HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991.0430.TCWSM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
MINUTES OF THE WORK/STUDY SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 1991
A public work/study session of the Fountain Hills Town Council was convened and
called to order by Mayor John CutilIo at approximately 6:30 p.m. , Tuesday, April
30, 1991 in the conference room of the Fountain Hills Town Hall Offices located
at 16836 E. Palisades, Building C, Fountain Hills, Arizona.
Present for the work/study session were Mayor John Cutillo, Vice Mayor Frank
Clark and Councilmembers Mike Minarsich, Wally Hudson, Bill O'Brien, Peg Tibbetts
and Charlie Fox. Also present were Town Manager Paul Nordin, Director of
Community Development Gary Jeppson, Town Attorneys Bill Farrell and Nick
Dottermann and Town Clerk Cassie Hansen.
AGENDA ITEM #4,5,6 AND 7 - RESOLUTION 1991-21, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE
OF TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS SERIES 1991, IN THE
TOTAL AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $3,530,000 AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY;
RESOLUTION 1991-22, AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF $3,530,000 PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 1991,
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY;
RESOLUTION 1991-23, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OP TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILL
ARIZONA STREET AND HIGHWAY USER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1991, IN THE TOTAL
AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $1,200,000 AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; AND
RESOLUTION 1991-24, AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF $1,200,000 PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA STREET AND HIGHWAY USER REVENUE BONDS,
11.0 SERIES 1991, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
The Council chose to jump ahead to these agenda items. Mr. Nordin told them that
the Town had a rating from Moodys of BAA, which was investment grade. He said
that passing these resolutions would initiate the actual sale of the bonds. Bob
Casillas explained that the HURF bonds were also rated BAA even though Moodys had
not been asked to rate those bonds. He said that the insurance companies like
to see a three year history and the limited history of the Town would affect the
reception we would receive.
AGENDA ITEM #2 - TOWN MANAGER 'S REPORT
A.PROJECT UPDATE:
2.A.1. BEELINE HIGHWAY
Mr. Nordin reported that he had had one meeting the past week with one ADOT
official , the chief ADOT right of way agent . ADOT was going to be on the tribe 's
agenda the following night and were hoping to obtain right of way approval for
the Shea and Beeline intersection at that time. Councilman Fox requested a copy
of the entire engineers contract once it was signed. He also asked for a drawing
of what land was being negotiated at the corner of Beeline and Shea. Because of
the increased scope of work, the price on the engineering contract had gone
beyond the original 1.3 million amount.
Town Council Minutes 4/30/91
Page 1 of 10
Mr. Nordin then told the Council that he would like to add an agenda item to
Thursday's meeting which would be Captain Hendershott from the Maricopa County
Sheriffs Department addressing the public and the Council with an update of
their activities. Councilman Fox referred to an earlier meeting with the Sheriff
at which time the Sheriff expressed their ability and willingness to enforce
several of the Town Codes. He said he would like to find out if any progress had
been made in that vein.
2.B.1. INCREASING THE HOURS OF THE TOWN MARSHAL
Mr. Nordin said he was recommending that the Marshal 's hours be increased from
20 to 26 hours per week in order to more expeditiously handle the complaints that
are received and to compensate him fairly for the time he spends working on the
reserve program. Mayor Cutillo asked if the reserves, who have to put in a
certain amount of hours each week, couldn 't diffuse some of Marshal Deans
workload. Mr. Nordin said it was important for the Marshal to give appropriate
direction to the reserve program
2.B.2. HERITAGE FUND GRANT APPLICATION
Mr. Nordin said the application was due in on June third and that two of the
members of the Parks and Recreation Commission had attended a workshop in this
regard. He explained that it would be possible for the Town to submit, as
matching funds, the value of the land of the twenty acre park. The value of the
land could only be counted prior to its actual gift to the Town. He said there
would be a resolution two weeks hence in conjunction with this application. He
further said the new Parks and Recreation Director would be starting two weeks
Nal
from yesterday.
2.B.3. EXTENSION OF PREMISE REQUEST FOR THE ALAMO
Ms. Hansen reported that Marshal Dean was still working on the application
request but that all the necessary contacts and signatures would be available on
Thursday.
AGENDA ITEM #3 — RESOLUTION 1991-20, REQUESTING THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION TO AUTHORIZE TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE FUNDS PURSUANT TO SECTION
28-2602, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES. --
Mr. Nordin jumped to this item since it could be dealt with quickly. He
explained that this was one of those resolutions which must be done on an annual
basis in order to receive LTAF monies.
AGENDA ITEM #2.B.4. POSSIBLE RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE ARIZONA CORPORATION
COMMISSION GIVE SERIOUS CONSIDERATION TO ANY CAP COST INCLUDED IN THE RATE BASE
PROPOSAL CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED.
Mr. Nordin explained that Vice Mayor Clark had requested that this item be put
on the agenda and also that Mr. Nordin speak to the representives from RUCO, the
Residential Utility Consumer Office. Vice Mayor Clark said that some questions
had arisen regarding the CAP costs as well as RUCO's involvement, or lack of
Town Council Minutes 4/30/91
Page 2 of 10
involvement, in the hearing process up to this point. He further stated that in
his discussions with RUCO, they had stated that they were sorry that they had not
gotten involved and that they would like to speak to the Council regarding why
they felt there had been an error made in the calculation in determining the rate
base. The Vice Mayor further stated that RUCO wished to discuss with the Council
what role they, the Council, might play in that it was normal for a Council to
speak up or take action on behalf of consumers when it has to do with private
utilities. He then introduced Doug Brooks, Director of RUCO, and Ron Mathis,
Utilities Chief Engineer and Analyst. Doug Brooks then took the floor.
Councilwoman Tibbetts declared a conflict of interest and stated that she would
not be participating in the discussion. Councilman O 'Brien asked if members of
the Fountain Hills Association of Property Owners needed to declare a conflict
of interest and Mr. Farrell said that would not be necessary at this point .
(The following excerpt is virtually a verbatim transcript prepared from the
meeting tape at an earlier date so form will deviate from the norm. )
Mr. Brooks told the Council that he ran a small agency in state government and
that all they did was represent the interest of residential utility customers in
proceedings before the ACC where they were setting utility rates and such.
Chaparral City Water Co. is a utility regulated by the ACC and when it is before
the ACC they can apply to intervene and participate in their case. The pending
rate case they have now is one in which they didn 't enter which they have
regretted that decision. They know they don 't have all the wisdom when it comes
to these matters and this is a good point in case, what they've learned from
other members of the Assoc. and other people out here certainly got their
attention. He said he wanted to bring the Council up to date on the status of
the proceedings, a formal rate case which proceeds somewhat like a lawsuit only
it 's the ACC that sits as the judge and jury and decides it.
He said that when CCWC filed it 's request for an 80% increase in revenues in
August of 1989, the staff of the ACC commenced an investigation. This one was
a very lengthy and complicated one. He assumed they would say that due to
circumstances beyond their control a difficulty in obtaining records, records of
the utility were being moved out of Fountain Hills, not that anything was wrong
about it, it just made the process longer. They didn 't file their
recommendations until right after Christmas of last year. His office becomes
aware of rate case filings and with a company the size of CCWC they will do a
preliminary investigation and then wait for the ACC staff report to come out.
That report was 15 to 20 pages with 15 to 20 schedules attached to it with a dice
and slice all the revenues and expenses and investments of the utility and come
up with explanations of what they think appropriate rate treatment should be for
different things and what the rates ought to look like when it 's all said and
done. What happened next was that a month later at the end of January, the ACC
staff asked a hearing officer at the ACC who sits like a judge in making
procedural decisions to set up a schedule for the case when the hearings were
going to be and this is when problems started in terms of customer involvement
and awareness. The order that came out the last day of January gave just a
little over 2 weeks for anybody who was interested in participating in the case
to ask the ACC to intervene and then investigate and then file a recommendation
in the form of written testimony. Their understanding was that on February 4th,
Town Council Minutes 4/30/91
Page 3 of 10
a notice of the hearing was mailed to customers and certainly people received it
after the 4th giving them less than 2 weeks to respond. On February the 18th.
the ACC staff filed it 's testimony which basically explained the staff report,
the bottom line of the ACC staff recommendation was not an 80.0' increase but a 4Oa"
increase. He said that he didn 't believe the length of notice was in violation
of any legal requirements, the requirements of notice be given, the hearing
wasn 't scheduled until March 7 but the requirement to allow people to effectively
participate was shortened quite a bit. The major driver of the rate increase
request was the completion and putting into service of facilities to bring the
CAP water into Fountain Hills, and this, he believed, the first rate case in
which that expenditure was being reviewed by the ACC for potential inclusion in
rates. What a utility such as CCWC gets to do when it 's looking at putting that
investment in rates is it earns a return on that investment, set at a ball park
figure for a utility, could be anywhere from 9 to 12 . PIus they get to
depreciate that and they get the depreciation expense every year and we 're
talking about something in the vicinity of 6 million dollars of new investment
related to the CAP facilities and that accounted for a very large part of the
initial rate request. He said the notice period was an unusually short period,
when you 're comparing a water company even the size of CCWC with say APS or US
West, you 're looking at vastly different things. With the smaller companies,
which he puts CCWC in that category, the procedural schedule gets shorter
somewhat, but 2 weeks is awfully short. He estimated that the time of notice
should have been a month or 6 weeks, 2 months. He said they are allowed to be an
intervener, that they have to affirmatively ask permission to participate but
that in a case like this it is routinely given, but they have to ask. Mayor
Cutillo said he thought Mr. Brooks had just said that they knew the investigation
Nri)
was going on for a long time and that they had even done some investigation
themselves. Mr. Brooks said they had done a very preliminary one to try and
identify what was in the companies request that would justify such a large
increase and then they went to see what issues the staff had identified to see
if they were addressing the issues they (RUCO) had identified and the resulting
answers were the reasons they didn 't intervene. He said their initial review was
based upon an outlook that since it 's the expressed legislative policy of the
state to get Maricopa County as well as other areas off of ground water to the
extent possible and use CAP project to help do that, that it wouldn 't be
appropriate for RUCO as a state agency to challenge decisions on whether to hook
onto CAP water or not. The accounting seemed appropriate so they did not
identify any issues regarding the CAP investment and that 's where their analysis
stopped. Therefore, they concluded that all the other issues the ACC staff were
looking at were the types of things they would be interested in looking at , how
they- were recommending they be resolved seemed appropriate to them. Their bottom
line was they didn 't think, given their assumptions, that they could add anything
more to the rate case, so they stayed out. What they learned, though, was, and
what their initial investigation didn 't go deep enough into, was the need for all
of that CAP investment, when was it going to be needed, how was it going to be
used, going up in terms of how much CAP was going to be put into CCWC system.
Councilman O 'Brien asked if it was fair to say that Mr. Brook 's initial statement
about the accounting methods being correct and appropriate, would that statement
no longer hold. Mr. Brooks said he meant it in a fairly technical sense and what
they'd recorded in their books looks appropriate. The issue that had been
identified and that they now think is worth pursuing, is almost a policy
Town Council Minutes 4/30/91 `441)
Page 4 of 10
decision. He said he thought they had approximated 20 of the facilities being
used to pipe the CAP water to Fountain Hills are not needed to supply current
customer, the policy question is, who should pay for these investments, alot of
which is really not needed now, just in terms of capacity, but will be needed in
the future for perhaps residents in undeveloped areas. He said he was not
suggesting the answer is right or wrong but that was the policy question that 's
put out there - is it appropriate to have a rate increase on customers now, have
them start paying for all of it or is this something that should bs put into
rates over time to match the need for all these facilities with the customers who
are using it.
Councilman Minarsich asked if this was the first time the entire CAP has been
built into the rate base. Mr. Brooks said it certainly was for CCWC and it was
his understanding that this was the first time the ACC has had a rate case where
a utility is saying we 've got our CAP investment finished now, give us a rate
increase to help us pay for it. So this was a precedent setting case.
Mr. Nordin asked Mr. Brooks when he had been made aware of the fact that it was
going to be a precedent setting case and did that have any factor, any effect,
in his decision to get involved now. Mr. Brooks said they knew last summer of
the nature of the request and that it was CAP facilities and they certainly knew
that it was the first type of case, that did not influence their decision not to
intervene in the past or their reconsideration of the case now. Mr. Nordin then
asked him to elaborate more on what made him change his mind. Mr. Brooks said
they decided not to get involved in the case. Then when the commission held the
initial hearing on March 7th, no, alittle bit before that, they had heard from
Representative Schweikert who had heard about the case and wanted to know what
RUCO 's position was. They had also heard through some letters and phone calls,
Mr. Mathis is a resident in Fountain Hills, and the first time they had learned
about it was in relaying what was in the local newspapers and that was how they
learned. Then the March 7th hearing was held, he had people attend to see what
was happening and there was some pretty strong comments by customers of the
company. They then had discussions with them and certainly, that was the time
when they began to reconsider the case. Mayor Cutillo asked if they were really
responding to an outcry rather than the feeling that they really need to respond.
Mr. Brooks said that was true, that they had their eyes opened to some very
important issues by the consumers. He said the commission convened a hearing a
March 7th. A couple days before that the company and the staff had gotten
together and decided that, well , we can agree on what should happen in this case,
they submitted what is called a stipulation and agreement, if you will , in which
essentially, the company agreed that they would take the rate increase that the
staff is recommending, the lower amount and they would be happy with that and
that would be the end of the case. There were members of the public, some other
interveners associated with fire protection and the golf course who were present
at that time intervening to have their own difficulties with that stipulation.
Members of the public were allowed to comment and it became pretty clear then
that more needed to be heard. The commission scheduled new hearings on April 11
and 12, the other interveners, the fire department and the golf course, actually
filed recommendations, their own testimony on what rates that effect them ought
to be. The commission also set aside considerable amount of time to take comment
from the public and some of the people here tonight were there and raised these
Lir Town Council Minutes 4/30'91
Page 5 of 10
issues with the commission, of CAP and how it 's not being taken care of in the
stipulation or by the commission staff. He said the commission is aware, all
three members of the commission were in attendance during parts of those hearings
and questioned witnesses and he was pretty sure heard most: if not all the public
comments. They certainly are aware. The witnesses from the commission staff and
the company testified, were cross examined and he had been going over the written
transcript of that this afternoon, and commissioners were asking about this
issue, getting the position of the, particularly the companies witnesses on this
issue, so they are very much aware of what the concerns are and knowing that they
haven 't been addressed anywhere else. His understanding was that when the
hearing was adjourned on April 12th, the hearing officer indicated that it was
his intent that he would write, and there again they were getting into the
technical aspects of how the commission works, by May 10th, a week from this
Friday, he was going to issue what 's called a proposed order. The way the
commission is set up, these hearing officers who sit and preside over the
hearings write up what they think ought to be the resolution of the case. That
is sent out to all the parties for their comments and then the commission at some
point will schedule a time when it will meet to discuss the proposed order,
discuss what all the parties thought about it, consider any amendments or what
they want to do with the case and then, much like the Council was doing with the
working session today, and then a formal voting session another day, will come
back the following day and do what they want with that order. May 10th, the
hearing officer said he would get his proposed order out, that would give all the
parties to the case 10 days to submit their comments on what they think is wrong
with the order or if they think it 's great they say that, if they want it changed
they can submit amendments. On May 21st would be a regularly scheduled working
session of the commission where, like the Council was doing tonight, the
commissioners would meet and discuss the proposed order and again, invite people
in the audience to voice their opinions and answer questions. And at that time,
the commission will decide whether they are satisfied with the stipulation of the
company and it 's staff and will go along with that. They have the power to say
no, forget it, we 're going to convene a new hearing X amount of months down the
road, we 're going to invite everybody else to intervene in the case, we want to
heir all these issues, or they can do anything in between. Although the hearing
officer did say that if the commission wanted to hold additional hearings on this
matter that they would be held May 29th and 3Oth, that 's kind of anticipating an
in between resolution by the commission. What 's important procedurally is that
the hearing officer next Friday has promised he 'd have out a proposed order and
the commission 11, 12 days later will decide on this case.
He said the Council obviously knew about the petitions that were being
circulated, and that was a time honored method for consumers particularly those
who are part of an associations participating formerly as a party to the case,
can get their feelings communicated directly to the commissions. It 's something
that they encouraged and they have helped other groups. It 's certainly an
effective way of letting the commission know clot of people are concerned even
if the petition can only state those concerns in an abbreviated way.
In terms of what a municipality can do. . . .municipalities have intervened in rate
cases before. For awhile, it was traditional for the City of Phoenix to
intervene in APS rate cases, of course they have large legal staffs and the money
Town Council Minutes 4/30/91
Page 6 of 10
to hire consultants. The City of Tucson still intervenes in Tucson Electric
410, Power cases. Smaller municipalities such as Fountain Hills can participate at
different levels from resolutions giving the sense of the city council about
their concerns, those have been filed with the commission in a rate case.
Letters from the Mayor or signed by all the council have the same effect. It 's
really up to the city if they want to go as far as asking to intervene in the
case or filing legal pleadings or going the whole route like RUCO normally does
in a rate case with legal representation. City officials have appeared at public
comment hearings to speak as any other member of the public albeit with their
added significant interest to state the position and concerns of the cite.
There 's a full range of opportunities for municipalities to be involved in these
proceedings depending on it 's priorities.
He said RUCO is limited because the hearing officer has made it clear that it 's
too late for any party to formally intervene in the case at this time, of course,
that could be revisited if the commission opens the case up again. They have
been giving assistance to the Property Owners Assoc . with the petitions and
advising them on procedural matters and at this point that was about it . They
cannot participate as a party to the proceedings. He said interveners get to
file formal testimony with the commission if there 's any technical expertise and
it doesn 't necessarily take much if all experience in utility regulation but
testimony of engineers or accountants on what 's fair, what ought to be included
in the rates or what not, is what an intervener can do. They have the ability
to cross examine the witnesses of other parties and they have one hundred fold
the impact of somebody coming in and giving a public statement. He said one
could review records, studies on file with the Depart. of Water Quality, as they
have been doing to get water resources to Iook at the original application for
CAP water to see what was being projected. To get information as an intervener,
you have the right to get information from the utility, they have to give it to
you and you can kind of see what the background is, put two and two together and
give your conclusions to the commission.
Mayor Cutillo asked what rate of increase they felt was a fair rate. Mr. Brooks
said they had not answered that ultimate question, although looking at
alternative ways of • treating the CAP investment of the company, if you try to
proportion that investment based upon what is actually needed to serve current
customers, the rate increase request can be reduced to below 10t. Very
preliminary numbers and if they were involved as an intervener, he didn 't know
if that would be their ultimate recommendation. The company would be put to
point out that there are long term ramifications to doing that and that they may
have a point. If you don 't put all that investment into the rate now, unless the
commission says otherwise, a utility may have the right to accumulate and book
as additions to that investment a return that they aren 't earning on, they're
deferring the return they would otherwise earn, it becomes an addition to
investment.
(End of verbatim transcript).
Mr. Brooks told the Council that his bottom line at this point was that there
were some issues to be looked into. He said the request now was to ask the
Commission to keep the case open, not decide it on the 21st and 22nd and give
Lior Town Council Minutes 4/30/91
Page 7 of 10
RUCO the opportunity to elaborate on their concerns and give them to the
Commission. Mr. Nordin asked how good Mr. Brooks felt his chances were at being
allowed to intervene. Mr. Brooks said he felt they had a 50/50 chance.
Mr. Nordin told the Council that he was not ready to present any recommendations
to the Council as he had not had sufficient time to review all the materials due
to his involvement in the ADOT/Beeline issue. He said that he had been able to
identify some issues and proceeded to outline them. He said there was a
significant compulsion for the water company to get into the business of using
CAP water and questioned why RUCO said it was discretionary. Mr. Brooks said he
felt the issue had more to do with, now that the decision to use CAP water had
been made, who would pay for it and when. Mr. Farrell said the Council could
give lip service support in the form of a resolution but that it wouldn 't carry
much clout. He said that intervention would require expert testimony and carry
expenses. Mr. Nordin suggested that staff do further research into the matter
and bring it back before the Council at the next meeting. Mr. Ray Baldwin
reported that the CAP issues were discussed at the Commission meetings but that
unfortunately, many of the concerned citizens from Fountain Hills departed before
the topic was addressed so that they didn 't hear all the information that was
presented. He also said that the CAP facility was not complete and would need
to be added to'in the future.
The Council discussed their opinions on how much more time and money they wanted
staff to invest in this issue. It was decided that transcripts of the previous
meetings would be obtained so they could determine if the CAP issue had been
sufficiently investigated. They would then decide what action they would take
as a Council. Mayor Cutillo asked if the actual figure for the increase was 38%.
Ray Baldwin replied that it was just under 40%. Mayor Cutillo then commented
that 4' of that was a transfer of what we were paying the fire district for taxes
for hydrants which would now be transferred to the water rates. He said that
meant we were actually looking at a 35% rate of increase over a four year period
which he didn 't feel was excessive. Vice Mayor Clark said the percent of
increase wasn 't so much the issue, but rather how six million dollars in capital
would be dealt with. Mr. Ron Mathis then discussed how they arrived at their
proposed rate increase of less than 10%.
There was a consensus of the Council to obtain and read the transcripts and to
meet with counsel in executive session to discuss the legal implications further.
AGENDA ITEM #8 - RESOLUTION 1991-26, PROVIDING NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE
IMPROVEMENT BONDS FOR THE LOS ALTOS HILLS DEVELOPMENT.
Mr. Farrell said staff was getting all the materials, including a final set of
plans, etc. that would be necessary to have in order prior to the adoption of
this resolution. He said this would take the better part of the next two weeks
to accomplish, thus this agenda item would not be on Thursday's agenda.
AGENDA ITEM #9 - RESOLUTION 1991-27, AWARDING AND ISSUING A LICENSE TO DIMENSION
CABLE TO PROVIDE A CABLE SYSTEM FOR FOUNTAIN HILLS.
Mr. Nordin said one of the big items of discussion in formulating the license was
Town Council Minutes 4/30/91
Page 8 of 10
the amount of the performance bond and under what circumstances that performance
would be sacrificed by Dimension. He said that staff had decided that a sixteen
month construction period be granted. Mr. Farrell reported on the process that
they had gone through to prepare the license and proceeded to review, in depth,
the document with the Council. Specific areas that were discussed included:
transfer of license, the authorization to operate the current system, system
capacity, drops to Town owned facilities, boring under streets as opposed to saw
cuts, line extensions to single and multiple dwelling units , zone numbering.
drops to unbuilt homes with building permits, the exception list, deadlines for
zones and construction, provisions for Town to test installed cable, Town s
responsibility of permitting in a timely fashion, letter of credit , extensions
to new homes built after cable system is complete, service to apartments ,
restrictions on commercial service, service to newly annexed areas, distance to
nearest Dimension office, customer services standards, response time to outages,
response time to service call, basic service charges and franchise fees , access
to public programming, government and educational channels, standard renewal,
insurance, reports periodically submitted by the cable company, amending the code
to be compatible and better work with the license. Mr. Farrell said that all the
appropriate changes would be made before the final license adoption. He further
said that staff was pleased with the final document and that the community would
have the "teeth" that they have desired in dealing with the cable company.
AGENDA ITEM #10 - ORDINANCE 91-06, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS AS AUTHORIZED IN ARTICLE XXXI SECTION 31.1 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ADOPTING ARTICLES XXXV THROUGH XXXIX
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING NEW ZONING DISTRICTS AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE XXXV
OSR - OPEN SPACE RECREATIONAL, ARTICLE XXXVI (R1-10A) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
ARTICLE XXXVII (R1.-8A) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ARTICLE XXXVIII (R1-6A) SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ARTICLE XXXIX NCP - NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND
PROFESSIONAL.
Mr. Jeppson explained that the purpose of this ordinance was to accommodate the
Los Altos Hills project. He said that one of the Planning and Zoning
Commissioners had a descenting opinion on this zoning and therefore a public
hearing would be required. Mr. Farrell said there would need to be a resolution
declaring these sections to be a public record. Then the public record will be
adopted. Mr. Jeppson then went over what the different zones could be used for.
He said that staff was recommending the use of a mortuary in a C-I zone and that
Commissioner Thomas was not in concurrence.
AGENDA ITEM #11 - ORDINANCE 91-07, AMENDING CHAPTER 13 OF THE TOWN CODE ENTITLED
CABLE COMMUNICATIONS AND SPECIFICALLY AMENDING SECTION 13-3 DEFINITIONS BY ADDING
NEW DEFINITIONS FOR THE TERMS CHANGE OF SERVICE, SERVICE CALL AND STANDARD DROP
AND AMENDING THE DEFINITIONS OF GROSS REVENUE AND OUTAGE) SECTION 13-7 A.
REGARDING AMENDMENTS; SECTION 13-7 B.7. REGARDING LIABILITY; SECTION 13-8 A.5.
(E) REGARDING SUBSCRIBER HANDBOOK; SECTION 13-9 E.8. AND 9. REGARDING REMEDIES;
AND SECTION 13-12 A. REGARDING LENGTH OF TIME OF NOTICE.
This item was referred to in the cable license discussion and was the ordinance
amending the code which Mr. Farrell referred to.
Town Council Minutes 4/30/91
Page 9 of 10
AGENDA ITEM #12 - ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned the work study session at approximately 100:40 p.m.
TOWN C OLT FfI
By:
n _
John Cutillo, Mayor
ATTEST:
Cassie B. Hansen, 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 on
the 30th day of April , 1991. I further certify that the meeting was duly called
and that a quorum was present.
441)
DATED this )S1` . day of August, 1991 .
Cassie B. Hansen, Town Clerk
Town Council Minutes 4/30/91
Page 10 of 10