
to the 2014 Study, commuters who use Route 514 typically boarded at a stop adjacent to a parking
lot facility in downtown Fountain Hills. This created an opportunity for the town to create a park-
and-ride facility that serves existing riders and attracts new riders from within and outside Fountain
Hills. The 2014 Study recommended enhanced signage, changes to the parking area to meet
Park-and-ride requirements, and marketing the facility and public transit to the public to encourage
usage of both.
This recommendation was implemented, and a Park-and-Ride facility was opened in March 2019
near the Fountain Hills library (Figure 4-15). A bus-stop along La Montana Drive was replaced
with a new bus stop near the Park-and-Ride for Route 514 to pick-up and drop-off commuters.
Valley Metro marketed the new facility to the public via social media posts and signage posted a
week prior to the opening at the old stop and the new location.
The opening of the Park-and-Ride coincides with an increase in ridership for Route 514. Overall,
Route 514 ridership has increased over the past couple years. The ridership at the Fountain Hills
Park-and-Ride stop (went up, went down?) after the new Park-and-Ride opened.
Figure 4-15. Fountain Hills Park-and-Ride facility
Transit Services | 63
Option 7: Pre-scheduled Shuttle Service Option – Not Implemented
The final option recommended by the 2014 Study was to provide a shuttle service that can be a
fixed-route service at certain times of the day and an on-demand service during unscheduled time
periods. This would be a flexible transit option for the community, and would be open for general
public use. This option was not implemented due to funding restrictions.
Financial Plan and Funding Strategies | 64
POTENTIAL TRANSIT SERVICE CONCEPTS
This analysis focused on transit options that would best serve the Town based on the
demographic analysis, work locations and transit propensity, as well as direction from Town of
Fountain Hills staff, input from Phoenix and Scottsdale staff and the availability of transit funding.
The potential transit service options were developed for consideration. The options include:
• Four Community Connector alternatives
• Three route modification alternatives to the existing Route 514 Scottsdale Express
• Two new Fountain Hills to Mesa Crosstown Express alternatives
• A Downtown Circulator
• A Microtransit Service
• Third-Party Partnerships
The proposed service options were based in part on the anticipated demand for transit service,
and in consideration of the projected capital and operating costs associated with each service
option and available funding. The concepts are designed to meet current community
needs/priorities and the regional Transit Standards and Performance Measure (TSPM). The
following information is identified for each transit service concept:
• Vehicle routing
• Operating characteristics (headway, span of service, days of operation, etc.)
• Estimated annual revenue miles
• Potential performance based on similar services in the region
• Estimated fleet requirements
Financial Plan and Funding Strategies | 65
COMMUNITY CONNECTORS
A community connector service may be an effective transit option for the Town of Fountain Hills.
This type of local service is typically used to provide connections to regional fixed route transit
services (local bus or rail) or local activity nodes.
With stops spaced approximately ¼ mile to ½ mile apart, these routes would provide service to
community facilities, residential areas, commercial shopping centers, employers, and medical
facilities. Each of the Community Connector alternatives described below connect Fountain Hills
to the Mayo Clinic, a major employment center for Fountain Hills residents.
Community Connector – Alternative 1
Alternative 1 would be a locally-funded circulator service that would provide four daily peak period
round trips from Downtown Fountain Hills to the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale via Saguaro Blvd and
Shea Blvd.
Figure 4-16: Community Connector – Alternative 1 Routing
Financial Plan and Funding Strategies | 66
Community Connector – Alternative 2
Alternative 2 would be a locally-funded circulator service that would provide four daily peak period
round trips from Saguaro Blvd/Shea Blvd to the Mayo Clinic.
Figure 4-17: Community Connector – Alternative 2 Routing
Estimated Annual In-Service Mileage: 16,756
Service Profile:6:30-8:30 am –Every 70 minutes –4 Trips (2 Inbound, 2 Outbound)
4:30-6:30 am –Every 70 minutes –4 Trips (2 Inbound, 2 Outbound)
Estimated Trip Time: 30-35 minutes end to end
Estimated Annual Operating Cost (FY22): $122.8k / year ($7.33/mile)
Fleet Needs: 4 Vehicles (2 revenue + 2 spare)
Estimated Daily Ridership: 59
Financial Plan and Funding Strategies | 67
Community Connector – Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would be a locally-funded circulator service that would provide four daily peak period
round trips from Downtown Fountain Hills to the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, with similar routing
within Fountain Hills as the 514 Express Route.
Figure 4-18: Community Connector – Alternative 3 Routing
Estimated Annual In-Service Mileage: 10,486
Service Profile:6:30-8:30 am –Every 70 minutes –4 Trips (2 Inbound, 2 Outbound)
4:30-6:30 am –Every 70 minutes –4 Trips (2 Inbound, 2 Outbound)
Estimated Trip Time: 20-21 minutes end to end
Estimated Annual Operating Cost (FY22): $76.9k / year ($7.33/mile)
Fleet Needs: 3 Vehicles (1 revenue + 2 spare)
Estimated Daily Ridership: 39
Financial Plan and Funding Strategies | 68
Community Connector – Alternative 4
Alternative 4 would be a locally-funded circulator service that would provide four daily peak period
round trips from Downtown Fountain Hills to the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale and the Mustang Transit
Center to connect to the regional transit network, including routes 80 Northern Ave/Shea Blvd, 81
- Hayden Rd/McClintock Dr, 511, Scottsdale Mustang and Miller/Hayden circulator routes.
Figure 4-19: Community Connector – Alternative 4 Routing
Estimated Annual In-Service Mileage: 14,912
Service Profile:6:30-8:30 am –Every 70 minutes –4 Trips (2 Inbound, 2 Outbound)
4:30-6:30 am –Every 70 minutes –4 Trips (2 Inbound, 2 Outbound)
Estimated Trip Time: 22-29 minutes end to end
Estimated Annual Operating Cost (FY22): $109.3k / year ($7.33/mile)
Fleet Needs: 3 Vehicles (1 revenue + 2 spare)
Estimated Daily Ridership: 58
Financial Plan and Funding Strategies | 69
Estimated Annual In-Service Mileage: 29,149
Service Profile:6:30-8:30 am –Every 70 minutes –4 Trips (2 Inbound, 2 Outbound)
4:30-6:30 am –Every 70 minutes –4 Trips (2 Inbound, 2 Outbound)
Estimated Trip Time: 54 minutes end to end
Estimated Annual Operating Cost (FY22): $213.7k / year ($7.33/mile)
Fleet Needs: 4 Vehicles (2 revenue + 2 spare)
Estimated Daily Ridership: 50
Financial Plan and Funding Strategies | 70
EXPRESS ROUTE MODIFICATIONS
Existing 514 Scottsdale Express
Transit service in Fountain Hills is currently limited to Route 514, an express route that features
two morning and two afternoon trips from Palisades Blvd and La Montana Drive in Fountain Hills
to Downtown Phoenix.
The existing Route 514 Scottsdale Express serves an average of 61 boardings a day, four in
Fountain Hills, and uses two vehicles for the service.
Figure 4-20: Existing 514 Scottsdale Express Routing
Financial Plan and Funding Strategies | 71
Figure 4-21: Route 514 Scottsdale Express Costs and Mileage by City
Annual Mileage Operating Cost (FY22)
Total 36,799.31 $276,504.50
Scottsdale 12,247.14 $92,023.17
Salt River Pima–Maricopa Indian Community 8,776.34 $65,944.10
Phoenix 10,936.70 $82,176.72
Fountain Hills 4,839.14 $36,360.57
Figure 4-22: Route 514 Scottsdale Express Travel Times by Trips
Trip Scheduled Runtime By Trip
AM Outbound 1: 5:34 - 7:04 AM 1 Hour 30 Minutes
AM Outbound 2: 6:16 - 7:46 AM 1 Hour 30 Minutes
PM Inbound 1: 4:42 - 6:18 PM 1 Hour 36 Minutes
PM Inbound 2: 5:12 - 6:48 PM 1 Hour 36 Minutes
Financial Plan and Funding Strategies | 72
514 Express Modification – Alternative 1
This modification would eliminate the portion of the route along McDowell to improve the travel
time for Fountain Hills riders. There is currently redundant local service on McDowell Rd. This
option saves 20 minutes over the trip time on the 514 Express. This route modification is projected
to serve 41 total daily boardings and would operate using two vehicles.
Figure 4-23: 514 Express Modification – Alternative 1 Routing
Financial Plan and Funding Strategies | 73
Figure 4-24: 514 Express Modification – Alternative 1 Costs and Mileage by City
Annual Mileage Estimated Operating Cost (FY22)
514 - Scottsdale Express 37,456 $281,438.76
Scottsdale 12,903.82 $96,957.37
Salt River Pima–Maricopa Indian
Community 8,776.34 $65,944.10
Phoenix 10,936.70 $82,176.72
Fountain Hills 4,839.14 $36,360.57
Figure 4-25: 514 Express Modification – Alternative 1 Travel Time by Trip
Trip Estimated Runtime By Trip
AM Outbound 1: 5:34 - 7:04 AM 1 Hour 10 Minutes
AM Outbound 2: 6:16 - 7:46 AM 1 Hour 30 Minutes
PM Inbound 1: 4:42 - 6:18 PM 1 Hour 16 Minutes
PM Inbound 2: 5:12 - 6:48 PM 1 Hour 36 Minutes
Financial Plan and Funding Strategies | 74
514 Express Modification – Alternative 2
This modification would eliminate service to Fountain Hills. The route would terminate at Mustang
Transit Center. It would eliminate service along McDowell and use the freeway instead to improve
the travel time. There is currently redundant local service on McDowell Rd. The goal of this
modification is illustrative to show how Fountain Hills can free up their PTF funding for other uses
and decrease 514 Express costs for Scottsdale. This alternative saves approximately 32 minutes
in travel time between the Arizona State Capital in Phoenix and the Mustang Transit Center in
Scottsdale. This route modification is projected to serve a total of 14 total daily boardings.
Figure 4-26: 514 Express Modification – Alternative 2 Routing
Figure 4-27: 514 Express Modification – Alternative 2 Costs and Mileage by City
Annual Mileage Estimated Operating
Cost (FY22)
514 - Scottsdale Express 26,083 $195,983.75
Scottsdale 6,369.9 $47,862.47
Salt River Pima–Maricopa Indian Community 8,776.34 $65,944.10
Phoenix 10,936.70 $82,176.72
Financial Plan and Funding Strategies | 75
Figure 4-28: 514 Express Modification – Alternative 2 Travel Time by Trip
Trip Estimated Runtime By Trip
AM Outbound 33.8 Minutes
PM Inbound 34.4 Minutes
514 Express Modification – Alternative 3
This modification would change the routing of the 514 Express to travel from Fountain Hills to the
Dreamy Draw Park-and-Ride via Shea Blvd in Scottsdale to provide a transfer to the SR51 RAPID
Route, which operates at approximately 10-minute frequency in the peak direction. The goal of
this modification would be to streamline costs for Phoenix and Scottsdale to operate the 514
Express. It would not save travel time for Fountain Hills commuters who take the current 514
Express Route to reach downtown or the State Capital. The travel time between Dreamy Draw to
the State Capital on the SR51 RAPID ranges between 30 to 45 minutes. This route modification
is projected to serve a total of 47 total daily boardings.
Figure 4-29: 514 Express Modification – Alternative 3 Routing
Financial Plan and Funding Strategies | 76
Figure 4-30: 514 Express Modification – Alternative 3 Cost and Mileage by City
Annual Mileage Estimated Operating Cost (FY22)
514 - Scottsdale Express 20,601.45 $154,796.21
Scottsdale 15,761.55 $118,429.92
Fountain Hills 4,839.14 $36,360.57
Figure 4-31: 514 Express Modification – Alternative 3 Travel Time by Trip
Trip Estimated Runtime By Trip
AM Outbound 1: 5:34 – 6:25 AM 51 Minutes
AM Outbound 2: 6:16 – 7:07 AM 51 Minutes
PM Inbound 1: 5:35 - 6:14 PM 39 minutes
PM Inbound 2: 6:05 – 6:44 PM 39 minutes
Financial Plan and Funding Strategies | 77
NEW EXPRESS ROUTE
The following new Express Route alternatives build on a proposed route concept from the 2014
Fountain Hills Transit Study. The concept for the new Express Route is a cross-town service that
connects the Town of Fountain Hills to regional services in Mesa via the Beeline Highway.
Historically, all Valley Metro Express routes travel to Downtown Phoenix, however these Express
Route alternatives would function as cross-town routes. Cross-town service connects regional
centers but does not travel to the central business district.
Fountain Hills to Mesa Crosstown Express – Alternative 1
Alternative 1 of the Fountain Hills to Mesa Crosstown Express concept is designed to serve as a
regional connection between downtown Fountain Hills and the Gilbert Rd/McDowell Park-and-
Ride in Mesa, traveling via the Beeline Highway. The Gilbert Rd/McDowell Park-and-Ride serves
the local bus route 136 Gilbert Rd and the 535 Northeast Mesa Express. Fountain Hills riders
could transfer to the 535 Express for trips to Downtown Phoenix. The approximate travel time to
travel from Fountain Hills to downtown Phoenix via the 535 Express would be approximately an
hour (including transfer time). It currently takes approximately one hour and 25 minutes for
Fountain Hills residents to travel to downtown Phoenix via the 514 Express. This route’s service
profile is described as three inbound and three outbound trips Monday through Friday.
Figure 4-32: Fountain Hills to Mesa Crosstown Express – Alternative 1 Routing
Financial Plan and Funding Strategies | 78
Estimated Annual In-Service Duration Miles: 19,571
Service Profile:3 AM Outbound trips
3 PM Inbound trips
Estimated trip time:25 min end to end
60 min to downtown Phoenix via transfer to 535 Express
Estimated Annual Operating Cost (FY22): $147k / year ($7.51/mile)
Fleet Needs: 2 Vehicles
Estimated ridership: 33
Financial Plan and Funding Strategies | 79
Fountain Hills to Mesa Crosstown Express – Alternative 2
The Fountain Hills to Mesa Crosstown Express concept is designed to serve as a regional
connection to the light rail and bus transit network. Alternative 2 for this new Express route would
connect downtown Fountain Hills to the Gilbert Road Transit Center on Main Street and Gilbert
Road in Mesa, traveling via the Beeline Highway. The Gilbert Road Transit Center and Park-and-
Ride serves as the end of line for light rail and serves the local bus routes 40-Main St, 45-
Broadway Rd, and 136-Gilbert Rd. This alternative is designed to meet Valley Metro’s minimum
standard for Express routes – four inbound and four outbound trips Monday through Friday.
Additionally, this route’s service profile is described to include one midday roundtrip.
Figure 4-33: Fountain Hills to Mesa Crosstown Express – Alternative 2 Routing
Financial Plan and Funding Strategies | 80
Estimated Annual In-Service Miles: 42,187
Service Profile:4 AM Outbound trips; 1 midday roundtrip; 4 PM Inbound trips
Estimated trip time: 30 min
Estimated Annual Operating Cost (FY22): $316.8k / year ($7.51/mile)
Fleet Needs: 2 Vehicles
Estimated ridership: 87
Financial Plan and Funding Strategies | 81
NEW DOWNTOWN CIRCULATOR
Downtown Circulator
An additional local service that Fountain Hills can consider is a downtown circulator. This service
could serve downtown businesses and residents in a short bidirectional loop pattern. The
demographic analysis in this report shows a demand for transit options for Fountain Hills residents
travelling within the Town itself.
Trip length: Approximately 1.5 miles (bi-directional)
Service Profile:30 minute bi-directional headways
6 hour span; Monday-Friday
Estimated Annual Operating Cost (FY22): $67.9k / year ($7.33/mile)
Fleet Needs: 3 Vehicles (1 revenue + 2 spare)
Financial Plan and Funding Strategies | 82
ALTERNATIVE SERVICE DELIVERY MODEL
The potential service concepts introduced as “Alternative Service Delivery Models” consider new
and alternative service deliveries that employ new technologies or are a new way of delivering
transit service in the region.
Microtransit
Microtransit is an emerging transit mode that offers flexible and dynamic demand-driven
transportation solutions to areas with limited transit access or where traditional fixed-route service
is simply not feasible. Microtransit services typically operate with a fleet of smaller vehicles (e.g.
cutaway vans or buses) in defined zones, with dynamic routing based on real-time demand.
Similar to Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft, users in designated
areas simply specify the details of their trips on a mobile application, and a vehicle is summoned
to deliver them to their destination. Operating specifics such as service hours and coverage area
can be tailored to meet the needs and/or resources of the agency (e.g. fleet availability, operating
budget, etc.).
Transit agencies are turning to microtransit services to address a variety of problems, from serving
low-density areas more efficiently, to upgrading or supplementing existing dial-a-ride or
paratransit services, to addressing the first mile/last mile issue of fixed-route services. Microtransit
services are commonly implemented by transit agencies in partnership with third-party providers
who handle the “software as a service (SAAS)” technology, routing, dispatch, and customer
service. Service delivery models can also be customized to fit an agency’s specific need. For
example, some agencies may choose to purchase the SAAS technology only and provide their
own vehicles and operators. Others looking for a more turnkey solution can choose a vendor
package that includes both the technology and the drivers, vehicles, and operations management.
The following cost estimate is for a Microtransit concept that serves the entirety of Fountain Hills,
operating weekday service with two vehicles for 12 hours a day. This is illustrative to show costs
involved and scalability, however details need to be developed further if the concept moves
forward into planning. The span of service, number of vehicles and costs can be scaled up or
down based on available funding and service priorities.
Figure 4-34: Preliminary Microtransit Cost Estimate
Annual Operations Cost
Microtransit
Software
Software license and maintenance to operate the
microtransit. Includes software and dispatch. $50,000
Service
Operations
6,120 hours of service; the amount required to operate 2
vehicles for 12 hours per weekday (255 days), billed at an
hourly rate of $75.00 per hour
$459,000
Fuel
Fuel for 88,128 vehicle service miles; assumes 12 miles per
hour in revenue service, deadhead of 20% and efficiency of
12 MPG at a price of $3.50/gallon
$25,704
Total Annual
Operating
Expenses
$534,704
Capital Cost
Vehicles Cost to purchase 3 vehicles (includes one spare) ($60,000-
90,000 per vehicle) $180,000-$270,000
Financial Plan and Funding Strategies | 83
Third Party Partnerships
Partnerships with Transportation Network Companies (TNCs), such as Uber or Lyft, are an
emerging service model for transit agencies and cities to help incentivize first and last mile
connections to transit and to help shuttle special event attendees around congested areas. These
partnerships can be offered to riders as a promo code, offering discounted or free rides. The
agency or city may pay to cover the full cost or portion of the cost of rides or offer the TNC vendor
an in-kind service in exchange for discounted rides, such as free marketing using publicly owned
ad space. TNC companies are third parties who use independent contractors. Drivers for these
companies set their own schedules and geographic area of service. Because of the nature of this
arrangement, TNCs cannot absolutely guarantee the level of service in any given location or time
of day. Depending on how the service is structured (and therefore affecting cost), supply and
response time on the edges of our geographic urban area may be less than riders would
experience in the urban core.
Vanpool expansion
A vanpool is a group of six to 15 people who commute to work together in a Valley Metro van.
The van is driven by one or more of the vanpool members. Each van is required to have one
primary and two alternate drivers. Riders share the cost of operating the van by paying a monthly
fare. The fare covers van insurance, maintenance and roadside assistance. Riders split the cost
of fuel. Some employers provide a vanpool subsidy to help lower the monthly cost of the fare.
Check with your employer about this benefit.
There are currently two vanpools operating out of Fountain Hills, with the destination being the
Mayo Clinic. Valley Metro’s Commute Solutions team can work with the Town and local
businesses to evaluate the need for expanding vanpools in Fountain Hills and conduct outreach
to businesses interested in joining the program.
Financial Plan and Funding Strategies | 84
5. FINANCIAL PLAN AND FUNDING STRATEGIES
ELIGIBLE FUNDING SOURCES
Arizona Lottery Funds (formerly LTAF)
Fountain Hills is eligible to apply for Arizona Lottery Funds (ALF) (formerly LTAF). There is no
local match requirement for these funds and can be used as local match required to apply for
other grants, such as federal funds. Funds must be utilized within two years or may be forfeited
or not eligible to apply for additional ALF funds. Fountain Hills currently has an existing balance
of $225,882 in ALF funds and is not eligible to receive additional ALF funds until a plan to spend
down the balance is established.
To apply for ALF, the Town must consider the following eligibility criteria:
• Project must be included in or compatible with the adopted Regional Transportation Plan
• Planning projects should be included in the adopted Unified Planning Work Program
(UPWP)
• Capital projects should be included in the adopted Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP)
The following are a list of eligible projects:
• Planning and Training Related Expenses
• Capital Expenses
• Operating Expenses
• Transit or TDM Marketing Expenses
Public Transportation Fund (PTF)
The Public Transportation Fund (PTF) is revenue from the half-cent Maricopa County
Transportation Excise Tax (TET) and is available to Fountain Hills to spend on regional transit
services. For a project to be eligible for PTF funding, it must be adopted in Valley Metro’s Short
Range Transit Program (SRTP). The SRTP is updated each year which is updated each year and
is reviewed by Valley Metro’s Regional Transit Advisory Group (RTAG), ), and approved by the
Transit Management Committee (TMC) and Boards of Directors. PTF funds are currently
allocated for use on the Route 514 Express, RideChoice and other costs associated with Safety
and Security, Operations Contingency, Facilities and Fleet. The TET is set to expire in 2026. The
table below shows the estimated allocation of Fountain Hills PTF funds for the remainder of the
tax. These amounts are projected revenues as of FY19 and are subject to change due to changes
in the economy. Fountain Hills has a wide range of latitude to change how PTF is used as long
as the project is a regional transit service and is adopted in the Short Range Transit Program.
Financial Plan and Funding Strategies | 85
Figure 5-1: Fountain Hills’ PTF Allocation by Year and Type
Type 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
514 Scottsdale Express $30,723 $30,903 $31,474 $32,101 $33,239 $33,795 $20,020
RideChoice $14,900 $15,300 $15,800 $16,300 $16,800 $17,300 $17,800
Safety and Security $34 $34 $35 $36 $36 $37 $22
Operations Contingency $336 $341 $349 $356 $360 $366 $217
Facilities $745 $745 $751 $751 $745 $742 $431
Fleet $819 $841 $871 $894 $911 $932 $555
Section 5310 (Federal Funds)
In addition to the funding Fountain Hills already receives, the Town is eligible to apply for the MAG
Region Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program for
the Phoenix-Mesa UZA:
• Region-wide, not less than 55 percent of the program funds must be used on capital or
“traditional” 5310 project such as buses and vans; wheelchair lifts, ramps, and
securement devices; transit-related information technology systems including
scheduling/routing/one-call systems; and mobility management programs.
• The remaining funds (45% or less) are for “Other” eligible capital and operating projects.
These capital and operating expenses are for new public transportation services and
alternatives that go beyond requirements of the ADA, designed to assist seniors and
individuals with disabilities.
• Local match requirements:
o Capital assistance is provided on an 80 percent Federal share, 20 percent local
share.
o Operating assistance requires a 50 percent match.
• MAG Human Transportation Review Panel evaluates project applications.
• ALF funds can be used as a local match.
• Applications forms are posted annually by MAG in January. The application submittal
deadline is in February.
EXISTING FUNDING SOURCES AND USES
One of the prevalent reasons that many of the transit service recommendations from the 2014
Fountain Hills Transit Feasibility Study were not implemented was lack of local funding that could
sustain long-term service. The Town of Fountain Hills receives funding for transportation services
through the Public Transportation Fund (PTF) and the Arizona Lottery Funds (ALF). Currently,
the Town’s PTF is used to fund Route 514 and RideChoice services. To date, the Town has
banked $225,882 in unspent ALF funds that are currently available and not being spent.
Financial Plan and Funding Strategies | 86
Figure 5-2: Current Fountain Hills Transit Funding Sources and Uses
Funding Source Fountain Hills
FY20 Allocation Status Use
Public Transportation Fund (PTF) ADA $14,900 Committed RideChoice
Public Transportation Fund (PTF) Route 514 $30,723 Committed Route 514
Arizona Lottery Local Transportation
Assistance Fund (ALF)
Existing balance
$225,882** Unspent Available
* Arizona Lottery Local Transportation Assistance Fund (ALF)* was formerly known as Local
Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF).
** Fountain Hills requested $64,588 in ALF funds in FY20 but is not eligible for new allocation a
plan to spend the existing balance is spentdeveloped.
Figure 5-3: Fountain Hills RideChoice Costs by Year
Fiscal Year Fountain Hills RideChoice Costs (Net of Fares)
FY16 $4,413
FY17 $4,298
FY18 $8,081
FY19 $8,061
FUNDING STRATEGIES
The following service options emerged from the study for consideration as the most capable of
satisfying the current and future travel needs of Fountain Hills’ residents with eligible funding that
is currently available to support the services. These services include the Fountain Hills to Mesa
Crosstown Express, RideChoice expansion, Give-a-Lift Expansion and a third-party partnership.
The Town’s available funding sources are constrained and cannot support all the service options
shown below. This section is meant to illustrate different options for spending existing funding
sources. This section also touches on strategic considerations for the MAG’s Regional
Transportation Program update and the extension of Proposition 400.
Fountain Hills to Mesa Crosstown Express (Phase 1 and 2)
Alternative 1 of the Fountain Hills to Mesa Crosstown Express concept is designed to serve as a
regional connection between downtown Fountain Hills and the Gilbert Rd/McDowell Park-and-
Ride in Mesa, traveling via the Beeline Highway and providing riders from Fountain Hills a
connection to downtown Phoenix via the 535 Northeast Mesa Express.
Alternative 2 of the Fountain Hills to Mesa Crosstown Express concept extends Alternative 1 and
is designed to serve as a regional connection to the light rail and bus transit network, connecting
downtown Fountain Hills to the Gilbert Rd/McDowell Park-and-Ride as well as the Gilbert Road
Transit Center on Main Street and Gilbert Road in Mesa.
Financial Plan and Funding Strategies | 87
Figure 5-4: Fountain Hills to Mesa Crosstown Express – Alternatives 1 and 2
Fountain Hills could take a phased approach to implementing the Fountain Hills to Mesa
Crosstown Express. Phase 1 could implement Alternative 1 in the near-term. Alternative 1 is
shorter, has less trips, is less expensive to operate than Alternative 2 and connects riders to
downtown Phoenix via the 535 Northeast Mesa Express in less time compared to taking the Route
514 Scottsdale Express. To implement Alternative 1, Fountain Hills could combine their existing
PTF funds committed to the 514 Express with unspent and future allocations of Fountain Hills’
ALF funds. Implementing this would require the removal the 514 service to Fountain Hills.
• Estimated annual operating cost: $147k / yr
• Funding sources:
o PTF allocated to 514 Express ~36K
o Unspent ALF: $226K
o Future allocations of ALF: ~$65K
Phase 2 would seek to implement Alternative 2. The estimated annual operating cost is $316k a
year. Current funding levels through ALF and PTF, even combined, are not adequate to fund the
total cost of Alternative 2. The recommendation would be to include this alternative in MAG’s
update to the Regional Transportation Plan and seek the additional funding through the extension
of Proposition 400.
Financial Plan and Funding Strategies | 88
RideChoice Expansion
Fountain Hills currently offers Ridechoice for both ADA certified residents and those over age 65.
Other communities in the region have expanded their RIdeChoice program. City of Surprise, for
example, has expanded RideChoice service to low-income residents. Fountain Hills could take
this approach, utilizing PTF and ALF funds to pay for the expansion. The Town of Fountain Hills
would be responsible for handling the qualification process and managing the list of low-income
residents eligible to use RideChoice.
Give-a-Lift Expansion
Fountain Hills could also consider utilizing their ALF or PTF funds or applying for Section 5310
funds to expand their Give-a-Lift program to add additional administrative support to grow the
program.
Third Party Partnership
Fountain Hills may consider using ALF to subsidize trips offered by a TNC that provides first/last
mile trips to transit facility “zones”, such as the Mustang Transit Center. Valley Metro and City of
Phoenix have piloted with such services in the recent past, partnering with Lyft and Waymo to
provide first/last mile trips to transit. Lessons learned from these pilots have demonstrated that
the partnership development and service set-up take considerable time and planning. This should
be accounted for if Fountain Hills decides to pursue a service of this nature, especially if the intent
is to apply for ALF funding to fund the service.
MAG Regional Transportation Plan and Prop 400-Extension
The following regional projects should be considered for inclusion in MAG’s update to the
Regional Transportation Plan and funding from the Prop 400-Extension:
• Fountain Hills to Mesa Crosstown Express Alternative 1 (downtown Fountain Hills to Gilbert Road
Transit Center on Main Street and Gilbert Road in Mesa)
• 514 Express Modification – Alternative 4 (4 peak trips + midday trip)
• Extending Route 80 Northern Ave / Shea Blvd to Fountain Hills
o Current Route 80 cost: $2.72 million / year
o Current Route 80 cost with extension: $3.74 million / year
Town-wide sales tax, business levy or other tax
Another option proposed in the 2014 Fountain Hills Transit Study was the implementation of a
town-wide sales tax to fund transit services within Fountain Hills. This new funding would give the
Town a steady, long-term source of funding that can be invested in local transit services, such as
a community connector, microtransit service or a downtown circulator.
Fountain Hills
Transit Feasibility Study
Presentation before the
Fountain Hills Town Council
October 6, 2020
2
•Operates 365 days a year
•62 local routes
•20 Express/RAPID routes
•20 circulator routes
•28 miles of light rail
•416 vanpools
•40 million revenue miles operated
•70 million passenger boardings
•91% of the fleet is alternatively fueled
Valley Metro System Facts
3
LOCAL TRANSIT FUNDING –FY 2018
Agency Amount Source
Avondale $794,000 General Fund
Chandler $1,123,000 General Fund
Glendale $4,125,000 Transportation Sales Tax
Goodyear $144,000 General Fund
Mesa $10,924,000 General Fund
Peoria $855,000 General Fund
Phoenix $168,949,000 Transit Sales Tax/General Fund
Scottsdale $5,700,000 General Fund
Surprise $113,000 General Fund
Tempe $24,178,000 Transit Sales Tax
Tolleson $278,000
Operating Costs & Funding Sources
$285,969,667
Bus
$54,180,573
Paratransit
$3,259,507
Vanpool $48,770,341
Rail
Source: FY19 Transit Performance Report
Sources of Operating Funds:
•Fares
•Federal Grants
•Regional:
o Public Transportation Funds
o Regional Area Road Funds
o MAG Funds
•Local: Transit Service Agreements
Total Annual Operating Cost:
$369.5 million
Transit Study Scope of Work
4
•Study completed internally by Valley Metro staff at no
cost to the Town
•Task 1: Analysis of Existing Conditions
•Task 2: Develop Transit Service Concepts
•Task 3: Implementation Plan and Funding Strategies
•Task 4: Final Implementation Plan
Demographics Analysis
Demographic Profile
Trends in population dynamics may affect future demand and
potential markets for transit service. Demographic
characteristics analyzed include:
•Population
•Occupied Households
•Workers
•Means of Transport to Work
•People with Disabilities*
•Vehicles per Household*
•Age Cohorts (over 65, under 19)*
•Income Below Poverty Level*
*transit dependency indicators 6
Employment Analysis
Commute Patterns
Home Area Work Area
8Source: Census Bureau, LEHD 2017 Estimates Source: Census Bureau, LEHD 2017 Estimates
Existing Transit Options
10
Existing Transit Network
RideChoice
11
Year Total # of trips
% Increase in trips
FY15 225
FY16 321 43%
FY17 395 23%
FY18 400 1%
FY19 509 27%
Pick-Up AreasDrop-Off Areas
Transit Service Concepts
Community Connectors
Alternative 1
13
Estimated Annual In-Service Mileage: 16,756
Service Profile:6:30-8:30 am –Every 70 minutes –4 Trips (2 Inbound, 2 Outbound)
4:30-6:30 am –Every 70 minutes –4 Trips (2 Inbound, 2 Outbound)
Estimated Trip Time: 30-35 minutes end to end
Estimated Annual Operating Cost (FY22): $122.8k / year ($7.33/mile)
Fleet Needs: 4 Vehicles (2 revenue + 2 spare)
Estimated Daily Ridership: 59
Demographics Served:Population: 4,761
Jobs: 3,293
Community Connectors
Alternative 2
14
Estimated Annual In-Service Mileage: 10,486
Service Profile:6:30-8:30 am –Every 70 minutes –4 Trips (2 Inbound, 2 Outbound)
4:30-6:30 am –Every 70 minutes –4 Trips (2 Inbound, 2 Outbound)
Estimated Trip Time: 20-21 minutes end to end
Estimated Annual Operating Cost (FY22): $76.9k / year ($7.33/mile)
Fleet Needs: 3 Vehicles (1 revenue + 2 spare)
Estimated Daily Ridership: 39
Demographics Served:Population: 2,391
Jobs: 2,433
Community Connectors
Alternative 3
15
Estimated Annual In-Service Mileage: 14,912
Service Profile:6:30-8:30 am –Every 70 minutes –4 Trips (2 Inbound, 2 Outbound)
4:30-6:30 am –Every 70 minutes –4 Trips (2 Inbound, 2 Outbound)
Estimated Trip Time: 22-29 minutes end to end
Estimated Annual Operating Cost (FY22): $109.3k / year ($7.33/mile)
Fleet Needs: 3 Vehicles (1 revenue + 2 spare)
Estimated Daily Ridership: 58
Demographics Served:Population: 4,7081
Jobs: 3,305
Express Route Modifications
514 Express Modification –Alternative 1
Take service off of McDowell
Projected ridership: 41
16
Annual Mileage Estimated Operating Cost (FY22)
514 -Scottsdale Express 37,456 $281,438.76
Scottsdale 12,903.82 $96,957.37
Salt River Pima 8,776.34 $65,944.10
Phoenix 10,936.70 $82,176.72
Fountain Hills 4,839.14 $36,360.57
Trip Estimated Runtime ByTrip
AM Outbound 1: 5:34 -7:04 AM 1 Hour 10 Minutes
AM Outbound 2: 6:16 -7:46 AM 1 Hour 30 Minutes
PM Inbound 1: 4:42 -6:18 PM 1 Hour 16 Minutes
PM Inbound 2: 5:12 -6:48 PM 1 Hour 36 Minutes
Express Route Modifications
514 Express Modification –Alternative 2
End route at Mustang Transit Center; Take off McDowell
•Example travel time savings:
•Existing 514 from Capital to Mustang Transit Center: 1 hour 6 minutes
•Alternative 2 from Capital to Mustang Transit Center: 34 Minutes
•Projected ridership: 14
17
Annual Mileage Estimated Operating Cost (FY22)
514 -Scottsdale Express 26,083 $195,983.75
Scottsdale 6,369.9 $47,862.47
Salt River Pima 8,776.34 $65,944.10
Phoenix 10,936.70 $82,176.72
Trip Estimated Runtime By Trip
AM Outbound 33.8 Minutes
PM Inbound 34.4 Minutes
Express Route Modifications
514 Express Modification –Alternative 3
Travel from Fountain Hills to the Dreamy Draw Park -and-Ride via Shea Blvd
•Projected Ridership: 47
18
Annual Mileage Estimated Operating Cost (FY22)
514 -Scottsdale Express 20,601.45 $154,796.21
Scottsdale 15,761.55 $118,429.92
Fountain Hills 4,839.14 $36,360.57
Trip Estimated Runtime ByTrip
AM Outbound 1: 5:34 –6:25 AM 51 Minutes
AM Outbound 2: 6:16 –7:07 AM 51 Minutes
PM Inbound 1: 5:35 -6:14 PM 39 minutes
PM Inbound 2: 6:05 –6:44 PM 39 minutes
Express Route Modifications
514 Express Modification –Alternative 4
Bring 514 Express Up to Minimum Service Standard
•4 inbound; 4 outbound and 1 midday roundtrip
•Increases total number of trips from 4 to 10
•Fleet Needs: 4 Vehicles
•Projected ridership: 207
19
Projected Operating Cost (FY22)
Total $ 691,261.24
Scottsdale $ 230,057.93
Salt River Pima $ 164,860.26
Phoenix $ 205,441.81
Fountain Hills $ 90,901.43
New Express Route
Estimated Annual In-Service Duration Miles: 19,571
Service Profile:3 AM Outbound trips
3 PM Inbound trips
Estimated trip time:
25 min end to end
60 min to downtown Phoenix via
transfer to 535 Express
Estimated Annual Operating Cost (FY22): $147k /
year ($7.51/mile)
Fleet Needs: 2 Vehicles
Estimated ridership: 7
Fountain Hills to Mesa Crosstown
Express -Alternative 1
20
New Express Route
Fountain Hills to Mesa Crosstown
Express -Alternative 2
21
Estimated Annual In-Service Miles: 42,187
Service Profile:
4 AM Outbound trips
1 midday roundtrip
4 PM Inbound trips
Estimated trip time: 30 min
Estimated Annual Operating Cost (FY22): $316.8k / year ($7.51/mile)
Fleet Needs: 2 Vehicles
Estimated ridership: 39
New Downtown Circulator
22
Trip length: Approximately 1.5 miles (bi -directional)
Service Profile:30 minute bi-directional headways
12 hour span; Monday-Friday
Estimated Annual Operating Cost (FY22): $141.5k / year
($7.33/mile)
Fleet Needs: 3 Vehicles (1 revenue + 2 spare)
Alternative Service Delivery Model
23
Annual Operations Cost
Microtransit Software Software license and maintenance to operate the microtransit pilot. Includes software and dispatch.$50,000
Service Operations 6,120 hours of service; the amount required to operate 2 vehicles for 12 hours per weekday (255 days), billed at an hourly rate of $75.00 per hour $459,000
Fuel Fuel for 88,128 vehicle service miles; assumes 12 miles per hour in revenue service, deadhead of 20% and efficiency of 12 MPG at a price of $3.50/gallon $25,704
Total Estimated Annual Operating Expenses $534,704
Vehicle Capital Cost
Cost to purchase 3 vehicles (includes one spare) ($60,000-90,000 per vehicle)$180,000-$270,000
Town-wide Microtransit Service
Preliminary Gross Cost Estimate
Other Service Ideas
•Third party partnerships
•Private companies (such as Uber/Lyft) or non-profits for demand
response or microtransit services
•Vanpool expansion
•Commute Solutions can help
24
Implementation Plan and
Funding Strategies
Existing Funding Sources and Uses
26
Funding Source Fountain Hills FY2020 Allocation Status Use
Public Transportation Fund (PTF) ADA $14,900 Committed RideChoice
Public Transportation Fund (PTF) Route 514 $30,723 Committed Route 514
Arizona Lottery Local Transportation Assistance Fund (ALF)Existing balance $225,882** Unspent Available
Fiscal Year Fountain Hills RideChoice Costs (Net of Fares)
FY16 $4,413
FY17 $4,298
FY18 $8,081
FY19 $8,061
Section 5310 (Federal Funds)
•Capital or “traditional” 5310 projects such as buses and vans
•“Other” eligible capital and operating
projects such as new public transportation
services
•Local match requirements:
•Capital assistance is provided on an 80 percent
Federal share, 20 percent local share.
•Operating assistance requires a 50 percent
match.
•Could use ALF funds as local match
27
Funding Strategies
Fountain Hills to Mesa
Crosstown Express
Alternative 1 (Phase 1)
•Estimated annual operating cost:
$147k / yr ($7.51/mile)
•Sources:
•PTF allocated to 514 Express ~36K
•Unspent ALF: $226K
•Future allocations of ALF: ~$65K
28
Funding Strategies
Fountain Hills to Mesa
Crosstown Express
Alternative 2 (Phase 2)
•Estimated annual operating cost:
$316k / yr ($7.51/mile)
•Sources:
•Prop 400 extension public
transportation funds
29
Funding Strategies
•RideChoice Expansion
•Fountain Hills currently offers Ridechoice for both ADA certified
residents and those over 65
•Could expand RideChoice service to low-income residents
•Town of Fountain Hills must handle the qualification process and manage low
income residents that use RideChoice
•Possible funding sources: PTF and ALF
30
Funding Strategies
•Other Prop 400-Extension Project Ideas
•Route 80 Northern Ave / Shea Blvd extension to Fountain Hills
•Current Route 80 cost: $2.72 million / year
•Current Route 80 cost with extension to Fountain Hills: $3.74 million / year
•514 Express Modification –Alternative 4 (4 peak trips + midday trip)
31
Funding Strategies
•Town-wide sales tax, business levy or other tax
•Could fund community connectors, microtransit service or a downtown
circulator within Fountain Hills
32
Connecting communities. Enhancing lives.
Hannah Quinsey
Senior Transit Planner
hquinsey@valleymetro.org
Thank you.
ITEM 7. A.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 10/06/2020 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting
Agenda Type: Consent Submitting Department: Administration
Prepared by: Elizabeth A. Burke, Town Clerk
Staff Contact Information:
Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF approving
the meeting minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 15, 2020.
Staff Summary (Background)
The intent of approving meeting minutes is to ensure an accurate account of the discussion and action
that took place at the meeting for archival purposes. Approved minutes are placed on the Town's
website and maintained as permanent records in compliance with state law.
Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle
N/A
Risk Analysis
N/A
Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s)
N/A
Staff Recommendation(s)
Staff recommends approving the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 15, 2020.
SUGGESTED MOTION
MOVE to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 15, 2020.
Attachments
2020.0915.TCRM.Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Town Manager Grady E. Miller 09/29/2020 05:05 PM
Form Started By: Elizabeth A. Burke Started On: 09/29/2020 04:15 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/29/2020
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 15, 2020
1.CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Mayor Dickey
Mayor Dickey called the meeting of September 15, 2020, to order at 5:30 p.m. and led the
Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
2.INVOCATION - Rev. Jeff Teeples, Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church
Reverend Jeff Teeples of Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church gave the invocation.
3.ROLL CALL – Mayor Dickey
Present: Mayor Ginny Dickey; Vice Mayor Mike Scharnow; Councilmember Gerry Friedel;
Councilmember Art Tolis; Councilmember Dennis Brown; Councilmember David
Spelich
Absent: Councilmember Alan Magazine
Staff
Present:
Town Manager Grady E. Miller; Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson; Town Clerk
Elizabeth A. Burke
4.REPORTS BY MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS AND TOWN MANAGER
Vice Mayor Scharnow reported that he attended a Valley Metro Board Meeting and while bus
ridership is down 40%, the BART system in San Francisco is down 90-95% and the MTA
system in New York is down 80-90%. He said that construction still continues with some of the
extensions and they have another meeting this Thursday.
He also reminded everyone that October 24, 2020, is Make a Difference Day and while it will
be different than last year, they will still meet at various projects. He urged all citizens and
groups to participate.
Councilmember Spelich asked that everyone keep law enforcement in their thoughts and
prayers as there had been a US Marshal shot in Phoenix and an attempt on two officers.
He also had heard that the Chamber is pressing forward with the Art Fair, and that is a good
sign that the Town will start opening up; it has been closed for too long.
Councilmember Tolis said that the 9/11 Memorial held at Fountain Park was well done and
well attended. He said that it was something they should do on an annual basis.
Mayor Dickey reported that as part of the 50th Anniversary, the committee had reached out to
SRP about refinishing and repainting the utility boxes. They have already fixed them and she
thanked Linda Brady and SRP for accommodating the Town so quickly. She said that the
banners have been installed on the Avenue and the Fountain Photo Contest began yesterday.
The Stroll in the Glow and Celebratory Dinner are still to be determined.
She reported that 50th merchandise is available at BOGO Productions and Chocofin has
created a 50th chocolate bar. She said that there will be a presentation at the October 20,
2020, Council meeting from Sandy Ursini, the project administrator. She thanked Sandy and
the co-chairs, Alan and Brent Cruikshank, as well as Rachael Goodwin and the committee.
She said that people can read all about it at www.fh.az.gov/celebrate.
Mayor Dickey said that each year the Town announces that September is Prostate Cancer
Awareness Month and she encouraged regular health check-ups to its citizens.
She reported that the Maricopa Council of Governments (MAG) did a report on the Prop 400
extension, which is now called Momentum. They have more than a dozen projects submitted.
She said that Arizona is falling behind on the Census, and urged all to fill out the form online as
soon as possible at www.2020census.gov as the deadline has been moved up.
She reported that the Mayor's Youth Committee held a virtual welcome and the second
meeting was live to get to know their Council. She thanked Kade and Linda and the motivated
students. She thanked Councilmember Magazine for also attending.
She hoped that some on Council were able to attend the League Conference. It is usually a
great gathering, and she looks forward to next year. They did pass the resolutions, but did not
adopt one of the by-laws amendments that shortened terms of office for the Executive
Committee.
Mayor Dickey encouraged everyone to fill out the Active Transportation Plan and Visioning
surveys online.
She reported that the GPEC Mayors/Supervisors meeting was very informative regarding
COVID and the region's future. She said that there is much to work on together, but they are
seeing good signs in some sectors. She said that the Canada-Arizona Business Council met
as well and there is unity in moving forward. They mentioned Fountain Hills as being full of
possibilities.
A.INTRODUCTION of new Town staff members by Town Manager.
Town Manager Grady Miller then introduced three new staff members to the Town:
Amanda Straight, Economic Development/Tourism Specialist
Steve Bartlett, Facilities Supervisor
Bo Larsen, Community Relations Manager
B.PROCLAMATION Declaring September 17 - 23, 2020, as U.S. Constitution Week.
Mayor Dickey proclaimed September 17-23, 2020, as U.S. Constitution Week and read the
proclamation.
At this time, Mayor Dickey said that Councilmember Leckrone had to step down from the
Council as she had moved out of town, and she wanted to express how much she
appreciated Sherry Leckrone for serving on the Town Council.
Councilmember Spelich thanked Ms. Leckrone for all she brought to the Council, and thanked
her for the lighthearted moments. He said that they have not always agreed on everything, but
Town Council Regular Meeting of September 15, 2020 2 of 12
she was an excellent councilmember and he wanted to congratulate her as she heads a new
unit for the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, prosecuting people for batteries to law
enforcement and first responders. He said that it is the first time in the country that there has
been a dedicated unit for this. He wished her all the best.
Vice Mayor Scharnow said that it has been a delight to get to know her. He thanked her for
her dedication and service, and he appreciated her comments and insights.
Councilmember Tolis said that Ms. Leckrone did a great job, and he was happy when she
accepted the opportunity to serve. He said that it was a pleasure to work with her. He said that
members of the public do not always see what happens behind closed doors, and she always
brought a new perspective.
Mayor Dickey said that she would miss her logical legal mind and her presence. She looked
forward to seeing what comes next for her.
