Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015.0319.TCREM.Minutesz:\council packets\2015\r150402\150319m.docx Page 1 of 17 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE AND REGULAR SESSIONS OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL MARCH 19, 2015 EXECUTIVE SESSION * CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kavanagh called the Executive Session to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Fountain Conference Room - 2nd Floor. AGENDA ITEM #1- ROLL CALL AND VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION: PURSUANT TO A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(1), DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION OF EMPLOYMENT, ASSIGNMENT, APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, DEMOTION, DISMISSAL, SALARIES, DISCIPLINING OR RESIGNATION OF A PUBLIC OFFICER, APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE OF ANY PUBLIC BODY SPECIFICALLY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING THE TOWN MANAGER'S ANNUAL REVIEW). ROLL CALL: Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Linda Kavanagh, Councilmember Alan Magazine, Vice Mayor Dennis Brown, Councilmember Cecil Yates, Councilmember Nick DePorter and Councilmember Henry Leger. Town Manager Ken Buchanan, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire and Town Clerk Bev Bender were also present. Councilmember Yates MOVED to enter into the Executive Session at 5:30 p.m. and Councilmember Magazine SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present (6-0). Councilmember Cassie Hansen arrived at the meeting at 5:32 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #2 - ADJOURNMENT. Without objection, the Executive Session adjourned at 5:59 p.m. REGULAR AGENDA * CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Kavanagh called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Town Hall Council Chambers * INVOCATION – Julie Orwin, from the temple Beth Hagivot * ROLL CALL - Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Linda Kavanagh, Councilmember Alan Magazine, Vice Mayor Dennis Brown, Councilmember Cecil Yates, Councilmember Cassie Hansen, Councilmember Nick DePorter and Councilmember Henry Leger. Town Manager Ken Buchanan, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire and Town Clerk Bev Bender were also present. * MAYOR’S REPORT i) The Mayor will read a Proclamation declaring April 2015 as Volunteer Month in the Town of Fountain Hills. Mayor Kavanagh advised that April is designated National Volunteer Month and noted that giving freely to others is one of the noblest of human enterprises. She announced that this year marks the 42nd annual celebration of Volunteer Month, created in 1973 to recognize the efforts of dedicated community volunteers. She noted that nationally more than 175 million volunteers working in their communities contribute their time and talents daily to make a big difference in the lives of others and more than 700 Fountain Hills volunteers donated their time to the Town by giving approximately 20,000 hours in 2014 in the form of volunteer service to the Community Center, Senior Activity Center, the Municipal Court as well as volunteering in departments at Town Hall, including Administration, Development z:\council packets\2015\r150402\150319m.docx Page 2 of 17 Services and Community Services. The Mayor proclaimed April as Volunteer Month in the Town of Fountain Hills and expressed deep gratitude to the many volunteers who support the Town by generously giving their time and talents to benefit the community. ii) Recognition that the Town of Fountain Hills has received, for the 19th consec utive year, the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2014, for its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) of the United States and Canada. Town Manager Ken Buchanan addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and advised that the Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in governmental accounting and financial reporting and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management according to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). He added that this award also recognizes the efforts of the Town's Finance Director, Craig Rudolphy, and commended him on his efforts. He noted that this is the 19th consecutive year that the Town has received this prestigious award Mayor Kavanagh thanked Mr. Buchanan for his remarks and congratulated Mr. Rudolphy on this accomplishment. * SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS i) The Mayor may review recent events attended relating to Economic Development. Mayor Kavanagh advised that many times economic development comes from making contacts and meeting new people. She said that a few years ago she had the privilege of being invited to a Taiwan art exhibit at the Capitol Museum and she went and it was very nice. She said that last year she was invited a gain and asked to give greetings from Fountain Hills, which she did. She added that this year they asked her to be a speaker at the event, which was for the opening of the art exhibit of Taiwan master artist, Chris Ho. She noted that after the event, the organizers offered to bring to Fountain Hills a Taiwan art exhibit to be displayed in the Community Center and commented that not only will it be awesome to have an art exhibit by a renowned Taiwanese artist, but it will bring great publicity and recognition to Fountain Hills. She added that the more people are introduced to the Town, the more they want to visit and live here or maybe open a business. She further stated that you never know sometimes what benefit will come from just a respectful appearance at an event and she is so glad that she went that first time. CALL TO THE PUBLIC None. CONSENT AGENDA AGENDA ITEM #1 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FROM MARCH 5, 2015. AGENDA ITEM #2 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A BUDGET TRANSFER IN THE AMOUNT OF $132,920.59 FROM THE STREETS DEVELOPMENT FEES FUND TO THE CIP FUND, PROJECT S6005 - SHEA BOULEVARD, TECHNOLOGY DRIVE TO CEREUS WASH. Councilmember Hansen MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda as listed and Vice Mayor Brown SECONDED the motion. Town Clerk Bevelyn Bender advised that there were no citizens wishing to speak on this agenda item. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: Mayor Linda Kavanagh Aye Councilmember Alan Magazine Aye Vice Mayor Dennis Brown Aye Councilmember Cecil Yates Aye z:\council packets\2015\r150402\150319m.docx Page 3 of 17 Councilmember Cassie Hansen Aye Councilmember Nick DePorter Aye Councilmember Henry Leger Aye The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). REGULAR AGENDA (Councilmember Magazine temporarily left the meeting at 6:38 p.m.) AGENDA ITEM #3 - CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST BY THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE TO ACCEPT A DONATED PAINTING TITLED, "RED ROCK CROSSING" FOR PLACEMENT IN THE YAVAPAI ROOM IN THE COMMUNITY CENTER. Community Services Director Mark Mayer addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and advised that the Public art Committee is requesting that the Town accept the painting titled, "Red Rock Crossing" for placement in the Yavapai Room in the Community Center. The painting, by artist Karen Holloway, has a value of $750 and the request is coming from the family of Karen Holloway who recently passed away. He noted that this is one of her original paintings and the family was interested in donating it through the Public Art Committee which reviewed it and is recommending its acceptance (copies of the presentation and a photograph of the painting is available on line and in the office of the Town Clerk). He added that staff is also recommending acce ptance and placement as outlined in the Staff Report. He indicated his willingness to respond to any questions from the Council. There were no citizens wishing to speak on this agenda item. Councilmember Yates MOVED to approve the request by the Public Art Committee to accept a donated painting titled, "Red Rock Crossing" for placement in the Yavapai Room in the Community Center and Councilmember Hansen SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE (6-0) of those present (Councilmember Magazine returned to the meeting at 6:39 p.m.) AGENDA ITEM #4 - CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY THE COMMUNITY SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION TO PROVIDE UPGRADES AND FUNDING NOT TO EXCEED $7,500 FOR THE DESERT VISTA DOG PARK TO HELP CONTROL BARKING. Community Services Director Mark Mayer addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and advised that join ing him this evening is a member of the Community Services Advisory Commission who will provide information to the Council. Mr. Mayer provided brief background information relative to this agenda item and noted that this is not a new issue -- it has come up several times before (Information available on line and in the office of the Town Clerk). He referred to concerns expressed by property owners who live in the area adjacent to the dog park in Desert Vista Park at the November 24, 2014 Community Services Advisory Commission meeting regarding barking dogs and said that at the January 26, 2015 meeting, the Commission agreed to refer the issue to the Parks/Facilities Study Group and to provide information back to the Commission at their February 23rd meeting. He reported that the Study Group met twice with representatives of the adjacent condominiums and the Morningside developme nt on February 5th and 18th and said he thought the meetings were very cordial and productive. He further stated that they brought the results back to the February 23rd Community Services Advisory Commission meeting and the motion that the Council has for consideration this evening as well as the numbers and options listed in the Staff Report all came from those recommendations. Community Services Advisory Commissioner Don Doty addressed the Council and said that the Commissioners recognized immediately that the concerns expressed by the homeowners were well founded and should be addressed. He stated that they solicited interested individuals and assembled a 12-person working group made up of four residents from Morningside and Desert Vista, all of which serve on the Homeowners' Association's Board of Directors, four people who take their animals to the Dog Park (small and large parks) and four Commissioners from the Parks/Facilities Study Group. He noted that they reviewed a long list of suggestions rece ived during the meetings and then identified what they believed to be the major contributing factors to the noise , the first one being Fence z:\council packets\2015\r150402\150319m.docx Page 4 of 17 Aggression - when dogs see each other on opposite sides of a fence they tend to get excited and bark aggressively. He stated that the second contributing factor was Off-Leash Dogs - Before entering the park dogs tend to bark a lot. He commented that the third contributing factor is the fact that a lot of dog owners do not stop their dogs from continuously barking and fourth, Some dog park users do not abide by the park's hours (from 6:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m.). Mr. Doty informed the Council that there are three physical areas of concern that contribute significantly to the barking noise that the Commission feels can readily be corrected. He referred to a photograph displayed in the Chambers that showed a raised planter section in the small dog park and noted that there is a 3-foot fence on the outside of it that faces the large dog park and added that there is just a wall on the other side. He said there is also a gate area and a small dog entrance area that he would like to talk about. He pointed out that any small dog can jump up on the planter and run back and forth and excite the dogs on the other side of the fence and stated that many dog owners encourage this behavior and even place their dogs up on the planter area. He further stated that the entrance gate is another source of barking when dogs first arrive, especially when the dogs are not leashed which happens all too often. He said that the dogs can go nose to nose at the sliding gate area. Mr. Doty reported that the Study Group selected four potential options that address the noise sources and were considered to be reasonable, effective and affordable. He advised that the options include: * Physical sight barrier separating the large and the small dogs * Modifying the Park rules * Charging a fee * Park hours and days open Mr. Doty advised that these options were assigned to four committees composed of three people each -- a Commissioner, a resident and a Park user. He stated that the sub-committees met independently, studied the options and reported their findings back to a second Work Group meeting and at the last Commission meeting the sub- committees presented their options again. He said that a motion was made at the Commission meeting to endorse the options presented and make a recommendation to the Council, which is why he is present tonight. He noted that this option includes five parts as follows: * Creating a barrier between the two parks by adding a chain link fence on top of the 2' block wall on the inside of the Small Dog Park and adding PVC Cloth to the service gate and small dog entrance area; * With regard to Rules: Adoption of the new rules suggested Add to Rule #5 Dog Handlers must control continuous barking Add new - must conform to Park hours Add new - must be respectful of neighboring residents' sensitivity to loud talking, yelling and dogs barking Adoption of the signage as suggested Leash law signage outside near parking area Reposition fence signs to where people congregate Adoption of the enforcement as suggested Enlisting Maricopa Animal Control and the Sheriff to enforce Park hours and the leash law outside the Park * With regard to Communications: Adoption of the suggestion of fliers distributed in Park, Town Hall, vets, groomers, Chamber of Commerce, pet shops Restart ADOG/FIDO (Dennis Contino committed $1,000 from ADOG towards whatever solution is adopted) * With regard to Fees: Adoption of the $1 add-on to dog license fees to establish a fund for dog-related expenses at the Parks * With regard to Park Hours & Days Open As suggested - No change Mr. Doty stated that the motion was open at the last meeting and there was a counter offer to consider using corrugated panels to cover the existing fence between the large and small Dog Parks in an effort to create a sound barrier. He added that it was also suggested that they consider a sound absorbing material on the existing fence. He reported that these counter offers were dismissed after discussion took place since the corrugated panels are not as aesthetically z:\council packets\2015\r150402\150319m.docx Page 5 of 17 appealing (that is a subjective opinion) and the material would not create an adequate sound barrier. He provided data to justify the Commissions rejection of those options. He expressed the opin ion that they have isolated the dominant causes of the homeowners' noise concerns and there is a simple, straight forward solution that, if implemented, will create a significantly improved noise environment. He stated that the Commission voted on the five-point motion and it passed unanimously. Mr. Doty advised that the total cost to implement all of the proposed changes is $7,500 and reiterated that ADOG President Dennis Contino has stated that he will contribute $1,000 towards that cost, leaving a tota l Town cost of $6,500. He thanked the Council for the opportunity to address them and indicated his willingness to respond to any questions. Ms. Bender advised that three residents wished to speak to the Council regarding this agenda item. Bill Jaeger addressed the Council and said that he was on the committee that looked into the sound barriers and, as the matrix the Council has before them shows, they came up with 12 different barrier options. He noted that three of them are practical implementations and some of the others were just impractical. He referred to photographs he had provided the Council and stated that there is a sample of the panels they are talking about in the back of the room. He pointed out that the question of aesthetics was raised and that could be solved by planting bushes in front of it. He added that the last option was the sound barrier and reported that this material is not intended to completely reduce sound -- it is a sound mitigation barrier. He advised that he called the manufacturer today to get some better pricing and to do the whole park with this material would cost about $8,800 and it is a sound suppression barrier. He said that in his opinion the sound barrier material is the better option. Mayor Kavanagh asked whether the sound barrier material would be durable and Mr. Jaeger replied that they use it in Saudi Arabia so sun and heat would not pose any problems. Will Jacobs addressed the Council and said that he is President of Morningside's Homeowners' Association . He informed the Council that he was part of the sub-committee that worked on fees. He added that he and Mr. Jaeger went over to the Park and put up the piece of corrugated material to see how aesthetically pleasing it might be and as they can see from the picture it is not terribly bad. He stated that they recognize that there are three very good options -- the chain link fence, the corrugated material and the sound absorbing material. He explained that the purpose of introducing two more options to the Council tonight is to let them know that there are additional options other than the chain link fence and they believe they should be looked at more thoroughly and evaluated. He further stated that they are not opposed to the motion to set aside funds and they hope that the funds get put into the budget but they would like to have these other options looked at more thoroughly. He commented that the sound absorbing material or the corrugated material hidden by oleander type plans would be very aesthetically pleasing and they would like to see some improvement in the sound because a lot of complaints of continuous barking were received from the 122 homeowners in Morningside. He advised that they would like to see the Mayor and Council pass a resolution o r vote on funding for some barrier. In response to a request for clarification from the Mayor regarding whether Mr. Jacob is in agreement with the placement outlined by Mr. Doty, Mr. Jacobs stated that on the slide there was one area that showed a solid line and that is the existing chain link fence and this proposal was to put another chain link fence on the other side. He added that if they went with the corrugated material or the sound absorbing rubb er material, it would go on the existing chain link fence and negate the need for the other chain link fence. He said that both the corrugated material and the rubberized material would act as a sight barrier so that the small dogs, even if they did jump up, would not be able to see the big dogs and vice versa. He added that the sight barrier is important. He pointed out that the sound absorbing material that Mr. Jaeger talked about earlier would cost $8,800 and that would cover the entire chain link fen ce, the rear pass through gate and the two areas where the entryways are for the small dogs and part of the wall on Tower Drive. He added that the corrugated material, with all of the hardware and installation costs, would fall somewhere between $5,500 and $6,000 and they might want to do some oleander plantings to soften the look. He said that it is a nice great color and looked just fine when whey held it up in the Park. He reiterated that the sound absorbing material would be better because it does absorb sound and it is a sight barrier -- the corrugated material would serve as a sight barrier but would not be as effective as far as blocking out the noise. z:\council packets\2015\r150402\150319m.docx Page 6 of 17 Barbara Sudderth addressed the Council and advised that she is the owner of two small dogs and s he takes them to the Small Dog Park every day. She stated that she is sorry that she didn't serve on any of the Committees and wasn't aware of the sub-committees and wishes she could have participated more in this but she did not know they were being formed. She advised that she supports adding $1 on to the dog license fee and said that she would like to speak to the lack of aesthetics associated with putting a chain link fence on top of the planter -- it is like fencing in plants. She suggested raising the 4-foot wall a little and covering the entry. Mayor Kavanagh thanked the speakers for their comments. Councilmember Yates advised that he is the owner of two large dogs and he loves the Dog Park although they don't go there probably as much as some people do. He asked why they don't put the barrier up on the house side rather than on the street side. He added that he is not a big fan of fencing but likes the idea of using plants and things of that nature but he thinks they are correcting a problem that might not be the problem -- it sounds like noise and he knows they have had several discussions about what time to even open the Park and he didn't hear anyone talk about that and he appreciates that and it sounds like there is noise throughout the day. He further stated that if noise is what they are trying to control then they should go to the side where all of the residents are and beef that side up. He pointed out that the dogs are just as loud in each of their own sections with one another. He said all he is hearing is "let's put a sound barrier on this side and this side" but all of the people are on the other side. Mr. Doty addressed the Council and pointed out that there is a lot of information on the internet about sound barriers and the one thing that is very clear is that it has to be a brick wall, at least a mass of four pounds per square foot and it has to be very, very high. He added that the geometry that they have over there does not lend itself -- the noise goes right up and over. He added that the best they could do is if they put an 18-foot wall and it was 4 inches thick masonry they could only cover about 200 feet. Discussion ensued relative to the fact that the barriers were intended to be sight barriers and Mr. Doty's opinio n that if they could keep the dogs off of the planter so they can't see each other they will not bark; Vice Mayor Brown's concerns about the last photograph of the screening with the fence and his opinion that it looks like construction fence and he is sure it is the same material they would use on one of their construction barrier fences; the fact that those fences last 4 to 5 years and wind damage that will occur will be noticeable; the Vice Mayor's concurrence with Councilmember Yates' statement that the corrugated panels would not be a good fit for the Town; his support for the speaker's recommendation that they look into possibly raising the wall as opposed to putting in a chain link fence and then trying to put a barrier on top of that; the Vice Mayor's opposition to the proposed options and his opinion that they need to look for a permanent fix and not a temporary fix; Mayor Kavanagh's statement that she supports having staff look into this further and come up with options for the Council to review and consider and the Mayor's concurrence with Ms. Sudderth regarding the negative aesthetic impact of placing a chain link fence on top of the planter. Councilmember Magazine thanked Mr. Doty and everyone else involved for all the work they have done analyzi ng this issue and said that he comes at it not from a design standpoint, at least at this point, but from a different perspective, which is the fact that they have tremendous financial challenges in the Town and the projections are that it is going to get worse. He briefly outlined just a few of those challenges as well as possible future legislation that could also negatively impact the Town financially and stated that $7,500 is not a lot of money but at some point they have to set priorities because they do not have that money in the budget. He stated that he is not saying that he wouldn't vote eventually for something like this once they have had a chance to take a look at it and get exact costs and balance it against other needs in the community but he thinks they need to defer any action until the design has been looked at again and until the Council has their discussion about the budget, which will occur on April 6th. He added that while he is not necessarily opposed to it, it is going to depend upon what other expenses they have and balancing things one against the other. He said he just doesn't think that they can make arbitrary decisions to spend money, no matter what the amount, especially when it is not in the budget. He further stated that if it finds its way into the next budget then that is fine, it means it went through an analysis process, they looked at all of the needs of the community and they set some priorities. Mayor Kavanagh advised that she is in agreement with Councilmember Magazine on this issue and noted that many years ago, when this Dog Park was first just thought about, there was a group of dog owners and they formed ADOG and for a very, very long time the Town had a great partnership with ADOG and that is how the Park got some of the amenities that it has (the lighting and other additions that have been done over the years) because this group worked z:\council packets\2015\r150402\150319m.docx Page 7 of 17 very hard to raise the money to fund what was needed because they knew that the Town didn't have the money. She agreed that the Town doesn't have the money to put out for this, not now and maybe not in the next budget, but she would like to hear from the organization as to whether they are still viable, are they still raising money and are they willing to fund this. She stated that she is ready to ask ADOG whether they would be willing to fund this project. Ms. Bender advised that an additional citizen wished to speak on this item. Bruce Hansen, a former President of ADOG, addressed the Council and said that he goes to the Dog Park every day and has since it was built in 2000. He expressed the opinion that the Committee did a good job and a lot of what they recommended will help and nothing is going to totally eliminate the noise. He added that he also agrees with Councilmember Magazine's comments and he has talked with the Town Manager about the money and he thinks that ADOG could raise the money. He informed the Council that he is not a member of ADOG at this time but when he left three years ago they had $10,000 in the bank and nothing has been done since then so he thinks they've got a lot more than the $1,000 that was pledged. He stated that he would agree that the money should be raised by the Dog Park users and not paid for by the Town. He expressed the opinion that the sound barriers are not going to help a lot and said that the little fence along the top that they are talking about will keep the small dogs from running along that area and that might stop a lot of the barking but as of January 8th of this year, he talked to a guy who used to bring four dogs into the Little Dog Park and there would be all kinds of barking but they finally got him to come into the Park on the east end and the barking has been reduced probably by 90% between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. He pointed out that that is the only time he can speak to because he goes to the Park at that time. He also suggested that they consider limiting the number of dogs that people can bring into the Park and reported that most Dog Parks throughout the State have a two dog limit and he has seen people bring as many as seven dogs into the Park and one person cannot watch or control that amount of dogs. He reiterated that he thinks the Committee did a good job and their recommendations are good and if it is just money they are talking about, and then put the responsibility on the dog owners. He indicated his willingness to help raise the money and said he didn't think they would have any problem doing it. Mayor Kavanagh thanked Mr. Hansen for his remarks. Councilmember Leger thanked the new Commission and noted that this was one of their first challenges and he thinks there was a great deal of civility between all the groups. He reported that he attended a couple of the meetings and a lot of suggestions came forward. He said that it is a very passionate issue and a lot of work was done and he really appreciates the fact that they all broke down into sub-groups. He commented that there is never going to be 100% agreement and it appears to him that Item #1 in the proposal is the one that has the most conflict in terms of the barrier, the type of barrier or placing a fence on top of the planter. He agreed with Vice Mayor Brown's comment that maybe that needs some further study (answer could be just raising the wall instead of putting up a fence). He stated that he would like to recognize the fact that both groups came up with a wonderful product and said he didn't hear any disagreement regarding Item #2, Rules or Item #3, Communication, Item #4 Fees and the additional $1 or with Item #5, Park Hours. He reiterated that he is proud of all the work that has been done and thinks it is great that there is only one bone of contention. He suggested that the Council make a motion to adopt Items 2, 3 4 and 5 and the re is very little cost associated with doing that and then direct staff to go back to the drawing board as the Vice Mayor suggested with regard to Item #1. Mayor Kavanagh advised that she does not agree with Item #4 - the adoption of the $1 add-on to dog license fees to establish a fund for dog related expenses at the Parks. She explained that she does not want to increase this fee because many people who have dogs do not use the Dog Park and they would be charged and also many people from Scottsdale use the Town's Dog Park and they would be using the Dog Park and not paying anything. She commented that she would rather see it go back to the way it was where ADOG raised money and they could certainly invite the people from Scottsdale who use the Park to j oin ADOG and then everybody who uses the Park will be contributing to the upkeep and not just the taxpayers who maybe don't have anything to do with the Dog Park. He stated that she would rather see Item #4 eliminated and she would much rather have staff look at this. She added that she is not ready to look at any of the recommendations until she gets more information; this is just too much at once. Vice Mayor Brown said that the point that he didn't make was to thank everyone involved in carrying out th e hard work and going out and examining and doing the prototypes and putting out the effort to go forward and figure out the best and simplest solution. He acknowledged the ton of work they did and stated that he wishes everyone in Town would put out that much initiative. z:\council packets\2015\r150402\150319m.docx Page 8 of 17 Vice Mayor Brown MOVED to table this agenda item for 60 days and not make a decision on Items 1, 2, 3 or 4, any of it, until ADOG comes back to the Council with a possible solution or some possible funding as to what could happen and Councilmember Magazine SECONDED the motion. Councilmember Magazine advised that there is discussion about redesign and asked how they could build that in to future discussions -- just table it for 60 days, see what design they come in with, see what the cost is and so on? Vice Mayor Brown responded that his intent would be to see what type of funds they can come up with that are ADOG generated rather than Town generated and then they could make a true, solid decision on what they can afford to do. Councilmember Yates announced that he has a proposal that includes all of that and said he would like the Council to hear him out and then if the Vice Mayor wants to stay with his motion he will rescind his. Councilmember Yates said that he was going to have staff receive the information, obtain further research and present options based on highest possible success at lowest cost and simultaneously research with ADOG to find out what kind of funds they have. Vice Mayor Brown advised that he appreciates Councilmember Yates' thoughts but he truly believes that they are already going to talk tonight about not having enough staff to take care of everything and so he would prefer that ADOG comes to the table along with possibly the people who use the park and presents a solution to the problem or makes a recommendation for a solution. Councilmember Yates stated that his was not a motion, he just wanted some discussion. Councilmember Leger noted that dogs go to the Dog Parks and they bark at the Dog Parks and i t is important that owners take responsibility and try to mitigate barking. He noted that one of the complaints that he has received from a number of residents in Morningside, which to him is one of the more significant complaints, is that when dogs are in the Dog Park during the operational hours they bark. He said, "Can they mitigate that? Maybe yes, maybe no" but what they can mitigate and deal with are the hours at the Dog Park. He stated that he doesn't think that anyone at Morningside should have to listen to a dog bark prior to the Park being open and after it closes. He added that in that regard he was interested in the recommendation that says, "Enlisting Maricopa Animal Control and the Sheriff to enforce Park hours" and asked what was envisioned there, what was the process? Mr. Mayer responded that they looked at two things -- one, the way they control the usage is the gates are open but the lights are adjusted to come on at 6:00 a.m. and go off at 9:00 p.m. so people can utilize the facility but they are going to have to find some other means to have light. He added that there probably are some people who abuse that but staff thinks that the vast majority are following the rules in that regard. He further stated that they have solicited the help of the County Animal Control on a number of occasions and they have issued a number of citations. He said that they have indicated a willingness to help the Town in this area and Mr. Mayer believes that increased enforcement would help. He pointed out that they have been concentrating on off leash dogs, which is another concern. He stated that they have not had any direct conversation with the Sheriff's Office about this matter and perhaps obtaining their assistance (it was just a suggestion that was made at the meetings). Mayor Kavanagh advised that she would like to get a roll call vote on the tabling motion. Councilmember Leger indicated that he had additional comments to make and the Mayor said that his remarks did not appear to be about the motion to table and so she would like to vote on that at this time. Councilmember Leger stated that he believed his remarks were about the tabling motion. The Mayor called for a vote on Vice Mayor Brown's motion to table. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: Mayor Linda Kavanagh Aye Councilmember Alan Magazine Aye Vice Mayor Dennis Brown Aye z:\council packets\2015\r150402\150319m.docx Page 9 of 17 Councilmember Cecil Yates Aye Councilmember Cassie Hansen Aye Councilmember Nick DePorter Aye Councilmember Henry Leger Nay The motion CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE (6-1) with Councilmember Leger voting Nay. Mayor Kavanagh thanked everyone for their attendance at the meeting and for their hard work on this issue. AGENDA ITEM #5 - DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW TO REVISE, ENHANCE OR STREAMLINE THE A-FRAME SIGN PERMITTING PROCESS FOR COMPLIANCE. Senior Planner Bob Rodgers addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and briefly reviewed the Staff Report on this issue (Copy available on line and in the office of the Town Clerk). He said that the A-frame sign permit requirement was added by Council in 2009 and it was intended to ensure that business owners who put out A -frame signs would be advised of the regulations when they were picking up their sign permits. He explained that the price of the permit is currently $5 and consists of a sticker which must be affixed to the sign. He pointed out that the fee was not designed to recoup the costs associated with the permit and it doesn't even cover the cost of materials, time to create the stickers or staff time. He added that all of these permits expire annually on the same date as the sunset clause and must be renewed at the beginning of each year once/if Council agrees to extend the expiration date for another year. He stated that in December of 2014, the Council approved a one-year extension of Zoning Ordinance Section 6.08.B.11, the "sunset clause" for A-frame signs and the extension is until December 31, 2015. Mr. Rodgers informed the Council that during discussions it was noted that while there were many reasons listed for non-compliance, the majority of the non-compliance issues were due to the sign owners' failure to get the required permits. He said that Council directed staff to look at the Town's current regulations and processes regarding these permits and return with an analysis and recommendations to better address both the non-compliance issues and the enforcement issues being encountered. He stated that staff has reviewed their internal permitting and permit tracking abilities as well as the current ordinances and reported that the following options were considered: * Do Nothing * Increase the Permit Fee * Allow for Multi-Year Permits * Eliminate the Permit Requirement Mr. Rodgers advised that staff is recommending that the Council eliminate the permit requirement entirely and noted that this action would not eliminate a business's responsibility to follow the regulations or change the sunset clause in any way -- it would only eliminate the requirement that an annual permit be issued for an A-frame sign. He added that staff is requesting that the Council agree with that recommendation and direct staff to amend the ordinance so as not to require the permit or, if the Council would rather, direct staff to pursue an alternative option. Councilmember Leger commented that he is trying to see the logic in this recommendation and said that it seems kind of counter intuitive when there are requirements and those requirements are taken away to reduce the occurrence of non-conformance. He asked what the original intent of having a permit was and Mr. Rodgers replied that when Council initiated the permit it was to allow staff to give the businesses information about how the signs should be placed, where the sticker should be located, etc. Councilmember Leger said that he remembers that because he was on the Council at that time and the purpose was to educate the users of the A-frame signs and to reinforce annually the use of the A-frame signs so that they would have a bit of compliance versus what they are looking at today. He reiterated that it seems counter intuitive and gave the analogy that it is like giving out too many citations for people not stopping so they take Stop Signs down. He further stated that he agrees that a volunteer program with a permit and minimal fee has not been effective as far as educating A-frame users but to take away the requirement to get permits for A-frame signs just seems to reinforce the opposite of what they are trying to accomplish. z:\council packets\2015\r150402\150319m.docx Page 10 of 17 Mr. Rodgers replied that he believes that most of Councilmember Leger's analysis is correct but pointed out that prior to initiating the permit, there was no permit required and people were still putting A -frame signs out. He reported that the biggest non-compliance issue over the last few years has been the lack of getting a permit so the education component really hasn't been working. He advised that whoever picks up a permit gets educated but if they don't pick one up they don't get educated. Councilmember Leger said that if they take away the permit as a requirement, they have artificially affected the compliance statistics and they will say that they have gone down because they have basically told people they just don't have to do that anymore. He noted that this is not about punishing businesses; it has always been about being business friendly, educating them and being proactive so that Code Enforcement wasn't knocking on their doors. He added that the process was voluntary -- come in and get a permit and come back but no one came back for another permit so the bottom line here is rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water, maybe they should look at a different process that is business friendly and allows the continuation of education, particularly for new business owners, etc. Mr. Rodgers pointed out that the same argument could be made for when the permit was instituted -- that artificially inflated the incidents of non-compliance. Discussion ensued relative to Councilmember Leger's comment that education is proactive and the Town's enforcement right now is reactive and punishing to businesses; the fact that he is trying to come up with a scenario that is positive and not about cost; the fact that at a previous meeting Councilmember Leger recommended a possible process that he doesn't see tonight (maybe just parts of it); and Finance Director Craig Rudolphy's explanation of the business license process. Councilmember Leger asked what would preclude the Town from merging a system and basically having a business renewal and A-frame permit renewal on the same schedule -- when the businesses received their notices they would simply say, "If utilizing an A-frame add $5.00." He pointed out that that would come out annually and in addition to that, they could have a nice fluorescent piece of paper in there that has some of the main issues about curb side, median and overnight because those are the major requirements and then make a reference to the scenario. He added that with respect to sun setting, he would suggest that they initiate this next year after they decide whether they are going to sunset A-frames or not. Mr. Rudolphy responded that one issue would be that the current system for business licenses does not have the capability of tracking an additional permit so they wouldn't know which businesses have permits and which ones would need one. He added that he believes Councilmember Leger is saying that they are just going to include a notice about A-frames in with the Town's 2,200 business license renewal notifications. Councilmember Leger advised that he is not trying to micromanage Mr. Rudolphy or work the process out on line here but he does think there is a possibility of looking at a process that would enhance education. He further stated that it was also about accountability. Councilmember DePorter stated that he supports staff's proposal and stressed the importance of being proactive with their enforcement but unfortunately the lack of resources hampers the Town in that ar ea. He noted that a lot of people are not in compliance with the permit fee and added that the fee is not a huge revenue generating source (it doesn't even cover costs). He expressed the opinion that they should eliminate the permit fee and take the opportunity when business licenses are renewed to educate the citizens -- put information on a fluorescent piece of paper but leave off the part about the fee. He said they have a lack of enforcement because they don't have the resources to do it but if they had any at all they could maybe throughout the year figure out whether a certain business has a considerable amount of violations and part of the business license renewal process could be discussing the business's non -compliance issues and providing education on improving in that area. Councilmember Yates commented that this was done for education purposes and there has got to be a better way to educate the business owners. In response to a question from Councilmember Yates, Mr. Rodgers reported that he believes the December report showed 80% non compliance but 75% of that was due to the lack of permits. z:\council packets\2015\r150402\150319m.docx Page 11 of 17 Mr. Rodgers confirmed that if the Council accepts staff's recommendation, all of the other rules and regulations (placement, when they can be out, etc.) will all remain the same. Councilmember Magazine said that he is a business owner and he gets a piece of mail that says it is time to renew his business license and there is a place to check off whether he wants to send in his $5 for an A-frame -- what if he just sends in the money for the business license and not the A -frame and puts his A-frame sign up. He stated that he might be misunderstanding what Councilmember Leger is suggesting and added that he does understand his comment that the recommendation is counter intuitive. He added that as a person who is not crazy about A -frame signs in the first place, he is probably not the best person to give advice on this. Ms. Bender advised that one citizen wished to speak on this issue. Linda Bordow addressed the Council and stated that she thinks it is a good idea to get rid of the $5 fee and she supports staff's recommendations. She noted that there are a lot of ways to educate people and when people open a business they go and research everything they need to do in order to be in compliance with the Town's regulations before applying for a business license and that is one place they could add the rules for the signage if they want it. She said that she is not a fan of A-frame signs and added that there are many other avenues to educate people -- Facebook, the Town's website, etc. She reiterated that she hopes the Council just drops the whole thing and stated that the Town could use the extra time to put into something else. Additional discussion ensued relative to Councilmember Leger's statement that there are a lot of ways to educate but in all the years he has been on the Council it hasn't happened and non-compliance continues; his comment with respect to money and staff time and the fact that he simply stated that they would merge it with the existing system and it would not be that much more labor intensive; the fact that Councilmember Leger's suggestion is meant to minimize non - conformance; Mr. Rodger's statement that the actual incidents of compliance has gone up this year and he thinks it has mainly been because of the enforcement efforts (warnings and then if no compliance citations being issued); the fact that this year they issued 70 permits up from 30 last year; the fact that the Town has spoken with the new CEO of the Chamber of Commerce and he has been very helpful in putting out bulletins to all of the people who are members and he is willing to do more; the Business Alliance and their assistance; Vice Mayor Brown's comment that they had the A- frame signs completely off the streets for almost one full year and not one time did his phone ring; the fact that he got on the Council in 2009 and the issue came back before the Council and he said, "No, don't do it, don't d o it" but they allowed the A-frames to come back with the agreement that they were going to have a sunset clause at the end of each year and at the end of each year they renewed it again; the fact that this is after the 10 month sign conversation and he attended a majority of those meetings along with the other 15 sign committees that he sat in on for Planning & Zoning over the eight years he was there; the Vice Mayor's statement that he has seen zero improvement and they continue to say they will give the businesses one more chance and they are going to self-inspect and take care of themselves and they are not going to; and the Vice Mayor’s suggestion that they do nothing now and then in December when they vote on whether the sunset clause, they should not approve another extension and prohibit the A-frame signs from being put up again in Town. Councilmember Yates MOVED to direct staff to proceed with the necessary ordinance and policy revisions in order to eliminate the requirement that A-frame signs get annual permits and Councilmember DePorter SECONDED the motion. Councilmember Hansen advised that she would like to suggest an AMENDMENT to just add the provision that with the annual business license renewal, a very visible insert be placed on top of the business renewal so that people would have to look at it before they check the box that all of the information is the same. Councilmember Hansen stated that Mr. Rodgers had said that enforcement is becoming more effective and word of mouth is helping that, so making it very clear on the notice that enforcement is in full effect and the rules, which could also be on the insert, will be enforced and have that included with the business license renewals will be helpful. Councilmember Leger SECONDED the amendment. z:\council packets\2015\r150402\150319m.docx Page 12 of 17 Councilmember Yates said that in order to expedite the process he would add the wording of the amendment into his original motion and Councilmember Hansen advised that that would be acceptable to her and rescinded her amendment. Councilmember Leger requested that the motion be restated prior to the vote. Councilmember Yates MOVED that the Council direct staff to proceed with the necessary ordinance and policy revisions in order to eliminate the requirement that A-frame signs get annual permits and then add into the annual business license packet a bright yellow what he calls a “four up or two up” (in order to save paper/money) A-frame and other signage information. At the request of Councilmember Yates, Councilmember Hansen added to the motion th e language to be included in the business license renewal packet, which states that "strict enforcement is being adhered to and will be enforced." The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). AGENDA ITEM #6 - PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF A LETTER OF INTENT FROM THE STRATEGIC PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION REGRADING A POTENTIAL UPDATE TO STRATEGIC PLAN 2010. Strategic Planning Advisory Commission (SPAC) Chairman, Peter Bordow, addressed the Council and said that it has fallen upon the group to consider the five year update to the 2010 Strategic Plan and noted that the Commissioners have spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the current plan and wanted to present a very high level conceptual approach to the direction they were thinking in moving forward with the five year update of the plan. He noted that the SPAC and the Council have a joint meeting coming up on March 31st and said that at that time they can get into a lot of detail and in-depth discussion but they wanted to give the Council a general awareness of the direction that they were thinking and their intent. He said he knows that the Councilmembers all have had a chance to read the Letter of Intent and indicated his willingness to respond to questions (Copy of the presentation are available on line and in the office of the Town Clerk). Mayor Kavanagh asked whether the SPAC's goal is to just update the current plan as is because she knows that the current plan was put together at considerable expense and with a great deal of citizen participat ion and probably does need some type of updating -- she asked if that is what Mr. Bordow is suggesting (a s opposed to throwing the whole thing out and redoing it). Mr. Bordow responded that they go through an annual update process and minor adjustments are made and as it was explained to the SPAC, every five years there is an opportunity to do a significant update to the plan and so the first thing that the Commissioners did was review the plan in depth (they have some new Commissioners on board). He advised that the more the Commissioners delved into the plan, the more opportunity they saw for some restructuring of the plan itself. He stated that it was the unanimous feeling of the group that they do a little bit of restructuring and refocusing of the plan. He added that today, as outlined in the Letter, they think that the plan has a strong emphasis on vision and values and has a very far reaching look -- a very long term, almost unattainable vision. He said that the Commissioners agreed that there is a lot of value in focusing the view of the plan to a five to eight-year vision emphasizing specific, strategic goals that can be accomplished in that timeframe. He further stated that the Commissioners unanimously feel that it would be very valuable to add measurable results so that progress towards specific strategic goals can be measured and reported on. He noted that from 2005 to 2010 there was a significant evolution of the plan itself and it has come a long way since 2005 to 2010 and then 2010 to 201 5 and they feel it is appropriate and time to take a holistic approach to revising the plan. He added that all of the current content of the plan is very valuable and has a lot of great stuff in it and they don't want to throw it all away, they want to reorganize it and restructure it, take the current vision and values and a lot of the content that is in there and use that as a context fo r developing strategic goals -- they want to repurpose it and instead of it being the meat of the plan, they feel it is a great framework and context for defining those strategic goals. Mr. Bordow informed the Council that the SPAC decided unanimously not to get into specifics in terms as far as how the plan would be structured in terms of outlining and topical descriptions and things like that -- they feel that that is something they can do in their joint session. He stated that they just wanted to emphasize that the plan today lacks z:\council packets\2015\r150402\150319m.docx Page 13 of 17 those specific measurable results, those metrics that they feel strongly can be developed. He added that they also feel that it needs to have more of a five to eight-year view instead of what some Councilmembers consider to be a ten to twenty-year view and even further. He noted that they thought it would be more usable and more valuable. Councilmember Hansen asked whether the Commission took into account the pretty extreme financial constraints that they have with the Town budget as far as setting up these revised goals as they went through the process. She advised that she would not want to create a false sense of expectation with the community that they are going to re -identify these things (things that maybe they do not have the resources to pursue in the next five to eight years). Mr. Bordow asked if Councilmember Hansen was referring to the actual process in developing the plan update or the content of the plan once it is updated. He stated that in terms of the process to update the plan they have not rea lly had an in-depth discussion on what they would look like short of going through the 2010 process and using that as sort of a model that they would use as a context for developing their plan. He further stated that they are well aware of the financial constraints and they know that there is a little bit of money set aside for this sort of thing but their main goal is to do this as cheaply and effectively as possible. Councilmember Hansen clarified that she didn't mean finances to fund redoing the plan; she meant to accomplish the goals contained in the plan. Mr. Bordow noted that financial sensitivity was paramount in their discussions and they don't want to put out there anything that cannot be achieved and financial considerations would be a large part of the conversation. Vice Mayor Brown advised that he really likes the idea of a five to eight -year theory and strategy and monitoring and watching and seeing what is happening. He stated that five to six years would be fine with him because the Town i s getting ready to explode and he thinks that having a Strategic Plan that is a little more compact and can be adjusted along with the roll of the Town is a good idea. He added that right now they are not rolling too good but it feels like it is getting ready to explode and so he really likes their thought pattern of reducing the outlook to a little shorter distance and at the same time keeping the 20-year plan open as it is written. Councilmember DePorter commented that he too likes the idea of a shorter purview out on the plan and taking into consideration all of the hard work and money that has gone into developing the original plan. He added that he also likes the measurable metric driven goals and he is looking forward to the joint meeting and he l ikes where it is going so far. Mr. Bordow stated that the Commissioners are doing their homework, are feeling very motivated and feel a sense of urgency in putting something out there that is achievable and measurable. Councilmember Magazine referred to Item #2, the first bullet in the Letter says, "Provide a long-term vision and clear articulation of the Town's core values and commitments as a textual context and underpinning for the strategic goals" and asked whether the long-term vision is the five to eight years. Mr. Bordow responded no, that is what he was alluding to -- in the balance of the body of the Letter today are very extensive and clearly articulated values for the Town and they feel that that is really valuable content but it can be somewhat condensed and moved up front to a place of prominence in the plan and it can set the tone and the context for all of the subsequent new strategic goals (the measurable goals). He stressed that they don't want to lose any of the current content that is in there -- they want to bring it up front and make it a little more digestible and make it the underpinning of the entire rest of the document. Discussion ensued relative to the fact that this really isn't really a seen change from the forward looking document of 2010 when they were looking out ten to fifteen years in terms of addressing long-term vision, they are still doing that; Mr. Bordow comment that the SPAC Commissioners interpreted vision and values as what they would like to see the community become one day; Councilmember Magazine's opinion that some of the joint meetings he sat through were not very productive and whether Mr. Bordow had anything specific in mind as to what he was going to prepare for discussion relative to all of this at the upcoming meeting; Mr. Bordow's response that there is an agenda that they have put together and there are some specific end points that they would like to achieve at that meeting; his opinion that there is an opportunity for a new dynamic between the SPAC and the Council and his opinion that having two former SPAC members of the Council gives them a "leg up" on subsequent relations, dynamics and conversations going z:\council packets\2015\r150402\150319m.docx Page 14 of 17 forward; and Mr. Bordow's comment that he is very optimistic that they will have a productive working session that may not accomplish everything that they want to accomplish but he thinks they are on the right track. Councilmember Leger thanked Mr. Bordow for his work as Chairman of the SPAC and said that he is looking forward to the joint session because he has a lot of questions. He added that from his point of view, what would be productive to discuss at the meeting would be methodology and costs -- he needs to know what specifically they want to do, how they are going to do it and what it is going to cost. Mr. Bordow commented that that was one of the conversations he floated in some depth with the Commission and he also likes to know what the methodology is going to be (he has a scientific engineering background and for him methodology is just as much as collateral produced out of methodology). He stated that he has been advised that the specific approach is a little bit too preliminary to actually hammer out and the subsequent costing of that approach until this high level, conceptual take on what the plan could be is decided upon. Councilmember Leger noted that Mr. Bordow is coming before the Council with a Letter of Intent this evening, which is really not necessary because the SPAC has the authority to go out and revise the plan and he is interested in knowing what they plan to do before he can get on board with appropriations. He said that for example when the previous update occurred, the SPAC worked through that, they took the concept, they drilled down and they presented the Council with a plan. He stated that he thinks that the meeting needs to be modeled after what has been done in the past with respect to a more specific plan. Mr. Bordow replied that the Commission's intent was to provide a little awareness of what they are thinking about in terms of what the collateral will look like when this is all done -- a little visionary conversation. He said that once they have the feeling that the Council and the SPAC are kind of on the same page in terms of that time boxing/specific goals/measurable results, etc., the next item is how are they going to do it and he thinks the joint session with the SPAC is designed to get a little deeper into the structure of the plan and what the conceivable collateral will look like when they are done and get into some of the "what will work, what won't, what is a good idea, what is not" type of discussion to get there. He stated that his expectation as a result out of that joint session is that the SPAC will put together a detailed plan on the methodology, the estimated timeline, the costing and all of the other details in consideration for the Council's approval and out of that they will know what the SPAC is thinking the plan will look like, details about how they will get there and a dollar amount on how much it will cost (they will have everything that they are looking for). Councilmember Leger advised that in order to have a productive meeting the members of the SPAC should put this concept into a plan and present that plan to the Council and then once they have a plan they can start talking about tweaking/changes/additions. He further stated that if they are sitting together to formulate all of this, he thinks there is some pre-work that needs to be done prior to that. He said for example he spent two years on the original Strategic Plan and it took them a while to put their methodology together and get the costs so they could put it all together, bring it to the Council and say this is what they wanted to do. He added that he appreciates the Commission's effort in putting the Letter together and enhancing this awareness but he would like to have more from the SPAC than a concept and what he has in front of him now is a concept. Councilmember Magazine commented that he agrees with Councilmember Leger and he thinks that Mr. Bordow and the Commission's expectation of what could come out of such a session may be too high. He said he just doesn't think they can get together and have a brainstorming session and have something as specific as Mr. Bordow is describing come out of it. He suggested that the Commission put together basically an outline to show the Council the flow of how this is going to work -- for example a Vision Statement, Specific Goals, Metrics, etc. so they can get a feel for the categories, where they are headed and get an overall view of the flow of what they are going to accomplish later on. He further stated that if they are looking to the Council to work with them at a joint session to come up with something he just doesn't think that is going to work. He agreed with Councilmember Leger's statement that some work needs to be done prior to that meeting and probably shared with the Council in advance if they really want the meeting to be productive. Councilmember DePorter agreed that the suggestions listed above would result in a more productive meeting and thanked Mr. Bordow and the members of the Commission for putting together the Letter because it is a sking whether they are even in the right ballpark and from what he is hearing it sounds like the SPAC is empowered to take it to any z:\council packets\2015\r150402\150319m.docx Page 15 of 17 ballpark they want. He added that he is not hearing any upheaval about Mr. Bordow's comments being totally wrong so any sort of a plan that they can bring to the meeting along the lines of the memo could help with some context and methodology and it sounds like he has some of that in his brain already. Mr. Bordow thanked Councilmember DePorter for his comments and advised that he is feeling empowered and now the SPAC has a lot of agreement in terms of the conceptual approach to what they think the plan could be. He stated that his personal feeling is that they have lots of green field here to develop that methodology and how they are going to do it, a topical approach to what the plan would look like -- he thinks they have a lot of material that they could put together and give the Council. He further stated the opinion that he has received great direction and the input that the Council has provided tonight is awesome and empowers the SPAC and gives them a lot to work with. He noted that he will reach out to Town Manager Ken Buchanan and see what the appropriate next step is but he can't thank them enough for their input and feedback. Councilmember Leger advised that the SPAC is empowered -- the bylaws empower them -- and said that the good news is that the SPAC had presented Council for the Retreat some recommended Strategic Goals for FY 2015 -16 so they are rolling with that and most of them are measurable. He added that he thinks they are in good shape and he knows they are anxious but this is a marathon, not a sprint and they should mellow out and meet and put this together and the Council will look forward to the session. He further stated that if for some reason they don't feel that they will be ready for the joint session in ten days and need more time, he would prefer that they defer that so that they can have a more productive meeting. He said as Councilmember Magazine mentioned, they could all get together in a room and have a brainstorming session but they would have to have someone facilitate that and pull them through that so they could come out with a product and he would rather have the SPAC put a product toget her and present it to the Council and then they can start cutting hairs and having discussions about vision and values (have previous ones changed ?). He noted that from his perspective, usually the vision and values don't change -- it is how they actualize the vision and the values and what are the tangibles that you decide on and prioritize and that is your plan (very much like they have done in the Letter of Intent). He commented that the discussion was not intended to be critical -- he is passionate about this and he wishes the members of the Commission the best of luck. He thanked for Mr. Bordow being at the meeting this evening and sharing his thoughts. Mr. Bordow noted that clarity is something that he is walking away with and that is great and if he appears zealous or eager, he brings with him the energy of six other empowered SPAC Commissioners who also feel as urgent and empowered as he does. Mayor Kavanagh thanked Mr. Bordow for his comments and advised that she sat in on most of the SPAC meetings so she knows about his energy. AGENDA ITEM #7 - CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 15-01, AMENDING THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN CODE, CHAPTER 1, RELATING TO CIVIL CITATIONS. Senior Planner Bob Rodgers addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and advised that over the years Code Enforcement has encountered a recurring problem with out-of-state property owners and/or business owners who have been unresponsive or failed to cooperate with requests for compliance with the Town's codes or ordinan ces. He noted that the proposed amendments will allow the Code Officer to leave a citation with any responsible adult on the property or place of business rather than being required to mail a citation to non-local locations in an attempt to cite the owner of the property or the business who in some cases is a corporation rather than a person. He advised that staff has discussed this proposal with the Town Prosecutor's office, the Court and the Town Attorney and recommends approval of the amendments and indicated his willingness to respond to any questions. There were no citizens wishing to speak on this agenda item. Councilmember Leger asked whether this would apply to out-of-state owners who have A-frame signs but no permits and Mr. Rodgers responded yes, up until December when the Council will again consider this issue. Councilmember Yates MOVED to approve Ordinance 15-01, amending the Town of Fountain Hills Town Code, Chapter 1, General Regulations, Section 1-8-3(D), relating to the service Civil Citations as presented and Vice Mayor Brown SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). z:\council packets\2015\r150402\150319m.docx Page 16 of 17 AGENDA ITEM #8 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2015-08, ADOPTING THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS FINANCIAL POLICIES, AMENDED AND RESTATED MARCH 19, 2015. Town Manager Ken Buchanan addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and pointed out that the proposed resolution updates the Town's current financial policies. He noted that the Council has a recap list of the significant changes and recommended approval of the resolution. There were no citizens wishing to speak on this agenda item. Vice Mayor Brown MOVED to approve Resolution 2015-08, amending and restating the Town of Fountain Hills' financial policies dated March 19, 2015 and Councilmember DePorter SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). AGENDA ITEM #9 - DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF RELATING TO ANY ITEM INCLUDED IN THE LEAGUE OR ARIZONA CITIES AND TOWNS WEEKLY LEGISLATIVE BULLETIN OR RELATING TO ANY ACTION PROPOSED OR PENDING BEFORE THE STATE LEGISLATURE. Mayor Kavanagh advised that she did not receive anything from anyone on this agenda item. AGENDA ITEM #10 - COUNCIL DISCUSSION/DIRECTION TO THE TOWN MANAGER KEN BUCHANAN. Items listed below are related only to the propriety of (i) placing such items on a future agenda for action or (ii) directing staff to conduct further research and report back to the Council. A. None. AGENDA ITEM #11 – SUMMARY OF COUNCIL REQUESTS AND REPORT ON RECENT ACTIVITIES BY THE MAYOR, INDIVIDUAL COUNCILMEMBERS AND THE TOWN MANAGER. Mayor Kavanagh reported that she attended the East Valley Mayor's Luncheon, which took place in Paradise Valley this time. She stated that they had a nice big group including a Councilman from the Salt River Maricopa Indian Community and the new Mayor of Carefree. She said that most of their discussion centered on the legislative bills that were being considered, the controversial Glendale Casino and some new building going on in the various communities. She commented that it is great to have these get togethers to discuss common issues even if sometimes she gets teased for being the only female Mayor at the table. She advised that their own Chabad of Fountain Hills celebrated Purim with a Hawaiian theme and noted that she and her husband are honored to be invited each year. She said that this year they outdid themselves with Hawaiian food, an authentic drum duo and lots of silent auction items. She advised that they were so glad that they got to spend the evening with the Chabad community. The Mayor further reported that she attended the anti-drug/anti-alcohol coalition meeting at the school and noted that Senator Kavanagh was the featured speaker. She stated that he talked about various bills in the Legislature aimed at making changes that would help with this cause and also discussed intervention programs for young people who are first offenders. She added that at the meeting they also discussed the outstanding progress the coalition has made in the reduction of drug and alcohol use in the school. She further stated that so many of the coalition members are residents of the community with just an interest in helping the kids -- they are all volunteers and give up a lot of their time working on projects for the group. AGENDA ITEM #12 - ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Magazine MOVED to adjourn the meeting and Councilmember Yates SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). The meeting adjourned at 8:29 p.m. z:\council packets\2015\r150402\150319m.docx Page 17 of 17 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 Executive and Regular Sessions held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills in the Fountain Conference Room - 2nd Floor (Executive) and Town Hall Council Chambers (Regular) on the 19th day of March, 2015. I further certify that the meetings were duly called and that quorums were present. DATED this 2nd day of April, 2015. _____________________________ Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk