HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011.1011.TCWSM.Minutesz:\council packets\2011\r11-17-11\111011m.docx Page 1 of 8
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
MINUTES OF THE WORK STUDY SESSION OF THE
FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
OCTOBER 11, 2011
AGENDA ITEM #1 – CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Schlum called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. in the Town Hall Council Chambers.
Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Schlum, Vice Mayor
Dickey, Councilmember Leger, Councilmember Brown, Councilmember Hansen, Councilmember Elkie and
Councilmember Contino. Interim Town Manager Julie Ghetti, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire and Town Clerk Bev
Bender were also present.
AGENDA ITEM #2 – PRESENTATION REGARDING A SUMMARY OF PARK VANDALISM FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR 2010-11.
Community Services Director, Mark Mayer, addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and advised that long
before he started working for the Town (ten years ago), paper records have been kept relative to vandalism that has taken
place in the Town's parks. He said that after he began with the Town, they starting looking i nto a way to create a database
to record/track this data and this was accomplished in the 2006-07 Fiscal Year. He explained that this allowed staff to
analyze the data. This process started to provide some very valuable information including the number o f incidents
occurring at each individual park site, the amount of expense incurred at each of those sites and, most importantly, it
started to show patterns -- when vandalism was occurring, where it was occurring, etc. He said that staff started to utiliz e
that data with the assistance of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, which was able to provide background information
and insight into what they would recommend. The first thing they recommended was the installation and use of
surveillance cameras and they advised that if strategically placed, based on the results received, they have the best
opportunity to catch people in the act and prosecute those involved in the acts of vandalism. He said that that is the
approach that was taken and added that the Sheriff's Office also allowed the Town to borrow cameras from them since
funding was not readily available for the purchase of surveillance cameras. The Town used those for a year before
approaching Council with a budget request to purchase their own cameras (for use in Golden Eagle Park).
Mr. Mayer stated that this is the first time that staff has analyzed more than a years' worth of data and highlighted slides
depicting that information (Copy is on file in the office of the Town Clerk). He noted that the incidents of park violence
have dropped significantly and added that expenses have also decreased. He discussed statistics broken down by the
individual sites, dollar costs and the number of incidents. He said that cameras have been placed at the parks where the
greatest number of incidents are occurring. He provided a comparison of all the data displayed in the Council Chambers
and stressed the fact that the surveillance cameras do deter crime. He noted that two times they have been able to identify
the perpetrators and they were prosecuted. He said that that news has spread and makes potential vandals think about the
consequences of such actions. He added that at this point staff is not recommending anything additional at the parks
because the remaining two parks have remained relatively free of incidents and staff cannot currently justify the $25,000
to $30,000 expense. Mr. Mayer indicated his intention to respond to any question from the Council.
Mayor Schlum thanked Mr. Mayer for his presentation.
Councilmember Contino said that since some of the cases have been prosecuted, he would like to know if they were able
to have the parents pay for the damage done.
Mr. Mayer responded that one incident came to mind and the damage was done by someone in his 20's and not a juvenile.
He stated that this particular person had done damage a number of times by driving his car in Four Peaks Park at night and
tearing up the ball field area -- this had been going on for a number of years. He noted that they have two sets of cameras
at that park (one covers the restrooms and the other covers the ball field area). The cameras allowed them to zero in on
the car as well as the license plate number. He commented on the other issue and said he does not remember the outcome
but the issue was taken up with the parents.
z:\council packets\2011\r11-17-11\111011m.docx Page 2 of 8
In response to a question from the Mayor, Mr. Mayer advised that the recordings are kept for up to 40 hours so if damage
is observed/reported, they can go right to the tapes. He added that they are very respectful of the restroom sites -- the
cameras are located on the outside doors pointing down so privacy is protected. He said that the restrooms at Four Peaks
Park are only kept open when there is a scheduled activity and that has helped as well.
Mayor Schlum thanked Mr. Mayer and asked him to pass on the Council's appreciation to the Parks' staff for all of their
hard work and vigilance. He added that this is a great trend and also expressed appreciation to MCSO for their efforts in
this regard.
In response to a question from the Mayor, Mr. Mayer said that he is not aware of any problems happening in the tunnels
under Golden Eagle Park but noted that that is another area that the Posse and MCSO tend to check with some regularity.
Mayor Schlum commented on the extremely significant drop in incide nts and stressed the importance of both youths and
adults remaining respectful in their community.
AGENDA ITEM #3 - DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN CODE
REGARDING SPECIAL EVENTS.
Recreation Supervisor Bryan Hughes addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and said that about a year ago
staff came forward to discuss some recommendations relative to proposed changes to the Town Code relative to Special
Events (ways to streamline the Special Event policy/application). He said that staff had some ideas and obtained some
great feedback from the Council as well. He highlighted a brief PowerPoint presentation relative to the proposed changes
(a complete copy is available in the office of the Town Clerk). He stated that they h ad discussed the establishment of a
Special Events Committee, recommend updates to the Code that would remove some of the language that was no longer
applicable, simplify the application and review the fees charged for Special Events. He noted that all of those things were
looked at over the last year and said that in the Code they removed t he reference to major and minor events because any
event is one that impacts Town services. He added that the formation of a Special Events Committee is in line with w hat
other municipalities are doing and credited an Intern working in the office for obtaining a lot of the information from
those other entities.
Mr. Hughes said that one of the things they decided to do (and this was brought up last year) was instead o f bringing
every Special Event application before the Council, perhaps they could have the Special Events Committee grant
administrative approval. The applicants would still have the ability to appeal the decisions made by the Committee
directly to the Town Manager or Council if they so desire. He added they are also proposing that the lead time be reduced
from 90 days to 45 days and said that the Committee will meet on a pretty regular basis (twice a month) so they can could
through them pretty quickly. He stated that some people may still give the Town 90-day notice (especially for some of
the larger events) and that will be appreciated. He commented that for annual events, staff and the Committee can
anticipate them and get hold of the applicant if they haven't seen anything come forward. He discussed the simplified
application and reported that it has gone down in size from 36 pages to one page (front and back). Mr. Hughes
highlighted additional changes, including on-line applications and electronic signatures, and said that he believes all of the
changes will significantly simplify the process for everyone involved.
Mayor Schlum thanked Mr. Mayer for his presentation for the effort he and others have put into making this goal a reality.
Councilmember Elkie asked how many applications have been rejected or sent back to applicants during the last 12-month
period of time and Mr. Hughes responded that over the last 24 months not one application has been rejected; staff has
simply, on occasion, asked for additional information or some clarification.
Councilmember Elkie asked if there have been any applications that have come forward that staff recommended approval
on that were not approved and Mr. Hughes replied that there have been none.
Councilmember Elkie thanked Mr. Hughes for his efforts in this regard. He said that if the Special Events Committee
recommends denial applicants are notified within two days of the denial and then the applicant may appeal to the Town
Manager within four working days of that and the Town Manager may forward the appeal on to the Town Manager level
he would like the applicants to have the opportunity to bring it to the Council.
z:\council packets\2011\r11-17-11\111011m.docx Page 3 of 8
Mr. Hughes commented that although he cannot see that occurring, since staff works extremely hard to accommodate
applicants, he would recommend that the application be automatically brought before the Council for final disposition.
Councilmember Elkie stressed the importance of applicants knowing that applications just don't stop at the Town Manager
or Administrative level, they can come to the Town Council and Mr. Hughes concurred.
Councilmember Leger also thanked Mr. Hughes and staff for their work on this and said he would like to see it
operational before he recommends any changes. He added that Councilmember Elkie made an excellent point.
Town Attorney Andrew McGuire noted that the current provision simply states that the Town Manager shall approve the
stipulations or deny the Special Event Application that comes to him/her for approval -- it does not have a time condition
on it. The next step is if it is denied at that level it will automatically go to the Council. He said that if they find th at they
have a hitch they can simply add a time condition to the first step (shall approve within a certain period of time and if no
decision is made it would automatically go to the Council ). He stated that staff could add that in to make sure it is
"buttoned up."
Mayor Schlum thanked Mr. Mayer for working on this long process and added that it is great to use the volunteers and
interns to assist staff. He said they have a lot of events in Town and want to have even more and the changes, including
the decreased fees and simplified application, should greatly help in this regard. The Mayor added t hat he hears
compliments all the time and cannot recall a complaint and said that the Town is facilitating with the events rather than
doing and it is a great example of partnering.
AGENDA ITEM #4 - PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION RELATING TO STATUS OF THE LEGISLATIVE
AND CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING.
Mayor Schlum welcomed Rene Guillen from the League of Arizona Cities & Towns and thanked him for agreeing to
appear on short notice to provide a status report on the Legislative and Congressional Redistricting that is taking place.
Mr. Guillen addressed the Council and said that he is a Legislative Associate with the League and one of the Town's
lobbyists at the Capital. He distributed a handout to the Council for their review. He thanked them for the opportunity to
appear before them.
Mr. Guillen highlighted a brief PowerPoint presentation relative to this issue (Copy on file in the office of the Town
Clerk) and provided answers to the following questions:
* What is Redistricting?
* Who does it?
* What is happening now?
* How is it done?
* What does it mean?
Mr. Guillen noted that the Independent Redistricting Committee (IRC) will be responsible for the Legislative lines and
provided their website address. He also advised that the Maricopa County Elections Department is going through a
Redistricting process as well and will handle the Board of Supervisor Districts, the Maricopa County Community College
Districts, the Special Health Care Districts, the Justice of the Peace Precincts, the Constable Precincts and Voting
Precincts.
He reported that the total population for Maricopa County is 3,817,117 and, divided by five (5) Supervisory Districts that
comes out to 763,423 for each district. He noted that in the Congressional Districts there are less people (about 710,000
people per district). He added that there are also the 30 Legislative Districts (about 213,000 people per district).
Extensive discussion ensued relative to how Redistricting was done in the past; advanced Redistricting; Redistricting
(drawing the lines for the voting districts) and Reapportionment (a Congressional term); the fact that Arizona has gained
a Congressional District (there are 4 at the Congressional level and 9 at the Legislative level); who the IRC is; Proposition
106 and the six criteria associated with it that must be considered; Federal considerations and Department of Justice
z:\council packets\2011\r11-17-11\111011m.docx Page 4 of 8
(DOJ) Preclearance; the Commission approved Congressional draft map; and Legislative privilege, which will guide a lot
of future possible discussions regarding the decisions rendered by the IRC.
In response to a question from Mayor Schlum relative to reapportionment, Mr. Guillen advised that it would not apply
unless there was a shift in the actual amount of representation.
Vice Mayor Dickey posed a question relative to minority/majority districts and said that District 24, which is where Fort
McDowell is in this, had the two Legislative maps a couple of days ago -- they had Option 1 and Option 2 and Option 2
had Fort McDowell in the same district as the Town. She stated that it is noted that the Hispanic race would be
minority/majority and asked how that plays in with the Native American population (is there some sort of a reas on that
they would have to be in with District 24 or could they be in with District 23 ?). She said that they have a meeting
tomorrow with the Tribal Council and she was trying to find out if they have had any interaction yet or made any
comments about where they would wind up.
Mr. Guillen responded that it is more art than science and they have to ask if you took them out where would you put
them and what would that do to your district as well as the district you put them in. He added that without looking at the
numbers it would be hard to say whether or not that would be possible but he thinks Vice Mayor Dickey raised a good
point, that if you look at a lot of the voting data you will hear a lot about HVAC -- the Hispanic Voting Act Population -
and it's great to have those numbers but he believes you also have to consider the Native American populations as well
and those numbers are not readily available.
Vice Mayor Dickey asked in general whether the Native American population affects that because the way it is lined up it
just has the Hispanic population and in District 24 that is definitely the majority but the only Native American one is 7 so,
in general, do they run into trouble with DOJ by taking Native American population that is now in a minorit y/majority
district because of Hispanic population or are they looked at separately? She added that population wise, in Districts 23
and 24 that shift wouldn't matter.
Mr. Guillen replied that he thinks they would take them separately and he would imagine that DOJ would examine the
given Native American population in any given district and what their voting strength is. He added then they are going to
look at it State wide and if you look at a comparison of various racial/ethnic backgrounds, generally sp eaking how
effectively can Native Americans elect people to represent them. He said that it is not a generic minority group it would
be separate minority groups.
Mr. Guillen informed the Council that the second round of hearings have just begun and noted that the draft maps (that
can be seen on their website) have actually been voted on and they are tentative maps. He said that by doing so a 30 -day
comment period is triggered and they tour the State to obtain feedback. After the second round of hea rings, they will take
all of the feedback received and do a second round of mapping to incorporate the changes received and those basically
become the final maps. Hopefully, if they don't change too much and nothing drastic happens, those maps will be
submitted to the DOJ for Pre-Clearance and, assuming they receive that, they will then move on with implementation.
Mayor Schlum asked if through the feedback received they decide that changes must be made to the draft maps will
another hearing process be kicked into place.
Mr. Guillen stated that he would have to check on that because he knows that the last Redistricting Committee did do
multiple rounds on their drafts. He said that he thinks the other question will be whether making changes will trigger
another 30-day period and that starts to bring them pretty close to deadlines.
Councilmember Hansen said if a community has some issues with the proposed map, like in Fountain Hills' case, where
they are being separated from Fort McDowell with whom they have a fairly strong relationship with regard to tourism and
that type of thing, she would like to know what is the most effective way a community can have their voice be heard.
Mr. Guillen replied that he believes there are a couple of ways and he will give the Town the same advice he has given
other municipalities. If you look at the original maps in northern Arizona, Sedona is split between Coconino and Yavapai
Counties so when the IRC first drafted their maps, their goal was to keep counties as whole as possible. By doing so
Sedona, which is a very big community of interest, is being split up because of the more arbitrary county lines. He said if
you look at subsequent maps, there is a little divot in one to keep Sedona whole. He said that the squeaky wheel gets the
z:\council packets\2011\r11-17-11\111011m.docx Page 5 of 8
most attention and there is a benefit to shouting and having your concerns heard. He noted that they can go to the IRC's
website (azredistricting.org) and on the left hand side there are a number of options and one of them is Public Input and
there is a public input form that can be filled out. He added that this has been most commonly used by communities of
interest. He stated that the information is automatically submitted and included in the database. He said that if the
Council has a uniform position, any sort of resolution or letter stating those opinions and desires he believes carries a
significant amount of weight. He also stated that testimony before the Commission is another option and he believes that
face-to-face testimony results in dividends.
Mr. Guillen advised that the Legislative district has not changed that much. He indicated his willingness to respond to
questions from the Council.
Mayor Schlum thanked Mr. Guillen for his helpful presentation.
Vice Mayor Dickey commented on the fact that the places where the hearings are going to be held are fairly far away and
the next one in this area will be held in Scottsdale and that is not until N ovember 3rd. She added that that is not to say
that they can't go to one of the other hearings and Mr. Guillen concurred.
The Vice Mayor said that if a community makes a suggestion, like the Town believes it should be with Scottsdale and
Fort McDowell, do they have to propose some sort of an alternative? She said she knows they are not with Fort
McDowell now as far as their Legislative district but if they decided they wanted that, could they just present that as a
statement?
Mr. Guillen responded that if the Town can provide alternatives he believes that would be the best case scenario although
difficult to do. He said that given the odd shape of District 4, it seems as though it could probably be made more compact
and at least help with that criteria. He stated that if the Town cannot provide alternatives then they should defend their
position and point out that you believe the entire Town is a community of interest and you would like your boundaries to
not be broken. He added that for those who do want to be in multiple districts tell them "we think this is a good place to
divide our Town and we think that by doing so ......" He said the Town could say "we don't belong in District 4 because
we belong more with this group and that would help preserve our community of interest." Or, "by taking us out of there
you are going to help preserve the compactness and contiguousness of District 4" or conversely with Fort McDowell, "we
feel we have a strong relationship with them and mutual interests so we would like to vote with them because we believe
it would be to our mutual benefit." He stated the opinion that those types of concepts are going to weigh heavily because
when they submit for DOJ Pre-Clearance, they are going to get inundated with everything that went into the process so the
more you can do and say the better because DOJ will be looking at transcripts, they are going to watch the videos, they
will look at e-mails and submitted forms, etc. He stressed that the IRC will have to defend the choices they make.
Vice Mayor Dickey asked Ms. Ghetti if she had any knowledge of input that Fort McDowell has provided -- any insight
into anything they have said so far.
Ms. Ghetti advised that she has met with Carol Klopatek several times and she has been very involved as far as going
through this process and she understands that she has even effected some changes.
Mayor Schlum commented that the Legislative changes are not affecting the Town greatly as far as their contiguous
nature and being with the same neighbors they are in the district with today but the Congressional map contains the
biggest changes (the little finger that comes down and grabs Fountain Hills and then curves around and heads down to
Yuma). He said that obviously seems very peculiar and asked for input from Mr. Guillen on that.
Mr. Guillen advised that he would first like to state that in the current Legislative map, they have about eight (8) solid
majority/minority districts and then two (2) that could be. He suggested that the Council keep that in mind because it
could cause changes. He said that tells him that there will probably be changes to the map. He further stated that as far as
the Congressional map, the Mayor hit the nail on the head and that is the map that has caused the most consternation and
part of that might be because part of that was also the Legislative map that was barely adopted at 4:45 p.m. yesterday so
people might not have had a chance to look at it. He said that he knows there is quite a bit of "shake up" in terms of
incumbency so that might cause concerns and this is also the point where the Legislature is fully authorized to make
comments on the maps (so they may see some involvement at the Legislative level). He added that on the Congressional
level the birth of District 4 was this idea of a River District. There were a number of communities saying "we think that
z:\council packets\2011\r11-17-11\111011m.docx Page 6 of 8
the Colorado River makes a perfect large scale community of interest because people who are by the river live by the river
and that is their life blood and so we think we have a common interest with everyone along the river and would like to
have a committed Congressional representative because many of the issues are affected by Federal law because much of it
is Federal land." He added that that was sort of the genesis of the River District and he would leave it up to the Council to
decide whether that is truly a River District -- it certainly seems unusual to say the least. He said that there is also a
question of common analysis of the Congressional district -- that you have four (4) solid Republican districts and then
you have two (2) solid Democratic districts and then three (3) competitive districts. That is how it is broken down and
one of the questions there is whether or not that is truly reflective of Arizona's demographics. He said that he believes
there will be discussion about District 4 as well as District 8 and potentially District 3 as well.
(Councilmember Hansen left the meeting at 6:42 p.m.)
Mayor Schlum commented that it started out as the River District but then what he has heard from some feedback is that
Flagstaff was really pushing for them to be contiguous with the Navajo Nation in that area, which took a lot of numbers
away from where it would have potentially been split before. He added that the River District then had to find some
additional population and came and swung around the northern part of Phoenix and into Pinal County.
Additional discussion ensued relative to this issue.
Mayor Schlum asked Mr. Guillen if he could speak to what he has heard as far as the IRC and communities of interest and
those the Town interacts with every single day.
Mr. Guillen responded that he cannot recall any specific mention as to the validity or invalidity of keeping Fountain Hills
with its neighbors. He added that the interesting thing is that the Town has kind of become the "poster child" with the
issues associated with District 4. He stated that he has heard both sides mention communities of interest but he thinks
there is a question of how to defend/define a community of interest. He stated the opinion that this was not as much in the
forefront as far as the mapping as it should have been.
Vice Mayor Dickey noted that they did split Queen Creek (part of it is in District 4 and part in District 5). She asked if
Sedona ended up altogether in one and Mr. Guillen said that he believes so. He added that he believes for the most part
that Queen Creek is okay with the split.
Councilmember Elkie asked what Mr. Guillen would suggest if they as a Council wanted to express that as a Town they
are not in favor of the proposed boundary putting Fountain Hills in District 4 and plucking them out of Maricopa County
and putting them in with a large part of the western State. He asked who they should speak to about that -- what would he
recommend -- beyond attending the hearings.
Mr. Guillen stated that the town of Gilbert took a pretty effective path, which was they laid out general ideas of what it
was they wanted from their Legislative and Congressional Districts (something that the Mayor and Council all got
behind). He said that then they passed a resolution to express those ideas to the IRC and sent a Councilmember to one of
the meetings to basically read the resolution to reinforce that opinion and make it clear that it was a unified decision. He
added that he believes most of their concerns were acknowledged. He said that he doesn't think they need to attend every
meeting but could time it with a visit to Scottsdale or another location and back it with an approved unified measure from
the Council on behalf of the Town.
Additional discussion ensued relative to communities of interest; the fact that stated positions on the part of municipalities
force the IRC to then defend their actions and could benefit the municipalities; the Mayor's statement that the Town needs
to give some feedback to the Interim Town Manager as to whether they want to move forward on something as a body
because they don't have a lot of time; Mr. McGuire's comment that there is opportunity tomorrow to discuss with the Fort
McDowell Yavapai Indian Community and obtain input and there is time to put something together for everyone to look
at and comment back on; the fact that the Council only has between now and the next Regular Council meeting to get a
vote on it and Mr. McGuire's opinion that the Council could possibly give some form of direction this evening but they
agendized it really for discussion and to get up to date so he is not sure they could propose the contents of a letter tonight;
the Mayor's statement that by the next Council meeting there might be something for the Council to consider based on
what was discussed at this meeting (in the form of a letter or resolution); Councilmember Elkie's question as to whether
the next meeting would be timely enough and Mr. Guillen's response that the IRC will be holding 26 different visits
z:\council packets\2011\r11-17-11\111011m.docx Page 7 of 8
during this new round and so he believes that the Town has ample time; Mr. Guillen's comment that they would not begin
to make any changes until the end of the last visit; Vice Mayor Dickey's comments that citizens could provide input
before that by visiting the website and forwarding their comments; the Vice Mayor's suggestion that citizens go on the
website and look at all of the other communities that are involved and there are some like Fountain Hills but others are not
and it would be interesting to view this information; the Mayor's suggestion that the Town's website have a link to the IRC
and some information for residents; the Mayor's comment that at the next Regular Council meeting the Council will look
at a letter or resolution regarding this issue to be forwarded/read to the IRC stating the Town's position and the fac t that
tomorrow morning perhaps they could have more discussion with their Fort McDowell neighbors.
Mayor Schlum thanked Mr. Guillen for his very valuable explanations and input.
In response to a question from the Mayor, Mr. McGuire stated that it would be appropriate to request Representative
Kavanagh's input as far as legislative items.
Representative Kavanagh addressed the Council and said that there have been very little changes legislatively. They
picked up some population by taking the existing district and expanding it a little bit to the east and a little to the west but
for the most part they are picking up very sparsely populated areas. He stated that it is pretty much like the old District 8
and added that he doesn't think there is any cause for alarm. He added that the Congressional district is totally different
and agreed that Fountain Hills is now the "poster child" for gerrymandering abuse. He noted that everyone is point ing out
that Fountain Hills would be harmed and whether it was intentional or not that is hard to say. He added that they would
go from having a Congressman who was raised in Fountain Hills to one who could live as far away as Colorado City. He
stressed the fact that this is a rural district that they had to shoot eastward to pick up some population. He stated the
opinion that this will change because it has received so much negative press.
Mayor Schlum thanked Representative Kavanagh for his comments.
Mayor Schlum asked Mr. McGuire if he had anything to say as far as moving forward and the steps that have to be taken.
Mr. McGuire replied that staff will prepare a resolution for the Council's consideration at the next Regular Council
meeting for formal action stating the Council's objection to the current proposal .
Vice Mayor Dickey said that they will also see what the discussion is like at the meeting tomorrow morning.
Councilmember Elkie stated that if the Council votes to send a resolution to the IRC to express displeasure with what is
happening then he thinks it should be in the most strongest of terms. He said they are coming down to the wire and can't
afford to pull any punches.
Mr. McGuire commented that he believes Mr. Guillen could be very helpful as far as suggesting language that could be
used.
Mayor Schlum thanked everyone for the great discussion.
AGENDA ITEM #5 – ADJOURNMENT.
Councilmember Elkie MOVED to adjourn the meeting and Councilmember Contino SECONDED the motion. The
Work Study Session adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
z:\council packets\2011\r11-17-11\111011m.docx Page 8 of 8
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 held by
the Town Council of Fountain Hills in the Town Hall Council Chambers on the 10th day of October, 2011. I further
certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present.
DATED this 17th day of November, 2011.
_____________________________
Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk