HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009.0512.TCWSM.Minutesz:\council packets\2009\r6-4-09\090512m.docx Page 1 of 10
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
MINUTES OF THE WORK STUDY SESSION OF THE
FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
MAY 12, 2009
AGENDA ITEM #1 - CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Schlum called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. in the Town of Fountain Hills Council Chambers.
Present for roll call were the following members of the City Council: Mayor Schlum, Councilmember Contino,
Vice Mayor Leger, Councilmember Brown, Councilmember Hansen, Vice Mayor Archambault and
Councilmember Dickey. Town Manager Rick Davis, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire and Town Clerk Bev
Bender were also present.
AGENDA ITEM #2 – DISCUSSION REGARDING THE TOWN'S POSSIBLE PARTICIPATION IN
THE DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN PROCESS.
Town Manager Rick Davis addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and stated that quite some time
ago the Fountain Hills Chamber of Commerce had set into motion a process to review land use in the downtown
area and, as part of that, they retained the services of Vern Swaback & Associates out of Scottsdale. He said
that many of the Councilmembers may already have had an opportunity to attend some of the meetings
presented and seen some of the things put together relative to the visioning process for the downtown area. Mr.
Davis advised that this evening staff's goal was to obtain direction from the Council relative to the question of
future participation in funding some of the phases that would be associated with the visioning project. He added
that to his knowledge Phases I and II had been completed, the first one being a reconnaissance type of phase,
and noted that Phase III was where there would be an actual formation of a community vision for the downtown
area. He further stated that Phases IV and V would entail implementation or codification of this project. He
noted that without Phases IV and V, the project became simply a plan on a shelf. He said that staff had no
specific recommendation for the Council but was simply eager to understand which way the Council would like
to proceed before they saw this item on an agenda proposing expenditures by the Town to support the future
phases.
Mayor Schlum announced that newly appointed Councilmember Dennis Brown was participating in the
meeting, welcomed him, and thanked him for his participation as they moved forward.
Mr. Davis advised that staff would like some indication from the Council as to whether they would entertain a
proposal on the May 21st agenda for the Town to participate in the future phases and to what degree they would
like to participate. He said that discussion had taken place among those involved relative to participating in
Phase III and questioned whether the Council would like to do more than that and continue on with Phases IV
and V. He said that staff was looking to find out the Council's participation preference was.
Mayor Schlum thanked Mr. Davis for his remarks and stated that a few of the members of the Council were
familiar with this issue but others were not as familiar so it would be good to have some discussion on the
matter. He requested that staff provide an overview of the various phases and encouraged the members of the
Council to pose questions relative to the overall game plan that was proposed to the Town and the Chamber. He
said that he was fairly familiar with the concept as were Councilmembers Hansen and Leger. He added that
Councilmember Contino went to the public meeting the end of April. He noted that The Fountain Hills Times
had done a decent job writing about this issue and expressed the opinion that they probably all had some level of
understanding. He added that he personally would like to see this item on the next agenda.
z:\council packets\2009\r6-4-09\090512m.docx Page 2 of 10
Councilmember Dickey requested that the Mayor or Mr. Davis explain how this would fit in with the budget
discussions and Mr. Davis advised that there had been no specific provisions made in the proposed budget to
support this but added that the idea and the possibility was that support could be made possible through the
Economic Development Fund. He noted that work would be done by the end of this Fiscal Year. He said that
staff had one specific option that they plan to present to the Council.
Vice Mayor Archambault commented on the fact that staff was banking on the entire Swaback study being done
before the new Fiscal Year began and Mr. Davis said that he believed that the calendar, at one time, noted that
completion would take place before the end of the Fiscal Year. He stated that he believed they were now at the
beginning of Phase III/end of Phase II and added that Frank Ferrara, with the Chamber, was extremely familiar
with the issue and could respond to questions from the Council if desired.
Mr. Ferrara addressed the Council and advised that Phase II was complete except for the public input meeting
that would be held May 20th at the Community Center from 5:30 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. He added that Phase III
could begin immediately or "whenever." He explained that if there was a problem this Fiscal Year with the
cash, a delay would not be a problem and noted that they were looking at it "phase by phase" so they had some
breathing room in case there were some budgetary considerations.
The Vice Mayor advised that he would be interested in seeing this item on a future agenda.
Mayor Schlum commented on the fact that the proposal constituted a big effort and would require much
involvement.
Councilmember Hansen said that it might be helpful for anyone interested to review the entire presentation that
was given and noted that it was on the Chamber's website.
Councilmember Dickey asked whether this would have anything to do with who owned the property and the
Mayor referred to a diagram and said that it pointed out the scope of the study area (from Fountain Park all the
way up and past Bashas and from El Lago all the way to the other end of La Montana past Palisades). He stated
that this would ultimately provide the framework to drive future development in that area in a planned manner.
He said that it was not about incremental planning.
Mr. Davis commented that "you could develop incrementally -- you just could not have an incremental vision."
The Mayor advised that this was about the Council's vision for the downtown area and stressed the importance
of having the public and the property owners involved in this process.
Councilmember Leger asked whether there was any chance of having Swaback present to the Council and
expressed the opinion that it would be very helpful for the public to hear such a presentation. He noted that they
were really looking at reinventing downtown; establishing a variety of districts. He recommended that they be
asked to attend a meeting, do a presentation and bring everyone "up to speed" in terms of what had transpired.
He added that a condensed version of what was presented the other evening would suffice.
Mr. Davis stated that if the rest of the Council agreed with this recommendation he would arrange to have Mr.
Swaback or one of the other principals be present on May 21st to highlight a presentation.
Councilmember Leger said that he was hearing that staff was looking at two possible options - either spending
dollars that might be available in this Fiscal Year to sign a contract and complete the project with Phases III, IV
and V or the other option - the possibility of rolling this into the next Fiscal Year and funding it in the new
budget.
z:\council packets\2009\r6-4-09\090512m.docx Page 3 of 10
Mr. Davis advised that as it looked right now that it would be six weeks out if they started today on Phase III
and worked their way through. This being the middle of May they were going to be pretty close to the end of the
Fiscal Year as it was. He added that since the majority of work had been completed on this side of the Fiscal
Year he thought it would be most appropriate to plan on their participation being part of this current Fiscal Year.
Councilmember Leger said that it appeared to him that the Downtown Development Fund, which was one-tenth
of a percent of the Town's excise tax, was put aside exclusively for this type of work. He noted that there was
money available in that fund and said that was one place they could look to for the possible funding of Phase III
this Fiscal Year and look at funding Phases IV and V during the next Fiscal Year. He stated that he believed
there was a balance of approximately $1 million in that fund.
Mr. Davis said that it was staff's intention to propose the utilization of that fund for this purpose.
Councilmember Dickey asked what potential they had to actually drive development when other people owned
the property and there were ideas about different types of districts. She asked what kind of actual control would
be in place and said before they spent monies out of the Downtown Development Fund she would want to know
that this was something that could be done no matter who owned the property.
Mr. Davis advised that he had this discussion with a large number of people and he commonly likened it to a
map and taking a trip. He said that just having a map would not get them to their destination but they were
unlikely to ever get to their destination without a map. He stated that this would provide them a map and a clear
direction of where the community wanted to go. He added that they had some confidence because of the
collaborative nature of this process that as they went down this road with the support/mandate/shared vision that
provided some comfort as they moved ahead and perhaps commit significant amounts of public dollars with the
support of the citizens.
Mayor Schlum commented on what he felt Councilmember Dickey was saying, "keep it real ... keep it realistic"
and viable and agreed that this was an important goal. He added that this was also not something that they were
looking to do overnight - it would be an over time layered approach.