Councilmember Brown said that he got to serve three years on the Planning and Zoning
Commission with Ms. Leckrone. Out of all of the Council people and commissioners, she
always walked through the door three minutes early and better prepared, and calmly explained
to the crowd. He said that she brought solid statements and explanations and she has served
Fountain Hills for many years.
At this time Councilmember Brown pinned a Fountain Pin on Ms. Leckrone, noting that it was
a gold pin with a diamond, given to councilmembers when they leave their service.
Ms. Leckrone said that when she joined the Council she was filling large shoes, those of Cecil
Yates. She said that it has been a privilege and honor to serve on the Council for two years,
and with each and every one of those on Council. She said that she will always cherish the
relationships formed with all of them as well as the staff.
She commended the staff for sustaining the changes throughout the years, noting that it takes
each and every one of them, including the Town Attorney, the Town Manager, and directors.
To the Town guardians, Chief Ott and Captain Kratzer, she thanked them for working so hard
to keep the residents safe on a daily basis.
She said that the beauty of the process is when they share different opinions and respect
each other, more often than not they reach the right decision.
She thanked Councilmember Spelich for his sense of humor; she appreciated it.
She said that as soon as she was appointed, Councilmember Magazine reached out and
wanted to meet. She knew they would not be on the same side, but he was a gentleman
throughout.
She thanked Mayor Dickey for allowing her to respectfully share her different views and
opinions. Many people in her position may not be that way.
Ms. Leckrone thanked Councilmember Tolis for sharing his ideas and his vision. He would
often share both sides of an issue.
She thanked Vice Mayor Scharnow for his support and partnership on the educational summit
to be held in the future.
Town Council Regular Meeting of September 15, 2020 3 of 12
She said that she served together with Councilmember Brown and he had reached out and
asked her to consider applying for the vacancy. She said that he has been a good friend. He
provides wise input and shares his experience and wisdom.
She concluded stating that it had been a privilege and an honor and she wished the Town
good luck.
At this time, Mayor Dickey moved to Item 8-A on the agenda.
5.SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS
A.PRESENTATION on Update by Republic Services on residential and commercial service
during the COVID-19 pandemic and the schedule to resume bulk item curbside pick up
beginning October.
Stephen Herring with Republic Services stated that they are resuming bulk item curbside
pick-up in October and they will be updating the schedule available on social media. He said
that he wanted to clarify that they have not been taking recyclables to the landfill; they have
been taken to the Phoenix North Gateway Recycling Facility.
On November 7, 2020, they will be holding their Household Hazardous Waste event.
At this time, he gave a brief update through a PowerPoint which addressed:
OUR COMMITMENT TO YOU
UNPRECEDENT GLOBAL DISRUPTIONS
CHALLENGES & RESPONSES
SHIFTING VOLUMES FROM PANDEMIC
IMPACTS FROM SURGE IN RESIDENTIAL VOLUME
THE NEW NORMAL - INDUSTRY COST IMPACTS
RESIDENTIAL VOLUME TRENDS AS THE COUNTRY REOPENS
Councilmember Spelich said that many residents are struggling and he asked how Republic
was dealing with services not being paid. Mr. Herring said that he did not have the breakdown,
but anyone with problems can contact their customer services department and they will work
with them to find a payment plan that works.
Vice Mayor Scharnow said that nationwide costs are increasing and he was sure those costs
would have to be passed on to the Town. Mr. Miller said that they do have a multiyear
agreement that went into effect last year. It has a 3.5% increase annually for the duration of
the contract.
Mr. Miller added that he and the Mayor became aware that through their relationship with
Tempe Action Center, they do have CARES Act Funded assistance to help with utilities and
Fountain Hills is within that service area.
Town Council Regular Meeting of September 15, 2020 4 of 12
B.PRESENTATION on monthly update by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office by Captain Kratzer.
Captain Kratzer reported that he had the opportunity, along with several officers, to attend
the 9/11 Memorial. It was a good turnout and nice ceremony. It included a Moment of
Silence at the time the first plane hit.
He reported that as the weather is getting nicer people start coming out more and one of the
issues is with short-term rentals. Sometimes they get those homes being used for parties or
large events that include a lot of noise. A few years ago they had an issue with a particular
home and were successful in resolving it. Over the weekend they had additional calls on
another house and over the past month have received calls on others as well. He said that
he and the Town Manager met with a few neighbors and were asked why the Town does not
prohibit them. He said that the Town cannot prohibit them, but there are things they can do
through enforcement of nuisance laws that are already on the books.
He said that a problem arises in that they have to have a person willing to be a victim and
testify in court. He emphasized that residents need to call the MCSO and report problem
houses.
Also, they have been receiving a lot of calls about stolen or damaged political signs. It is a
Class 2 misdemeanor, but if they are placed in the wrong places they can be removed and
relocated by authorities.
Mayor Dickey said that they dealt with the short-term rentals a few years ago and some
legislation was passed, but more is needed. She anticipates there will be more coming
down the pike.
C.PRESENTATION on Fountain Hills Small Business Assistance Grant Program Update.
James Smith, Economic Development Director, gave a PowerPoint presentation which
addressed:
PROGRAM BACKGROUND & TIMELINE
GRANT PROGRAM - TYPE OF BUSINESSES
GRANT PROGRAM - JOBS
GRANT PROGRAM - FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
He said that originally they were not going to allow those receiving federal assistance to
apply, but they found that some of those businesses received very little in federal aid. He
said that the deadline will either be the end of this year, or when funds run out, which will
probably be around September 30.
Mayor Dickey asked about the bill that has stalled to continue helping with COVID-19
related items. Mr. Smith said that he would look into it. Mayor Dickey said that if they should
get something more, perhaps they could look at extending the assistance, or use it for
utilities.
Mayor Dickey thanked Mr. Smith for putting the program together and administering it.
6.CALL TO THE PUBLIC
Town Council Regular Meeting of September 15, 2020 5 of 12
6.CALL TO THE PUBLIC
Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.01(H), public comment is permitted (not required) on matters NOT listed on the
agenda. Any such comment (i) must be within the jurisdiction of the Council, and (ii) is subject to reasonable time,
place, and manner restrictions. The Council will not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during Call to
the Public unless the matters are properly noticed for discussion and legal action. At the conclusion of the Call to
the Public, individual councilmembers may (i) respond to criticism, (ii) ask staff to review a matter, or (iii) ask that
the matter be placed on a future Council agenda.
None
7.CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
All items listed on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine, noncontroversial matters and will be
enacted by one motion of the Council. All motions and subsequent approvals of consent items will include all
recommended staff stipulations unless otherwise stated. There will be no separate discussion of these items
unless a councilmember or member of the public so requests. If a councilmember or member of the public
wishes to discuss an item on the Consent Agenda, he/she may request so prior to the motion to accept the
Consent Agenda or with notification to the Town Manager or Mayor prior to the date of the meeting for which the
item was scheduled. The items will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence
on the agenda.
MOVED BY Councilmember David Spelich, SECONDED BY Vice Mayor Mike Scharnow to
approve Consent Agenda Items 7-A through 7-C.
Vote: 6 - 0 Passed - Unanimously
A.CONSIDERATION OF approving the meeting minutes of the Special Meeting of August 24,
2020.
B.CONSIDERATION OF approving budget transfers for the General Fund, Debt Service
General Obligation Fund, and Capital Project Fund.
C.CONSIDERATION OF adopting Resolution 2020-37 approving an Intergovernmental
Agreement with the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation relating to Proposition 202 funding.
8.REGULAR AGENDA
A.CONSIDERATION OF an appointment to fill a vacancy on the Fountain Hills Town Council.
Town Attorney Aaron Arnson reviewed the process required when a councilmember moves
out of town and a vacancy is filled.
MOVED BY Councilmember David Spelich, SECONDED BY Councilmember Art Tolis to
appoint Gerry Friedel to the vacant Council seat.
Councilmember Brown said that it was a great selection. He said that he received more
votes than the other two candidates and it made sense.
Mayor Dickey said that they had different options for filling the seat, but this was very logical
and she was pleased.
Vote: 6 - 0 Passed - Unanimously
Town Council Regular Meeting of September 15, 2020 6 of 12
At this time, Judge Robert Melton administered the Oath of Office to Councilmember Friedel
and a short break was taken. Upon reconvening of the meeting, Councilmember Friedel
took his seat at the dais.
B.PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF Ordinance 20-14 amending the Zoning
Ordinance adding a new Chapter 26, Planned Shopping Plaza Overlay.
Mayor Dickey opened the Public Hearing.
Development Services Director John Wesley gave a PowerPoint presentation which
addressed:
BACKGROUND
PROPOSED NEW CHAPTER 26
Mr. Wesley said that as additional development was proposed for the Plat 208 area
following incorporation, the Town did not want to continue with the issuance of variances to
allow the historic development pattern in Plat 208. To address this situation and allow the
continuance of this form of development in this portion of Plat 208, the Town created and
approved a zoning overlay district, called the Planned Shopping Plaza Overlay District, in
1992 and then applied that zoning district to this area through the processing of a rezoning.
Among other things, this zoning designation allowed properties 10,800 square-feet or less to
have 100% lot coverage and not provide their own parking, and lots larger than that to have
60% lot coverage and provide their own parking. There were also some limitations on the
uses allowed through the Special Use Permit process.
In 1993 the Town completed the process of drafting and adopting a zoning ordinance
specific for the Town. That new zoning ordinance was adopted in November 1993. The
1993 ordinance did not include the Planned Shopping Plaza Overlay zoning designation and
it is still not in our zoning ordinance today.
In 1998 the Town reviewed and approved an ordinance (Ordinance 98-02) which amended
the 1992 Planned Shopping Plaza Overlay district. This amendment did some things to
bring the overlay district in line with the Town's 1993 zoning ordinance (referenced current
section numbers) and provided for use of the common parking area for lots that were
combined after January 1, 1992. The effect of this ordinance is unclear since it still was not
placed into the zoning ordinance.
Over the last 27 years the Town has continued to rely on the provisions of the overlay
ordinance for development in this area. It has now, however, come to their attention that we
are relying on an ordinance that is no longer in effect. This proposed text amendment will
re-establish the overlay district by adding it to the zoning ordinance as Chapter 26. A
second step will be needed to process a rezoning case to apply the zoning to specific
property before it can become effective.
Councilmember Tolis said that they are watching a slow growth of their community. They
need to create a regional draw, and he wants the Council to have an opportunity to hear all
applications. He agreed with what Planning and Zoning Commission recommended as an
amendment.
He said that in 2002, he invested in Fountain Hills. He bought a building and was going to
invest in it and have a mortgage company. It was presented to the Planning and Zoning
Commission and it was turned down. It is now an assisted-living facility; it would have
Town Council Regular Meeting of September 15, 2020 7 of 12
Commission and it was turned down. It is now an assisted-living facility; it would have
worked for an office. He does not want to turn anyone away; he wants to see what they
have to say. He would also like to address the entertainment district.
Councilmember Brown agreed with Councilmember Tolis. He does not want to keep Council
from at least hearing about projects.
Mayor Dickey noted that the General Plan update will be on the ballot in November; it is a
vision of their downtown area. The fact is that there are not other cities/towns that would
permit this in their urban core. She said that the Plat 208 owners are opposed to this. If they
allow this to occur, they have some control, but they cannot say no for any reason.
Mr. Wesley agreed that those he has talked with have some concerns.
Vice Mayor Scharnow said that in reading from the staff report, he tends to think it is not
something they want in the downtown area.
Councilmember Tolis said that he could go both ways in making the argument. They had a
large town with a plan of 70,000 people. They need to be realistic. The Avenue of the
Fountains should be in the entertainment district. There is office space in the downtown
area; they want activity down there, and people need office storage. He is in favor of this
change.
Councilmember Spelich said that he is baffled that they are constantly talking about the
vitalization of the area and by no stretch does he want to tell someone to not invest in
Fountain Hills. They can drive less than three miles to any one of the storage facilities in
town. He is not against business, but they have a very limited amount of land in that area
and they need to be cautious. It has long-term ramifications on the Town. He thinks that a
storage facility in that area is wrong all the way around.
Councilmember Tolis said that he also believes that Parkview has a lot of retail and vacancy.
This corner makes sense. The exterior is going to look like a high-end apartment complex; it
does not look like a storage facility. If someone said they wanted to put in a U-Haul, that
would not be consistent.
He said that he would like staff to go back and look at the Avenue of the Fountains and
create a listing of restrictions on what can or cannot be done in that area. There are waiting
lists to get into storage facilities. Mr. Wesley said that he does know they have issued a
building permit for another storage facility in Town.
Vice Mayor Scharnow said that this particular agenda item is general in nature; it does not
address a specific project.
Councilmember Friedel said that he has listened to everyone's point of view. He asked how
far off of the entertainment district the land was located. Staff replied that it was one block.
He said that no other towns allow this. If they are looking to drive an entertainment district,
this may not be the right project for that piece of land.
Donald Andrews, architect on a project, said that he was a long-time resident of Fountain
Hills, from 1984 to 1996. He was on the Board of Adjustment and worked with Gary
Jeppson. He said that Plat 208 is a failure. It was created by McCullogh with government
assistance. The ideology back then was to create a community square. That is not what
they have become.
Town Council Regular Meeting of September 15, 2020 8 of 12
He said that the downtown area in today's modern world would bring in the entertainment
district. Because it is so dense, compact, it needs specific support and storage is part of
that support. He has developed storage facilities and agrees that a mini-storage should not
be located there, but they are talking about storage facilities for businesses, that are
climate-controlled.
Mayor Dickey closed the public hearing.
MOVED BY Councilmember David Spelich, SECONDED BY Vice Mayor Mike Scharnow to
adopt Ordinance 20-14, minus Section B allowing for a Special Use Permit for ministorage.
MOVED BY Vice Mayor Mike Scharnow, SECONDED BY Councilmember David Spelich to
amend the motion to also include the parking exception for the larger lots.
Vote: 4 - 2 Passed
NAY: Councilmember Art Tolis
Councilmember Dennis Brown
Councilmember Tolis noted that he found it interesting that over the past few years they
have been criticized for going against the Planning and Zoning Commission, but that is what
they just did.
C.PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF Ordinance 20-10 amending Chapter 12,
Commercial Zoning Districts, by adding a new provision to Section 12.05, to allow indoor
mini-storage in the C-2 zoning district under the condition of a Special Use Permit.
Senior Planner Farhad Tavassoli said that this was a staff-initiated zoning ordinance text
amendment, per the Planning and Zoning Commission request.
Mr. Tavassoli said the challenge with this is that once a property is zoned C-3, they are
opening it up to a list of other uses.
Vice Mayor Scharnow asked if staff did not recommend this in the shopping overlay at first,
but now they are. Mr. Tavassoli replied yes. To expand the inventory of potential sites, staff
believes that it may be accommodated in some of the district, while the Council and
Commission would be allowed to make sure they fit in.
Vice Mayor Scharnow asked if these could fit in to certain C-2 zones, with a Special Use
Permit. Mr. Tavassoli replied that they could.
Councilmember Brown said that he was not sure why they were going through this exercise
since the Council just denied a change. Mr. Wesley said that they do have another storage
facility in the works, both internal and external, in an industrial-zoned property.
Mayor Dickey said that the idea of not wanting it downtown has to do with the downtown
area. It is not to say there are not other places in Town. They could be available by right in a
C-2 zone, or by Special Use Permit in a C-2 zone. She does not see that as being a conflict.
Councilmember Tolis said that this presentation should have been discussed first.
Councilmember Brown said that it was his understanding that they could go into a C-2 with
Town Council Regular Meeting of September 15, 2020 9 of 12
a Special Use Permit. Mr. Arnson said that there are uses subject to a Special Use Permit in
the C-2 zone and the Code lists those uses. This would add this use to that list.
Don Andrews addressed the Council, stating that they use a lot of terms in general. The
problem is that internalized storage did not exist 30 years ago. It is far different than
mini-storage. This should be for internal storage only.
Bob Mandel, Fountain Hills resident, said that from the outside it looks like they do a lousy
job of attracting more business that is needed. He said that it is a quiet business; no noise
and traffic. It will attract other businesses that will need this space.
Councilman Tolis asked if passing this and allowing other C-2 zones to have this new
opportunity to market their properties is going to open them up to litigation. Mr. Arnson said
that in this instance, with regard to the overlay, they are keeping it the same as it has been
treated.
Councilmember Brown asked what happens if someone brings a new business that is not in
their Code and wants to build it in a C-2 zone. He asked if they would just add it to the
approved list for Special Use Permits. Mr. Wesley said that if someone comes up with a
use, the first step is that the Zoning Administrator attempts to classify it. If someone does
not like his classification, then they can appeal it to the Council. Councilmember Brown said
that maybe that is what he was confusing.
Mr. Wesley said that Planning and Zoning took it out of 12.05 and added it here. Mayor
Dickey said that there are other uses that exist in C-2 with a Special Use Permit that are not
allowed in the Overlay Zone.
Mayor Dickey closed the Public Hearing.
MOVED BY Vice Mayor Mike Scharnow, SECONDED BY Councilmember Gerry Friedel to
adopt Ordinance 20-10 to allow internalized, climate-control storage.
Vote: 6 - 0 Passed - Unanimously
D.CONSIDERATION OF Ordinance 20-20 proposing changes to Town Code Chapter 10,
Health and Sanitation, Sections 10-2-1, 10-2-2 D., and 10-2-15 relating to property and
landscape maintenance.
Mr. Wesley said that this ordinance deals with Section 1-2 of the Town Code dealing with
property maintenance. He then gave a brief PowerPoint presentation that addressed:
BACKGROUND
SECTION 1-2-1 DEFINITIONS
OPTIONS
Councilmember Spelich asked if this was going to be enforced. Mr. Wesley said that the
Town's policy has been that it goes by complaint, and that keeps staff busy. Mr. Miller said
that it was a good point that the Town now has two code enforcement officers, allowing one
to work weekends. He said that at some point, it is a resource allocation effort, but he does
believe they should be much more proactive.
Vice Mayor Scharnow said that he totally agrees with Councilmember Spelich and Mr.
Miller, and they need to look at that, such as the old Taco Bell area.
Town Council Regular Meeting of September 15, 2020 10 of 12
Councilmember Brown asked if the Town islands and rights-of-way will be held to the same
standards. Mr. Wesley said that if they see something that is on the Town's property, they
will identify it with Mr. Weldy's staff.
MOVED BY Councilmember Dennis Brown, SECONDED BY Vice Mayor Mike Scharnow to
adopt Ordinance 20-20.
Vote: 6 - 0 Passed - Unanimously
E.CONSIDERATION of approving the first amendment to Cooperative Purchase Agreement
C2020-065 with M. R. Tanner Development and Construction, Inc.
Public Works Director Justin Weldy reviewed this request, stating that they intended to
come back and work on these segments. They are asking, in part, to approve an
amendment that will allow them to work more on the downtown area. Westby was originally
included, but is removed because of the development taking place. It is not off the table;
they are hoping they may be able to come back next spring if it is ready.
PAVEMENT MAP FY20-21
Mr. Weldy then reviewed the proposed streets for improvements.
CRACK SEALING
Mr. Weldy said that this will be much less expensive to do future work. This is not included
in the ten-year horizon that they will be talking about later. This is the program they are still
working on, to save what they can with the limited resources and then in the outlying years
they will discuss other funding sources. Mr. Miller said that due to some carryover funding
this year they were able to enhance the expenditure to $3.3 million.
Mr. Wesley said that they do have about $3.3 million; however, they are only asking for $2.6
million in this amendment as the rest is already encumbered.
Mayor Dickey said that some people give the Council input on things not being fair; she
asked what the response is. Mr. Weldy said the Town's pavement management program
uses a combination of prioritization (road class, pavement type, & strength) and optimization
(cost of deferral) to publish the recommended rehabilitation program based upon the models
assigned funding.
Mr. Miller said that the Town received $2.9 million in CARES funding. His recommendation
was to stabilize the budget, provide the $300,000 for grants, and put what is left in
December in reserve to see how they get through next year. Anything saved would be put
into the street fund.
MOVED BY Vice Mayor Mike Scharnow, SECONDED BY Councilmember Gerry Friedel to
approve the first amendment to Cooperative Purchasing Agreement C2020-065 -1 With M.R.
Tanner in the amount of $2,650,000.00.
Vote: 6 - 0 Passed - Unanimously
9.COUNCIL DISCUSSION/DIRECTION to the TOWN MANAGER
Town Council Regular Meeting of September 15, 2020 11 of 12
9.COUNCIL DISCUSSION/DIRECTION to the TOWN MANAGER
Item(s) listed below are related only to the propriety of (i) placing such item(s) on a future agenda for action, or (ii)
directing staff to conduct further research and report back to the Council.
None
10.ADJOURNMENT
MOVED BY Councilmember David Spelich, SECONDED BY Councilmember Dennis
Brown to adjourn.
Vote: 6 - 0 Passed - Unanimously
The Regular Meeting of the Fountain Hills Town Council held September 15, 2020,
adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
____________________________
Ginny Dickey, Mayor
ATTEST AND PREPARED BY:
______________________________
Elizabeth A. Burke, Town Clerk
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular
Meeting held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills in the Town Hall Council Chambers on the 15th day of
September, 2020. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present.
DATED this 6th day of October, 2020.
_________________________________
Elizabeth A. Burke, Town Clerk
Town Council Regular Meeting of September 15, 2020 12 of 12
ITEM 7. B.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 10/06/2020 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting
Agenda Type: Consent Submitting Department: Community Services
Prepared by: Jamie Salentine, Executive Assistant
Staff Contact Information: Rachael Goodwin, Community Services Director
Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF adopting
Ordinance 20-23 to Amend Town Code, Chapter 9, Article 9-5, Section 1, Purpose and Intent; Section 2,
Definitions; Section 3, General Preserve Regulations; and Section 4, Central Trailhead Regulations.
Staff Summary (background)
The Town Code, Article 9-5, Section 1, Purpose and Intent; Section 2, Definitions; and Section 4, Central
Trailhead Regulations currently read "Central Trailhead." The trailhead has been renamed "Adero
Canyon Trailhead." Ordinance 20-23 amends the section to update the trailhead to the new name.
The Town Code, Article 9-5, Section 3 General Preserve Regulations currently reads that hunting,
trapping or otherwise harming or harassing any wildlife within the Fountain Hills McDowell Mountain
Preserve is prohibited. Ordinance 20-23 amends this section to allow bow and arrow hunting in
accordance with State Law.
Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle
Town Code, Chapter 9, Article 9-5, Section 1, Purpose and Intent; Section 2, Definitions;
Section 3, General Preserve Regulations; and Section 4, Central Trailhead Regulations.
Risk Analysis
N/A
Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s)
N/A
Staff Recommendation(s)
Staff recommends approval.
SUGGESTED MOTION
MOVE to adopt Ordinance 20-23.
Attachments
Ord 20-23
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Town Clerk Elizabeth A. Burke 09/22/2020 09:24 AM
Community Services Director Rachael Goodwin 09/22/2020 01:52 PM
Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 09/23/2020 08:42 AM
Town Manager Grady E. Miller 09/24/2020 09:36 PM
Form Started By: Jamie Salentine Started On: 09/08/2020 04:25 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/24/2020
ORDINANCE NO. 20-23
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN CODE, CHAPTER 9,
ARTICLE 9-5, SECTION 1, PURPOSE AND INTENT;
SECTION 2, DEFINITIONS; SECTION 3, GENERAL PRESERVE
REGULATIONS; AND SECTION 4, CENTRAL TRAILHEAD
REGULATIONS
ENACTMENTS:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
FOUNTAIN HILLS as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 9, Article 9-5, Section 1, Purpose and Intent, of the Town Code, is
amended as follows:
C. Provide use regulation for the Central ADERO CANYON Trailhead that will provide public assess
into the Preserve.
SECTION 2. Chapter 9, Article 9-5, Section 2, Definitions, of the Town Code, is amended as
follows:
“Central ADERO CANYON Trailhead” means the developed portions of that trailhead located at
the terminus of Eagle Ridge Drive.
“Emergency Access Route” means that roadway between the Central ADERO CANYON
Trailhead and the southwestern corner of the Eagles Nest subdivision that can be used to
evacuate people out of the Eagle Ridge North subdivision.
“Golden Eagle Trailhead” means the developed portions of that trailhead located at the public
terminus of Golden Eagle Drive.
The “Preserve” shall mean those lands identified by Resolutions 2002-01 and 2018-56 as the
Fountain Hills McDowell Mountain Preserve.
“Special preserve permit” means a noncommercial permit issued by the Parks and Recreation
Department required for group functions in and around the Central ADERO CANYON Trailhead.
“Spider trail” means an unauthorized trail or pathway within the Preserve.
SECTION 3. Chapter 9, Article 9-5, Section 3, General Preserve Regulations, of the Town
Code, is amended as follows:
K. Hunting, trapping or otherwise harming or harassing any wildlife, except as authorized by State
Law.
ORDINANCE 20-23 PAGE 2 OF 2
SECTION 4. Chapter 9, Article 9-5, Section 4, Central Trailhead Regulations, of the Town Code,
is amended as follows:
Section 9-5-4 CentralADERO CANYON Trailhead Regulations
In addition to the prohibitions in Section 9-5-3, the following are prohibited within the Central
ADERO CANYON Trailhead:
A. Accessing or utilizing the Central ADERO CANYON Trailhead outside of the posted hours of
operation.
SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the Mayor and Council of the Town of Fountain Hills, this 6th day
of October, 2020.
FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS: ATTESTED TO:
Ginny Dickey, Mayor Elizabeth A. Burke, Town Clerk
REVIEWED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Grady E. Miller, Town Manager Aaron D. Arnson, Town Attorney
ITEM 7. C.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 10/06/2020 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting
Agenda Type: Consent Submitting Department: Administration
Prepared by: Kukkola Sonia, Financial Services Technician
Staff Contact Information:
Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF approving a
Liquor License Application for Georgie's, located at 16725 E. Avenue of the Fountains #C110 Fountain
Hills, Arizona, for a Series 12 (Restaurant) license.
Staff Summary (Background)
The purpose of this item is to obtain the Town Council's recommendation regarding a liquor license
application submitted by Urim Zejneli, owner of Georgie's for submission to the Arizona Department of
Liquor. Staff reviewed the liquor license application and found that it is in full compliance with Town
ordinances.
Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle
A.R.S.§4-201; 4-202;4-203 &4-205 and R19-1-102 and R19-1-311.
Risk Analysis
N/A
Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s)
N/A
Staff Recommendation(s)
Staff recommends approval of the liquor license application.
SUGGESTED MOTION
MOVE to approve a #12 liquor license application for Georgie's.
Attachments
Liquor License Application
Departmental Recommendation
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Director David Pock 09/23/2020 01:09 PM
Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 09/23/2020 03:43 PM
Town Manager Grady E. Miller 09/24/2020 09:56 PM
Form Started By: Kukkola Sonia Started On: 09/23/2020 11:00 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/24/2020
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
INTER OFFICE MEMO
TO: (as applicable)
• Streets Division
• Fire Department
• Building Division
• Community Services
• Development Services
• Law Enforcement
• Licensing
DATE: 9/17/20
FR: Sonia Kukkola,
Financial Services Technician
RE: Liquor License Application
Attached is a Liquor License Application for staff review.
Review the application, then mark or sign, indicating staff’s recommendation for approval (with or
without stipulations) or denial.
If staff’s recommendation is to deny and/or there are stipulations for approval, please attach a memo
that specifies the reasoning and the memo will be forwarded on to the Town Council for their
consideration of this application.
Name of Organization: Georgie’s, 16725 E. Avenue of the Fountains #C110, Fountain Hills AZ 85268
Applicant: Urim Zejneli
Date(s) of Event: N/A
Date Application Received: 08/24/20 Town Council Agenda Date: 10/6/20
STAFF REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION:
Department/Division Staff Member Approved Denied N/A
P & Z John Wesley X
Community Services Linda Ayres X
Peter Johnson Building Safety X
Fire Department Dave Ott X
Law Enforcement Larry Kratzer X
Licensing Sonia Kukkola X
Street Department Jeff Pierce X
Attach r eport for denial or any recommendation requiring stipulations.