HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001.1204.TCREM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR AND EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE
FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
December 4,2001
Acting Town Manager Bill Farrell had cancelled the scheduled executive session earlier that afternoon.
AGENDA ITEM #1 - PURSUANT TO A.R.S. 38-431.03.A.1, A.R.S. §38-431.03.A.3. AND A.R.S. §38-431.03.A.4.,
VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION OF EMPLOYMENT,
ASSIGNMENT, APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, DEMOTION, DISMISSAL, SALARIES, DISCIPLINING OR
RESIGNATION OF A PUBLIC OFFICER, APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE OF ANY PUBLIC BODY, EXCEPT
THAT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SALARY DISCUSSIONS, AN OFFICER, APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE
MAY DEMAND THAT SUCH DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION OCCUR AT A PUBLIC MEETING. THE
PUBLIC BODY MUST PROVIDE THE OFFICER, APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE WITH SUCH PERSONAL
NOTICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AS IS APPROPRIATE BUT NOT LESS THAN 24 HOURS FOR
THE OFFICER, APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE TO DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH DISCUSSION OR
CONSIDERATION SHOULD OCCUR AT A PUBLIC MEETING; (SPECIFICALLY THE ACTING TOWN
MANAGER); FOR DISCUSSION OR CONSULTATION FOR LEGAL ADVICE WITH THE ATTORNEY OR
ATTORNEYS OF THE PUBLIC BODY (SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THE FIRE DISTRICT); AND FOR
DISCUSSION OR CONSULTATION WITH THE ATTORNEYS OF THE PUBLIC BODY IN ORDER TO
CONSIDER ITS POSITION AND INSTRUCT ITS ATTORNEYS REGARDING THE PUBLIC BODY'S
POSITION REGARDING CONTRACTS THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF NEGOTIATIONS, IN PENDING OR
CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION, OR IN SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS CONDUCTED IN ORDER TO
AVOID OR RESOLVE LITIGATION (SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THE FIRE DISTRICT);
RESPECTIVELY.
AGENDA ITEM#2-RETURN TO REGULAR SESSION
Mayor Morgan convened the regular session at 6:40 p.m. Following the pledge to the flag and invocation by Father Frank
,.` Zapitelli,Church of the Ascension,roll call was taken.
ROLL CALL - Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Sharon
Morgan, Vice Mayor John Kavanagh, and Councilmembers Sharon Hutcheson, John McNeill, John Wyman, Susan
Ralphe, and Leesa Fraverd. Also present were Acting Town Manager/Town Attorney Bill Farrell, Director of
Administration Cassie Hansen,Town Engineer Randy Harrel,and Director of Community Development Jeff Valder.
Mayor Morgan read the items on consent(items 1-4):
AGENDA ITEM #1 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15,
2001.
AGENDA ITEM #2 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2001-51 ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT,
TITLE, OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS
LOCATED ALONG THE NORTHERLY AND WESTERLY PROPERTY LINES OF LOT 17, BLOCK 3 OF
PLAT 601A, (12616 N. MOUNTAINSIDE DRIVE) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 161 OF MAPS, PAGE 44
RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY,ARIZONA.(BETTY J.POTEET) EA01-25
AGENDA ITEM #3 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A GRANT OF UNDERGROUND POWER
EASEMENT TO SRP AT FOUNTAIN PARK FOR THE FOUNTAIN HILLS SANITARY DISTRICT
RECHARGE SYSTEM.EAA01-05
AGENDA ITEM#4 - CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR PARKVIEW PLAZA
II CONDOMINIUMS,A 2-UNIT OFFICE CONDOMINIUM TO BE LOCATED IN FINAL PLAT 208,BLOCK
5,LOT 6,AKA 16832 PARKVIEW AVENUE, CASE NUMBER S2001-30.
Councilwoman Fraverd MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda as read and Councilwoman Ralphe SECONDED the
motion.
Town Council Meeting Minutes 12/04/01
Page 1 of 25
A roll call vote was taken with the following results.
Councilman Wyman - aye
Councilman McNeill - aye
Councilwoman Hutcheson- aye
Councilwoman Fraverd - aye
Vice Mayor Kavanagh- aye
Councilwoman Ralphe— aye
Mayor Morgan - aye
The motion CARRIED unanimously
AGENDA ITEM #5 - CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR THE NORTHPEAK (AKA EAGLES
NEST) SUBDIVISION, A 485.53 ACRE, 11 PARCEL, TWO TRACT SUBDIVISION LOCATED WEST OF
THE 505-B,506-C,515 AMENDED,514 AND 513 SUBDIVISIONS IN THE FAR NORTHWEST CORNER OF
THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, CASE NUMBER S1999-025.
Mr. Farrell apologized for being late due to unforeseen events of the afternoon. He explained that he had not been able
to spend most of the afternoon with the developer as he had planned. He hoped that at the end of Director Valder's
presentation that the Council would favorably consider both Final Plats (agenda items 5 and 6). He stated that this was
the first in a series of steps that he hoped would bring an end to the mountain plat issues. Mr. Farrell briefly reviewed
the chain of events that led up to this meeting. He asked the Council to keep in mind that this was the most beautiful
and most difficult terrain to work with in the community. The efforts to develop these lots would be difficult and both
sides had been challenged to come up with ways that the ecological beauty would be maintained and developed to the
full potential of the lots.
Director Valder identified Eagles Nest now known as the Northpeak project. He described the project as a proposal by
MCO to do a master plat for this area. He acknowledged that there weren't any lots shown on the plat. He noted that
the applicant proposed to construct a main looping road which would then create eight parcels of land with additional
plats seen in the future by the Council depicting lots and roads to service the lots. He reiterated that what MCO was
asking for was a final plat in order to construct the looping roadway and to create eight large parcels of land. He stated
that the majority of those items discussed previously by the Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission weren't
,,,. applicable to these sets of plat because most of the roads weren't included and none of the lots had been created in these
plats, only the large parcels. He visually displayed the plats for the Council's review. Director Valder reviewed the
limited stipulations. He pointed out that due to the Council's approval of the preliminary plat and the draft settlement
agreement, which was what staff had been reviewing this application under, staff was recommending approval with the
stated stipulations.
Councilwoman Hutcheson MOVED to approve the Final Plat as presented and Councilman Wyman SECONDED the
motion.
Councilman McNeill felt that the order of these related items were reversed from where he would have put them. He
referred to and quoted from a column that he had written that had appeared in the last week's paper. In the column he
stated that he had explained why he would vote no with regard to spending$13.5 million on the mountain land now. He
expressed concern with the country's current economics, the Town's recent acquisition of a fire department and the
Town's many other projects. He felt that it was imprudent to spend this amount of taxpayers' money now. It was his
opinion that this was never a good deal but at best an acceptable one. He characterized the general process as one where
he felt that the Town had negotiated against itself. He stated that he had calculated the value of these concessions to be
well over$100 million. Although he wanted to save the mountains, he felt that the economic situation had changed and
a deal that had once been marginally acceptable should now be rejected. He explained that one virtue of the settlement
was that it was structured without penalty to the Town if the Council chose not to complete the purchase. He said that in
retrospect the Town would have been better off if they had stuck to enforcement of the Town's ordinances, as there
would be less density, especially in the highest, steepest, and most visible areas and there would have been access to the
whole the area. Councilman McNeill acknowledged that this had been a difficult decision for him and he had hoped to
find a compromise with which he could live. He did not think he could live with this settlement. Under the current
economic conditions he said it would be better to enter into renegotiations to bring the price to a level that the Town
could afford without adversely affecting other Town needs, or simply start over. He confirmed that he would be voting
no on all these items.
Town Council Meeting Minutes 12/04/01
Page 2 of 25
Councilwoman Ralphe addressed Councilman McNeill's proposal of saying no to everything and starting over. She said
she partially agreed although she was not unduly concerned about dollars. Councilwoman Ralphe noted that the
Council had planned a modest .03 of 1% of the sales tax revenues for mountains, with significant room for economic
surprises. She reviewed that several present councilmembers had been elected as preservationists and this council had
its chance to do the mountains right. Because of weak negotiating and too much compromise, unnecessary desecration
of large areas of the mountains had been brought forward. She felt that they had given up too much preservation within
the mountain subdivisions in order to get the preserve. Councilwoman Ralphe pointed out that citizens cheered the
Council on at settlement time, but she feared that they did not know the whole story. She felt that if the Council went
back to the bargaining table,the Town could lose more ground. If the Council went back to condemnation as an option,
there would be legal costs. If the Council thought that the next election would bring a more strongly preservationist
council, the council would be deceiving themselves. She noted that the election could see some incumbents voted out
because of this mountain issue. New councilmembers might be thinking about other issues other than preservation. In
the end, she felt this Council had gone too far down this road to turn around. The best time to bail out had been in June
or even earlier when it was determined to mediate. Councilwoman Ralphe reminded the Council that she had voted no
both of those times. She confirmed that she would be voting "a sad" yes this evening to all of the mountain agenda
items as this was as good as it was going to get.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh clarified that this vote was for approving the first plat. As he understood it, what the Council
was being asked to do was to vote on whether or not these plats conformed to the development agreement that the
Council passed. Mr. Farrell responded that, technically, the settlement agreement was not before the Council until
agenda item#7. However, the way in which the two plats were coming before the Council, other than the loop road
there wasn't anything on the plats that didn't conform to the Town's subdivision ordinance because the plats were
absent of lots. He reiterated that there wasn't anything on either of the two plats tonight that didn't conform to the
Town's existing subdivision ordinance. He explained that the new plats that would come before the Council would have
to be done in conformance to the settlement agreement, which was agenda item#7. Mr. Farrell stated that the Council
could approve agenda items 5 and 6 tonight without changing one word in the subdivision ordinance or its intent. Vice
Mayor Kavanagh asked if this was an administrative vote in terms of the plat conforming to the Town's requirements.
Mr. Farrell agreed that was correct. Mr. Farrell confirmed that the Council had not given up the right to scrutinize or
approve the lots on those eight parcels when they do come before the Council. He reminded the Council that the
standards for the lots would not come from the code but would be in compliance with the settlement agreement. Vice
L. Mayor Kavanagh clarified that this vote was not whether or not the Council should be spending the$13.5 million on the
mountains, only if the plats were technically and accurate plats. Mr. Farrell replied that the acceptance of the bid for the
bonds was set for the special December 10th meeting. He explained that was the vote that would technically authorize
the Town to spend the $13.5 million. To transfer the money, the Town would have to have completed agenda items 5,
6, and 7 on tonight's agenda and several administrative items that would be brought to the Council for consideration on
the night of the 10`h. He pointed out that there was a process that had to be followed, but there would be one question on
December 10th where the Council would be asked if they wanted to spend the $13.5 million. In order to spend the
money the Council would have had to accomplish these agenda items tonight with a few administrative things on the
night of the 10th.
Councilman McNeill added that he found it frustrating that there weren't any lots on these plats. He felt that if approved
tonight then it was just a process of filling in the blanks from here. He suggested that if the Council did not like the
subdivisions in general, that they not vote for these plats. Although he had been part of the decision to move this
forward, he had done this at a time when the Town's economic situation was different than it was today. He noted that
the country was in a recession and combined with the effects of September 1 1th, a fire department to run, and other
competing needs by the Town,he urged the Council to take all that into consideration.
Director Valder proposed a couple of changes to the stipulations. He requested that the Council eliminate stipulation#2
as it had already been accomplished. On stipulation #1, he asked that the word "approval" be replaced with
"recordation"because the settlement agreement would not be approved prior to the plat.
Councilwoman Hutcheson commented on the plats and the entire process. She noted that she too had been elected on a
preservation platform. She had worked long and hard on these mountain issues. There had been a time when she had
thought the Town could get more for less. She said that she would never apologize for having high expectations. As the
process went through things changed. Councilwoman Hutcheson concluded that this was a fluid and moving situation
with the way the world was and everyone recognized that fact. She was proud of the accomplished preservation. She
Town Council Meeting Minutes 12/04/01
Page 3 of 25
was pleased that the Parks and Recreation Commission and some of the other commissions, particularly the McDowell
Mountain Preservation Commission, approved this. She knew that $13.5 million dollars was a great deal of money. but
the Town had that money. The Council had passed a sales tax dedicated for that purpose to relieve some of the burden
on some of the other sales tax issues. Councilwoman Hutcheson stated that the citizens had waited a long time to have a
is preserve and the developer had also waited to put some beautiful houses on that land. She felt it was a good balance
Nlimov between the preservation wanted by the residents and development that would be needed to help the Town sustain the
commercial base and financial viability of the Town. She noted that she would be voting in favor of the plats.
Councilman Wyman noted that the Town had the money. He felt this Council had behaved responsibly by putting in a
sales tax and development fees just for the mountains. He believed it was affordable and agreed with the majority of
what Councilwoman Hutcheson and Councilwoman Ralphe had stated. He reminded the citizens that the Council had
taken into account the rights of the property owner under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
He pointed out that 30% of the 1290 acres would be a preserve. Councilman Wyman reminded everyone there was a
difference between a preserve andreservation. He acknowledged that to take land without compensating the property
owner was prohibited under the 5 Amendment. He felt Fountain Hills had been wise and learned from Scottsdale's
legal attempts to take land. Providing that you can benefit the owner of the property under the 5th amendment right, the
Town could pursue eminent domain, which meant a fair market price must be paid to the property owner. The Town
had run the risk of possibly paying out the majority of the money in the form of severance damages to the developer. To
avoid that, they had arrived at a proper settlement. He asked everyone to remember that 30% was preservation, which
included the trailhead with a majority of home sites under the 2400— 2500 foot elevation. More importantly there was
preservation on top of the 30% at approximately 35-40% because there was additional land on a home site that could not
be disturbed. He reiterated that about 2/3 of the mountains would be preserved with 30% of it a "preserve". He
confirmed that he would vote in favor of this. He felt that agenda items 5 & 6 were the implementation of the
negotiated settlement agreement.
Mayor Morgan agreed with Councilman Wyman and stated that she did not think by renegotiating the settlement would
get any better.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh clarified that everyone was talking about item#7, but what was being voted on now and the next
agenda item was whether or not to approve the plats. He did not have any reason to vote against the lots because the lots
complied with the law. He stated that he would be voting for the plats because he had no choice. He confirmed that his
two yes votes should not be interpreted as a yes to the actual agreement to spend$13 million dollars on the land.
Lori Noss, 14603 N. Fairlyn Dr.
She was against the settlement agreement as it wasn't a good deal for the Town. She would prefer that the Town would
stick to enforcement of the ordinances. She stated that the public had not seen the proposal of the preliminary plat. She
asked if the roadway followed the road that was on the preliminary plat and did it include bridges, ConArches and so
forth, or cross washes.
Director Valder responded that the roads in each of the plats were extremely consistent, if not identical, to the
alignments of the roads that the Council had approved at the preliminary plats. The number of ConArches and bridges
shown for the looping road were consistent with what the Council had seen before.
The motion CARRIED on a vote of 6— 1. Councilman McNeill cast the nay vote.
AGENDA ITEM #6 - CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR THE SIENNA CANYON (AKA EAGLE
RIDGE NORTH)SUBDIVISION,A 430.63-ACRE,8-PARCEL SUBDIVISION LOCATED WEST OF
THE SUNRIDGE CANYON DEVELOPMENT IN THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN
HILLS,CASE NUMBER S1999-024.
Mr. Farrell said this item was similar to the previous item. He stated that the new name was Sienna Canyon rather than
Eagles Ridge North. The concept was to plat the exterior boundaries of the various parcels and then come back at a later
point in time with the particular lots. He reviewed that the secondary issues with the new plats in recording exterior
boundaries was to help staff identify the take, the parcel that the Town would be acquiring in exchange. He noted that
drawing the legal description of the 354 acres up in the mountains was a difficult task and this would be a tremendous
help with these plats for staff.
Town Council Meeting Minutes 12/04/01
Page 4 of 25
Director Valder requested a change to the stipulation #1. That the word "approval" be changed to "recordation". He
suggested that a stipulation be added noting the northeastern property line, which creates the rear property line of eight
or ten lots, that the final plat be adjusted to mirror the legal descriptions that the Town was preparing. This would
acknowledge a four-acre sliver along the rear of all those lots. He stated that MCO was aware of this. He confirmed
that this plat was consistent with the draft settlement agreement and with the preliminary plat. Because of that
consistency, staff was recommending approval of the final plat.
Councilman Wyman MOVED to approve the Final Plat as presented and Councilwoman Hutcheson SECONDED the
motion.
Councilman McNeill said that while he had a problem with these plats being blank, he knew that he and other
councilmembers had voiced their concerns about the exact location of the residences and long driveways and this action
would leave those discussions for the future. Although he did not like what was in the final plats, he felt it couldn't get
any worse.
The motion CARRIED on a vote of 6— 1. Councilman McNeill cast the nay vote.
AGENDA ITEM #7 - DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
FOR THE MOUNTAIN PROPERTY.
Mr. Farrell said that this was a significant part of what would complete the transaction. Development agreements had
been entered into with the major land owner for a two-fold purpose. One was guaranteeing, to the extent permitted
under the law that zoning and permission to build would be in place for a period of time sufficient to carry out their
mission. Second was to get some advance control for the Town and some waivers from the development standards for
the developer as part of the quid pro quo. He stated that this was not a development agreement but rather a settlement
agreement. During the mediation it was chosen to change the nomenclature slightly since there were three pending
lawsuits: eminent domain actions, a constitutional challenge of the easement portion of the hillside protection easement,
and the referendum issue on the validity of text changes that were made to the subdivision ordinance. He explained that
all three of those pieces of litigation were placed on hold by stipulation of the parties this past summer when the initial
agreement had been reached. The settlement agreement would act as the guarantee to the parties of their rights when
iiimpef
those lawsuits were dismissed.
Mr. Farrell stated that he and Director Valder had started today on the legal descriptions, met with the title insurance
company to get preliminary title insurance, and had begun to make mutual changes to the agreement with MCO. Mr.
Farrell said that MCO was ready in Houston to provide the Town with redlines and finished copies of the settlement
agreement. It had been staff's hope that they would have the exact document before the Council tonight but that did not
happen. He described what he would like to do tonight was to ask the Council for authorization for the Mayor to
execute the final settlement agreement, not as presented but as amended, by the parties in conformance with the
exchanges and addendums that the acting town manager and the community development director would present to
MCO Properties. He stated that he was prepared, because of the timing issue, to go through the agreement page by
page, to give the Council what staff's thoughts were on some of the changes. Mr. Farrell confirmed that none of the
changes were what he would consider substantial changes in terms of either extra density or cut and fill waivers or
benefits that weren't already expressed in the agreement at which the Council had looked. He felt that many of the
items were timing issues. Several were grammatical or text issues but none presented anything that he felt would give
MCO any heartburn over the agreement. He asked to hear from the Council as to any additional comments to the
motion for conditional approval. He stated that the Mayor would be more than happy to incorporate those into the
comments that he and Director Valder would make. He said that he and Director Valder would meet in the morning
with Mr. Erickson and get those changes made in the final draft, get the final document executed, and then have the
document back to the Council before the night of the 10`h. Mr. Farrell noted the agreement would not be an item on the
agenda of December 10th unless there was a glaring deficiency that had not been corrected. He summarized his request
as a conditional approval for the Mayor to execute the document once the changes had been made. He further asked to
hear any changes and/or comments from the Council.
Councilman Wyman MOVED to approve the conditional settlement agreement as just presented and Councilwoman
Hutcheson SECONDED the motion.
L
Town Council Meeting Minutes 12/04/01
Page 5 of 25
Director Valder highlighted the changes page by page that he considered significant. Director Valder stated that his
comments had to do with timing and sequencing issues. Mr. Farrell confirmed that December 20th was the date that had
been agreed to with MCO for escrow instructions for the deeds, easements, grants, and corporate documents arrival
from the Texas Title Company, and arrival of funding from the bond sales. Director Valder proposed that Paragraph 4.2
in be deleted as it limited the number of parking spaces that could be put in and was an encumbrance to the Town's ability
to put in school bus parking. In Paragraph 4.5.2 he suggested language that addressed the extent to which MCO was
required to revegetate the jeep trail scar. MCO had understood that they would only be held to revegetate that portion of
the jeep trail that that they had been using for the emergency access easement but he had understood that MCO would be
required to revegetate the entire jeep trail. In Paragraph 6.2, he suggested that the word "for" be deleted and replaced
with "not more than" and that throughout the document the exchange of the word "units" with "lots" be made. In
Paragraph 6.2.4, in the last sentence he asked for language that stated there wouldn't be any more lots on the cul-de-sacs
other than what had been approved on preliminary plats. Paragraph 6.2.5, he asked wording that would allow the Town
to have the ability to enforce rather than the homeowners association. Paragraph 6.3.3, Director Valder proposed to
refer to an attachment that identified the 2,900-foot cul-de-sac. Paragraph 6.5.2, it was his understanding that the road
grade percentage was 18% and not 20% as listed. Paragraph 6.6.2, he stated that MCO wanted to waive the handrail
requirement for sidewalks that were next to what could be eight-foot retaining walls. He and the town engineer felt that
was a health and safety issue and staff wanted the opportunity to talk to MCO about this issue. Paragraph 6.7.4, he said
that staff felt that a slope of 3 to 1 should be the minimum in order to successfully achieve vegetation. He suggested
that this could be reviewed "area by area" with MCO. Paragraph 6.7.5, Director Valder asked that a sentence, for
purpose of clarity, be added that stated the cut standards specifically excluded the construction of individual homes.
Paragraph 6.8.3, Director Valder requested that section (ii) be kept at the 22,700 square feet on average per lot.
Paragraph 6.8.5, he requested additional language "as long as that can be accomplished by non-mechanized means with
the required prior administrative Town approval". Paragraph 6.9.3, Director Valder suggested additional language
"shall be delineated with iron stakes ropes and signs and shall be maintained throughout the term of right—of-way
construction on the property"be added. Mr. Farrell pointed out that on that particular item it was important to note that
the exclusion was only on the right-of-way and not on the individual lot, as they will still be staked. Because of the
washes and the activity of crossing so many of the washes, it was always agreed to that the iron stake and rope on the
right-of-way would be much easier to administer. The individual lots would continue to have the chain link-fencing
requirement. Paragraph 6.13.2, Director Valder proposed this section needed additional work "without limitation"
caused concern for him. Paragraph 6.13.4, he again asked for more work on this same wording. Paragraph 6.14.4,
Director Valder asked for the wording "based on the approved preliminary plats" be added directly after the word
approve. Paragraph 6.15.3, he asked for the insertion of "in accordance with the approved preliminary plats". In
Paragraph 7.1,he proposed to add the wording"not withstanding unless specifically permitted by the Town". Paragraph
7.4, Director Valder suggested that it would be wise to have the developer and the Town mutually agree on directional
signs.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh gave a summary as to why he would be voting against the settlement agreement. It was his
opinion that the voters had only approved $6 million in bonds and $13 million was too much money to spend, which
would delay other Town needs. He stated that it had been alluded to that by spending this much money it would
potentially throw the Town into dire financial constraints based upon the country's current economy. Vice Mayor
Kavanagh expressed he did not see the Town going bankrupt because of any type of spending. He was concerned that it
would delay other projects that he would have like to have seen completed sooner.
Councilman McNeill noted that this document had come to the Council at the last second and the public had not seen
this document. He confirmed that he had not read the entire document but only parts of it. He said he would have a
problem voting for it tonight just on the basis that the public had not seen the document. The situation was compounded
by the Council being asked to authorize its execution without seeing what the changes would look like. He suggested
that staff pursue the changes as outlined. He expressed that he would like the opportunity to give input on additional
changes with the document made available to the public yet this week. He requested that this action item be continued
until December 10. Councilman McNeill MOVED to continue this item until December 10'2001. The motion DIED
due to a lack of a second.
Councilman Wyman asked Mr. Farrell and Director Valder if there was something about the document that was
inconsistent with the Council's prior negotiations over the past four years. Mr. Farrell responded no. He clarified the
situation as being a little different now because of the three pieces of litigation before the Council and because the Town
had changed and tightened more of the subdivision regulations over time. He noted that due to a scheduling change this
Town Council Meeting Minutes 12/04/01
Page 6 of 25
would have been the normal Thursday night Council meeting but the change in the date of this meeting from December
6th to December 4th had been known in October. He reassured the Council that this was the last reiteration of documents
that he and Director Valder had read since October 4t. Councilman Wyman noted that everyone had put in a great deal
of time and effort, which had included a great deal of public input, to arrive at this document. He stated that
Councilman McNeill had been very helpful in understanding this document. He had a great deal of respect for staff in
this regard because there was so much that was technical here. If Mr. Farrell and Director Valder felt secure in the
document then he confessed that he too felt secure.
Councilwoman Fraverd asked if MCO was OK with staffs changes. She did not see that this agreement had
substantially changed. If MCO did have problems with the changes, she suggested that staff and MCO might need
additional time before the Council voted on this document.
Councilman McNeill proposed additional word changes to the document. He asked MCO to respond to the suggested
changes. He reviewed his proposed changes. Letter "G" on page 2, Councilman McNeill questioned if this was a
conditional abandonment that was conditioned on completion of this transaction. Director Valder replied yes, that
technically when the Council approved the abandonments with the stipulations that they had agreed that the
abandonment wouldn't be recorded until after the settlement agreement and the plats were approved. Director Valder
stated that the resolution was signed and ready to be recorded but it wouldn't be recorded unless everything else was
worked out. Paragraph 1.1.5, he proposed that the entire first sentence be deleted as well as the first part of the second
sentence. He wanted the first sentence to read, "The effectiveness of this Agreement shall be conditioned on the entry
of a final non-appealable judgment dismissing or terminating such injunction, stay or referendum" and keeping the rest
of the paragraph as drafted. He felt that a referendum was something that was in the hands of the people if they so
desired. He did not think it appropriate for the Town to make a statement as to whether or not this was referable
although he could understand MCO's desire to have it conditioned on the outcome of a referendum. Mr. Farrell
explained that to the extent that finality was one of the driving desires to settle this agreement, and this settlement
agreement was drawn in connection with three pieces of litigation, he felt comfortable saying that although the Town
did not know what the Arizona law was on development agreements (as to whether or not they were referable or not)the
Town did know that settlement and court actions were not referable. Mr. Farrell said he felt comfortable including that
for both parties. He assured the Council that any ordinance that was passed in conjunction with the settlement
agreement would be referable and rights would not be taken away from the people on a referendum on future ordinances
L. but both MCO and the Town would defend the settlement agreement non-referability because it was a legal document
and not legislative.
Councilman McNeill proceeded with comments on Paragraph 4.2. He did not think a specific number should be placed
in this paragraph and requested that the paragraph be deleted. Director Valder restated that his recommendation had
been for the deletion of this paragraph. In Paragraph 4.5.2, Councilman McNeill proposed to add it would be more
efficient if MCO were to revegetate and provide natural color restoration for the entire jeep trail. He felt that could be
accomplished at minimum expense. In Paragraph 6.5, he asked if it only applied to the emergency utility access and
utility roads. Director Valder said yes and explained that was good. The copy of the agreement he had been working
from had not been clear and he wasn't sure what they were doing but he concurred that 20% had been agreed to for the
emergency/utility and access roads. Paragraph 6.6.2, Councilman McNeill agreed that handrails must be placed where
they were required for safety reasons so he felt there shouldn't be any discussion on that. Paragraph 6.8.3, Councilman
McNeill admitted he was confused and concerned about how the 22,700 average would be maintained since this would
be brought to the Council in phases. He asked if the 22,700 needed to be stated in each of the eight large subdivisions.
Director Valder stated that when the 22,700 had been agreed to it had been done so with the expectation that all of the
lots would be platted at the same time. He felt that the only way to make it work would be to maintain the cap of the
35,000 sq. ft. per lot and when that last parcel comes in on either of these two projects then they would have to exhaust
the residual disturbance left. He felt that was workable. Councilman McNeill agreed it was workable but thought it
would be helpful to state the maximum of 35,000 and that must be observed with respect to each phase of development
and in total the average disturbance would not be more that what was agreed to. Regarding Paragraph 7.4, Councilman
McNeill proposed that the access should be open as soon as the first roads were constructed there should be some way
of getting access to the County Park and the Dixie Mine area. He felt that if the applicant had not yet completed the
subdivision improvements in the area between the main circulator road and the County Park, that it might require some
interim easement of some sort. The idea was that MCO was to put a road in that connects to the County Park. He felt as
it now read the applicant might feel they did not have to finish that because they hadn't finished part eight of their
Town Council Meeting Minutes 12/04/01
Page 7 of 25
subdivision and that could be twenty years from now. He did not feel that was what any of the Council had in mind. He
asked that language be worked on to address his concerns.
Mayor Morgan asked Councilman McNeill if all of his concerns were accommodated would he still hold his position on
the settlement agreement. Councilman McNeill replied yes because of the change in financial conditions he felt too
much was being taken from other town programs. He stated the $13.5 would not put the Town into bankruptcy.
however it would make it more difficult for the council to complete other projects along the timelines that they had
anticipated.
Greg Bielli,Vice President with MCO
He stated that over the last few months since he had become involved, MCO had enjoyed a cooperative relationship
with town staff and had participated in different community meetings to get to this period. He assured the Council that
comments by Director Valder and Councilman McNeill were clarification issues. He did not feel they were major
issues. He asked that everyone not forget MCO's consistency goal was moving towards the preliminary plat. Mr. Bielli
explained that MCO's intent was to go forward with what the Council had approved back on October 4th when they
bring forward the parcels. The only item that he felt needed further clarification was a discrepancy in dealing with
Paragraph 4.2. He stated that MCO had offered this present agreement based on the Council's June vote of the
settlement agreement. Mr. Bielli pointed out that MCO had spent two days going over the engineering issues with
Town Engineer Randy Harrel to his satisfaction. He noted that MCO did not have a problem with the spaces but in the
June settlement agreement there had been language that talked about being mutually agreeable as to a site plan with the
mass transit vehicles being prohibited on this road. Mr. Bielli affirmed that the Council was not seeing anything new
here except for the number of spaces. He reiterated that they had been working off the concept site plan that they've
had. If the council wanted to enlarge that area it would be within their jurisdiction as it was on the Town's land, but
mass transit vehicles would be prohibited as stated in the June settlement. In the June settlement it also stated in
Paragraph 7 that the trailhead would include parking for two school buses. He asked that no one take the view that
MCO was going in any other direction than what had built upon over the last few months. He was confident that MCO
could iron out the clarification issues but he did feel Paragraph 4.2 was an issue because of the settlement agreement in
June. He agreed the 20 spaces was a new element but it had come from MCO working from the concept plan. He
concluded that if that number of spaces was eliminated, it would not be a problem with MCO. It was the mass transit
access and the two school bus parking spaces that were clarified in the June vote.
Councilman McNeill commented that in Paragraph 4.2 the settlement agreement in June had made reference to a
concept plan for the trailhead that the McDowell Mountain Preserve Commission (MMPC) had approved that had
substantially more than twenty spaces -upwards to forty spaces and included the school bus parking. His point was that
the Council had been working off more spaces to begin with. With the Town was growing, the Council should not cut
off their ability to put in additional spaces there in future. Mr. Bielli restated that these were clarification issues.
Lori Noss, 14603 N. Fairlyn
She felt the agreement looked quite different. She agreed it should be postponed until December 10th to give the public
the opportunity to review the agreement before the Council voted on it. She felt the Town could do better in
negotiations.
Mr. Farrell stated that the financial report would be available on Friday with one available at the front desk and one
specifically available for Mrs. Noss. A roll call vote was taken with the following results.
Councilman McNeill- nay
Councilwoman Hutcheson- aye
Mayor Morgan- aye
Vice Mayor Kavanagh- nay
Councilwoman Ralphe— aye
Councilman Wyman - aye
Councilwoman Fraverd- aye
The motion CARRIED on a vote of 5—2.
Mayor Morgan called for a recess at 8:17 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:27 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #8 - PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE 01-19 AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 5.11.B, BY ADDING NEW LANGUAGE
Town Council Meeting Minutes I2/04/01
Page 8 of 25
THAT WOULD ESTABLISH MINIMUM HORIZONTAL DISTANCES BETWEEN CERTAIN
CONSTRUCTION/GRADING ACTIVITIES AND NON-DISTURBANCE OR HILLSIDE PROTECTION
EASEMENTS AND PROCEDURAL REGULATIONS FOR PROCESSING LAND DISTURBANCE
ORDINANCE, CASE NUMBER Z2001-05.
Mayor Morgan recessed the regular session and opened the public hearing at 8:30 p.m.
Director Valder reviewed that this item was in response to one of the preliminary plats stipulations on what had been
known as the Eagles Nest and Eagles Ridge North subdivisions. One of the stipulations had been that an ordinance be
drafted to codify the disturbance buffers that were currently being administratively applied by town staff. The Planning
and Zoning Commission held three meetings on this issue and it generated'a considerable amount of feedback from the
public, especially from the local contractors. He noted that the Planning Commission made several revisions to the
original staff recommendation. Director Valder explained a disturbance buffer as being the horizontal area between the
edge of construction activity and where the Town would accept a hillside protection easement and how a buffer worked.
He noted there had been a fair amount of confusion as people misunderstood that they would be allowed to disturb eight
feet outside of the chain link fence, which was not the case. Staff had been trying to structure this ordinance so that the
Town's deliberations on this matter would simply be how much room did it take to construct a house, a wall, or to grade
a site. Director Valder stated that, depending on the contractor, many were convinced that the 8 — 5- 3-foot rule was
excessive. They believed it was possible to construct a house and other improvements in significantly smaller areas.
Director Valder reported that while he had been reviewing construction activity there had been a large number of
instances where the chain link fence came down because the 8-5-3 feet buffers didn't allow enough room. There were
violations because the contractor needed more space. He agreed that in some it was possible to construct a building in
less than 8-5-3 but to a large extent it depended upon how much time the contractor was willing to spend on site to
supervise the construction. Staff had originally proposed that the Planning Commission recommend codification of
certain disturbance buffers depending upon the type of construction activity. The Planning Commission chose to make
a recommendation that the Council not codify those disturbance buffers but simply suggest how far away the contractor
and property owners should stay from certain construction activities. Director Valder outlined the proposed notification
procedure to both the contractor and the property owner. He explained that staff's purpose behind this dual notification
was that they had found many instances that both the property owner and the general contractor would plead ignorance
as to the rules when a violation occurred. Staff wanted to ensure that if the contractor and the property owner set the
disturbance buffer,that they understood the Town's regulations and would take responsibility for their actions.
Director Valder noted that the disturbance buffers would be a recommendation. He referred to Ordinance 01-19,
Section 5.11, 12 (B) and outlined what would occur if a violation were to occur. Director Valder pointed out that the
Planning Commission was asking the Council to hold the property owner and contractor accountable for disturbance,
make everyone aware of what the regulations are, suggest what type of buffer the property owner and contractor should
be looking at, and then rely upon the skill and expertise of the professional to set the necessary buffer. If a mistake were
made or if a disturbance was made outside of the perimeter that the property owner/contractor should be identified and
then there would be some penalties.
Councilwoman Hutcheson was uncomfortable with the idea of imposing disturbance buffers. She stated that contractors
know where fences need to be placed and they are aware of the penalties if they disturb outside of the fence.
Councilwoman Hutcheson commented that it was the contractors who helped design the penalty. She was willing to
give someone the opportunity to try to construct in a smaller area. She questioned if the Town had to continue to treat
these people as children and administratively set arbitrary standards. Councilwoman Hutcheson stated if they didn't
comply,they would be penalized and she proposed it wouldn't be long before they came back to the Town and asked for
some type of buffers. She commented that she did like the disclosure that required signatures by both the property
owner as well as the contractor. Vice Mayor Kavanagh agreed. He felt that there might be instances when someone
would want to build close to the disturbance line and they should be allowed to do that if possible. He agreed that the
contractors know where the line is and if they can stay within, let them stay in it or face the penalties. He commented
that the Planning Commission had said that it should be a recommendation. Vice Mayor Kavanagh proposed to change
the beginning wording of 12 (A)to"It is recommended that".
Councilman McNeill expressed concern that while the Town could do away with the 8-5-3 rules and allow more
flexibility in this area, he thought it would end up exchanging reality for an enforcement problem. He asked where
would the manpower come from to look at each and every site. Councilwoman Fraverd questioned if someone really
Town Council Meeting Minutes 12/04/01
Page 9 of 25
went outside the disturbance boundary and had a large penalty assessed, could they challenge it legally. Mr. Farrell
responded that the penalty imposed would have to bear the scrutiny of the constitutional test. He was of the opinion that
by codifying the 8-5-3 and imposing the penalty, Fountain Hills was going to the edge of the envelope and that it would
be the creativity of the defendant's lawyer that would be the issue. He felt it would be difficult for a prosecutor to
address.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh asked what the current penalty was. Director Valder stated that it depended upon the severity of
the violation. He explained that if it were something minor, it might result in no action. If it were something major. a
stop work order would be issued on the project. Currently violators would be cited if they were just not complying with
the terms of revegetation requirements. Vice Mayor Kavanagh asked if there was a fine or was this fine new. Director
Valder commented that the Town Magistrate would probably levy a fine if there were a citation, but currently there
wasn't any fine. Councilman McNeill was concerned with the penalty. He thought there could be instances where an
extremely wealthy individual did not care how much it costs in terms of penalties. He questioned if the Council should
consider a multiple offense multiplier. He felt that might serve as more of a deterrent to an individual who didn't care
about the cost in terms of penalties. Mr. Farrell said in pure theory that was correct. He found it difficult to imagine
that the contractor would probably submit that plan knowing it would cost that much more. He said if passed, he would
be happy to look closer at the penalty provisions.
Councilman Wyman felt there were some contradictions here because the Council was being asked to codify something
that staff administratively practices any way. Did that suggest that the Council was doing the contracting community a
favor by letting them know in writing what the rules were? If this had been the administrative practice for six or seven
years why couldn't it be codified? Councilman Wyman felt the Council should codify what was administratively
practiced because it was consistent with the Council's position of how important preservation was.
Councilwoman Ralphe agreed with the preservation thoughts of Councilman Wyman. She said it was logical if the aim
was to insure that in certain spots there was undisturbed and uninterrupted Sonoran Desert, then the 8-5-3 would get the
Town closer to that goal. Vice Mayor Kavanagh questioned the current administrative practice. He asked if the buffers
were mandatory or recommended. Director Valder responded that the buffers were mandatory in that staff would not
accept a hillside protection easement closer that x number of feet from some construction activity. Vice Mayor
Kavanagh asked for clarification that the Planning and Zoning Commission had disagreed with the administrative policy
and they wanted the 8-5-3 recommended and not mandatory. Director Valder stated that was correct.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh asked who would ultimately be paying the fine. Director Valder said either party would be
100% responsible for the fine. Vice Mayor Kavanagh asked if that would create a legal problem to have fine assessed
against this type of indefinite parties. Mr. Farrell replied potentially yes. He felt that the offender would likely be the
grading contractor and not the general and certainly not the property owner. Vice Mayor Kavanagh asked why an
ordinance that needed further work had come before the Council in this form. Director Valder restated that it was
written like that because when the plans come in and the property owner/contractor assert that they can construct that
project with minimal disturbance buffers, staff was telling them that they were responsible for any violation. Vice
Mayor Kavanagh pointed out that Mr. Farrell had suggested that this would not withstand a legal challenge and that was
a problem. Vice Mayor Kavanagh expressed concern regarding the fines because there were potential occurrences that
the property owner did not have any control over incompetence on the part of a delivery person or some such person.
He felt the fines could be massive.
Councilwoman Hutcheson said this was not limiting preservation but entitling the homeowner to have the ability to use
the property that he bought up to the delineation of the preservation area. She was not suggesting that the disturbance be
outside the area or the fence moved. She was suggesting that the homeowner had the ability to develop the lot up to the
certain lot line. The homeowner should expect the contractor to have enough control over the subcontractors to obey
that rule. If the contractor didn't, then the homeowner would have a serious problem, which would trickle down to the
contractor who would have a serious problem with his subcontractors. Councilwoman Hutcheson noted that people
have to be held accountable for their actions. She was not worried that the fines were too much but she was concerned
about the legality of it.
Town Council Meeting Minutes 12/04/01
Page 10 of 25
Dennis Brown, 15202 San Diego Circle (contractor)
He felt Fountain Hills was too restrictive and stated that this would adversely affect the Town's revenues. He and the
other builders in Fountain Hills were against mandatory buffers on the inside of the disturbance fence. Builders should
have the flexibility to determine the buffers.
kite.' Ken Krudder, 15729 E Chippewa St. (contractor)
He was against mandatory buffers
Dave Montgomery,New Market Court(engineer)
He was against mandatory buffers and expressed that builders need flexibility because of Fountain Hill's terrain.
Councilman McNeill asked the contractors what they felt a reasonable buffer would be. Mr. Brown answered that each
site presented its own problems and each lot should be assessed individually. Vice Mayor Kavanagh asked how many
stop work orders had been issued. Director Valder replied approximately fifty had been caught over the course of three
to four years. Vice Mayor Kavanagh felt that an inspector would be able to determine if there had been a disturbance
violation within two or three months from completed construction. Director Valder stated that the statistic that the
Council was trying to generate did not accurately reflect the scope of the problem. Mayor Morgan said if this buffer
was necessary it needed to be a mandatory. If it were only recommended, the enforcement would come from whoever
was sitting in the Community Development Director's chair. Director Valder clarified that he was a proponent of
putting something in the code. Mayor Morgan did not see that the 8-5-3 would work on every lot. Councilman Wyman
asked if the Planning and Zoning Commission had been uncomfortable with codifying this ordinance. Director Valder
stated that some of the Commission had seriously considered removing Paragraph A and leaving that up to the property
owner and the contractor. Councilman Wyman was curious why the Commission had not come down firmly on the side
of codification of this ordinance.
Greg Bielli,Vice President for MCO
He proposed that the construction buffer should be designed on a lot-by-lot basis. He said that when the designers,
architects, and engineers were doing the site plan for a particular house they did take into consideration a construction
buffer within the fence. If the inspector saw that it had been encroached upon from the site plan, then there would be a
clear-cut delineation as to the enforcement.
Councilman Wyman asked if Mr. Bielli was for it or against it. Mr. Bielli replied that he was for the version that was
talked about at the Planning and Commission meeting. Basically that version stated the 8-5-3 was not there and as the
plans were presented by the builder/designer and property owner a plan would be presented to the town with a
construction buffer but would be not delineated on a certain amount of footage that would be taking away from their
disturbance total.
Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman Bob Howes stated that the Commission was of the opinion that the 8-5-3
did not give the builders or homeowners the flexibility needed on some of these lots and was more punitive in nature.
He commented that was the consensus of the Commission. Councilman Wyman asked if the ordinance represented
what the Planning and Zoning Commission wanted. Chairman Howes stated that they did not want the 8-5-3. Director
Valder clarified that the ordinance as presented was exactly what the Planning and Zoning Commission had wanted.
Mayor Morgan closed the public hearing the 9:40 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #9 - CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 01-19 AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 5.11.B, BY ADDING NEW LANGUAGE
THAT WOULD ESTABLISH MINIMUM HORIZONTAL DISTANCES BETWEEN CERTAIN
CONSTRUCTION/GRADING ACTIVITIES AND NON-DISTURBANCE OR HILLSIDE PROTECTION
EASEMENTS AND PROCEDURAL REGULATIONS FOR PROCESSING LAND DISTURBANCE
ORDINANCE,CASE NUMBER Z2001-05.
Councilman McNeill MOVED to approve Ordinance 01-19 as drafted and Councilwoman Fraverd SECONDED the
motion.
L
Town Council Meeting Minutes 12/04/01
Page 11 of 25
Councilwoman Fraverd thought it interesting that while the Council had been talking about the McDowells where the
disturbance numbers were on an average of 22,700, the Council didn't hear from any of the contractors. She
commented that if they were having trouble in FireRock, wait until they got to the McDowells. She said that it had been
suggested to her that the disturbance numbers in FireRock were so low that people would like to come to the Council
and ask for waivers. She reminded everyone that was another of the negotiated settlement items and she didn't want to
410, hear requests for waivers. Councilwoman Fraverd expressed that she was interested in opening up some other areas for
flexibility. She had asked for a list of contractors who had violated disturbance and she read a few of the offenses. She
did not think that the disturbance line was that much of a different issue from the setback line issue. Somehow
contractors manage to build right up to the five-foot or seven-foot mark. She stated that the professionals needed to be
relied upon and let them do what they want to do but also take on the responsibility of everything included on the site
plan. Councilwoman Fraverd said she liked the 8-5-3, but she was willing to give the contractors a chance. However, if
it didn't work she wanted to go back to the straight 8-5-3. Councilwoman Fraverd stated she did not have too much
heartburn with the penalty at $5 per square foot. She was surprised that no one had expressed concern over the revised
site plan prepared by an Arizona registered land surveyor or the revegetation and irrigation plan prepared by an Arizona-
registered landscape architect as both cost money. Councilwoman Fraverd concluded that if the contractors did not have
a problem with these issues, neither did she.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh moved to AMEND the motion to delete 12 (A) and Councilwoman Hutcheson SECONDED the
motion.
Councilwoman Fraverd said that she had liked Vice Mayor Kavanagh's idea to leave the recommended language in.
She explained that someone not using one of Fountain Hills' civil engineers would not have a clue about what they
should be doing and problems might result. Mr. Farrell advised that if the person who seconded the amendment agreed,
changes to the wording could be made. Vice Mayor Kavanagh restated the amendment to insert "It is recommended
that"at the beginning of 12(A) and strike"should". Councilwoman Hutcheson agreed to the amendment rewording.
Councilman McNeill asked if it would be helpful to include the distances in order to clarify that the owner or contractor
may set those boundaries at less or more at their discretion. Vice Mayor Kavanagh asked if that wasn't already implied.
Councilman McNeill felt it would be helpful to have it stated for those working with the ordinance. Councilman
McNeill suggested an additional amendment to add at the end "property owners may choose to set the boundaries at
larger or smaller buffers". Councilwoman Fraverd commented that there wasn't a problem with larger buffers and this
wording wasn't necessary. She noted that the Town was just recommending 8-5-3. Councilman McNeill withdrew his
suggested amendment.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh stated the new wording to the beginning of 12(A) would be: It is recommended that all proposed
non-disturbance areas or hillside protection easements should be located not closer than: etc.
The Mayor called for the vote on the amended motion, which carried unanimously.
Councilman McNeill proposed to AMEND the amended motion to revise the last paragraph to read"Pays to the Town a
fee of up to five dollars ($5.00) per square foot of disturbance that occurred within the non-disturbance areas or hillside
protection easements on the property taking into account whether the violation was inadvertent, intentional, or
reckless. Mayor Morgan asked who would make that determination. Councilman McNeill stated the Community
Development Director would. Director Valder said the Planning Commission had talked about that and they questioned
how that could be proved. Vice Mayor Kavanagh suggested making it an affirmative defense for the purpose of the
fine, which meant that the burden of proof would rest on the contractor or the owner and that the violation was not
intentionally or recklessly caused. Mayor Morgan expressed the concern that while everyone was deciding if it as
intentional or reckless there would be a stop work order in place. She asked how long the process would take and would
a jury or a judge hear it? She questioned if the Council was adding more to this than what was needed. Councilman
McNeill WITHDREW his proposed amendment.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh said there was an important principal here. He did not want to excuse the expense of correcting
the disturbance, but if it could be proven that it was not intentionally or recklessly caused by either the homeowner or
contractor he did not think the penalty should apply. They should have to pay for the disturbance but not be penalized
because it was not their fault. Councilman Wyman suggested if the words "up to" could be insert to cover the issues as
the amount could be zero if the Town and/or the prosecutor determined that the disturbance wasn't considered reckless
Town Council Meeting Minutes 12/04/01
Page 12 of 25
or done intentionally. Mayor Morgan wasn't concerned about the fine but wanted the Council to consider the time
involved by the issuance of the stop work order, staff time, and the involvement of the judge and the jury. She asked if
the homeowner wasn't already being penalized by the stop work order with the fines being over and above that. Mayor
Morgan questioned who would put a limitation on this. Councilwoman Hutcheson preferred this section of the
� ordinance as written because when considering the intentionally or non-intentional that could very discretionary. She
%Pe' noted that when hiring a contractor they were the ones who were responsible for what goes on at the site and if not,they
need to be. Mayor Morgan stated then the fine belonged to the general contractor and that would keep them on their
toes more than anything. Councilman Kavanagh asked for a legal determination as to who pays the fine. Mr. Farrell
agreed that this issue would require further research. Director Valder clarified that this was a "fee"and not a"fine". He
pointed out that there was a cost to the Town when an inspector had to go to inspect the site, review the revegetation
plan, and verify that the revegetation had been put in. He explained that this was written specifically as a fee and not a
fine. He commented on how the process would work. Staff would generally not be issuing a citation or taking people to
court. This would be an administrative code enforcement action where the fee would assist the Town in recovering its
costs for its staffs time to handle these problems. He agreed it was a high fee but if it were a small problem with only
20 square feet that was $100 and wouldn't come close to covering the staff involved to monitor the progress of that code
enforcement activity.
Mayor Morgan stated that now it was a fee and not a fine and there was no need to talk with the prosecutor to see if it
was legally viable. Councilman Kavanagh said that if it were in fact a fee, then questions of the proportionality of the
expense now became a major concern. Director Valder responded that a part of this fee had a penalty component
worked into it. Councilman Kavanagh pointed out that then the "fine word" just became apparent again. Director
Valder noted that the fee was a combination fee and incentive. Councilman Kavanagh felt 12 (A) could hold but he
needed some legal opinion when talking about the area of hybrid fee fines and he fore saw major problems with this
direction with respect to the fee fine. Councilman McNeill MOVED to call the question and Councilman Wyman
SECONDED the motion,which CARRIED on a vote of 6— 1 with Councilman Kavanagh casting the nay vote.
Mayor Morgan called for a recess at 10:05 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:12 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM#10-FIRE SERVICE UPDATE BY ACTING TOWN MANAGER BILL FARRELL.
Mr. Farrell distributed a copy of A.R.S. 38-431.02 (D) and 38-431.07 (B). He commented that he had been served with
papers about 2:00 p.m. and the rest of the Council had been served later in the day or would be tomorrow. Mr. Farrell
distributed two excerpts from the Arizona Revised Statutes. He stated that after he reviewed both items he would request
that the Council add an emergency item and take action.
Mr. Farrell reviewed A.R.S. 38-431.02 (D) and (J). He stated that after the review he would ask the Council to add an
item authorizing employment or retention of one or more legal counsel to provide legal services or representation to the
public body or any of its officers in any legal action commenced pursuant to the Arizona Open Meeting Law. In support
of that, he asked the Council to review A.R.S. 38-431.07 (B) while he read the section aloud. He wanted the Council to
be comfortable with the action taken. He restated that he was asking the Council to add an item authorizing the
employment or retention of one or more legal counsels to provide legal services or representation to the public body or
any of its officers in a legal action commenced pursuant to the Arizona Open Meeting Law.
Mr. Farrell stated that about 2:00 p.m. today he had received a visit from a process server acting on the behalf of an
attorney named Ken Countryman and an individual named Jim Hoffman, the plaintiff, who filed approximately 116
pages of various legal documents against the Town, Mayor Sharon Morgan, Councilmember John Wyman, Vice Mayor
Leesa Fraverd, Councilmembers Sharon Hutcheson, John Kavanagh, John McNeill, Susan Ralphe, and William Farrell
the Acting Town Manager and the Town Attorney. He noted that the two most operative pages of that particular lawsuit
were an order to show cause. He explained that was a command by the court that you appear before the court and show
cause why a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction should not be issued against the defendant of
which they were all defendants. He stated that the return of the order to show cause was set for today, December the 4th
at 3:30 p.m. in the chambers of Judge Roger Kaufman, a Superior Court Judge in Maricopa County. He reviewed that
he was served at 2:00 p.m. and during the next twenty minutes he had attempted to notify all of the Council that they
might or would receive a copy of similar papers from a process server and that they should accept them. At that time
Mr. Farrell found out that several had already been served and wanted to know if they needed to attend to which he
provided the advice that the Council did not need to attend the hearing. Mr. Farrell stated that he and his assistant
Town Council Meeting Minutes 12/04/01
Page 13 of 25
Jennifer LaFortune went to Superior Court and made the appearance at 3:30 in front of Judge Kaufman on behalf of
himself and the Town
Mr. Farrell reviewed that Mr. Hoffman was asking the court for an order that would prevent the Town of Fountain Hills
from enforcement of compliance with Ordinance 01-18, which was the ordinance that the Council had adopted on
October 31, 2001, for an order preventing the Town of Fountain Hills from taking over the volunteer Fire District or
conducting any action or conduct on behalf of the District, an order prohibiting the Town from holding any public
meetings concerning this issue until the court resolved the question of the open meeting law, and prohibiting the Town
of Fountain Hills from terminating any employee hired by the District. Judge Kaufman spent a half an hour to forty
minutes with both sides. Mr. Countryman was given opportunities to answer some questions. The judge decided at the
conclusion of the matter that he would issue no order this evening. Mr. Farrell pointed out that the court had a serious
problem enjoining the legislative body from acting and the court agreed with the Town that he could not realistically
order the Town not to have a meeting or to take legislative action. The judge urged the two sides to speak to one
another. Mr.Farrell stated some allegations of an interesting nature emerged from the public portion of the presentation.
Mr. Countryman, on behalf of Mr. Hoffman, was of the impression that the Town was going to sell some bonds tonight
and pledge up to $6 million dollars worth of assets of the Fire District to back up the bonds that the Town would be
selling and that the report that would be coming after this agenda item would somehow terminate employment of Mr.
Countryman's forty-three clients. Mr. Farrell stated that he reassured them that the Town Council was not acting on
bond issues this evening and that the bond issues that the Town Council would act on next Monday evening were
backed by property and sales taxes and had nothing to do with assets of the Fire District in any way, shape, or form. He
also indicated to him as he had indicated to Mr. Countryman at a previous meeting that the Town did not intend to
terminate any of the employees of the Fire District. They were not considered Town employees, but the Town was not
acting to terminate them from the Fire District. Based upon that, the judge asked that the parties get together to see if
the parties could agree on something before next Monday night. If the parties wanted the judge to hear anything he
would make some time available on Friday afternoon.
Mr. Farrell stated that the Maricopa County Attorney's office appeared and requested permission to intervene in the
case, announced that both civil and criminal investigations were ongoing into some of the activities and that they
intended to file a petition for intervention in the civil case. Mr. Farrell pointed out that this was a civil lawsuit that Mr.
Hoffman was filing and was not the lawsuit that Mr. Countryman intended to bring on behalf of his clients over the
employment issue. He commented that they agreed that the open meeting law issue would be one in which there could
be some dispositive opinion issued by the Superior Courts. Yes, the Town complied with the open meeting law,No, the
Town did not comply with the open meeting law and Mr. Countryman agreed that would be a dispositive issue and it
was agreed that they would meet on Friday afternoon at Superior Court if Judge Kaufman had time available. Judge
Kaufman and his secretary had left by the time the meeting had finished so he anticipated that they would be called in
the morning by the Judge and be told at what time on Friday afternoon they would have to appear. Since it was agreed
that the Open Meeting Law violation was the issue that he wanted to talk about, he had been aware for a long time of
that particular statute, which says that you really can't hire lawyers to help you out on an alleged violation of an open
meeting law issue unless it was authorized or previously had the authority under some other section. To make
absolutely sure that there wasn't any question about the ability to retain attorneys to represent the Council and/or him,
he wanted to add this item as an emergency since the Council would not meet before next Friday and he had to be back
in court next Friday on the Council's behalf. Mr. Farrell stated that he had explained that to Mr. Countryman who
understood that to be an emergency and that was the item Mr. Farrell wanted added this evening. Mr. Farrell requested
a motion and a second to add an item to discuss authorization of the employment or retention of one or more legal
counsels to provide legal services or representation to the public body or any of its officers in any legal action
commencing pursuant to the Arizona Open Meeting Law. Councilman McNeill MOVED to add an emergency item as
presented and Mayor Morgan SECONDED the motion.
Ken Ulrickson, Ocotillo Dr.
He stated that he was confused. Since there was no longer a Fire District and the Town had taken over everything, why
didn't the Town also take over the contracts of the employees?
Mr. Farrell said that he would more than happy to respond to that in court on Friday and at subsequent Council
meetings. Mayor Morgan called for the vote on the motion, which CARRIED unanimously.
Town Council Meeting Minutes 12/04/01
Page 14 of 25
Mr. Farrell stated that motion added the item to the agenda. Mr. Farrell reviewed that now it was perfectly clear, since
the reason was stated in the agenda describing the reason for the addition of the emergency item. He noted that a new
agenda would be posted tomorrow so as to be in total compliance with the Arizona Open Meeting Law as stated in
A.R.S. 38-431.02 (J). Mr. Farrell clarified that the Council was not asking for an executive session just for the addition
of this particular item. He said the issues that he would be arguing before Judge Kaufman on Friday afternoon centered
IIlbw' on the special meeting called on October 3151 and discussions at the October 18th meeting. Since each of the
councilmembers were individually named defendants as well as the Town, and it did not appear that damages of a
monetary nature were being asked for, there was a highly likelihood that this suit would not be accepted by the Town's
insurance carrier for retention for counsel. Unlike Mr. Countryman's claim letter, which did contain references to his
forty-three clients and acts that the Town may or may not have committed against them, that had insurance coverage and
had been tendered to the Town's insurance carrier for review and investigation. He stated that he would submit it to his
insurance carrier and ask for an emergency evaluation. It was his plan, if the Council authorized the next action, to
retain one or more law firms to represent the Council and perhaps himself in this particular matter since there might not
be insurance representation and the law firm must be on board and available on Friday. Also pursuant to the agreement
with Mr. Countryman, late this evening at 7:26 p.m. approximately twenty-three pages of documents had been sent to
Mr. Countryman's office that had been requested which included copies of minutes of previous meetings, notices and
postings and concerned the October 18th meeting,the October 31S`meeting, and the ordinance itself.
Mr. Farrell commented that the County Attorney would intervene. A second and new claim letter had been received
today from Mr. Countryman increasing his demand from $4,567,000 to $20 million dollars for the offenses that have
been alleged that the Town committed against his clients. Mr. Farrell said that claim would also be sent to the insurance
company and, like the previous claim, there was sixty days within to act or fail to act. Although he did not like to make
promises in public, Mr. Farrell stated that he was confident that nothing of a negative nature would be determined on
Friday afternoon but he would need to back in court. He explained that he would need to spend a considerable amount
of time preparing the Town's rebuttal to the one hundred sum pages of documents that were filed this afternoon.
Therefore, he requested a motion to retain one or more attorneys or law firms to assist in the defense of the Council and
or the Acting Town Manager in the litigation filed by Mr. Jim Hoffman against the Town, the Council, and the Acting
Town Manager. Councilman McNeill MOVED to authorize the hiring of one or more attorneys or law firms as
presented and Councilwoman Ralphe SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #11 - PRESENTATION OF AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR FIRE PROTECTION
SERVICES IN FOUNTAIN HILLS BY PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR STEVE GENDLER WITH POSSIBLE
DIRECTION TO STAFF ON HOW TO PROCEED.
Mr.Farrell reviewed that at the Special October 31st Council meeting, it was decided that the Acting Town Manager was
to prepare for the Council's approval an alternative plan for full fire service should Rural Metro be unable to provide
service. The plan was to be available for discussion and approval at the Special Council Meeting of December 4, 2001.
However, it was an additional twenty days, on November the 20th,before the Town actually received the resolution from
the Fire District,turning over the assets and liabilities. Mr. Farrell stated that was the Tuesday before Thanksgiving. He
asked Public Safety Director Steve Gendler if he would step in and assist on the Fire Department issues because he
knew that he would be gone for a while and Director Gendler had some familiararity with the issues. Director Gendler
had accepted his request. He explained that both he and Director Gendler agreed that the report might be a work in
progress rather than a definitive report. He noted that late this afternoon, another component of the report was
delivered, which was the overview of fire protection and emergency medical services prepared by RTE Consultants. He
introduced Public Safety Director Steve Gendler.
Director Gendler gave an overview and update on the current fire services and the proposed contingency plans for fire
services along with recommendations for the rest of the fiscal year. His short-term recommendations to the Council,
which had been developed in connection with Chief LaGreca, included the continuance of operating one ambulance
(stationed in Fountain Hills) since Rural Metro had plans to add a fire unit to their Scottsdale Area Emergency Medical
Services in January 2002. Director Gendler noted that Chief LaGreca had also pointed out that the Town had no other
changes in the remaining six-month contract with Rural Metro.
Director Gendler reviewed long-term issues. The biggest issue had to do with a third fire station. It had been
L. determined that the next fire station would be located in the northwest section of Fountain Hills. Depending upon the
Town Council Meeting Minutes 12/04/01
Page 15 of 25
projections, the development schedules, and the economic conditions, they were projecting it would three to five years
before a third station would physically be needed. However, property for the third fire station had been included in the
plat plans that were on file with the Town. He stated that a copy of that was on display for the public's review. Given
the current situation with the Town assuming responsibility for fire services and the fact that the Town had possession of
the facilities, the equipment, and the vehicles, but lacked personnel, he was recommending that the Town extend the
current contract with Rural Metro for the remainder of this current fiscal year.
Director Gendler acknowledged the concerns expressed about Rural Metro financial problems. In the event of a
problem, Rural Metro would either enter into a reorganization plan under bankruptcy law or they would become
defunct. Under a reorganization scenario Rural Metro would continue to provide the personnel for the equipment and
facilities that the Town had. If Rural Metro suspended operations completely, the Town would have to make some type
of provisions to employ personnel to provide fire services. He affirmed that their contingency plan was based upon that
event. He had looked into a fast track hiring program with Joan McIntosh, Human Resources Specialist, should the
need arise. Ms. McIntosh completed her research and secured organizational charts, job descriptions, and salary
schedules. He confirmed that systems were in place to expedite credential checks and background investigations. He
confirmed that there were mechanisms in the Town's Personnel Code for making contingent employment offers. A
component of the contingency plan for fire also included working out agreements with neighboring jurisdictions. Those
agreements would be modeled after the mutual aid agreements used in law enforcement. He said that Chief LaGreca
was present to help address and questions about the current fire services and contingency plans. Director Gendler stated
that he had provided a copy of Mr. Edward's overview of the fire situation, which outlined the inventory that the Town
had at their disposal.
Councilwoman Hutcheson questioned if Rural Metro already had contingency plans in place that had been worked out
for other communities. Director Gendler deferred that question to Chief LaGreca. Steve Randall, the Assistant Fire
Chief for Rural Metro responded that it was still a draft document at this point, but items such as those brought up by the
Public Safety Director were being addressed. Mr. Farrell stated that the Town did not intend to interject itself into the
relationship between the city of Scottsdale and Rural Metro other than to say that he had been assured repeatedly by Ms.
Dolan, Scottsdale's City Manager, that this was a regional issue and that the Town of Fountain Hills would receive
whatever cooperation was humanly possible should fire service be disrupted by a lack of personnel in the communities.
It was expressed to him that the bonds between Fountain Hills and Scottsdale would continue and both communities
Lie would work together to make sure citizens were protected.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh asked if there were federal rules or regulations on contingency plans. Mr. Randall said that issue
had not come up in the discussions with Scottsdale. Vice Mayor Kavanagh asked if Scottsdale was comfortable with the
plan in the event that Rural Metro were to go away. Mr. Randall said he believed so, although at this point it was still a
draft document. It had not been brought to their city council and was being done more at the staff level.
Councilwoman Ralphe said on October 31st this Council directed staff to come back at a later date with a contingency
plan. She asked if this was a final plan to be adopted this evening or did it need more work. Mr. Farrell responded that
that this was work in progress because they've worked on this for a total of eight business days. If need be, the action
could be elevated to an approved emergency plan. Then staff would write it as an emergency plan and ask the Council
for approval. Councilman Wyman said Waco,Texas, insisted upon a performance bond from Rural Metro. He asked if
there was a need for such a thing in Fountain Hills and was it something that was included in the draft document for
Scottsdale. Or, was it possible that given the jurisdictional boundaries of Scottsdale, Mesa and possibly others, that it
wouldn't be necessary. Mr. Farrell said that was an issue that had media interest in it. He explained that while in
negotiations with Rural Metro over the next week or so they would be talking about that very specific issue. Mr.
Randall confirmed that there wasn't a performance bond with Scottsdale. Councilman McNeill noted that it was
essential to continue to provide top quality fire and ambulance services. Although this plan was a work in progress it
was certainly headed in the right direction to accomplish that goal.
Mayor Morgan MOVED to direct staff to continue the ongoing work and come back to the Council when the ongoing
work was completed and Councilwoman Ralphe SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #12 - CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHING AN AQUATIC/FITNESS FACILITY
COMMITTEE TO EXPLORE THE INTEREST AND FEASIBILITY OF AN AQUATIC/FITNESS FACILITY
IN FOUNTAIN HILLS.
Town Council Meeting Minutes 12/04/01
Page 16 of 25
Parks and Recreation Director Mark Mayer stated that this had been brought to the Council at the request of the
Facilities Planning Sub Committee. The Parks and Recreation Commission and the Sub-Committee felt there had been
significant changes to the Town's demographics and attitude towards this issue. They were proposing the formation of a
committee that would be made up of eight to nine members in order to study the feasibility and practicality of a facility.
He referred to his staff report, which listed the representation needed on the committee. He also listed in his report a
variety of possible topics that would be used in their completion of a recommendation to the Council. Director Mayer
felt it would take a number of months to pull this information together. He stated that it was important to first determine
if there was public support for a facility. If there wasn't any support, there wouldn't be any reason for them to continue
with their deliberations and that would be reported to the Council. He concluded that there would likely be some costs
involved. He explained that he had worked through this process before and assured the Council it was as expensive
process as some have suggested. Director Mayer said that meant a lot of the work would have to be done in-house. He
acknowledged that he was more comfortable with that approach. Director Mayer noted that the sub-committee would
come back with: what that facility might include, the construction costs associated with a facility, maintenance costs,
and what the potential revenues might be.
Mayor Morgan asked where the money would come from to do the survey. Director Mayer wasn't sure that a survey
was needed at this point. He suggested that the committee would look at facilities so that they had a feel for what
worked in other communities and their amenities. They would hold public meetings, which were low cost. If a survey
were done,that would happen in the future. If it were determined a survey was needed,the committee would come back
to the Council and make that request. Vice Mayor Kavanagh suggested an additional question be added. He wanted to
know the interest in an indoor pool versus an outdoor pool. Regarding the survey, he commented that he used to teach
research and statistics and he felt that if Director Mayer's staff and volunteers were used as the manpower a close to
professional survey could be accomplished by following some rules. He volunteered his assistance. Councilwoman
Hutcheson asked that the potential location also be considered at the top of the list. Director Mayer clarified that the list
of topics that he had provided in his report were in no particular order of importance. Councilwoman Hutcheson asked
if Director Mayer had an idea of estimated of costs for the process. Director Mayer responded with an estimated action
list.
Councilman McNeill said he would support studying this issue. He suggested that a school site be considered.
Councilman Wyman said that if the Council could agree to go forward with modest costs involved, those costs would be
Ly within the purchase authority of the Town Manager. Councilwoman Fraverd expressed concerns on the timing of this
issue. She noted that there were two or three parks that were waiting on money from the town. She asked what the
timeframe was. Director Mayer said that had not been discussed at length but it was his experience that it was a lengthy
process when dealing with volunteers. He explained that the last time that he had done this, the group met on a weekly
basis and it took a year. He felt it would take many months to accomplish this. A definite date was not discussed to
bring this back to the Council. Councilwoman Fraverd did not want the Commission more frustrated with the Council
than they were. She would prefer to finish some of the other projects before jumping into this and getting the public
excited about the possibility only to have the Council project to finish this in three years. Director Mayer reiterated that
the Commission did not have a specific completion date in mind.
Councilman Wyman MOVED to approve the establishment of an aquatic/fitness facility committee as presented and
Vice Mayor Kavanagh SECONDED the motion.
Pen Mower, 15951 E. Ponderosa
He felt that Fountain Hills was behind the times by not having a public pool. He hoped that the Council would support
this action. He noted that he had volunteered to serve on the committee.
The motion CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #13 - CONSIDERATION OF SUPPORTING A PUBLIC FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN TO
DONATE A PORTABLE STAGE SYSTEM TO THE TOWN.
Director Mayer stated Phyllis Kern had brought this item forward. She had been interested in seeing what level of
support the Facilities Sub-Committee, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and finally the Council would have for a
public solicitation of funds to purchase a portable stage that would then be donated to the Town for public purposes. He
L. discussed the results of his investigation. Director Mayer noted that this stage would ideally need to be stored in a
Town Council Meeting Minutes 12/04/01
Page 17 of 25
secure and covered fenced area. He concluded that he had been unable to locate such a Town owned or controlled area.
He said that it was perceived that the costs of any ultimate replacement of that unit would likely fall on the Town at
some future date. Director Mayer stated that six of the eight stage set ups that staff did last year were small enough size
that this smaller stage could potentially be used. He pointed out that the larger stage would still be needed for two.
Director Mayer said Ms. Kern had questioned if the funds could somehow be donated to the Town and then be used to
purchase this particular stage. Director Mayer confirmed that could be done but then the funds became town funds and
subject to state statutes, thereby bringing into play the writing of specifications and the bidding process. That meant the
flexibility would go out the window to purchase a particular stage. He felt that if this group were looking for that type
of flexibility, he would suggest that they go to a charitable organization to give them that flexibility. He covered
potential revenues in his report and commented that it was an expensive proposition. Director Mayer pointed out that it
might be best to consider utilizing donated funds to help establish a permanent site for performances at the park.
Mayor Morgan asked what would the cost be if covered storage could be located. Director Mayer did not know. Mayor
Morgan thought if those costs were added to the $45 set up it might be closer to the $408 mentioned in his report.
Director Mayer agreed it might. Vice Mayor Kavanagh appreciated the effort but questioned the cost effectiveness of
spending $100,000 versus putting out $2,500 annually. Mayor Morgan concluded that she would prefer to see a
permanent facility in the park and suggested that the group continue to raise the money for that purpose. Councilwoman
Ralphe asked how the stage differed from the one owned by the Town. Director Mayer said this was a portable, self-
contained unit that included lights and sound system that could be used around the community. He stated flexibility
would be the main difference. Mayor Morgan commented that many performers did not like a closed in area because
the sound reverberates.
Councilman McNeill felt that the issue needed additional study and MOVED to table this issue indefinitely and
Councilman Wyman SECONDED the motion,which CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM#14- CONSIDERATION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO A PORTION OF FOUNTAIN PARK BY
MOUNTAINVIEW COFFEE COMPANY TO PERMANENTLY EXPAND ITS OUTDOOR SEATING.
Director Mayer explained that Mr. Steve Anderson was the current tenant of Mountainview Coffee. He displayed the
L. proposed improvements and described what Mr. Anderson was proposing to extend his landscaping and seating area.
Mr. Anderson stated that he would pay for the improvements and maintenance. Mr. Anderson was agreeable to the
condition of not limiting the use of that public area only to those who patronized his particular business. Director Mayer
stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission had been supportive of Mr. Anderson's request. Director Mayer
reiterated that Mr. Anderson leased that space and so a written agreement would have to be worked out with him but
they would have to work out a subsequent agreement with a subsequent tenant if that were to occur. He noted that he
had checked with the town attorney and they did not see anything in the law that would prevent the Town from drafting
such an agreement if the Council so chose.
Mayor Morgan expressed concern that additional portions of the park might be given up to more businesses that border
the park. Director Mayer stated that he had raised the issue that once this was done there would be the potential for
others to come forward with similar or alternative requests with the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mayor Morgan
asked if the Town would get the money back that had been spent for improvements in that area of the park. Director
Mayer stated that there had not been a great deal done in that area except for the re-establishment of turf. Mayor
Morgan asked if the Parks and Recreation Commission would be willing to allow the other businesses the same
opportunity. Director Mayer acknowledged that he had raised that issue with them but had not received an answer.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh felt this should be reviewed and added on a case-by-case basis. He suggested that if the
expansion resulted in enhanced public service, recreation, and enjoyment, then it was something that was mutually
beneficial and a good thing. Councilman McNeill wondered why the Town should allow expanded commercial
enterprise within the public park space, which was at a high premium. He considered it would set a bad precedent.
Mayor Morgan commented that if Mr. Anderson had paying customers that wanted to utilize the area and a non-paying
patron was sitting there, Mr. Anderson would not be happy with that arrangement for long. Councilwoman Hutcheson
asked Director Valder if a commercial use in the park required any special use permit. Director Valder stated no. That
decision was the Council's as the Town owned the park and was exempt from the Town's zoning regulations.
Councilwoman Hutcheson thought the concept was a nice idea, but she was concerned about a commercial use in the
Town Council Meeting Minutes 12/04/01
Page 18 of 25
park. Councilwoman Fraverd stated that she liked the idea of landscaping, tables and chairs. She wanted to know what
the downside was to this idea. She asked Director Mayer what the Parks and Recreation Commission had planned for
the area being discussed. Director Mayer replied nothing was specifically planned on the master plan. Vice Mayor
Kavanagh commented that this was a big park that was under utilized and would not displace anything and it was
L. exactly what was wanted for the downtown. He reminded the Council that if this were approved, other proposals could
be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Vice Mayor Kavanagh compared the use of public land for private use to the
Town's hillside preservation ordinance where private land was held undisturbed in order to view it and many would say
that was taking private land for public use. He felt the Council needed to give and take a little bit.
Parks and Recreation Commissioner Michael Fleck
He clarified that on the property this was not new parkland that would be taken over. This land was already shared
between Plaza Fountainside and the Park. He stated that Mr. Anderson was willing to install an ADA ramp in an area
that was being used by the public that had not been intended for them to walk. He said that he was in that area every
weekend and he pointed out that currently the public uses the back patio and brings in food and drink from everywhere.
He stated that there hadn't been any problem with the businesses with them sitting on whatever was available.
Councilwoman Hutcheson asked if the area would be walled in. Commissioner Fleck said there were plans for low
walls and shrubs in order to create several intimate seating areas and would not distract from the view. Mayor Morgan
asked if the owner of the complex was in agreement with this proposal. Commissioner Fleck stated the owner was
actually encouraging the other tenants to use what space was available in more creative ways. Councilman McNeill
asked if the additional seating capacity created a parking issue. Director Valder said there was an issue. In the shared
parking agreement that the Town entered into with the owner of the project, they had been limited to a total of amount
usable restaurant space of 6,000 sq. ft. They had asked that the council reconsider that and increase that number to
12,000 sq. ft. based on some specifications that their parking consultant came up with. Director Valder acknowledged
that there were some outstanding cost issues with the property owner and other things that staff had not yet brought to
the Council. Any usable restaurant space would add a higher need for more parking spaces in the center and until the
council takes action to amend that 6,000 sq. ft. cap, the center would be under the terms of that cap and staff would not
issue any permits for them to exceed that cap. Director Valder confirmed that this proposal would not put them over the
6,000 sq. ft. cap. He was concerned that if the amount of restaurant space were to be increased, it might eliminate any
available for the general public in the Town owned parking lot. That would have to be reviewed before staff brought
kimy their request to amend the parking agreement to the Council for consideration.
Councilman McNeill commented that by approving this proposal it could potentially cut down on the use of the shared
space parking. He reiterated it was a bad precedent.
Councilwoman Fraverd MOVED to approve the improvements proposed for a portion of Fountain Park with direction
to staff and the town attorney to work out an agreement as presented and Vice Mayor Kavanagh SECONDED the
motion.
Citizen did not give name
He was supportive of this enhancement to the park.
The motion CARRIED on a vote of 6— 1. Councilman McNeill cast the nay vote.
AGENDA ITEM #15 - CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 01-16 AMENDING THE TOWN CODE,
CHAPTER 9 PARKS AND RECREATION, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 9-4 PARK RULES AND
REGULATIONS FOR TOWN-OWNED PARKS.
Director Mayer reviewed that this had been on a previous consent agenda but there had been some concerns raised so it
was pulled off the agenda. A subsequent meeting was held with Vice Mayor Kavanagh,the town attorney, staff, and the
prosecutor's office. He stated that those concerns had been addressed and were now back before the Council. Director
Mayer reviewed the changes. Vice Mayor Kavanagh summarized that as originally presented just about everything was
a misdemeanor. He purported that misdemeanors and felonies were crimes and, if convicted, that person would be
considered a criminal in society. He had considered some of the offenses to be extremely minor, such as carrying a
glass container in the park. The thought that someone who purchased a Snapple in Euro Pizza and who walked across
isow the park would be arrested and therefore a criminal because of a misdemeanor conviction, was too severe a penalty in
Town Council Meeting Minutes 12/04/01
Page 19 of 25
his opinion. During the discussions serious were separated from the non-serious offenses. Minor things were made
violations except if repeated within a three year period then it would go up to a low grade misdemeanor. That approach
had been considered reasonable and enforceable by both the prosecutor and the marshals and had been agreeable to
everyone there. Director Mayer clarified that currently the Town only had laws that were enforceable at Golden Eagle
tittiv Park and the off leash area. These laws would be all encompassing and be applied uniformly throughout the park
system.
Councilwoman Hutcheson MOVED to approve Ordinance 01-16 as presented and Councilwoman Ralphe SECONDED
the motion, which CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #16 - CONSIDERATION OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR EAGLE MOUNTAIN,
PARCEL 10/11, TRACT G, LOCATED IN THE EAGLE MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION SOUTH OF SHEA
BOULEVARD,CASE NUMBER S2001-27.
Director Valder stated that this item had been continued from the last Council meeting for two reasons. One was to
provide a courtesy notice to the neighboring property owners, which had been done; and secondly, staff wanted to clear
up some property ownership issues. Staff had provided a copy of a preliminary title report supplied by the applicant as
well as the courtesy notice,the map used, and a list of property owners to whom notice was mailed. In staffs review of
the subdivision, there were some outstanding issues between some of the property owners in Eagle Mountain Parcels
10/11, their homebuilder and Community Southwest having to do with some representations that were made regarding
the future disposition of Tract G, specifically as to whether or not any homes would be constructed there. In the Town's
review, staff was restricted to reviewing whether or not a subdivision met the Town's zoning and the subdivision
ordinance requirements. Because those standards had been met and there weren't any mechanisms on which that staff
could base a rejection of the application. Staff was recommending that the Council approve the Preliminary Plat.
Councilman Wyman MOVED to approve the Preliminary Plat and Vice Mayor Kavanagh SECONDED the motion.
Councilman McNeill reviewed a copy of a letter that he had received from one of the adjacent owners whose issue
concerned representation by the builder of the section of the community in which they lived. He commented that the
Council had received a letter from the council for the Eagle Mountain Community Association asking the Council to
L., defer action until they could understand the background of the application and clarify questions regarding ownership of
the tract in question. He asked Director Valder if the ownership issued had been resolved. Director Valder stated that
he had talked with a representative of the association and faxed them a copy of the preliminary title report. He had
informed the applicant that if staff had a copy of the preliminary by last Friday this item would remain on the Council's
agenda for tonight's meeting. He stated that the request for continuance was at the Council's discretion. Director
Valder confirmed that he had everything that he needed to comfortably make his recommendation as to the status of the
parcel, which had been his main concern.
Councilman McNeill commented that the homeowners' request involved the same point that he had raised at the last
session and was independent the property ownership. Director Valder read the "note" in question. He noted that the
confusion regarding ownership was compounded when staff received the draft plat applications with notes on it that
stated the property had been conveyed to the community association. He affirmed that staff had to get firm resolution of
the ownership issue, hence the requirement for the preliminary title report. He understood the issue was confusing when
people purchased lots or homes in that area and they might have relied on something like this. He pointed out that was a
civil matter between the homeowner and the contractor and the developer. Director Valder did not think this item
should be continued when the issue relates to something in which the Town should not be involved.
Councilwoman Ralphe asked how common it was to have a preliminary plat change. Could the buyer usually depend
on what was shown. Director Valder responded that plans sometimes change and whether or not a property owner
should rely upon that in future was an issue with which their lawyers would need to wrestle. Director Valder explained
that Tract G, as it exists today, was proposed to be split into two lots and two open tracts. He reviewed that the plat
actually states that those two tracts would be conveyed to the community association. When the plat was recorded, that
was when those things happened. He thought the Council was wrestling with what had happened three or four years ago
when this other plat had been recorded. Whether or not people should have relied upon the note that was on that plat
regarding what would happen with Tract G was the issue. Councilman McNeill noted that a lot of time had been spent
earlier tonight talking about how the Council was relying in the mountains that everything be in accordance with the
Town Council Meeting Minutes I2/04/01
Page 20 of 25
preliminary plat. This was exactly the same situation; a preliminary plat that had a representation on it. He remained
concerned that adjacent homeowners might have been looking at that thinking that they had a reason to believe that they
would be looking at a hillside rather than additional homes. Despite what he heard it about it being an administrative
issue,he was not going to vote for it.
Councilman Wyman felt this was a civil issue between the homeowners association and the owner of the property. He
expressed that staff had pointed out and attached the proper documents so there was no question that the property was
owned by the people who had submitted this request to the Council. Councilman Wyman also observed that due to the
development agreement,there weren't any subdivision required hillside disturbance regulations. He clarified that when
the applicant applied for a building permit, they would be required to meet the Town's land disturbance requirements
and there wasn't any representations to the Town from the developer that they should be left as open space. He restated
that staff considered it to be developable and that it would accommodate two lots. On October 25th, the Planning and
Zoning Commission voted in favor of this. He asked that the Council proceed with this.
Rex Smith, 15161 E. Twilight
He confirmed that when they bought their property they had been concerned about the privacy issue that those lots
afforded. They had been told that the final plat contained Note 6 that stated that various tracts including Tract G would
be deeded to the community association as common area. He felt they would pursue civil action if necessary but the
request tonight was to change the final plan and do something different with it. He understood the Council could
approve or not approve the plan. He was not questioning that it was developable, only that they purchased their
property relying on the final plat plan by the Council. They had paid a premium for that lot because they had that
privacy. He urged the Council to vote no on this application on behalf of him and his neighbor.
Ed Sharman, 15167 E. Twilight
He expressed the same concerns as Mr. Smith. He stated that he had received short notice on this issue and they did not
understand until yesterday what was going on. He appealed to the Council to vote no because it had been represented to
them that this would remain private land.
Mark Voight, 7720 N. 16th St., Phoenix(developer of Eagle Mountain)
He confirmed that he was in agreement with staff's stipulations. They had always represented this area as custom lots.
When they had looked at the plat that was recorded on 10 and 11, those were held in tracts. He acknowledged that the
engineer had represented it incorrectly. He expressed that on all zoning maps the property had been listed as R1-6 and
they did own the land. It was never conveyed and all sales offices and information centers had this area as proposed
custom lots.
Councilman Wyman asked how anyone could say that they didn't know this issue was coming up because it had been
stated that this item had been continued from the last meeting until yesterday. Director Valder confirmed that staff had
mailed the courtesy notice out one to two days after the last council meeting. Vice Mayor Kavanagh reiterated that the
Council did not have any legal basis for denying this application. A roll call vote was taken with the following results.
Councilwoman Hutcheson- aye
Councilwoman Fraverd- nay
Vice Mayor Kavanagh- aye
Mayor Morgan- aye
Councilman Wyman - aye
Councilman McNeil- nay
Councilwoman Ralphe— nay
The motion CARRIED on a vote of 4—3.
Mayor Morgan called for a recess at 12:15 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 12:24 a.m.
AGENDA ITEM#17- CONSIDERATION OF A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR A MODEL HOME SALES
CENTER PROPOSED FOR 15104 E. WESTRIDGE DRIVE, AKA WESTRIDGE ESTATES, LOTS 1 AND 2,
LOCATED TO THE EAST OF PALISADES BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF MUSTANG DRIVE, CASE
NUMBER SU2001-07.
L
Town Council Meeting Minutes 12/04/01
Page 21 of 25
Senior Planner Burkhardt stated that staff had received two letters of opposition to this request. The applicant provided
approximately nineteen letters in support from within Westridge Estates for extending the applicant's Temporary Use
Permit. Staff was recommending approval with a one-year continuance.
Councilwoman Hutcheson MOVED to approve the Temporary Use Permit as amended and Councilman Wyman
SECONDED the motion.
Councilwoman Fraverd asked what percentage of the property was undeveloped. Senior Planner Burkhardt responded
that about half had been developed, about twenty lots. Councilman McNeill asked how many lots remained unsold.
Senior Planner Burkhardt said that was a question for the applicant.
Hank Lickman, Vice President of MCO Properties
He provided a display which visually indicated the owners who had given their endorsement to continue with the model
home. He confirmed that this was their last application for an extension. Mr. Lickman indicated on the display the
property owners who had submitted the two letters of objection. He pointed out one did not live in the development but
lived on Spotted Horse, north of this development. Mr. Lickman felt that they had overwhelming support to extend this
permit one last time. Councilman McNeill noted that last year some of the objections had to do with tour buses. Mr.
Lickman noted that a week ago they had held a property association meeting and a number of the owners did show up
and complimented them on two areas: one for eliminating the bus tours and the other for redirecting their directional
signage. Mr. Lickman acknowledged that they intended to turn over the association in 2002 to the homeowners.
Councilman McNeill commented that the applicant had a new site under construction. Councilman McNeill expressed
that he wanted to assure that there weren't two model homes operating in close proximity at the same time. He
AMENDED the motion to condition this extension to December 31, 2002, or as soon as the new model home was ready
and operational, which ever came first and Councilman Wyman SECONDED the amendment, which CARRIED
unanimously.
The amended motion CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #18 - CONSIDERATION OF OPTION AND SITE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH SPRINT
Lie SPECTRUM LP FOR INSTALLATION OF A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY ON TOWN
PROPERTY.
Mayor Morgan stated that Councilwoman Fraverd had expressed a conflict of interest with regard to item #18 and
would not be voting on this item. Councilwoman Fraverd left the dais.
Senior Planner Jesse Drake stated that this was an application for an Option and Site Lease agreement. She reviewed
the agreement and described the site and proposed facility. She noted that the applicant had looked at several other
sites. One site that had been considered was one of the SRP poles, which was fairly close to this site. However, the
applicant couldn't negotiate an appropriate lease with SRP and the applicant selected this site instead. Ms. Drake
confirmed that the applicant had also looked at Four Peaks Park and found that it was not suitable. She pointed out that
a part of the development lies within a no build easement and a hillside protection easement. The no build easement did
allow accessory buildings, according to Director Valder and the Town Engineer. However, staff was requiring that
before the applicant could obtain a building permit that they apply for an easement abandonment and rededication of the
portion of this site that lies within the hillside protection and no build easement. Staff was recommending approval.
Councilman Wyman MOVED to approve the option and site lease agreement as presented and Councilwoman Ralphe
SECONDED the motion.
Councilwoman Hutcheson acknowledged that this issue had generated a great deal of interest. She commented that she
had been told that the applicant would like to get together with staff to see if there was an alternative site that would
work. Councilwoman Hutcheson stated that the residents had raised some concerns to which the council should pay
attention.
Councilwoman Hutcheson MOVED to continue this item until the applicant could meet with staff to see if there was an
alternative site and Councilman McNeill SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED unanimously.
L
Town Council Meeting Minutes 12/04/01
Page 22 of 25
AGENDA ITEM #19 - CONSIDERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH HALLCRAFT
HOMES FOR THE PROPOSED DESERT VISTA PLACE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, LOCATED IN FINAL
PLAT 302,BLOCK 3,LOTS 1-6.
Senior Planner Burkhardt stated that he wanted to discuss the next three items together as they were related. This
request was to abandon all the existing lot lines and alley right-of-way. The way the agreement was written was that the
applicant wanted the Council to dedicate the property to the applicant for this 21-unit multi-family project. Senior
Planner Burkhardt reviewed that the process that would be required: a special use permit, development agreement.
easement abandonment and the preliminary plat. He noted that the Council was considering three of the four requests
tonight. He reviewed the details of the development agreement. Staff was recommending approval.
Councilman Wyman MOVED to approve the Development Agreement as presented and Councilwoman Fraverd
SECONDED the motion.
Councilwoman Fraverd understood that some of the land that should have been preserved was been traded for land in
the mountains. She asked at what point this would stop. Mr. Farrell said at build out. Psychologically, if there was no
land available, then the Town's regulation became, in his opinion, a taking from the property owners if it prohibited the
property owner from going forward. Unless the request was of such a nature that it would benefit the property
substantially over and above what its entitlement was, then staff would probably recommend no. Where the lack of
ability to have disturbance on site rendered a diminution in value, the Town would run the risk that the regulation would
be declared as a take if the Town didn't offer the alternative of substituting the dollars for the land.
Councilwoman Fraverd asked if there was anyone to whom the Town would not offer this option. Mr.Farrell responded
that if staff felt there was a solid economic use of the property and that the disturbance could be minimized or the
hillside could be preserved and still have a viable economic use, staff might recommend no. He explained that in most
instances staff felt that the amount of disturbance was such that they could make a positive recommendation.
Councilwoman Fraverd said she was looking at the bigger picture and was wondering if the builders would be
requesting this as well. Mr.Farrell said that was possible.
Director Valder commented that the existing state of the property was that it had been mass graded in the past. When
staff looked at it, all the property had man made slopes that existed prior to the effective date of the Town's
incorporation. Staff had taken that into consideration. When someone comes to the Council with a request like this, an
easement, or a right-of-way abandonment was at the discretion of the council. The Council wasn't under any obligation
to approve any of those. Councilwoman Fraverd felt that as the Council approved more, it could set a precedent.
Councilman McNeill said it helped to know that this was a previously mass graded parcel so he could see his way to
making an exception to the Town's ordinance for that. He commented that if this came up in the future and there were
actual hillside that could be protected, it would be a different story.
The motion CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #20 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2001-55 ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT,
TITLE, OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN CERTAIN THIRTY (30) FOOT WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY
RUNNING EAST TO WEST CENTRALLY LOCATED WITHIN THE PLAT AND NORTH TO SOUTH
LOCATED WITHIN THE PLAT AT THE EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE ALONG LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK
3, PLAT 302, (DESERT VISTA (CENTER ALLEY & EAST ALLEY) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 156 OF
MAPS,PAGE 45 RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY,ARIZONA (MCO PROPERTIES) ROW2001-03.
Senior Planner Burkhardt confirmed that the Town Engineer Randy Harrel reviewed the abandonment and staff was
recommending approval.
Councilwoman Hutcheson MOVED to approve Resolution 2001-55 as presented and Vice Mayor Kavanagh
SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #21 - PUBLIC HEARING ON A SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT WOULD ALLOW A 21-
Ly UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS "DESERT VISTA PLACE
Town Council Meeting Minutes 12/04/01
Page 23 of 25
CONDOMINIUMS", PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN FINAL PLAT 302, BLOCK 3, LOTS 1-6. A "C-1"
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL ZONING DISTRICT, CASE NUMBER SU2001-
13.
Mayor Morgan recessed the regular session and opened the public hearing at 12:51 a.m.
44010,- Senior Planner Burkhardt stated that this was a special use permit request to allow residential to exist in the
commercially zoned property. It was in conformance with the M-1 zoning standard. He noted that the Planning and
Zoning Commission had continued the preliminary plat but were recommending a reduction of the density to 20 units
down from the 21 units due to the fact that they thought it was a little crowded between buildings 120 and 121. The
Commission wanted to see what the Council's feelings were on that before they went any further with the preliminary
plat. The Planning and Zoning Commission and staff recommend approval of the special use permit with the
stipulation.
Mayor Morgan asked why was the Planning and Zoning Commission recommending the reduction of only one unit.
Gene Baker,developer
He explained that they saw an opportunity to get relatively affordable house in town. That came about because of the
site. He discussed the design issues of the proposed development and their reasoning. He asked for the Council's
approval.
Councilwoman Fraverd asked what the price range would be. Mr. Baker responded approximately $130,000's -
$140,000's.
Mayor Morgan closed the public hearing the 12:59 a.m.
AGENDA ITEM#22- CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT WOULD ALLOW A 21-UNIT
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS "DESERT VISTA PLACE
CONDOMINIUMS", PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN FINAL PLAT 302, BLOCK 3, LOTS 1-6, A "C-1"
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL ZONING DISTRICT, CASE NUMBER SU2001-
13.
Le Councilman McNeill MOVED to approve the Special Use Permit as presented and Councilwoman Ralphe
SECONDED the motion.
Mayor Morgan asked if the number of units was at 20? The consensus of the Council was for 21 units.
The motion CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #23 - DISCUSSION OF THE INCREASED PAYMENT FOR THE HEALTH INSURANCE
PREMIUM FOR TOWN EMPLOYEES.
Mr. Farrell stated that information had been provided as well as some budget information. He acknowledged that an
extremely large increase in health premiums had been received. He noted that staff had forecasted a 22-25% increase
and budgeted for that. Due to the health experience and the group size, the increase was 77%. Mr. Farrell confirmed
that staff had requested bids and the Town was in receipt of nine rejection letters. He said that when the School District
had been contacted,they had empathy for the Town but they were also looking to attach their 192 employees to a larger
group. Mr. Farrell said an unsuccessful attempt was made to obtain an 18-month extension. He stated that he liked the
fact that all of the employees enjoy the coverage. He acknowledged that they understood they were picking up a portion
of the burden through increased deductions but also that the Town was picking up a much larger portion. He explained
.that through expense cuts and a change in the overtime policy, staff hoped to help compensate for this increase. Mr.
Farrell requested authorization for the additional expenditure so that the Town could continue to provide the employees
their basic health coverage at no charge and provide at 50% of the cost of either: employee and spouse, employee and
child, or employee and family. He stated that staff was committed to do their best to fight these spiraling costs and to
look for alternatives.
Councilman McNeill MOVED to approve payment of the increased health insurance premium for town employees as
Le presented and Councilwoman Ralphe SECONDED the motion.
Town Council Meeting Minutes 12/04/01
Page 24 of 25
Councilman McNeill noted that this issue came up at budget time. At that time he had encouraged staff to look for
alternatives. He knew that had been done. It was essential that the Town continued to do so. The worst thing that could
happen would be to become hostage to one provider. He brought up and noted that it wasn't a popular idea, but if the
Town couldn't find some alternatives to this Mayo coverage the Council might have to look at some additional
IIINV employee participation on the health care cost.
Mayor Morgan pointed out that Mayo had said they would review it. Mr. Farrell responded that was correct. There
was a possibility that at the end of the twelve month period of this renewal that there might be a decrease in this
premium. He shared that the Employee Benefit Committee at the general employee meeting imparted that there was a
great deal of sincerity and appreciation for what this Council did for the employees and did not take this for granted. He
said that, if possible,the Town would try to affiliate with a larger group.
Councilwoman Hutcheson said that the Council should realize this would be an ongoing problem. Councilman Wyman
asked if the League of Cities was an option. Mr. Farrell said he would explore all options. Councilwoman Fraverd said
there were a variety of reasons that employees were putting in overtime. This provided an excellent opportunity for the
department heads to make sure that cutting overtime wasn't hurting the Town. She felt it might be time to re-evaluate if
resources were being used to their fullest extent. Mayor Morgan felt that forty hours should be "worked" before
collecting overtime.
The motion CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM#24- CALL TO THE PUBLIC.
No one came forward.
AGENDA ITEM#25-ADJOURNMENT.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh MOVED to adjourn and Councilman Wyman SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED
unanimously. Mayor Morgan adjourned the meeting at 1:10 a.m..
Now
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN LLS
By: Gam,'
Caron� ��j Morgan,Ma or
ATTEST: �/J ^�—�
Cassie B. Hansen,
Director of Administration/Town Clerk
,
PREPARED BY: 10
Bev Bender,Executive Assistant
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular and Executive
Meeting held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills on the 4th day of December, 2001. I further certify that the meeting
was duly called and that a quorum was present.
DATED this 20th day of December 2001.
(4-4-A-A-4- 113
Cassie B. Hansen,
Director of Administration/Town Clerk
Town Council Meeting Minutes 12/04/01
Page 25 of 25