Mr. Davis said that it was very likely that what they were drawing was not what it would ultimately look like.
He stated that if the only thing that they got out of this process was some shared vision of what their future could
be, there would be an emotional benefit to that as well. He noted that right now they had people going in
different directions and stressed the importance of being unified.
Councilmember Leger stated that he discussed this with the Town's new Economic Development person and if
they went down this road and they had this vision, it became a tool not only for economic development but for
the Town's planners as well to become more proactive in working with developers rather than being reactive.
He commented on the fact that there appeared to be more money in the budget for marketing in the economic
development area.
Councilmember Hansen noted that year after year they had heard citizens say that "they have to decide what
they want to be when they grow up." She stated the opinion that this was a tool that would help them get there.
Mayor Schlum commented on the fact that the Swaback Company was known around the world for their quality
land planning and expertise in the architectural area. He said when the economy was down people started to
look internally and looked at retooling and planning and it just so happened that planning firms were available
when the economy was down because there were not a whole lot of master planned community developers
hiring them to do things. He noted that the firm was based out of Scottsdale and one of the principals lived in
Fountain Hills and had for some time. He added that they had a passion for the Town and had already done
z:\council packets\2009\r6-4-09\090512m.docx Page 4 of 10
much work in the community. He stated the opinion that this was a good opportunity for them to consider on
the next agenda.
Mr. Davis advised that on the agenda there would be a presentation by Mr. Swaback (if they were agreeable to
doing so at that time) and a proposal to participate financially in Phases III, IV and V (May 21st agenda).
Councilmember Leger said that if in fact that presentation was brought forward to fund Phases III, IV and V, he
would like to know how that was going to look in terms of where the money was, what was available, and how
that fit into the current budget.
Mr. Davis replied that there would be a financial plan for the proposal.
Mayor Schlum thanked everyone for their input.
AGENDA ITEM #3 – PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION ONLY REGARDING TRASH HAULING
AND RECYCLING FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
Environmental Planner Raymond Rees addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and stated that in 2006
the Strategic Plan was drafted and one of the main items included enhancing the stewardship of the natural
environment. (A complete copy of the presentation is available in the office of the Town Clerk.) In January
2007, Council, at their Retreat, set a goal relating to the Strategic Plan to adopt a responsible environmental
policy for the community. In June, staff began forming the Environmental Task Force and compiled an
inventory of the Town’s environmental policies. In August, the Task Force performed benchmarking and gap
analysis on the policies and formed the initial list of 42 environmental issues of interest. In December 2007, the
Task Force formed a top ten environmental priorities list and curbside trash and recycling was the number one
item on the list. In February 2008 staff presented it to the Town Council at a Special Session for discussion with
possible direction to staff regarding the environmental policy team’s research findings and recommendations.
The discussion of recycling and a single trash hauler was discussed among the other top ten issues. In May of
2008 the Town Council unanimously approved Resolution 2008-18 adopting the Town’s Environmental
Policies. Over the next several months, the committee addressed items on the top ten list and decided to go
forward with looking into the issue of a single hauler for trash and recycling for single-family homes. Staff
researched other municipalities that had gone through or were going through the same process for guidance.
The goal of the committee was to come up with a plan that would meet the goals of: (a) stopping unsightly
garbage cans on the street everyday; (b) mitigate wear and tear on the roads; (c) limit noise; (d) reduce pollution
and (e) reduce fuel consumption. In December 2008 the Environmental Subcommittee conducted a meeting
with several of the haulers that provided services to the Town in attendance. Several questions were asked of
them including would they all participate in the RFP process if initiated and they all answered “yes.” Staff met
individually with those two haulers who could not make the meeting and they had answered “yes” as well.
Mr. Rees stated that staff continued to collect information on varying recycling companies and programs to
ensure that they explored as many options for trash and recycling as they could to be sure that they were going
to provide the best possible options for services for the Town, whichever they were. After the committee felt
that they had gathered a substantial amount of information, it was decided that the committee would go forward
to the Council in an Administrative Session and provide an update to the Council on the committee’s progress
regarding trash and recycling for the Town. It was agreed that the Town would continue to monitor Queen
Creek’s activity as they went through their RFP process. At this time, the Environmental Committee members
were leaning toward going to a single hauler for Town services.
Mr. Rees corrected a date included in the materials and noted that it was in January of 2009 not 2008 that staff
presented to the Council at a Work Study Session and staff’s preliminary opinion was that the Town should
move toward a single hauler. The Town Council had had asked questions and some of those involved how to
z:\council packets\2009\r6-4-09\090512m.docx Page 5 of 10
get HOA’s involved in the process, billing, and some other items. Council also suggested that public outreach
be conducted in an effort to obtain public input. Mr. Rees reported that in February staff responded to the
Council’s questions and also scheduled a Town Hall style meeting at the Community Center to gather public
input. On February 24th, staff conducted the meeting and approximately 60 citizens attended. He said that at
that time they let the citizens know that an on-line survey was also going to be conducted and encouraged
citizen e-mails and input. (The on-line survey began on March 1st.)
On March 17th, staff received all of the raw data results from the on-line survey, analyzed the data, and
presented it to the members of the Environmental Committee. At the committee meeting it was determined that
staff would go forward with a recommendation to the Council that a single service provider for trash and
recycling would be the best option for the Town.
On March 23rd, staff received a report from the Town’s Attorney relating to HOA’s and the Town’s ability to
require participation in Town-wide services for trash and recycling, Staff met with the Town Manager to
discuss the content of the memo as they believed it contained issues that the Environmental Committee needed
to discuss. It was also determined that an additional Work Study Session with the Council would be required.
An Environmental Committee meeting was scheduled for March 30, 2009.
Mr. Rees discussed the results of the Town Hall meeting survey (48 entries) and reported that 27 people or 56%
agreed that the Town should utilize a single hauler and 16 people or 33% disagreed. He added that the results
on the curbside recycling question for all single-family residences was pretty close. Mr. Rees also reported on
the online survey results (321 entries) and stated that the results were 45% yes versus 42% no (8% undecided).
For the curbside recycling 51% said yes, 40% said no and 8% were undecided. He also reviewed results from e-
mails, walk-ins and phone calls (28 entries). He noted that the cost range between all of the different citizens
getting services – ran from $10 to over $40 a month, a pretty significant number. He highlighted the total results
for the benefit of the Council (397 entries): exclusive contract: 48% yes, 31% no and 6% undecided and
curbside recycling: 48% yes, 39% no and 6% undecided.
Discussion ensued relative to the cost of services per month broken down; comments received in favor of a
Town-wide single hauler for trash and recycling – 189 or 56%; comments against a Town-wide single hauler for
trash and recycling – 110 or 33%; related comments for Town-wide single hauler for trash and recycling – 37 or
11%; samplings of the survey comments both for and against the single hauler; and a sampling of the survey
comments (HOA cost and satisfaction).
Mr. Rees summarized his remarks and said “What does it all mean?”
In Fountain Hills there are multiple haulers and residents are paying varying rates starting at $11.00 to
over $40 per month. This indicates that competition does not always keep rates lower. In fact, HOA’s
that negotiate contracts tend to have better rates than do the individual homeowners;
HOA’s have a proven track record that single providers can offer a more reliable service at a cheaper
rate (Eagle Mountain pays $11 per month and SunRidge Canyon pays $14.95);
Of the responses from the survey that were opposed to the Town choosing a single hauler for trash and
recycling, a majority of them were concerned with the possibility that they would experience escalating
cost, poor service, and no ability to change providers if they were dissatisfied;
Of the responses from the survey that were for the Town choosing a single hauler for trash and
recycling, a majority of them were concerned with reducing the impact that the trucks were making on
the environment, the Town streets, and the community in general.
Mr. Rees referred to slides that depicted the recycling center at the Community Center at the Library parking lot,
which was littered with bags and bags of items and loose items as well but said that he managed to get all of that
z:\council packets\2009\r6-4-09\090512m.docx Page 6 of 10
into the containers. He stated that they have a very clean recycling group in Town and they do a very good job
according to waste management practices.
Mr. Rees provided justification for a Town-wide single hauler for trash and recycling as follows:
People want to recycle
Provides a can for trash and recycling at every single-family home
Stops unsightly garbage cans on the street everyday
Mitigates wear and tear on the roads
Reduces noise and air pollution and reduces fuel consumption
Through the RFP process staff hopes to negotiate a fair price for all residents
Mr. Rees said that the 36 million aluminum cans that went into landfills last year had a scrap value of $600
million. Americans go through 25 billion plastic bottles every year and all of this should be recycled.
Recycling paper instead of making it from new generates 74% less air pollution and uses 50% less water to
manufacture. Americans throw out enough iron and steel to supply the nation’s automakers on a continual
basis. He said that if they did not recycle, the risk was that they would be back to what they’re doing – nothing -
and there would be continued wear and tear on the roads, continued high levels of vehicular noise, etc. Mr. Rees
advised that all of the research indicated that a single hauler would be the best option for the Town of Fountain
Hills and its citizens. He indicated his willingness to respond to questions from the Council.
Councilmember Hansen commented on the fact that Eagle Mountain paid $11 a month and SunRidge Canyon
paid $14.95 a month. She asked whether that price included recycling and Mr. Rees replied that it did.
Councilmember Dickey discussed the second meeting that was held and said that she had missed the meeting
where the group had gotten together and wanted to wait for Queen Creek. She stated that she just wanted to
clarify that they had not all gotten together the second time but she had requested another meeting because she
wanted to understand what led to that decision. She added that it looked as though they were going to go
forward with a recommendation that the Town back off or wait and see what happened with Queen Creek and
that surprised her so she wanted to hear what had led to that. She advised that she had received e-mails from
residents who believed that this proposal would enhance pedestrian and traffic safety as well (in addition to the
other positive impacts).
Mayor Schlum brought up the issue about the utility requirement and asked if that had been addressed (billing)
and Councilmember Dickey said that that was one of the things they were discussing now – whether they went
forward with trying to get together on an RFP. She stated that today they did not have to make a decision on a
single hauler but the haulers themselves were in a good position to assist the Town and she though most of them
would help in creating the RFP because some of the items that were still outstanding had to do with the billing
and that could be put in the RFP (that the company could do the billing). She also commented on the people
who did not live in Town full time and said they would have to see what accommodation could be made for
them. She discussed the matter of waiting for HOA contracts to expire and ensuring people that they would not
be charged twice over any length of time; the recycle bank, and other possible options that could go into the
RFP, etc. Councilmember Dickey noted that this Council had voted a couple of times on environmental issues
and three times during Retreats. She stressed the importance of and her preference for moving forward with an
RFP process.
Vice Mayor Archambault clarified that moving forward with an RFP was not committing – it simply allowed
the Town to get a number so they could decide whether they were going to move forward with taking over their
own refuse service as far as single-family residences. He stated the opinion that they could not logically make
that decision until an RFP had been done and costs were known. He said that they had talked to all of the
z:\council packets\2009\r6-4-09\090512m.docx Page 7 of 10
haulers and they would be involved in the development of the RFP along with the Town Attorney. He added
that one of the issues in the RFP that they had talked about was whether the carrier would need to provide a staff
member (the Town would provide a desk and phone) and then there would be someone who could respond to
questions/concerns. He pointed out that as with any RFP, there was always an “out.” If the carrier was not
performing, the Town could cancel the agreement. He stated the opinion that they were probably talking about a
five-year contract with some type of minor escalation clause included. He explained that they talked about a
five-year contract because that was the length of time it takes to depreciate one of the trucks or all of the trucks
and they would want to give the hauler an opportunity to go to the bank and say “I have a contract with the
Town of Fountain Hills” (if we moved in that direction) “and now I want funding so that I can go and buy these
trucks.” He said that there had been some talk about doing a two or three-year contract but stated the opinion
that that would prejudice some of the smaller haulers because the bigger haulers would just bring in their trucks
and use them and the smaller haulers would have to go out to probably purchase an additional truck or two and
that would put them at a disadvantage. He stressed the importance of ensuring that they were all on the same
playing field.
Discussion ensued relative to staff’s opinion that everyone should be involved including HOA’s; the fact that
not all of the Town’s HOA’s had a single-source provider and some were allowed to choose their own provider
even within their HOA; Councilmember Contino’s data relative to the fact that there were 90 HOA’s in Town
and some had only 20 or 30 people and that was a big difference from the larger ones that consist of 200 or 300
homes; Councilmember Contino’s concerns regarding “upsetting the apple cart and forcing something on some
people;” Town Attorney Andrew McGuire’s opinion that the only way for the Town to turn into a single-hauler
operation was to take over solid waste collection services and the fact that he did not believe that the Town had
the authority to franchise or license like they do with Cox and therefore the Town would be required to take over
the service for all areas, HOA’s or not; the possibility of phasing in certain areas as contracts expired; and
Councilmember Contino’s opposition to demanding HOA participation and his opinion that it would “open up a
can of worms.”
Mayor Schlum stated that in order to consider a single source provider the Town would have to be their own
provider. Mr. McGuire concurred stating that in order to designate that they were only going to use one hauler
or two or three would require that the Town take over that service and become the utility provider for solid
waste collection. He added that it would look exactly like it was for the Town’s Police protection – the Town
was the law enforcement protection for the Town; the Town had that duty and that duty was contracted through
the Sheriff’s Office and the same was true of fire protection.
Mayor Schlum said that he thought there were a couple of haulers that could not fulfill the recycling component
at the same time. Mr. Rees replied that he recalled that all of them said that they could respond to the RFP as a
trash hauling and recycling provider. He stated that he did not believe that they broke it out any other way. He
added that there were two who could not make the meeting and he met with them on subsequent dates and
obtained their information. He said that they could go back and reconfirm that information and get back to the
Council.
Mayor Schlum commented on the large amount of feedback that had been received from the citizens and noted
that many of them had their favorite hauler based on quality of service and cost. He added that that led to
competition and that was the primary concern he heard from the public (multiple choices allow for higher levels
of service). He said that recycling had been used a lot in the community but it was still going to add to the cost
if they included it and the curbside was something that some people were not paying for today, it was a choice,
and they would be forcing the recycling on some people who would not feel that that was important to them at
this point. He noted that they still had to make some decisions about part-time residents and impacts on them as
well as the RFP framework (the term of the contract). The Mayor requested that Mr. Rees discuss multiple
contractors and whether that had been considered.
z:\council packets\2009\r6-4-09\090512m.docx Page 8 of 10
Mr. Rees informed the Council that the Committee held a brainstorming session on that and if they had a
contract for four sections of the Town it still would not allow a citizen to get out of this and get another hauler -
they would still be stuck with that pricing or that service. He stated that really the issues were the same as a
single hauler; it just broke the Town up into four sections. The zoning did not change the overall gain very
much; it just provided an opportunity for more haulers to bid on those sections.
Councilmember Brown said that he continued to hear about the bad service that was being provided and added
that the only time his trash was not picked up was when he forgot to take it out. He stated that he would like to
know, with all of the different haulers in Town, how many people actually set their trash out and had not had it
picked up. He stated the opinion that they were “spanking the wrong horse here” and added that the carriers all
wanted to do a better job because they would really like to be a single carrier in the Town with 16,000 pickups.
He said that the more pickups one right after another right down the street day after day after day the more
competitive price they would get. He reiterated that he had never had a problem.
Mayor Schlum said he has heard from citizens that poor service was not the problem today because of all of the
competition.
Councilmember Brown expressed the opinion that the Town had competent trash pickup people and regardless
of whether they had 1 or 12 they were going to have their trash picked up unless you forgot to put it out.
Vice Mayor Archambault commented that Mr. Rees and the members of the committee (including the Vice
Mayor and Councilmember Dickey) tried to address the citizens’ concerns no matter how minor they thought
they were. He said that rather than losing competition, they would actually be taking the competition up to a
higher level. He added that they had talked about breaking the Town up into different zones and the scenario
they came up with was you could very possibly have different price ranges in different zones and that was
exactly what they had now – different rates all over Town and no economy of scale. The overall thinking was
that they could realize a better price doing the whole Town rather than breaking it down into pieces.
Councilmember Dickey said it was somewhat of a conflicting message if people wanted to drop their haulers if
they did not pick their stuff up but then there were people who were so loyal to their haulers so those two
messages were in conflict with each other. She stated that the roads were definitely a Town responsibility and
she would hope they could get some kind of an answer on that because those trash trucks were about the
heaviest vehicles on the roads. She added that even if they did, the zones problem would still exist. She
discussed recycling and said that again, they were making a decision for the Town – the same decision that
many other municipalities had made on that level. She noted that people were getting recycling for free now
and she was happy that they were doing that but how long did they did do that and how many days/bins would
they add? Councilmember Dickey stated that they had decisions to make, reminding the Council that they
“force people to stop at red lights too.” She said that she believed that there were certain things that got into the
public safety/cleanliness/responsibility areas and if someone did not agree, that was legitimate, but she wanted
people to know how she felt – they were making a leadership decision.
Councilmember Leger stated that trash was very personal and any time they made a legislative decision, he did
not think they touched everyone but this one would. He added that free choice was also very personal and noted
that cost was the big equalizer. He said that cost was going to be a major factor and he also had concerns about
the HOA’s, particularly gated ones that typically maintained their own streets. He stated that if they came up
with a cost that was higher than someone in an HOA was paying, on their scale of economy he had a real hard
time mandating a service that people needed to pay more money for. With respect to the legality of all of this,
he said he would like to ask the Town Attorney if there was any way to “carve out” HOA’s and allow “choice.”
Mr. McGuire said that he did not know of any way (other than by changing the Statute) to authorize the Town to
issue exclusive licenses and franchises to get there. He stated that it was such a small statutory authority that
z:\council packets\2009\r6-4-09\090512m.docx Page 9 of 10
they had to begin with and essentially one small statute and one case was all they had to interpret their authority
in this area. He added that he would be reluctant to say that the Town should be able to carve out areas simply
because they were gated communities when that was not a distinguishing factor in other communities that
provided their own service.
In response to a question from Councilmember Leger, Mr. McGuire said that the RFP could require that specific
names be placed on the trucks. He noted that communities such as Goodyear did not do that but that did not
mean that the Town could not include that in the RFP.
Councilmember Leger commented that he was on board philosophically in terms of the rationale for moving in
this direction from an environmental perspective but reiterated that he believed cost would be the great
equalizer. He added that the zones were an interesting concept.
Councilmember Leger asked whether it would be legal to place restrictions on haulers that service the Town
(could there be very specific requirements placed on them relative to decreasing traffic, wear and tear on roads,
recycling, etc.). He asked if they could be restricted to one day a week in Town and have to also provide the
option of recycling. He questioned whether they had the authority to create a new model and parameters to
dictate how they did business in this Town.
Mr. McGuire noted that the Statute that authorized the regulation of the private collection of solid waste
included a regulation of standards for equipment, hours of operation, license fees, and insurance requirements
and that was what the Town had to work with. As far as hours of operation, he thought that Councilmember
Leger’s example relative to limiting the days or hours they could collect probably would fit in with that
category. He discussed license fees and said that the maximum you could charge was capped ($5,000). He
added the opinion that they could probably require a minimum as far as the insurance requirements but he did
not see any way to mandate recycling and that was probably the most important provision that they had been
hearing about from citizens.
Councilmember Leger asked whether an analysis had been conducted relative to the wear and tear on the streets
and what it was costing the Town and the savings that would be realized if they reduced to one hauler.
Mr. Rees said that he had approached the Town Engineer with the numbers that they had at previous Council
meetings and Mr. Harrel was not real comfortable with bringing those numbers forward as he wanted to update
all of that information and provide it for the Council’s review at a future meeting.
Discussion ensued relative to the number of HOA’s that would be positive about the proposal, particularly gated
ones; the fact that a number of HOA’s in Crestview that had multiple haulers had asked that they be kept in the
loop and indicated that they would be interested in participating; the fact that staff had not tallied the total
number of all of the HOA’s yet but would do so; the recycling program’s costs and the fact that the costs were
increasing, not decreasing (recently went from $730 a month to $1,100 a month) and the fact that the haulers
could probably help the Town out as far as the HOA’s too (getting the hard number).
Mayor Schlum stated that any time a government body made a decision on an issue such as this, it was
significant and it touched on many things. He said that they were talking about taking away peoples’ choices
and that was always serious. He added that he agreed with the trash haulers impacts on roads and the noise that
was generated.
Vice Mayor Archambault advised that in 2002 he had originally come forward with a proposal for the Town to
take over refuse service but for a different purpose; they were looking for a revenue stream and were faced with
a very significant shortage of revenue. This time when the committee started discussing it, the primary focus
was not just recycling; it was the impact on the streets. He said that over the years when he went to the League
z:\council packets\2009\r6-4-09\090512m.docx Page 10 of 10
of Cities & Town’s conference and talked with many of the municipal employees, some engineers, and he had
learned what happened to the roads because of these trucks. The Vice Mayor compared it to “pushing a wave”
and noted that when you stop, the asphalt comes to a sudden halt and cracks. He said that a significant amount
of damage was being done to the roads as a result of these trucks and added that the streets could not
consistently absorb this type of wear.
Additional discussion ensued relative to the fact that the committee had done an excellent job and the
importance of obtaining additional data relative to cost savings associated with this and knowing which HOA’s
were “in the game” and which were not or were still “on the fence;” staff’s hesitancy to throw out even a
ballpark dollar amount to the HOA’s and the fact that Eagle Mountain and SunRidge Canyon were paying less;
the fact that staff wanted to wait until after the RFP had been received and then show what had been offered;
moving forward with the RFP so that they would have a basis upon which to discuss this proposal (hard costs)
and pose/respond to questions; the recycle bank and the coupons that residents would get back; the possibility of
trash stealing to obtain better coupons; the importance of “stepping back” and looking for the best proposal for
the entire Town; the importance of looking at ways of generating money and making hard decisions that in the
end would actually benefit the residents and the community; and the importance of weighing all of the facts.
Mayor Schlum emphasized that the purpose of the meeting this evening was to hear a presentation and have
discussion only regarding trash hauling and recycling for single family homes. He emphasized that no action
would be taken at this time and thanked staff and the Council for the excellent dialogue that had taken place. He
also thanked Mr. Rees for his presentation and the members of the committee for their hard work.
AGENDA ITEM #4 - ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Contino MOVED to adjourn the meeting and Vice Mayor Archambault SECONDED the
motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). The meeting adjourned at 6:32 p.m.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
By __________________________
Jay T. Schlum, 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 Work
Study Sessions held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills on the 12th day of May 2009. I further certify that
the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present.
DATED this 4th day of June 2009.
_____________________________
Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk