Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011.0412.TCWSM.Minutesz:\council packets\2011\r5-5-11\110412wsm.docx Page 1 of 4 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE WORK STUDY SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL APRIL 12, 2011 AGENDA ITEM #1 - CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Mayor Schlum called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Council Chambers. ROLL CALL: Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Schlum, Vice Mayor Contino, Councilmember Leger, Councilmember Hansen*, Councilmember Brown, Councilmember Elkie and Councilmember Dickey. Town Manager Rick Davis, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire and Town Clerk Bev Bender were also present. * Councilmember Hansen arrived at 5:04 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #2 – UPDATE BY RAYMOND REES, STORM WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER, RELATING TO THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS’ WASH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. Mr. Rees noted that the Town’s wash maintenance program had drawn a lot of attention from outside municipalities. He stated that they had toured the Town’s the wash maintenance program with Charlie Fleck, who would be retiring from the Town at the end of this month who had done an outstanding job. Mr. Rees reviewed a PowerPoint Presentation (on file in the Clerk’s office) that contained the history of the program (2004 – 2011) and its cost pointing out that in 2007/08 the Town had gone from an eight year cycle to a four year cycle noting that they had not been able to go through a wash in its entirety but had piece-mealed it through the years, but now with this program Charlie had been able to go through an entire wash and get it cleaned up so the Town did not have to worry about it for a number of years to come. He indicated they had started out with a 10 man crew and went down in 2008/09 to an eight man crew; that in 2009/10 the program was suspended due to budgetary constraints; and that this year 20010/11 they were at $61K. Mr. Rees pointed out that through the years they were able to ramp up and cover more acres as they used the herbicides and that now they were back down to 27 or 30 acres per year. He reviewed pictures of crews in various washes and explained the process that was used to clear the washes, which vegetation was affected and the before and after picture of the washes. Mr. Rees explained that washes were maintained for two main reasons (i) flood control and (ii) fire danger. He displayed pictures of upper and lower Balboa Wash and discussed lower Balboa Wash where a fire had occurred. He noted that the Town had had two wash fires. He said it was not a matter of when a fire would occur but the fact they needed to monitor the washes and to be mindful of that. He indicated that Balboa Wash was on the schedule to be cleaned next year (hopefully the entire wash), but noted the fuel for fire that existed there at this time. Mr. Rees stated that in moving forward, due to budget constraints, staff’s best guess on the schedule would be on about a seven year cycle for cleaning the Town washes. He said the current contract ends in 2014/15, which provides an eight man crew for 45 days. Staff estimated that they would get around 30 acres cone pe r year. He indicated that staff would be working with Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management who had given the Town a grant for $10K. He stated that would enable the Town to employ the Bureau of Land Management fire crew team (about 20 folds) for about week to augment a bit of the wash cleaning. He commented that it was unknown what would happen in 2012 but that the Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management had indicated that there would be more money available in 2012. However, in looking at some of the budget cuts coming down from the Feds he said he was not very hopeful that would occur but would continue to work with them on that option. Mr. Rees displayed a ma p showing the wash maintenance cycle (seven year wash maintenance program), reiterated what vegetation was removed, that the plan was to hit washes once and hopefully not have to hit them again for another year, except for Ashbrook Wash, which was one of the largest washes; it had to be split. He stated he would be happy to answer any questions. z:\council packets\2011\r5-5-11\110412wsm.docx Page 2 of 4 Councilmember Leger asked if the $10K grant was in addition to the $61K or part of that. Mr. Rees responded that was in addition to the $61K. Councilmember Leger questioned with respect to the resources from the Bureau of Land Management if they had to be associated with a grant or could the Town use them as a free standing labor pool. Mr. Rees said he believed the Town could employ them; they were off-duty firefighters. He noted there were things they would not do but then the Town’s regular maintenance crew would do those things (such as log and trash removal). He noted that the Town’s crew did a thorough job. Councilmember Leger commented that it was good to see Balboa Wash was set for maintenance in FY11/12 in looking at the pictures provided. The Mayor asked if the Town has always conducted wash maintenance and Mr. Rees replied the Town has had a wash maintenance program for quite a while although he was not sure if it had been as organized as it currently was. The Mayor commented on Balboa Wash stating that the cycle was on an eight year cycle. Mr. Rees confirmed the Town went from a four year schedule to an eight year schedule in FY2007/08 with the resources that the Town currently has. The Mayor talked about potential fire danger and asked for further explanation as to why the Town conducted wash maintenance other than fire prevention. Mr. Rees responded there were two reasons: (i) flood control and (ii) fire prevention noting that staff does a walk through on some o f the washes with the Fire Marshal every year making note of areas that may need to be addressed harder but that the Fire Marshal gave a rundown of what they think should be cleared. The Mayor asked about public feedback on this. Mr. Rees stated that a lot of people were concerned there was someone in the wash clearing out and possibly taking away the habitat but once it was explained to them (the what and the why) the public seems to understand it was a good thing. Councilmember Dickey asked if the Fire Chief and Assistant Fire Chief were ok with the eight year cycle. Mr. Rees said the maintenance is what it is due to having only $61K to do that service. Councilmember Dickey asked Mr. McGuire if the bill passed for cities to allow use of fire crackers on new years and a couple of other holidays despite the fact that a municipality may have passed an ordinance saying they did not want people using them. Mr. McGuire said he had not checked today but the last comment was last evening from the Avondale Fire Chief who had indicated that there was one last push towards the Governor’s office from the Fire Chiefs’ Association that they did not have high hopes and that they expected that bill to become law shortly. Councilmember Elkie said he had been approached by those who had done some of the trails in McDowell Mountain Park and there was some question whether a wash, if cleared, could allow an inlet or at least access to the McDowell Mountain Park. Mr. Rees said he had not been approached and Charlie had not come to him with any information like that. Councilmember Elkie indicated that he would follow-up. Mayor Schlum thanked Mr. Rees and Charlie for his work noting that the grants were terrific. He commented on e -mails received from the public where concerns were expressed that too much was being taken out of the washes and acknowledged that staff appeared to be addressing that. He stated his appreciation for staff’s good response to the public noting that when it’s green it looked good but it may not be the safest thing, particularly in an area gets as dry as we get and indicated that fire was the number one risk. He stated that washes were great paths for fires to creep up outside of the Town’s borders (where quick moving wildfires occur) and keeping them clean seems to be an important function. Mr. Rees stated that staff tries to focus on those washes that have homes closely abutting them. Councilmember Dickey pointed out one e-mail received where someone was very upset about the wash, which was something that the HOA had done, so what has been pointed out was important (there were washes that the Town was not responsible for as they were private property and were cleared by other organization or home owners). AGENDA ITEM #3 – PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE TOWN’S FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) FOR FISCAL YEARS 2012 THROUGH 2016. Ms. Ghetti addressed the Council relative to this item. She indicated that a book had been placed on the dais in front of each Councilmember (on file in the Clerk’s office), which was the proposed 5-year CIP. She stated the purpose of the meeting tonight was to give a preliminary introduction of the plan and that staff did not expect any input or dialogue since the Council had not had a chance to look at it. She indicated staff wanted to get the information to the Council so as they went through the budget process there was an opportunity for review before the next work-study meeting where staff would be available to answer questions providing for a more refined CIP. z:\council packets\2011\r5-5-11\110412wsm.docx Page 3 of 4 Ms. Ghetti reiterated this was a preliminary document, which was done each year in conjunction with the budget process. She explained that the plan had not been fully reviewed by the Executive Budget Committee yet, but noted that they had wanted to get it to the Council so there was lots of time for review. She stated that the plan would eventually be included as part of the FY2011/12 budget document. She stated she would go through the PowerPoint (on file in the Clerk’s office) and answer any questions. Ms. Ghetti reviewed that the total proposed projects over five years was $85M (an increase of 21%) over the prior five year plan and that the number fluctuated as projects are added and removed often. She stated that it included $24.8M in spending from the CIP budget and there was about $10M in that budget. She indicated that they would have to go back and review some of the projects because the Town would not have $24M in the CIP. She stated staff was hoping to get input from Council as to what projects could be eliminated or deferred. She commented that the Town had other resources such as grants, excise taxes, bonds, and developer contributions, development fees, etc. She reiterated they would not be going over the projects in detail this evening and continued the presentation by displaying a total (list by category) on the five year horizon. She commented on the largest ones: Parks and Recreation (parks in the State Trust Land to be provided by the developer, but that had to be included in the CIP) and the Streets projects (i.e. pavement maintenance program and other projects). She discussed the summary of the five year funding sources for the projects. She indicated it was an attempt to show the funding sources for the projects looking at the five year total and commented that some funding sources were not sufficient to fund all of the projects. She reite rated that therefore, some projects would have to be deferred and this was where staff hoped to have dialogue and input from the Council and the Executive Budget Committee. Ms. Ghetti reviewed the chart showing the summary of year-to-year uses of funds. She stated they were broken down by category. She discussed the pie charts noting that they showed the sources of the funds (where we get them) and the uses of the funds (how the funds would be spent over the five years). Ms. Ghetti stated that now she would focus on next year and she restated that the proposal would be included in next year’s budget. She stated that the estimated fund balance was $9M by the end of June and there was approximately $3.4M in projects in spending from the CIP budget and the remainder was from the stimulus grants (about $17M). Ms. Ghetti reviewed the proposed list of projects for FY2011/12 by category ($17.4M) and the CIP resources by categor y for the next fiscal year. She commented on the bonds amount stating that was an assumption that the voters approved the bonds ($9M). Ms. Ghetti briefly went through the FY2011/12 CIP list of projects by category and she pointed out that each project was described in detail in the CIP book including where the funding sources are, what year they were and the total cost of the project over five years. She concluded the presentation and stated that the next opportunity to discuss this budget in detail will be at the May 10th Special Budget Work-Study Session. She indicated she would be happy to answer any questions. The Mayor asked Ms. Ghetti to walk the Council through the process when the Council would be addressing the Capital Improvement Plan. Ms. Ghetti responded the Council would see this again with an opportunity for dialogue at the May 10th Work-Study Session. The plan would be to review the Capital Improvement Plan with the Executive Budget Committee before the full budget was put together at the end of April so it could be incorporated into the budget. She hoped to go over it one more time as it was obvious there was not enough funding to do all of the projects. So that was the next step to take it back to the Executive Budget Committee for fi nal review as well as the final review of the budget for review of all the other funds as well. She anticipated that at the May 10 th work-study the Council would have a copy of the final draft budget and that the CIP would be included and that staff would be able to answer any questions and take any input at that time. The Mayor stated that roughly in a month the Council would have this information represented at a public meeting and that the Executive Budget committee would have input prior to that. He asked if Ms. Ghetti would suggest that Council meet with her before May 10th. Ms. Ghetti suggested that she would probably have the Council wait until after the Executive Budget Committee met so that it could be finalized and then it (the budget) would be redistributed. Councilmember Dickey said that on the School District’s agenda they were looking at closing Four Peaks School although she had not heard any of the reasons behind that and did not know what was in their packet. She wanted to know if that would change any plan that Town had for Four Peaks Park. She stated she did not expect a response now and noted that the Town had other shared issues with the School District. She asked if the road bonds were approved would the money z:\council packets\2011\r5-5-11\110412wsm.docx Page 4 of 4 be available then in that fiscal year (2011/12). Ms. Ghetti responded that if the voters approve the road bonds in November, the funding would be available approximately in February. Councilmember Dickey stated she did not see the intersection of Avenue of the Fountains/Saguaro listed and asked if that was something that would not be attempted in that fiscal year. Ms. Ghetti responded the project was listed in the book and was a projected that would start in FY11/12 or 12/13. She stated that yesterday she had heard abo ut the potential closing of Four Peaks so staff had not been aware of that until then and it was something that the Town would have to go back and take a look at. Mayor Schlum asked if staff anticipated funding the CIP at approximately $2M. Ms. Ghetti sa id that had been talked about and that would be the goal. However, one other thing considered was spending a little more in FY11/12 due to the fact that we would get better pricing and then the following year spend $1M. She indicated that the Executive Budget Committee would be deciding that. The Mayor discussed the other funding sources and spoke of the need to not deplete the fund. Ms. Ghetti said one of the goals and purpose of the charts was to identify projects they did not want to start in FY11/1 2 that going to cost a small amount but would cost much more down the road. Therefore, project costs had been spread out over five year so that the Council and staff could look at what they did not want to start if there wasn’t the money for it. She stat ed there was no point in starting a project if the Town did not have the funds for it in four years. The Mayor pointed out that it also showed projects that had been started. In response to a comment by the Mayor, Ms. Ghetti confirmed that if the Town did not budget for a grant even if it were awarded to the Town, the Town would not be able to spend it until it had been budgeted for it the next year. She stated that if they applied for and think they will apply for a grant staff makes sure to include it in the budget in the event that if received the Town can move forward with the plans. Councilmember Leger asked about the event circle project in the amount of $125K and questioned what the projected funding source was. Ms. Ghetti stated that funding was coming out of the Capital Projects Fund. Mayor Schlum said the Council would be digesting the information and expressed that he liked the way it was broken down as shows what has changed. He stated that the Council would be getting with staff and he thanked staff for their work. AGENDA ITEM #4 – ADJOURNMENT. Councilmember Elkie MOVED to adjourn the meeting and Councilmember Brown SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present (6-0). The meeting adjourned at 8:10 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 Work Study Session in the Town Hall Council Chambers held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills on the 12th day of April 2011. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 5th day of May 2011. _____________________________ Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk