Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014.0108.TCOM.Minutesz:\council packets\2014\r140206\140108trm.docx age 1 of 14 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL/STAFF RETREAT JANUARY 8, 2014 Mayor Kavanagh convened the meeting at 8:05 a.m., which was held in the Fountain Hills Town Council Chambers. Members Present: Mayor Linda M. Kavanagh, Councilmember Ginny Dickey, Councilmember Dennis Brown, Councilmember Cecil Yates, Vice Mayor Cassie Hansen and Councilmember Tait Elkie. Councilmember Henry Leger arrived at the meeting at 8:06 a.m. Staff Present: Town Manager Ken Buchanan, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire, Town Clerk Bevelyn Bender, Deputy Town Manager Julie Ghetti, Accountant Craig Rudolphy, Development Services Director Paul Mood, Community Services Director Mark Mayer, Fire Chief Randy Roberts, Executive Assistant to the Mayor and Town Council Shaunna Williams, MCSO Captain Joe Rodriguez, Economic Development Specialist Scott Cooper, Court Administrator Keith Kaplan, Superintendent of Streets Ken Kurth, Supervisor of Recreation Bryan Hughes and Human Resources Administrator Joan McIntosh. Town Manager Ken Buchanan opened the meeting and discussed the on-going annual efforts to look towards the future and said that there are a couple of things that need to be discussed. He said one is seeking direction from the Council on a number of things so that staff can put a work plan together and effectively budget for that in the coming fiscal years. He advised that there are a number of things that staff wants to present to the Council and then they will come back with a document in the future to ratify those items like they did at the last Retreat. He introduced two new staff members Craig Rudolphy, who will be taking over as Finance Director and Economic Development Specialist Scott Cooper. He discussed the process that would be followed and the various items that would be covered and said that the goal of this Retreat is to discuss parameters in which the 2014-15 budget will be presented, the various priorities, projects, programs, services and issues in the upcoming budget, the implementation of the established priorities and budget calendar timeframes that would lead to the adoption of the 2014-15 budget. Mr. Buchanan reviewed the information contained in the PowerPoint (Copy available on line and in the office of the Town Clerk) beginning with the Town's Mission, Vision and Values and said that staff is seeking re-affirmation of the mission, vision and values they have as an organization -- and wanted to know whether there is that should be reviewed or changed. There were no comments regarding changes from the Council. Mr. Buchanan turned the meeting over to Deputy Town Manager Julie Ghetti to talk about the Five-Year Financial Forecast and Fiscal and Financial Policies. Ms. Ghetti proceeded with the Five-Year Financial Forecast beginning with an explanation of budget assumptions used. She discussed the General Fund, the main operating fund, and noted that it is razor thin. She referred to the charts depicting the FY2013-2019 projected General Fund Revenues and Expenditures and said these are staff's best estimates and she would cover the assumptions that were used. She noted that the goal is to be conservative but flexible so that if revenues come in that were not anticipated, they will have the ability to u se those monies to provide better services. She advised that the anticipated increases are related to building activity but they represent a one-time revenue. She pointed out that there is no change in the level of services currently being provided. She commented on State Shared Revenues, which are dependent on census data and stated that staff assumed the same existing level. She spoke to local sales tax revenue and reported that proposed increases are based on increased building permit activity. Ms. Ghetti discussed FY14/15 budget assumptions and noted the following: * No new staff * MCSO increase of 4.5% * Rural Metro increase of 3.0% * Inflation 0% * Building permits 44 z:\council packets\2014\r140206\140108trm.docx age 2 of 14 * Election costs $85,000 * Community Center debt payment subsidy $190,000 (this year and next year and then it will be paid off) * General Fund contingency $50,000 She noted that if building activity does increase the likelihood exists that they will have to hire additional staff, however if the development goes away, the staff will also go away. She referred to a chart that depicted the Town's Excise Tax and noted that all of the bonds will be paid off by FY2020. She commented on the Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF), the streets fund, and said they have added on the Vehicle L icense Tax and this is also dependent upon population. She highlighted the assumptions that were used, which included: * Revenue projections are determined using some trend analyses as well as estimates of building activity -- staff's best guesses for future revenues * No change in distribution of State Shared Revenues - the mid-decade census may affect the Town's proportionate share of distributions (positively or negatively) * Existing level of services maintained * Building permit activity projected to include permits for Adero Canyon and Summit at Crestview * Staff level increase for part-time Building Inspector, dependent upon building activity * Inflation factor of 0% for FY12, 2.5% through FY2019 * Public Safety contracts increase 3% - 4% in FY19 * Annual General Fund payment for Community Center is eliminated in FY15-16 * Projections do not presume development in the former State Trust land within the next five years but include a moderate increase (3%) annually in local economic activity. Ms. Ghetti briefly highlighted a summary of the outstanding bonds and said that the bonds for the road paving project are not anticipated to be sold until late this calendar year and the property tax levy will not go into effect until September 2015. She indicated her willingness to respond to any questions from the Council. Ms. Ghetti discussed Eagle Mountain Community Facilities District and explained that that it is a General Obligation Bond and the property tax is paid for strictly by the residents of Eagl e Mountain and said that will also be paid off in 2020. Saguaro will be added in 2015 and the Community Center bonds will be paid off in FY15-16. Councilmember Elkie referred to the Preserve bonds and the Community Center bonds and stated that once they are paid off the tax goes away and Ms. Ghetti replied that the Preserve bonds, the General Obligation bonds, yes, the MPC where they just paid for the excise tax they will still have that tax unless the Council decides to reallocate it or reduce it. Mayor Kavanagh commented on the Vehicle License Tax being used for pavement management but said they are anticipating costs associated with aging facilities and some major infrastructure repairs and asked if any money is being put aside for something like that. Ms. Ghetti responded no and said they will somehow have to find funds for that but no funds have been set aside for facility maintenance, just for vehicles and equipment. Discussion ensued relative to one time expenditures as a result of increased permi tting and the fact that currently the building permit revenue is included in the General Fund because the General Fund is so razor thin; the fact that they have not budgeted any major expenditures for the next five year as far as replacements; Mr. Buchanan's comment that there needs to be future dialogue between the Council and staff regarding a facility reserve fund so they can start talking about some of the aging infrastructure they have; the fact that re-conditioned pumps have a short life span and there are a number of other major problems as far as infrastructure that must be addressed (the Fountain, cooling towers, air conditioning units, roofs, etc.); Councilmember Elkie's comment that perhaps the one-time permit funds could be used as a designated fund for building maintenance; Mr. Buchanan's intention to bring back some concepts to present to the Council for discussion and direction; the fact that if something happens now they have to "rob Peter to pay Paul;" the fact that for the next five years the Manager's contingency fund is $50,000 and in the past the amount has been larger because of the economic uncertainty but things seem to have stabilized so staff is comfortable with the $50,000 amount and Ms. Ghetti's comment that she doesn't think they have used any of it this year and her statement that the money is a budget appropriation and they have reserve funds that are set aside and separate but the $50,000 is a budget appropriation so if they overspend somewhere they just decrease that line item a nd increase something else; the fact that the contingency funds could be used if an emergency situation arose; the fact that reserve funds have been z:\council packets\2014\r140206\140108trm.docx age 3 of 14 kept at the same level and there is probably slightly more than required in there now but in two more year s they will have to build that back up again; Councilmember Leger's comment that 10% of the construction sales tax monies could be allocated to some type of fund (at one time they were 85-15) and Ms. Ghetti concurred; Councilmember Leger's statement that they could start adjusting that if revenue projections start increasing; Councilmember Yates' questions as to if staff was challenged to set up a Reserve Replacement account right now, where does staff think it would come from and do they have a facility capital analysis to see what kind of balance they should have; Mr. Mood 's response that he thinks a report might have been discussed at a Retreat a few years ago -- staff looked at facilities, parks and fire and they were talking about jump starting the fund with $500,000 from the CIP and $200,000 or $250,000 a year after that but it didn't include big ticket items like a lake liner or field lighting; Councilmember Yates' concern over the cap; Mr. Mood's comment that during the summer both cooling towers and chillers have to be running at 100% to cool all three buildings; and the fact that if a chiller went down it would be weeks before it could be fixed and it would cost over $100,000. Additional discussion ensued relative to Councilmember Yates' statement that this is something they should really pay attention to and he likes Councilmember Leger's idea and his opinion that $100,000 minimum should be set aside somewhere for this purpose; Mr. Mood reiterated that the Fountain was not in the analysis and the Mayor stressed the importance of being prepared should something happen because it too is aging; Mr. Buchanan's statement that staff will bring back a Replacement Reserve fund to talk in greater depth about this issue and a prepare a capital needs assessment on the facilities (piggybacking on what was already been done about two years ago); Councilmember Leger's question as to how the Rainy Day Fund would apply to this type of scenario and Ms. Ghetti's response that the fund was set up for situations that were unforeseen, emergencies, and it requires a super majority vote of the Council and something like a maintenance item would not qualify because they should have seen that coming; Ms. Ghetti's comment that they do have a reserve fund separate from the Rainy Day Fund that would allow some of the funds to be used for maintenance; the fact that reallocating construction sales tax would affect the General Fund; Councilmember Yates strongly recommended that this issue be part of the next budget cycle, address it and determine ways to fund it; Councilmember Elkie said perhaps they could look at the excise tax, $350,000 a year, because that is a continuing revenue source and Ms. Ghetti point out that it is in the General Fund; Councilmember Elkie stated perhaps they could use a portion of that because they know it is an on-going, continuing revenue source (a certain percentage of the excise tax would go towards this). Mayor Kavanagh stated that they are all in agreement that they may need to make some major repairs in the near future so they will need some capital put aside since there is quite a bit of infrastructure that may need repairs/replacement all at once but then perhaps they can do something along the lines of their Pavement Management Plan to plan out for the future because staff can probably tell them what will be needed in the future. Councilmember Leger commented that that sounds like what the Town Manager is recommending and it is important that they move in this direction. Mr. Buchanan continued on with the presentation and discussed the FY13-14 budget by Core Services from all funds ($41,655,378) and said that the same assumptions were used for this. He noted that that could change if there were Legislative changes that affected municipal revenues or another downturn in the economy. He discussed Operational Priorities and said that last year the Council directed that the following areas be addressed: * Pavement Management Program * Economic Development Plan * Fountain Lake IGA * Community Partnership Funding Policy * Fire Station #2 * Town Prosecutor * Volunteer Program Mr. Buchanan reported that a number of these have been accomplished and provided an update on those accomplishments. He noted that there will be further discussion regarding the Pavement Management Program with the Council because when they start getting into the other areas they are finding increases and also more structural issues that are beyond maintenance. He noted that there are two parts to the Program -- the maintenance issue which z:\council packets\2014\r140206\140108trm.docx age 4 of 14 they have addressed and the replacement program which they have only addressed to a certain degree and that portion needs further consideration. Councilmember Leger requested an update on the Fire Station #2 relocation project and Fire Chief Randy Roberts advised that Mr. Buchanan has entered into negotiations with MCO and dialogue has been taking place with the neighbors (went out to a 1,000 foot radius, held two neighborhood meetings and about 20 residents came out to talk about it). Councilmember Leger asked what the next steps are and if there is a timeline/opportunities for public input because he is hearing from concerned neighbors and Mr. Buchanan stated that public perception is that they have halted but they have not -- the Town Attorney, Andrew McGuire, is working with MCO's legal counsel to includ e some language change in the settlement agreement that allows for them to be able to sell the lot in Eagle's Nest because that is what it is going to take. He added that it is tied to the Adero Canyon project at this point so they are still working throu gh that. He said that he and staff have been working on what Station #2 at that site would cost and they have to do a cost analysis on that and they are still in the process of answering the questions that the Council posed regarding this project. He expressed concerns about costs and said staff is trying to prepare enough information for the Council to consider and they are still looking at the land trade because Council expressed a desire to have that done. He said at this point there is no timeline. Discussion ensued relative to Councilmember Dickey's comment that the Council wanted to do a trade anyway, regardless of the Fire Station so that is separate and her question as to whether the land swap is dependent on Adero Canyon; Mr. McGuire's statement that their attorney has asked to keep it as part of the main agreement because they have to amend the development agreement in order to do it because right now the Mountain Settlement Agreement has a cap on the number of lots that can be developed; the fact that if that lot is given back to MCO as developable, the settlement agreement will prevent them from using it; Councilmember Dickey's comment that some of the Council's decisions about their development in Adero Canyon are going to affect whether they want this land and Mr. McGuire's response, no -- they said they are independent but they want them functionally to go at the same time because it doesn't make any sense to do one amendment and then another; Councilmember Dickey's concern that this could pr event them from moving forward with the Fire Station and Mr. McGuire's statement that he doesn't think so -- they are going to have a timeframe that is development driven and faster than a Fire Station timeframe (late Spring for Adero Canyon consideration); the fact that everything is tied together in one settlement agreement; and Mr. McGuire's comment that he is not concerned about there not being enough on the Town's side of the scale, they need to resolve the benefit issues. Councilmember Elkie advised that his preference would be to make these separate deals, take that piece and then deal with the other issues at a later date and Mr. McGuire explained why he didn't have a problem with the attorney's request. In response to a question from the Mayor, Mr. McGuire discussed the trailhead and the preserve and advised that the first deadline for the use of development fees for the trailhead is in 2020 Mr. Buchanan continued on his with presentation and discussed Strategic Plan Goals Priority (2013) and referred to the twelve that were suggested by the Council. He said that at the last session these were looked at and the Council said these were the ones they wanted to maintain as their priorities. He asked whether any of them needed to be changed and noted that in the Council's packets there are recommendations from the Strategic Planning Advisory Commission (SPAC) and said that a number of the goals that were discussed and recommended but only three were approved -- C3 (Solicit Public/Stakeholder Feedback), CR6 (Evaluate Customer Satisfaction on a regular basis) and I2 (Develop reliable funding source for infrastructure maintenance). He noted that those are the three recommended by the SPAC and reiterated that the others were discussed but not approved and he asked if the Council wanted the others placed on a future agenda for further discussion as staff was looking for direction. Discussion ensued relative to Councilmember Yates' statement that a lot of them are on -going priorities and noted that they have developed an Economic Development Plan so that should be changed to Implement the Economic Development Plan and his suggestion that they move forward and make the obvious changes because several have been taken care of; a review of the various goals and status updates/proposed changes; removing certain ones from the list; the fact that some are already partially done; switching some of the priorities and goals; and Mr. Buchanan's recommendation that these items be reorganized and placed on a future agenda for more detailed discussion and direction. z:\council packets\2014\r140206\140108trm.docx age 5 of 14 Mr. Buchanan called for a break at 9:20 a.m. and the meeting reconvened at 9:40 a.m. Mr. Buchanan continued with the presentation and FY13/14 Budget of Core Services from all funds -- what the Town provides based on what they have on hand and what has happened over the last six to seven years (same as previous chart) and highlighted the Organizational Chart and any changes that have taken place. He reported that there are 39 full-time employees, 18 part-time employees and a total of 50.36 total FTE employees. He referred to a chart that depicted the number of employees in FY01 (108) to FY14 (50) and said that Fountain Hills and the Town of Gilbert are the lowest as far as per capita staffing. Discussion ensued relative to the hard working staff and the fact that sometimes there are things they would like to do but because of limited staffing, they are unable to pursue them; the suggestion that they should use the League more in terms of lobbying; th e fact that if building activity increases, a larger staff will be required but it is kind of a "wave" with building staff and all cities are in that boat; and the point that when activity does pick up, the Town Manager can recommended staff increases or c ontracting out as needed. Mr. Buchanan noted that they used to have an $18 million General Fund but it is now $13 million and that the Town is facing buildout. He said that Tempe faces this and now they are building up instead of out and go after quality rather than quantity. Mr. Buchanan reiterated that the Town has 39 fulltime and 18 part-time employees. Mr. Buchanan discussed Transportation, the Town's biggest and most expensive infrastructure to maintain, and reported that they maintain 390 lane miles, 3.5 million square yards of asphalt and 68 acres of medians. He added that they have median and sweeping maintenance and 5,000 signs that they have to look after. He added that the State has been taking more than they need to and placing the burden on the backs of the cities and towns and there is a lot of discussion in the Legislature about restoring a lot of that but it will not be enough. He said that HURF does not fund proper pavement maintenance. He reported that they have seven pavement maintenance zones and said beyond the pavement maintenance discussion, there is the issue of pavement replacement and one that they are doing is the replacement on Saguaro Boulevard. He referred to a chart that depicted the cost of replacing asphalt based on to day's dollars and said a number of roads are pushing 40 years and asphalt has a shelf life and only so much maintenance can be done before they have to start replacing it. He noted that the Pavement Management Report completed by Stantec suggested the need for $1.2 million annually to maintain what they have and also estimated that $2.8 million annually will be required to provide asphalt mill and overlays to 20% of the Town's streets as well as slurry seal or surface seal treatments to the remaining streets. Mr. Buchanan commented that eventually all asphalt needs to be removed and replaced and briefly highlighted funding options for this work as well as arterial road bonds in the future. Discussion took place regarding Mr. Mood's December 23rd memo to the Council relative to this issue and costs associated with work on both Palisades and Fountain Hills Boulevard (eight years of work just to do the collector roads). Mr. Mood reported that they can bond mill and overlay but they cannot bond crack seal and slurry seal because they don't have the life span (has to be reconstruction related rather than maintenance related). Discussion ensued relative to the fact that if they just looked at bonding for the main arterials, for reconstruction on an annual basis they would need $2 million a year on top of the pavement maintenance costs (total of $3 million); a recap of what has taken place already; the fact that they cannot start Zone 1 in January because no money has been collected yet so staff is recommending letting the Town collect all of the VLT and HURF monies the next fiscal year and then in July of 2015-16, they would go into Zone 1 and the work could take three years; Zone 2 is another large Zone and work will be going on there for two years; the fact that Zone 1 has the most asphalt; the importance of doing an analysis so they know what has to be done and the work can be planned out; the fact that the bond that did pass is not a long-term solution; Councilmember Yates' comment that the citizens told them they wanted to bond for individual projects and that is something they can do again in the future; the fact that the sales tax rate is currently at 2.6% and the Town brings in approximately $600,000 a year with the .2% increase so a .1% would equate to approximately $300,000; Councilmember Brown's comment that they need to talk about the repair and replacement of the infrastructure on their buildings that they don't have the money for and the repair and replacement of the streets and his opinion that they need to sit down and get real about how they are going to find the money and how they are going to keep the Town going so it doesn't look like some dust bowl town in Oklahoma; his statement that if they don't find a Council that will shoulder the true question of how they are going to support the Town and a tax, the Town will face some very serious problems ahead; the importance of trying even if they fail; the Mayor's comment that they just asked the voters to approve a bond and that is going to increase their taxes and the three times a property tax was proposed, the voters voted it down, the opinion that she could not now say they are going to add another tax onto that after she pushed the bond and told them this was how much it was going to cost them and in good faith the citizens voted for it, and her statement that many people in Town cannot even afford a small increase; Councilmember Brown's opinion that that does need to be taken into consideration but so does the value and welfare of the whole Town (long-term); z:\council packets\2014\r140206\140108trm.docx age 6 of 14 Councilmember Brown's comment that until they face up to the problem they cannot continue to pay the Sheriff and Fire Departments annual increases, something has to give; the pros and cons of trying to pass a tax; and the Mayor's comment that they are making new in-roads into Economic Development and they are making strides to find other ways to bring money into the Town without burdening the current taxpayers (they are just starting on that path and she would like to see where it leads). Councilmember Leger recommended that staff come back with some updated plans and said he has always been in favor of a diverse revenue portfolio and he believes tourism should be a part of that as well as economic development. He noted that there are a lot of pieces to this puzzle but at the same time they need to look at capacity and look realistically at what economic development and tourism can do for them because it is not the silver bullet. Mayor Kavanagh reiterated that she is saying they are just starting and considering the economic climate -- the tax added on to the bonds and EPCOR that is going to add a tax, -- so the situation right now is not when they want to tell people they want to add on another tax. She added that she is all for other clever ways of moving their money around the way they did with the VLT but not adding any additional tax because instead of encouraging more people to move here, they may do the opposite. Discussion ensued regarding Councilmember Yates' comments that one bond will retire in 2015 ($500,000) and with revenues coming in down the road they might be able to use when they are ready to do the next step, and then they should present a bond and let people know exactly what it will be for; the fact that the residents h ave said they do not want a property tax; with the retiring of the two bonds over the next three to five years there will be another revenue source to help them on the maintenance side of things and then when the next huge capital infusion is needed, it should be run as a bond; Councilmember Elkie's comment that a primary property tax election would be a waste of money and the fact that they talked about using the money that will be coming in after the bonds are retired for maintenance; the fact that they are talking about doing bonds for every section of Town and that is going to be costly and result in bond fatigue; Councilmember Elkie’s opinion that if they are not going to have a discussion about addressing this then they should just table it and monitor it; his support for Councilmember Leger's suggestion that staff come back with some updated plans and they have some discussion; Councilmember Dickey's comment that the roads that are in Town are there because people who moved there earlier paid a property tax for them (the Town did not exist without property taxes); she brought up a Storm Water Fee and said it doesn't have to happen now but maybe at some point they can figure out how much they have spent on stormwater culverts, big projects ($100,000 a ye ar or more); Councilmember Dickey said the fee is based on things such as how much parking lot space businesses have, usage, etc. and stated her opinion that they have a tool and it looks like they don't want to talk about it but it is related to how much people actually affect what needs to be fixed and it is not a small amount; her statement that she is okay with looking into that and getting the real numbers on it because they cannot make a decision until they know what that is; Councilmember Elkie commented that played into fire and police service not paid by businesses and Mr. Buchanan agreed that that is something that staff could bring forward at least for discussion (an impact analysis of a stormwater fee); Mr. Mood advised that staff brought that before Council two or three years ago and reported that the City of Mesa charges $5.38 a month on every utility built and it goes towards street sweeping, cleaning storm drains, etc.; when staff looked into this they used $2.00 a month (dependent on size of water meter) for the figure and determined that that would generate approximately $250,000 and that could pay for wash damage and street sweeping; the Mayor's opinion that they need to look at the big picture and they should look at doing this whatever way they can without increasing taxes; Councilmember Dickey pointed out they don’t control EPCOR; Vice Mayor Hansen's comment that the Town cannot continue to absorb things, and that is what the Town has done since the districts went away, first the road district, then the fire district and now the water rates are going to go up -- the situation is out of the Town’s control and people have to start paying for services, the Town cannot continue to just give services away for free; Councilmember Yates' question as to whether they are talking about establishing a road district or a sanitary district and Councilmember Elkie's response that Mr. Buchanan needs to expand upon the options, provide costs and then they can go from there; Councilmember Leger's statement that they are looking for an incremental solution and agreed that they need a plan like they had with Pavement Management; Mayor Kavanagh's opinion that they have to look at the total picture, they have to know what EPCOR is going to do and what the bonds are going to sell for -- they have to be able to give the citizens a total number of what things are going to cost and Councilmember Yates' comment that looking at it doesn't cost anything and he has no problem with having more discussion on this. Mr. Buchanan advised that staff will come back with additional information and added that the Stantec Report is in a perfect world and he doesn't know of a community in Arizona that could do their plans today. He added that there are z:\council packets\2014\r140206\140108trm.docx age 7 of 14 two parts to this -- the arterials and the residential roads. He said that he and Mr. Mood will put something together and bring it back for Council consideration and direction. Councilmember Yates stated that he welcomes that discussion. Councilmember Elkie stated support for a long-term solution and for designating funds from multiple revenue sources. Councilmember Leger said it is a start and at some point the residents will have to decide what type of Town they want to live in and he is starting to hear from a lot of residents that this is not the Town they moved to. He added that it is all about education and this is a good approach (.2%). Mr. Buchanan noted that it won't be the perfect world as presented by Stantec but at least they can start walking down that path and noted that the trick is maintaining it. Mr. Buchanan continued with the presentation and discussed the Economic Development Program and said that the Economic Development Planning Approach (Economic Objective) emphasizes that they need to grow the ec onomy (more jobs), maximize their talent and enhance their community, the Focused Approach deals with business attraction, business retention & expansion, entrepreneurial development, foundational maintenance and locational catalysts and the Targeted Industry Sectors include retail, education, professional, technical and scientific services, healthcare, medical, biosciences and wellness, finance and insurance and tourism and recreation and they all add up to a vibrant, sustainable community. He said the resulting three initiatives include the following: * Downtown Strategy * Tourism Strategy * Business Attraction Initiative Mr. Buchanan noted that they have limited funding and they have an excise tax that was created a long time ago to help fund that and they bring in about $90,000 from the General Fund. He provided a budget recap. He said now they have to start talking about a program to start attracting businesses and noted that the SPAC has provided priorities and they were approved by the Council and those are the ones they are going to emphasize first. He added that it is a marathon and not a sprint and economic development programs take a long time. Councilmember Elkie commented that they are not starting from square one, there was a study done on all of the available commercial space in Town and Mr. Buchanan agreed but said it needs to be updated. Discussion ensued relative to the fact that the Co-Star Program is very helpful in that regard, updating information on a frequent basis; what the Town can do from an economic development standpoint and the lack of control they have other than to create an environment that is attractive to businesses; Councilmember Elkie's comment regarding the importance of getting people to move into Town because they will shop locally in businesses , which supports the Town and his opinion that a component of the economic development plan, and perhaps they can allocate some funds for it, should be the upcoming census and making sure that people are reporting that they are living in Fountain Hills so the Town gets those monies; his question as to what exactly the Town is doing as far as economic development and how do they measure the results; Mr. Buchanan's comment that there are vacant buildings in Town that they have to put businesses in but first they have to figure out how to do that because many people do not know where Fountain Hills is; his statement that they do have quality of life but they are limited in the size of the available buildings and so they cannot compete with the larger cities in that area; Councilmember Elkie's comment that there are a lot of things they can't give that others can like tax deferment or development fee waivers -- they just don't have a lot of benefits and Mr. Buchanan's response that they need to go back and review those; Councilmember Dickey's statement that she just saw a show that talked about what matters to people -- schools, a strong workforce, safe environment, etc. and said there is a lot more to it and Fountain Hills offers a lot; the fact that tourism and marketing go hand in hand and the suggestion to create a buzz about the Town; the importance of announcing that Fountain Hills is here -- perhaps through a series of activities and a big sign with balloons down on Shea saying "Fountain Hills" -- a spark, something that will get people talking about and noticing the Town; the fact that GPEC provides great leads but the Town cannot accommodate businesses that need large amounts of square footage; Councilmember Yates' comment about the importance of helping businesses move into Town as easily as possible; Mr. Cooper's comment that economic development is a community project and it is everyone's job and we need to provide everyone with the tools and z:\council packets\2014\r140206\140108trm.docx age 8 of 14 resources necessary to be stewards for the community when they are out and about and ask where Fountain Hills is; Mr. Cooper said that it starts small but it starts to grow when they find those ambassadors. He said economic development doesn't create jobs, business people do and they have to build an environment to make job creation possible, an on-going effort and that is how a community grows; the fact that product is a big issue and for a lot of the things that do come though, the Town just doesn't have the product, but word has to get out and eventually the community will grow; Vice Mayor Hansen's comment that the Town was featured in Sunset Magazine an d that has a large circulation; Mayor Kavanagh's statement that GPEC recognizes that small communities cannot accommodate needs for larger square footage and that they are going to be losing the Town; her comments that she and Mr. Buchanan participated in a meeting with GPEC and the fact that the smaller communities are asking for a person to work with the smaller communities to direct smaller square footage businesses to them because right now GPEC is focused only on the larger industries and they are talking to the smaller communities about putting someone on staff that will focus on the smaller communities' needs; the Mayor's comment that she and Mr. Buchanan will be pursuing this and bringing Mr. Cooper in on this as well; Mr. Buchanan's statement that b usiness attraction should be started first and then they will focus on tourism and the other areas and continuing to work on what the Chamber did; the importance of establishing partnerships and the Mayor's comment that Fort McDowell has renewed their commitment to work together with the Town and their President's interest in being a full partner with the Town and the point that a renewed relationship with the tribe will only help the Town and they too have to share with the Tribe in any way that they can (participate in each other's events). Additional discussion ensued relative to the fact that they may have to reconsider the Town's relationship with GPEC and make sure that Mr. Cooper is not thrown under the bus like the last Economic Development Director ; Mr. Buchanan's suggestion that the Council feel free to meet with Mr. Cooper and discuss any concerns/issues they may have. Mr. Buchanan moved on to Public Safety/Fiscal Sustainability (Legislation for a Special Public Safety District) and explained that he put this back on the agenda because there is still movement and discussions going on in the Legislature regarding that matter. He noted that he, Ms. Ghetti and Mr. McGuire went on a fact -finding mission to Paradise Valley because Paradise Valley has been taking the lead on this. He said that there was some movement in the last Legislature towards that -- some favorable and some not very favorable -- so the question is whether the Town still wants to maintain a focus on watching that (they have not ma de any decision on whether they want to support it) but they have been watching it to see if it was going to come back up and if it does, should the Town participate it or just watch it, see what happens and make sure that it is positive for the Town. He pointed out that if it becomes law, there still has to be an election so they would have that hurdle to deal with. In response to a request from the Mayor, Mr. McGuire provided a brief overview of this issue and noted that the Town of Paradise Valley went to the Legislature and said they wanted the authority to implement a fire service fee but that died on the vine and never became law. He added that Paradise Valley came back again with a different version, implemented it and started collecting it and has had surprisingly good success at collection (above 90%). He stated that a tax advocacy group downtown decided that this needed to be stopped and a piece of legislation was run last year that was intended to take away the ability of a town to just charge a fire service fee and required a vote to create a district of sorts that would provide those services. He reported that it never quite made it to the fin al step and died despite the fact that everyone agreed. He stated that Paradise Valley is still collecting the fee and everyone is waiting to see what is going to happen -- they haven't seen any new legislation, staff has discussed it with Paradise Valley and there is nothing official happening on either side -- they are all waiting to see if this bill comes back and in what form. Discussion ensued relative to the fact that the feeling has been that if the Town engages in discussions regarding this at the Legislature, that would raise the red flag and Paradise Valley did not want that to happen; the question has been why not allow for this limited purpose tax if the people in the community support it; the fact that that was the stopping point last year and if it is the starting point this year, maybe it's fine and maybe not but it would give the residents in Town the opportunity to do the same thing; Mr. McGuire's statement that they have the ability to implement a primary property tax but they don't have the authority to implement a specialized one for this one purpose; the fact that if the citizens could be assured that the tax would only be used for public safety, then why not allow that to move forward; Councilmember Dickey's comments relative to changes/additions to the legislation and discussion that occurred regarding the possibility of losing some State Shared Revenue if this did go into effect; Councilmember Dickey's comment that she is not in favor of this; Councilmember Leger’s and Councilmember Dickey’s point this has both unintended and intended consequences; the possibility of just "waiting and seeing" and Mr. McGuire's opinion that z:\council packets\2014\r140206\140108trm.docx age 9 of 14 there is danger associated with that as well because there's not much hope that nothing will appear this year and t hey might go back to the original and then they have to start working on fixing the problems or there could be a striker that re-writes the whole thing; his opinion that there are problems on both sides of that -- if they raise the issue they might raise an issue that wasn't going to come up and if they wait for an Atra bill, that will come in the form of a striker bill in March that comes out of the blue and gets a hearing the next morning; his comment that Mr. Buchanan wants to know whether the Town wants to step out there, are they just going to watch and are they watching cautiously and ready to act or are they just going to watch from the sidelines and his opinion that the middle ground would be the best bet; the fact that if Atra steps in and says what Paradise Valley did was illegal and they have to return the collected funds, someone would have to sue on behalf of that because changing legislation to say now you cannot create this type of a fee does not create a cause of action for Atra or anyone else , a taxpayer would have to come forward and say now they are going to sue on this (retroactive would have to be part of the bill); the fact that it wouldn't be Atra, it would be the Legislature that would have to do that; Mr. Buchanan's statement that based on the discussion he has heard from the Council, the Town will do what they did last year, stay on top of it and keep the Council informed of what is going on and the Mayor's comment that it is important to stay in close touch with the League because their staff will continually analyze this as changes come forth. Mr. Buchanan continued on with the presentation and discussed the issue of Citizen Advisory Commissions and referenced a May 22, 2013 memo from Mark Mayer and Bryan Hughes regarding this item. He stated that the Council has looked at this before and the Town has had some staff reorganization, restructuring and re-engineering but the crux of the Citizen Advisory Commissions have not -- they have all stayed intact. He added that staff is looking for direction as to whether the Council wants to pursue restructuring some of these commissions as well as consolidation. He noted that there are a lot of interests in the Town and a concern has been that if they do consolidate those interests will not be adequately served. He said he would like to know if the Council wants to take this further or leave it the way it is. Mark Mayer addressed the Council and stated that they have been though this for a couple years and some trends have arisen. He provided data on the number of Advisory Commissions, sub-committees, the hours that are annually dedicated to Boards and Commissions by staff, difficulties with keeping everyone happy and continuously recruiting for and replacing members of those boards and commissions (one third each year). He stated the opinion that given the reduced staffing and resources available and a great amount of time is spent by staff (1,500 hours) that staff time could be better utilized in other areas. He said that combining the co mmissions would cut that time in half or less and allows the newly restructured Commissions to be more effective and productive in an advisory capacity. He added that the structure that is being proposed will ensure that there is a broader representation and groups’ interests will still be well represented. He said it will be made up of two people for each of the four commissions and one additional person so their voices will be heard. He advised that he reached out to all of the different Commissioners and talked to them about this. He reported that he heard back from five of them and he knows that the Council has heard from at least one of them and said that the tone was different from the last time this was proposed and they had questions about how the groups would function, what this would resolve, etc. Mayor Kavanagh noted that some of the Commissions have expressed that they don't have enough to do and they don't feel that what they are doing is useful so this would give them a broader agenda, more issues to deal with, and she thinks that might encourage more people to want to serve on the Commissions. Mr. Buchanan asked if the Council wanted to carry this forward for a review of a restructuring and Councilmember Yates stated support for doing that and Councilmember Dickey said she is okay with looking at it. Discussion ensued relative to the Vice Mayor's comment that there is a difference interest among the Commissions and some of them, Seniors in particular, come to mind because they are pretty active and very hands -on; her statement that she would be more comfortable if each of the Commissions had this item on their agenda to actively discuss beca use she would like to see them more formally agree to something; the fact that there may be a way to take this Master Commission and allow the groups, the Seniors for example, to have sub or sub-sub committees and they could have someone be responsible for taking notes at their own meetings and report back to the Commission; Mr. Mayer's statement that out of the five people he heard back from, four of them were Seniors and overwhelmingly their questions revolved around how this would be organized and what the need is and at the end of the conversations, they were either neutral or seemingly supportive of the concept; sub-groups that could serve as work groups who could bring information back to the Commissions; the fact that everybody who is already serving would have a phase-out z:\council packets\2014\r140206\140108trm.docx age 10 of 14 period and as they re-up for the new Commission that is when replacements/new appointments would be made; the fact that it is easier if they transition it as a bigger group that pares itself down naturally; the restructuring/consolidation proposal as recommended by staff; the proposal that the group would be comprised of 14 to 15 individuals and people who have a desire to continue to serve in their areas of interest would be provided an opportunity to apply; the pros and cons associated with moving in this direction; Councilmember Leger's opinion that this is more of a management/administrative issue to relieve staff of some of the pressure that is being placed on them and his question as to whether Mr. Mayer has considered empowering other staff to act as a liaison so he is not as burdened; Councilmember Leger's opinion that this will be extremely painful and over the years a majority of the people he has talked to have not been on board with this; his statement that he doesn't think it meets the original intent of commissions and volunteerism as the Commissions each have a different skill set; his suggestion that if they move in this direction they might try more of an incremental approach (i.e. taking Senior Services and the Community Center Advisory Commission and putting them together first to see how that works) and the opinion that there is an intrinsic value in having more Commissions and more people in the community involved in these types of activities noting that this model meets a different intent; the efficiency component of this proposal and Councilmember Dickey's comment that maybe there are other options like making it an 11 member Commission a s they did not have enough people applying and her opinion that this model provided a broader, more diverse Commission would provide different viewpoints and recommendations. Councilmember Elkie expressed the opinion that it would be worth coming back and having further discussion and he likes the idea of an 11 member Commission and added that he would also like to obtain information regarding the legal costs. Mr. McGuire clarified that legal staff only attends the joint meetings the Council conducts with the Commissions. Mr. Buchanan stated that based on what he is hearing, staff will bring this forward in the future for further discussion. The Mayor said she tries to go to all of the Commission meetings and one of the biggest complaints is that they do not have enough to do, especially Senior Services and the Community Center and she thinks that the people who might come forward and volunteer would like to have more to do and feel like they are making a worthwhile contribution. Vice Mayor Hansen stated that they could emphasize the whole ad-hoc thing so that people who are involved will understand that they can still be involved, they will just be doing it in another way. She suggested that ad-hoc committees use Town facilities as that would make them feel more like a part of the organization. Mr. Buchanan called for a break at 12:00 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 12:15 p.m. Councilmember Leger advised that he would like to recommend that the four Chairman of each of the Commissions be involved in the process and provide input and said that their involvement would make the whole thing a lot less painful. Mr. Buchanan said he believes he is hearing that Councilmember Leger would like him, Mr. Mayer and Mr. McGuire to sit down and discuss this with the four Chairmen and obtain their input for Council's consideration. Councilmember Hansen expressed the opinion that this could be on a Work Study agenda. Mr. Buchanan advised that staff will place this item on the agenda of a future Work Study Session for further review and will meet with the four Chairman and request their attendance at the meeting as well. Mr. Buchanan continued on with the last item on the agenda, Professional Service Contracts, and said staff is proposing another approach for consideration. He said that he knows there are other organizations out there that add value to the community that have requested funding from time to time to meet their cause as well as the Town's. He stated that he put it on the agenda to find out if the Council wanted to discuss this or just leave it as is. Councilmember Yates said he would like some input on whether they could come up with some type of written policy/procedure on how they do this. He added that he is all for it if collectively they come up with something that everyone is on board with. He stated that the last budget cycle was much better as far as the discussion side of this but z:\council packets\2014\r140206\140108trm.docx age 11 of 14 there are plenty of templates out there (i.e. Scottsdale, Cave Creek and the Town of Maricopa). He indicated he wanted the funding to be impactful to the community. Mayor Kavanagh advised that Mr. Buchanan has outlined a new approach for this which she thinks is very interesting and they should consider it (Copy of the December 31, 2013 memo available in the packet found on line and in the office of the Town Clerk). She said that if there is any money, the proposal appears to establish a process that would be very fair to all of the different groups and organizations in Town and allows all of them to be able to participate in applying for any available funds. Councilmember Yates commented that at one point there was a line of people coming in and asking for funding and then they don't get any impact -- giving everyone $1.00 is fair but does not provide value. He added that other municipalities help out with facilities and things like that rather than monetarily and said he wants the money that is provided to these groups/organizations to result in positive impacts for the Town. Discussion ensued relative to Councilmember Elkie's statement that they did have an organi zation in Town that did that, the Community Foundation; his comment about JumpStartBiz, the $4,500 that is provided to them, and said he believes that should fall under Economic Development and that Mr. Cooper and Mr. Buchanan should be the ones to determine what amount is deserving; various current Professional Services agreements; Councilmember Elkie's opinion that the big three are the Theater, the Boys & Girls Club and the Food Bank and his statement that he would not be in favor of what is being discussed as far as opening it up and his opinion that the Town should get out of funding certain projects and he believes the year before last they reduced Community Service contracts by 20% and he would like to see a similar reduction in those so that they can ultimately pull back from them; Councilmember Brown's opinion that the funding amounts should be reduced incrementally; the Mayor's comment that there is a fee associated with joining the Boys & Girls Club and her clarification that if citizens cannot afford it, they don't pay it; the Mayor's statement that she understands that they do need some type of criteria and noted that when Republic Services decided to give the Town a grant, she sat down with staff and said she would like to do this in a way that i s completely non- political; her desire to have the process work in a completely neutral manner; the Mayor's comment that she thinks they came up with a pretty good model -- they picked a Citizens Committee that is directed by Mr. Rees but he doesn't have a vote; the fact that they were careful to pick people who were not strongly attached to each group; the fact that they wrote the rules and determined how the process would work and they implemented the program (they are the only ones who will decides when the projects come in which should be selected for funding); the Mayor's opinion that they could do something similar in this case but first they have to determine what the bottom line is and where the money is coming from; the fact that there is no money now but if some becomes available, she thinks they could put together a citizens committee like this and task the members with writing the criteria that adds value to the Town; the fact that if groups want to ask for funds, the Committee would decide who gets it and she stressed the importance of making the entire process fair; and the Mayor's statement that if anyone has any ideas as to how they can do this she would love to hear them Councilmember Yates stated that that is a different approach -- if they are trying to get out of the business of giving money away that is different than what the Mayor is saying. He said that he is on board with either policy and he is sympathetic to a lot of the groups as well and he knows that they are all tremendous assets but he is more along the lines of getting out of the business of giving money to anybody unless it is something like Councilmember Elkie suggested as far as Economic Development, etc. Mayor Kavanagh agreed and noted that during the last budget she tried to get out of that business but asked how many years are they going to have to keep reducing the amounts to each of the same groups by 20% and she pointed out that some of these groups also get additional in-kind donations (perhaps if they get in-kind then they don't get cash). Councilmember Yates said he thinks that is a band aid approach -- do they want to just rip it off or slowly pull it off. Councilmember Leger advised that they are not in the business of giving money away -- this model is putting a pot of money together and giving money away. He added that this is the elephant in the room. He stated this is not giving money away; it is a fee for service. He said that he believes that staff has to look at whoever they are funding as an asset and operationalize it -- i.e. if Community Services feels that the Boys & Girls Club is running a program that we don't have the ability to run in-house and Community Services recommends including that in the budget then that is an expense for a service like everything else. z:\council packets\2014\r140206\140108trm.docx age 12 of 14 Discussion ensued relative to the fact that in the past there have not been any opportunities for the Museum (they came to the Town and they wanted to be part of the process); Councilmember Leger's comment that he voted to pay a fee for a service and if it is not a service then it shouldn't be in the budget'; the Mayor's statement that the same groups have received funding over the last ten years; Vice Mayor Hansen's comment that it shouldn't be a competition; Councilmember Dickey's statement that if it is something that the Town Council wants, then they are not awarding anyone, they are getting a service they want; the perception that funding allocations are not done in a fair manner; Councilmember Yates' comment that if they want to do a fee for service then they do need to consider restructuring this so that whether it be a 3 or 5 year contract or even annual, anyone who can meet the needs that Mr. Mayer or anyone else has, then they all get the same opportunity to bid; Councilmember Leger's comment that they must decide on the service first rather than who is applying; Councilmember Elkie's statement that if the museum or anyone else wanted to propose a service to the Town (this service for this amount whether a one-time situation or on-going situation) then he doesn't think there should be anything to preclude anybody from bringing that forward; the fact that last year they discussed starting from zero and deciding what they want this year and what is it going to cost and the only charitable one is the Food Bank and that is the only one Councilmember Elkie has trouble with reconciling because that is a charitable gift; Councilmember Leger's suggestion that these be put into a line item budget and like any other line item, when they go through the budget they will make their decisions; Mr. Buchanan's comment that there is no easy answer and staff is looking for a process with criteria that they can hang their hat on that will make the process fair; questions relating to the Lantern Festival as to how it came forward with a discussion regarding waving fees; Mr. Mayer's comment that if staff feels that the requested event is something of value to the Town then staff will typically waive the fees; Vice Mayor Hansen's statement that the proposal took her back because all throughout the 1990s that is exactly what they did, they advertised for citizens to serve on a citizens committee and the Town Manager would come up with the money that could be spent and they would get applications (between 12 and 20) and do funding but as time went on and money got tighter contracts for service began; Councilmember Elkie's suggestion that the Council decides whether they want to sponsor variou s programs and if the answer is yes then they determine how much they want to allocate for that or what programs they want that they can pay for; the Mayor's comment that if the groups feel like the process was done fairly, even if they aren't chosen they will apply again and perhaps be selected to do a certain program that we are looking for; the background behind why service contracts came into play; her question as to how staff would know, for example, that the Museum has a Time Traveler program that the y would like to do unless they let people apply and explain what it is they are prepared to offer; the fact that a lot of the groups are doing a lot more and they would like to be a part of this process; and Councilmember Dickey's statement that it is a matter of what they want to provide and then go from there and that it may never seem fair. Additional discussion ensued relative to Mr. Hughes' statement that staff gets approached daily from someone who wants to run a program and they have to pick and choose and figure out costs and in the next year he hopes to use a commission to help determine more of a recreation program -- what do people really want, do some surveys and things like that to get the big picture; Councilmember Leger's opinion that the next logical step is to incorporate this into the operational budget (line item budgets) and let staff make the decisions; Mr. Buchanan's question as to what happens if staff comes back and says like they did last year that they don't think it will provide much value and Councilmember Leger's response that if it is not in the budget, then it is not in the budget; Mr. Buchanan's comment that it ends up being a staff value judgment and that is not fair to them. Mr. McGuire stated that he thinks Mr. Hughes has hit it on the head -- they have an operational budget that is created by staff and you trust them and Mr. Buchanan trusts them to bring him an operational budget that takes the Council's goals that you discuss at this session that are adopted by Resolution and then implements them down through the organization. He said if the Council doesn't think that they have done that, then when the Council adopts the budget they say so or operationally through the year they tell the Manager that they aren't doing it and need him to focus on this next year and get this in the budget -- this is what we want to see. He noted that these particular entities are in a different class because that class was pared down from a bigger class and it narrowed to this group and that is as far as it got. He further stated that he wouldn't want to be Mr. Mayer or Mr. Hughes as far as this process goes but he understands what Mr. Hughes said -- every single day they get a question about whether this is something that they can even do and is this the kind of thing that the Town has the authority to do. He noted that there is so much grey area in terms of what the Town provides as services so they figure it out the best they can, they give the Council a budget and we go from there. He added that Mr. Buchanan does the best he can as well but that is the way it works for everything that they do in the Town and these are different because they were almost sole source providers -- no other competition existed (maybe 25 artists can conduct a painting class but they don't have 25 theaters, etc.). z:\council packets\2014\r140206\140108trm.docx age 13 of 14 Councilmember Elkie reiterated his opinion that they should start at zero with everything across the board and said that it is hard to ignore the history of it. He said they have to decide what they want and then go from there and if there has been budget cuts in the department as a whole then he thinks that should evaluated as well (their ability to pay whatever it is they want to continue to provide). He stated opinion that budget reductions should flow through to the service as well because it is affecting everything else. Councilmember Dickey commented that they talked previously about economic development and getting people to move to Town and having a Boys & Girls Club is probably something that makes that decision for some people. Councilmember Yates advised that they have an incredible staff and they know how to manage their budgets so they should give the decision making power to them and if they say it is a program or a fee for service that they want to include, then they say either yes or no. Mr. Buchanan said what if he comes back and says they don't need any of those and Councilmember Dickey stated that the Manager can make the recommendations but in the end it will be the Council saying yes or no. She said that staff does have to make those decisions. Mayor Kavanagh stated that she is okay with everything that was said as long as there is a perception of fairness out there where other groups feel that if they are providing a service that adds value to the Town then they have the right to come to Mr. Mayer and say this is my program. She added that if Mr. Mayer says no, because there are only six kids interested, at least they will know they were given a fair opportunity to put their proposal on the table and the reason why they were turned down this time -- and that doesn't stop them from applying again in the future for something that might be needed and wanted in the community. Mr. McGuire advised that they make it a Council goal and there is always the procurement code to identify those times when they go out with an RFP and ask everyone to propose or they realize there isn't anyone else. Councilmember Elkie commented that they decide what they want and how much they want to pay. Councilmember Yates said he is back to let's give it to the department heads, they submit it and don't even call it Fountain Hills Theater or whatever, call it programs. Mr. McGuire stated then it will just come back in the departmental budget and then the Council can decide what they want to do. Mr. Buchanan asked how he will know what everyone wants and the response was when the Council sees the original budget they will vote on that budget. Mayor Kavanagh stated that if they ask what it is and Mr. Mayer says drama and it’s something that they don't have then that becomes a category if he thinks that is important. She emphasized that she is not criticizing the theater -- she is trying to fix the whole thing because she thinks the problem with the theater was that the money wasn't going towards particular programs, it was going to subsidize different plays. She added that if was for just the children's plays, that would have been a specific added value or to the children's drama class. She said they need to know the specifics. Mr. Mayer said that no matter what department makes the decision they are not going to make everybody happy and at some point it would likely come back to the Council. Mr. McGuire said once the procurement goes out and there is a contract for XYZ that is when staff will take the heat. Councilmember Yates asked if it has to go that far and say they have Mr. Mayer make that call; Mr. McGuire responded it will be perfectly fine unless the contract is under $30,000 as then the Council doesn't have to approve the contract. The meeting adjourned at 1:10 p.m. z:\council packets\2014\r140206\140108trm.docx age 14 of 14 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS By _______________________________ Linda M. Kavanagh, Mayor ATTEST AND PREPARED BY: _________________________ Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Council/Staff Retreat held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills in the Town Hall Council Chambers on the 8th day of January, 2014. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 6th day of February, 2014. _____________________________ Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk