Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPAC.2010.1202.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS STRATEGIC PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING December 2,2010 AGENDA ITEM#1—CALL TO ORDER Chair Koester Thomas called the meeting to order in the Fountain Hills Council Chambers at 2:03 p.m. AGENDA ITEM#2—ROLL CALL Present for roll call were the following members of the Strategic Planning Advisory Commission: Chair Audra Koester Thomas,Vice Chair Curt Dunham, Commissioner Alan Magazine, Youth Commissioner Katie Myer,y , and Commissioner Barry Spiker. Commissioner Mike Dooley and Commissioner Rich Schultz were excused. Also present were Deputy Town Manager Julie Ghetti and Recording Secretary Shaunna Williams. AGENDA ITEM#3—CALL TO THE PUBLIC No one appeared at the Call to the Public. AGENDA ITEM #4 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING MEETING MINUTES OF November 10, 2010 Commissioner Magazine MOVED to approve the November 10, 2010 meeting minutes and Commissioner Spiker SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present. • AGENDA ITEM #5 — DISCUSSION WITH TOWN ATTORNEY ANDREW MCGUIRE REGARDING OPEN MEETING LAWS, SPAC ADVOCACY ON TOWN ISSUES/INITIATIVES, AND POWERS/LIMITS OF SPAC Chair Koester Thomas welcomed Town Attorney Andrew McGuire to address three main topics: (1) limits and/or powers of advocacy of SPAC, specific to SPAC providing educational information; (2) general open meeting considerations and the extent to which discussion can take place that may not have been specifically agendized; and (3) the limits and powers of the commission itself. Mr. McGuire stated that he routinely counsels all newly elected or appointed Town officials with respect to conflicts of interest, Open Meeting Law, and parameters of authority of commissions and related matters. With respect to Open Meeting Law, Mr. McGuire noted that the presumption is that all commission meetings will be open to the public. The rule is that if an item is going to be discussed by the commission, it must be listed on an agenda that is posted not later than 24 hours prior to the meeting in language sufficient to inform the average reader what will be discussed. Mr. McGuire stated that very broad topics on the agenda, leading to discussions that could not be contemplated by the average person, are the things that get cities and towns in trouble. He pointed out that agendas should be descriptive as to the following: (1) what type of discussion, i.e., consideration, discussion only, or public hearing; and (2) the individually listed agenda items identified by number and/or specific title, together with more detail about what a particular agenda item really might encompass. Mr. McGuire pointed out that commissions are subject to the same laws as Council and mentioned that the State of Arizona's 0 definition of a "public body" is so broad that commissions should consider themselves as such. He Page 1 of 7 stated that minutes are subject to review and that, although a commission is not required to have minutes posted on the web in the same way as Council, the Town has taken the step to do that anyway; that SPAC minutes are posted and everything that comes out in the official minutes moves onto the • permanent public record that the public can access via the web. In terms of SPAC gatherings, Mr. McGuire stated that if there is a quorum together at any time, people will think you are talking about SPAC business and SPAC should be cautious about how they allow meetings to happen, e. g., holding meetings at Town Hall in a formal setting. He noted that one substantial problem with violations of Open Meeting Law is that penalties are fairly severe; not only is the action taken by the commission void, there is a also a penalty personally against the SPAC members. Even though SPAC's actions are advisory only, he assured the committee that it does not want to get to the point where an investigation is conducted. Mr. McGuire noted that in this state there is a specific group in the Attorney General's office called the Open Meeting Law Enforcement Team (OMLET); that they have a very narrow view of Open Meeting Law and any violation is subject to the penalties that come from it. He further stated that if SPAC is charged with a violation, even something technical that the Council can rectify at their level, the defense of it can only be done if SPAC, as a public body, votes to decide to defend itself, which SPAC doesn't have the authority to do. He stated that SPAC would have to convince the Council to vote to expend public monies to defend SPAC in the action; that penalties are generally$500 per person for the offense; and that OMLET's view of Open Meeting Law is very, very strict. Mr. McGuire stated that Open Meeting Law applies to every level of government except those who have been specifically exempted out by statute; that if SPAC has a subcommittee that is officially appointed by SPAC, even if it is not a quorum, that subcommittee is treated exactly the same way as the (1) commission, i.e., agendas are posted, the public is invited to come out and listen to the meeting, and minutes are produced and posted on the web. Mr. McGuire indicated that at the advisory level, informal groups of less than a quorum can go out and do things, such as gather information, but they should not be appointed as an official subcommittee unless SPAC wants to agendize, post, and take minutes for each meeting. Mr. McGuire pointed out that advocacy is another area were there isn't a lot of wiggle room. The state statute essentially states that a city or town may not use its resources -- personnel, money or otherwise -- or express advocacy to influence the outcome of a ballot measure. He stated that express advocacy is prohibited and that information put out for an election must be factual information only and that this applies to any official action of the Town, any official action of a commission, or any official action taken by any staff member. He went on to say that advocacy is not permitted during any election period, beginning with the time referendum petitions are pulled until whenever the ballot measure is voted upon. Mr. McGuire noted that, as individuals, SPAC commissioners are free to advocate strongly for or against a ballot measure; that as a commissioner one does not give up first amendment rights to go out and speak about a ballot measure; that commissioners may make statements in information pamphlet arguments for or against ballot measures, but that such statements cannot be produced with Town resources (i.e. printed on Town printers, or be written by Town staff, or be distributed by the Town). Vice Chair Dunham inquired whether or not it would be a violation, when speaking as an individual citizen of Fountain Hills, to use his title as Vice Chair of SPAC. • Page 2 of 7 McGuire stated that it would not be a violation as long as the information he was taking with him had not been prepared by SPAC or the Town. Mr. McGuire stated that the Arizona Attorney General has opined that such individual commentary or expression is not prohibited by the statute. Vice Chair Dunham asked if he would need to disclaimer that he was not representing the view of the SPAC. Mr. McGuire responded that it would be a good idea. Commissioner Magazine asked for verification of his understanding that if all SPAC commissioners were in favor of something, each individual could speak out and advocate for that, but not as a group. Mr. McGuire stated that was correct, but that SPAC should not put out any official statement. Chair Koester Thomas asked about the extent to which a commission can provide information or educational materials, noting that one of the purposes of SPAC per the bylaws is that SPAC be an educational arm of the Town. Mr. McGuire urged SPAC to focus just on this commission alone; that SPAC is a truly advisory commission that was created by the Town for a specific purpose. He stated that SPAC's purview is the content of the Strategic Plan and that providing information about things in the Strategic Plan is within SPAC's right, with the condition that anything SPAC wants to put out as a commission should be looked at by the Town Attorney's office first to make sure that SPAC is not putting out anything that could be • considered express advocacy in violation of the statute. Mr. McGuire further noted that the facts are what SPAC is supposed to be putting out; that arguments on both sides of an issue cannot be a part of SPAC's public discourse; only the facts may be distributed. He stated that a Q&A format is preferable and that bullet points that list out some of the highlights are fine. He emphasized that there is a practical side here that is going to be a little bit challenging to dance around; specifically, unified trash hauling is in the Strategic Plan, and therefore not outside SPAC's scope to put out information about that, but the information is going to have to be tempered so it is not viewed as one of the Town's commissions expressly advocating on one side of the issue or another. Commissioner Magazine asked if it could be possible that SPAC bylaws are in conflict with the state law. He pointed out that one of SPAC's powers and duties is to champion the Town's Strategic Plan to keep it visible and that another is to develop partnerships to help implement adopted strategic initiatives, which leads him to believe that SPAC can, as a body, advocate for something that is in the plan, such as the trash ordinance. Mr. McGuire replied that during an election time (after petitions have been filed), state law trumps SPAC bylaws. He stated that during "normal" times, SPAC can champion the Strategic Plan because SPAC can explain the plan more clearly than anyone else,but when an election is pending this must take a back seat. Commissioner Magazine pointed out that a cornerstone of Strategic Plan 2010 deals with Town revenues. Page 3 of 7 Mr. McGuire stated that SPAC advocating as a group for raising revenues will only be tempered by the fact that a ballot measure is in play. He noted that the bond election is going to be called very early and • that SPAC will not be able to expressly advocate as a group on a property tax measure or on a road bond after the call of an election, although providing factual information and individual advocacy will be fine. Commissioner Magazine noted that just about anything affecting this Town comes out of the Strategic Plan and that an agenda item at the last SPAC meeting called for a discussion of the 2010 plan. He asked whether or not the agenda would have to be very specific to discuss, for example, trash removal. Mr. McGuire stated that in this scenario SPAC would be "dancing on the edge" of Open Meeting Law; that if the SPAC agenda read, "Discussion of 2010 plan," and that is what SPAC puts on the agenda all of the time, the Attorney General's office might say that is not enough to tell people what you are going to talk about and that if SPAC has specific initiatives or current topics to talk about, those should be listed on the agenda; that broad topics are probably not enough to give the commission adequate legal cover if the AG's office ever came looking. Commissioner Magazine stated that in the Town Manager's report at the last meeting, Mr. Davis raised the issue of trash removal. He asked about limiting SPAC's discussion about trash removal when the Town Manager had raised it during his report. Mr. McGuire stated that if the Town Manager's report contains specific topics and he discusses them, and all of that information is available to the public as part of the agenda packet that is posted online and available to the public prior to the Council meeting, it is fair game for discussion. Chair Koester Thomas noted that the agenda item at the last meeting read, "Agenda Item #6 - Town Manager's Update." She pointed out that Mr. Davis reports on items that are not specifically identified on the agenda. She inquired as to what extent SPAC can have discussion or debate after the report has been delivered about a topic that Mr. Davis brought up. Mr. McGuire stated that this depends on nature of the report; that if the report is part of the written material submitted to the commission and available to the public, that is fine; that if Mr. Davis, off the top of his head, gives SPAC an update, SPAC should treat that like a Call to the Public where the commissioners do not respond. Mr. McGuire further explained that the Open Meeting Law has a specific carve out for these kinds of informational update items, but they are not intended to be discussion items. He stated that verbal reports with no written documents are to be treated like someone coming to the podium during the Call to the Public. Vice Chair Dunham inquired whether or not SPAC has the ability to ask the manager clarifying questions about items in his report? Mr. McGuire responded that it would be degrees of grey at that point and noted that the only exception to the Call to the Public rule in the Open Meeting Law is the responding to criticism exception, which he has counseled against using. He noted that response to criticism should be nothing, with the rare exception of a clarifying statement. Mr. McGuire stated a discussion needs to be truncated, at the Chair's discretion, if a clarifying question turns into a discussion. Page 4 of 7 Commissioner Magazine inquired about how far in advance one would need to post an addendum to an agenda. Ar Mr. McGuire responded that the agenda must be posted 24 hours in advance of a meeting. Commissioner Magazine stated that if the Town Manager's Update was specifically age ndized, the items in his report would be open for discussion. He suggested instituting that with the Town Manager's approval. Mr. McGuire indicated that would be acceptable as long as the agenda was posted 24 hours in advance of the meeting, but he specifically pointed out that nothing we do is to ever try to get around Open Meeting Law. Commissioner Spiker asked whether SPAC, in discussing the next meeting agenda, was laying out things that have not been agendized for the current meeting that could invite conversation about things being relevant to this meeting or future meetings. Mr. McGuire said that discussing the next meeting agenda opens up the same type of Pandora's box as specifically, the same "ifyou have interaction" kind of problem, or the Town Manager's update; discussion, or come to a consensus about things. He stated that the problem is that you cannot come to a quorum discussion and conclusion outside of the meeting about what is going to be on the agenda either. He noted that it is the role of the Chair and the Town Manager to understand what should be discussed and that they generally set the agenda; that having a collective discussion about the agenda is dangerous. • Chair Koester Thomas inquired as to what extent SPAC as a body, without a specific agenda, can provide an educational forum or workshop on a particular item, such as a bond issue. Mr. McGuire urged the commission to be clear that anytime SPAC, as a body, is going to do anything it is going to be public meeting in a public setting, with minutes and everything else. He stated that SPAC is no more constrained about providing the information than the Council is; that if Council wants SPAC to be the mechanism by which a public meeting is held to provide information to folks, that is fine; that at those meetings SPAC is going to have to be very careful to stay on the "path" and pretty well contain the information provided to "Q&A" types of things. Vice Chair Dunham stated that Mr. McGuire had mentioned that SPAC needs to stay to the facts, but that it is very difficult to determine a "fact." As an example Vice Chair Dunham mentioned the consequences of not taking care of Saguaro in the next five years. He suggested a possible scenario where SPAC gets an opinion from an independent transportation engineer that it is going to cost five times more to fix Saguaro in five years than it costs to fix it now. He asked if that opinion would be considered a fact because of the professional designation of the person who provided the opinion, or if that would be considered a coerced statement that puts SPAC in the position of advocacy. Mr. McGuire stated that would likely depend on one's perspective; that someone who was against a road bond would consider it advocacy. Mr. McGuire noted that it would be unreasonable to think that a court would say that a public body could not rely on expert opinion that could be taken as fact. He further noted that the finer questions are property tax and long term revenue generating issues; that when those come on the ballot it would be more challenging to determine facts from opinion. Page 5 of 7 Chair Koester Thomas inquired as to whether or not it would be appropriate for SPAC to produce an informational brochure on a factual level, crafted in an open meeting, about a potential bond election. Mr. McGuire stated that crafting such a brochure would be appropriate as long as SPAC keeps its focus on the facts of the matter. Chair Koester Thomas stated that an issue SPAC might be undertaking is to advise Council as to how to implement a particular goal of theirs, i.e., crafting a Blue Ribbon Committee to address the long-term financial stability of the Town. She inquired if it would be proper for SPAC, in an open meeting, to create a strategy and draft a report to Council relative to fulfilling that goal. Mr. McGuire responded that doing so would be appropriate as long as there is a not a ballot measure on those particular items. Vice Chair Dunham noted that a "rule of thumb" appeared to be that SPAC can "enlighten," but that if there is an election involved and SPAC might influence someone's vote, on a collective basis SPAC would need to stop. Mr. McGuire affirmed that collectively SPAC would need to stop, but that individually the commissioners could do as much advocating as they want. Chair Koester Thomas inquired if SPAC had any further questions for Mr. McGuire. There being none, she thanked Mr. McGuire for his time. Commissioner Magazine inquired if the commission would be willing to ask Mr. Davis whether or not a short list of items for his report could be obtained 24 hours in advance of a SPAC meeting. Chair Koester Thomas replied that she has noted this and will speak with Mr. Davis to find out if he would be comfortable in doing so. AGENDA ITEM#6 - TOWN MANAGER'S UPDATE Ms. Ghetti reported that the Council met with staff on November 30 to discuss Council Goals for FY2011-12;that Council Goals will be discussed again in a Council Work Study session on December 14; that an agenda item at the next Council meeting on December 16 will be to call a $29.6M road bond election; and that a change to the Town's investment policy would be discussed at the Council meeting later that evening. AGENDA ITEM#7—UPDATE ON TOWN FINANCES Ms. Ghetti reviewed a financial report that had been distributed to each commissioner (a copy of the report is attached to these minutes)and then responded to questions from the commissioners. AGENDA ITEM#8—SPAC GOALS FOR 20-10-11 Chair Koester Thomas reported that she had met with Mayor Schlum and Town Manager Davis for feedback on SPAC's Advisory Statement regarding the Town's financial stability. She reported that Mayor Schlum had acknowledged during their meeting that the Blue Ribbon Committee would be an area with which SPAC could Page 6 of 7 assist; that the Mayor asked if SPAC could provide a plan, or outline a strategy or strategies, for Council to consider in order to pursue the Council Goal regarding the Blue Ribbon Committee. Chair Koester Thomas also noted that Mayor Schlum had indicated that he thought a SPAC goal regarding making Fountain Hills the most sustainable community in Arizona was a good idea, but that SPAC should not proceed at this time on the idea. Following discussion, it was determined that the first meeting in January 2011 be a work session and that Chair Koester Thomas would work with Shaunna Williams to find an appropriate location for that meeting. AGENDA ITEM#9—DISCUSS NEXT MEETING AGENDA Chair Koester Thomas will work with the Town Manager regarding a more specific agenda for the Town Manager's Update. She indicated that she will send out an email to the commission one week prior to the next meeting requesting suggestions on specific agenda items for that meeting. She noted that replies should be one- way communications(not"Reply All"). Mr. Spiker offered to provide background information regarding sustainability in order to make the next meeting more productive,and Chair Koester Thomas indicated that she would discuss this with him. AGENDA ITEM#10—SCHEDULE UPCOMING MEETING DATES It was noted that SPAC meetings currently scheduled are at 3:00 p.m. on January 18, 2011, and at 3:00 p.m. on February 15, 2011. Following discussion,an additional meeting was scheduled at 3:00 p.m. on March 15, 2011. AGENDA ITEM#10—ADJOURN Commissioner Spiker MOVED to adjourn at 3:21p.m. and Commissioner Magazine SECONDED the motion, • which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present. w. Qs ".""al Shaunna Williams, Recording Secretary 9 Page 7 of 7 . , , 0 FY11-12 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES GENERAL FUND General Fund Revenues $18.0 $16.9 $16.7 $16.0 $14.8 $14.0 $13.5 $12.7 $12.7 $12.0 $10.0 - FY06-07 FY07-OS FYOS-09 FY09-10 FY10-11 FY11-12 • _ General Fund Expenditures $16.0 - $15.6 $15.3 $14.8 $14.0 - $13.3 $13.0 $12.6 $12.0 - $10.0 - FY06-07 FY07-08 FY08-09 FY09-10 FY10-11 FY11-12 State Shared Revenues $5.0 $4.5 -_ $4.0 - $3.5 $3.0 $2.5 $2.0 - $1.5 $1.0 $0.5 $0.0 1__ T r FY06-07 FY07-03 FY08-09 FY09-10 FY10-11 FY11-12 Building Related Revenues $2.5 $2.IM $2.0 $1.6M $1.5 .-.............. $1.0 $0.9M $0.7M $0.5 $0.3M $0.3M $0.2M $0.2 $0.0 ■ __ FY04-05 FY05-06 FY06-07 FY07-08 FY08-09 FY09-10 FY10-11 FY11-12 FY11-12 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES HURF FUND HIGHWAY USER(HUFF)REVENUE $25 $1.9 $1.9 $213 $15 $1.0 SI �6 8^ SOD Fiscal years 200-through 2012 ► • FY11-12 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES DOWNTOWN FUND Downtown Excise Tax $400,000 $3 3 5,314 $350,000 $300,000 $281,773 $260,395 $270,629 $272,138 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 - - $100,000 - $50,000 $0 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 M • l 1 Number of Town Employees 120us - 110 -- 100 90 87 88 88 82 81 80 15 n 70 61 60 50 FY02-03 FY04-05 FY06-07 FY08-09 FY10-11 3