HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002.0117.TCRM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE
FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
January 17,2002
Mayor Morgan convened the regular session at 6:30 p.m. Following the pledge to the flag and invocation by Councilman
Wyman,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,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 JANUARY 3,
2002.
AGENDA ITEM #2 - CONSIDERATION OF THE SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE SUBMITTED BY
FRANK FERRARA FOR THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS FOR A FUNDRAISING/SOCIAL EVENT TO BE
HELD AT THE CHURCH OF THE ASCENSION ON SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2002 FROM 2:00 P.M. TO
10:00 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM #3 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2002-07, ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT,
TITLE, OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS
LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 8, BLOCK 7 OF PLAT 111, (16617 E.
ASHBROOK DRIVE) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 150 OF MAPS, PAGE 12 RECORDS OF MARICOPA
COUNTY,ARIZONA. (JAMES A.TANT) EA01-27
AGENDA ITEM #4 - CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR THE 10-UNIT,
LASER DRIVE INDUSTRIAL PARK CONDOMINIUMS,ON 1.41t ACRES,LOCATED IN FINAL PLAT 414,
LOT 54,AKA 16537 E.LASER DRIVE,CASE NUMBER S2001-31.
Councilman Wyman MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda as read and Councilwoman Hutcheson SECONDED the
motion. A roll call vote was taken with the following results.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh- aye
Councilwoman Ralphe— aye
Councilman Wyman - aye
Councilman McNeill - aye
Councilwoman Hutcheson- aye
Mayor Morgan - aye
Councilwoman Fraverd- aye
The motion CARRIED unanimously
AGENDA ITEM #5 - PRESENTATION/REPORT BY MEMBERS OF THE MAYOR'S YOUTH COUNCIL
ON THEIR RECENT TRIP TO THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES AND TOWNS CONFERENCE IN
ATLANTA.
Matt Paul and Elizabeth Miskell, officers for the Mayor's Youth Council, made brief presentations on activities they
participated in while attending the conference in Atlanta and what they had learned from the experience.
AGENDA ITEM #6 - CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 01-23, AMENDING THE TOWN CODE,
CHAPTER 9 PARKS AND RECREATION, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 9-2 PARKS AND RECREATION
COMMISSION, SECTION 9-2-1 ESTABLISHED, TO SPECIFY AN EXACT NUMBER OF PARKS AND
RECREATION COMMISSIONERS.
Director Mayer noted that the Council annually appoints the youth commissioner and this year the Council was being
asked to consider appointing two commissioners, which would reduce the total number of commissioners to seven. Of
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 17,2002
Page 1 of 17
the appointments, the two full time appointments for adults would be shortened to two-year terms to have more
consistent rotation. Thereafter, the commissioners would serve the standard three-year terms and the more normal
rotation would be observed.
Councilwoman Ralphe MOVED to approve Ordinance 01-23 as presented and Councilwoman Fraverd SECONDED
the motion, which CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #7 - CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTING THREE CITIZENS TO THE PARKS AND
RECREATION COMMISSION TO FILL THE VACANCIES CAUSED BY EXPIRING TERMS AND
RESIGNATIONS.
Mayor Morgan MOVED to appoint Matt Paul, Mary-Alice Bivens, and Joe Pinter to the Parks and Recreation
Commission. Councilman Wyman SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #8 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
COMMUNITY BENEFIT CITIZEN COMMITTEE FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF $80,000 OF
COMMUNITY BENEFIT FUNDS.
Director Hansen said that this was the fourth year that the services of committee had been used to review the
applications and make a recommendation to the Council for distribution. She noted that each year the task becomes
more challenging because as the community grows so do the requests for funding. She compared the eleven
applications totaling $107,335 received last year to the fourteen requests totaling $132,950 received this year. Director
Hansen displayed on the visualizer the requests received, as well as the committee's recommendation for funding
distribution. She pointed out that the committee had established a process whereby they thoroughly discussed the "pros
and cons" of each application. They had also identified their priorities to help establish funding levels for projects that
directly benefited the youth, the seniors, the disabled, the hungry, and the homeless and that clearly identified their
priorities. Another factor that influenced the Committee's decision was how well the applicants answered the questions.
This was the first year that the Committee had opted to recommend not funding certain projects that they felt were more
commercial in nature, already adequately funded by the Town or by some other sources. She explained the
LCommittee's reasoning behind the funding recommendations. She expressed that the extent of the Committee's
discussion of each request obviously showed that they were committed to providing the Council with a recommendation
that they best felt served the community and was one on which they were unified. Director Hansen reiterated that the
Committee felt that this was best achieved by providing funding for the community's youth, seniors, disabled, hungry,
and the homeless. She outlined how the Committee members had spent more than the two hours of their Wednesday
meeting. The stack of applications had been comparable to a Council packet when there was a very long agenda. This
represented a considerable time commitment on their part and it was clear to her that they had read every page. She
concluded by thanking all of the members who had served on the Committee for their efforts and commitment in
performing a very difficult task. Director Hansen said that she would be happy to answer any questions otherwise she
was submitting the Committee's recommendation for the Council's consideration.
Councilman McNeill MOVED to approve the recommendation of the Committee as presented and Councilman Wyman
SECONDED the motion.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh AMENDED the motion to reduce the funding to CASS by $3,000 and a redistribution of that
$3,000 to St. Dominic by$1500, Cub Scout Pack 243 by$500, and the Civic Association by $1,000 and Councilwoman
Hutcheson SECONDED the amendment.
Councilman McNeill stated that he appreciated the work that the Committee put into this process and he did not feel that
he wanted to second-guess their decision as they had looked at and sorted through all of the applications. He said that it
would be nice if the Council could fund everything that was on the list, but he felt that the Committee had done the hard
work and he was not inclined to deviate from their recommendation. Vice Mayor Kavanagh clarified that the actual
redistribution was less than 4%. In the past he had never wanted to tinker with the committee's recommendation but in
this particular case he felt it appropriate to shift a very small amount from CASS, which was in downtown Phoenix, to
just a few of the local groups. He wanted to shift money to the Food Bank specifically because they had been hit hard
ty this year by a lack of donations because of the September 1 tragedy.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 17,2002
Page 2 of 17
Councilwoman Hutcheson agreed with Vice Mayor Kavanagh. She expressed that she too was very hesitant to tinker
with figures on which people had spent so much time; but because the information had come to the Council so late the
Council simply had not had the time to analyze it very much. She noted that last year the Town had only funded CASS
with $2,000 but she acknowledged that the Town's funds had been greatly reduced at that time. Councilwoman
Hutcheson felt that bumping up their award to$10,000 this year was a big step. She noted that last year the Cub Scouts
-J had been funded $1,000 and she felt it was reasonable to give them another $1,000 this year as it was still $1,000 less
than what they requested. She also felt it justified to give the Food Bank additional funding at this time. She expressed
her commitment to the Civic Association and rather than give them nothing, she felt $1,000 was reasonable.
Councilwoman Hutcheson said she would support the amendment.
Bruce Hansen, Sunburst Dr.
He asked why the Council would give the Civic Association $1,000 as they currently had $98,000 in the bank. What
would they use that$1,000 for? Vice Mayor Kavanagh requested Director Hansen to read the section in the staff report
that outlined what the Civic Association would use their funding for. Vice Mayor Kavanagh said that his rational was
that the symphony, education, and choir programs were good. He did not favor an idea of a publicity brochure and that
was why he proposed partial funding for them.
Lee Robinson, Brodiea Dr.
He stated that he had served on the Committee and that he concurred with the comment made by Bruce Hansen. The
Committee had not supported funding for the Civic Association because they did have $98,000 in the bank. The
Committee had felt that the Civic Association did not need the money. He stated that CASS had provided more facts
this year on their programs. He acknowledged that the Committee had been able to fully fund their needs because law
enforcement had provided information on how important the services were to the Fountain Hills community, to things
that happened in the community and to people that were involved from the community. He conceded that it was a
metropolitan Phoenix organization with 1.6% of the services that they provided going to people from Fountain Hills.
The Committee had rationalized that the$13,000 award represented less than 1.6% of their budget.
A roll call vote on the amendment was taken with the following results.
Councilwoman Ralphe- nay
Councilman McNeill- nay
Councilman Wyman- nay
Councilwoman Hutcheson - aye
Councilwoman Fraverd- aye
Vice Mayor Kavanagh- aye
Mayor Morgan- aye
The amendment CARRIED on a vote of 4-3. A vote on the amended motion CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM#9- CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2002-04,DESIGNATING THE ELECTION DATE
AND PURPOSES OF THE ELECTION; AND DESIGNATING THE DEADLINE FOR VOTER
REGISTRATION.
Mr. Farrell acknowledged that this item had also arrived late for review by the Council because of the need to try to get
some updated information. He proceeded to read Resolution 2002-04 in its entirety. Materials were passed out to the
citizens. Mr. Farrell began his presentation with the property tax issue. He explained that the need for the property tax
had come about on October 31' 2001, when the Council decided to adopt an ordinance, which placed the Town of
Fountain Hills in the position of providing fire and emergency medical services to its citizens in lieu of having those
services provided by the Fire District. This issue was something that had come upon the community in rapid fashion
and was brought about in a major part by the collection of 3,000 signatures on a petition to ask the citizens whether or
not they wanted to dissolve the Fire District. That action caused Town staff, at the direction of the Council, to spend a
great deal of time trying to figure out what the long and short range ramifications would be of dissolving the Fire
District. A majority of the Council at the October 31st Special Council Meeting stated that the alternatives were not
what they had hoped and it was their opinion it was necessary for the Town to step in to provide those services to its
citizens by the assumption of the duties. This acted as a method of causing the Fire District to terminate. By operation
of law, the assets and the liabilities of the Fire District were transferred to the Town. The District's Directors saw fit to
challenge that action and to seek a legal opinion by retaining five firms. On November 20th, 2001, in the spirit of
correctness for the community, the Fire District agreed to transfer the control and the assets of the Fire District to the
Town. Mr. Farrell noted that since that time the Town had been operating the Fire District as an entity of the Town.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 17,2002
Page 3 of 17
The Fire District, known technically as the Fountain Hills' Voluntary Fire District, had operated primarily through a
property tax, which began in 1977 when they were formed. The District's major source of income had come from the
annual assessment tax on the real property inside the Town of Fountain Hills. They used that as the central funding
Lsource for their operation. Their budget for the current fiscal year was approximately $3.3 million of which $2.4 came
from real property tax with the other $900,000 coming from $600,000 of savings and $300,000 of subsistence that the
J State of Arizona had taken from another taxing column. Mr. Farrell stated that it was his opinion as the acting town
manager that the Town Council needed to ask the voters in May of this year whether or not they would be willing to
substitute a new property tax for the same $2.4 million so that the Town could replace the $2.4 million that the citizens
had been taxed by the Fountain Fire District. He noted that this would be a simple issue to explain to the voters if it
were not for the fact that the Fire District and the Town had to tax against different forms of value. He pointed out that
this was where it became confusing. He said the Resolution said $2.4 instead of a specific levy amount.
Mr. Farrell explained the taxing situation while displaying a sample postcard of the "Residential Notice of Value"issued
by Maricopa County. He stated that card contained the County Assessor's opinion of property valuation. He noted the
hand out materials also contained the definitions of full cash value and limited property value. He went on to explain
the difference between the two terms and how property value was calculated under both. Mr. Farrell referred to another
portion of the material, which illustrated the back of the "Residential Notice of Value" and he discussed the columns
and the various taxing jurisdictions' rates. He noted that if the voters approved a new primary property tax, a number
would appear in next year's tax bills. Mr. Farrell reviewed the jurisdictions that tax under the various primary tax rate
and secondary tax rate. He pointed out that the Fountain Hills Voluntary Fire District, which went out of existence on
October 31, 2001, had received $0.9739 under the Secondary Tax Rate and that the property was taxed under the larger
number, the "full cash value" secondary assessment. He covered that bond column (A) was also computed on the "full
cash value" with the rates listed in bond column (B) and the override column coming from successful elections for the
school district. He reiterated that everyone pays the $0.9739 for the Volunteer Fire District and that was the $2.4
million that the Fire District had used last year to operate.
Mr. Farrell explained that the $2.4 million dollars that the Town would ask the voters for had to be assessed against the
smaller base, the "Primary Assessed Value". Therefore, to raise $2.4 million the Town would have to raise an amount
of money at a higher rate than the current$0.9739. He thanked Julie Ghetti for her efforts in putting together a sampling
Lof home valuations, which he stated that staff would continue to do in order to provide taxpayers with needed
information. The examples showed what the affect would be on home valuations if the Town tax rate had been in place
this year. He explained that staff had tried to find properties where the Primary and Secondary tax rates were close
together and far apart to give the Council an idea of what the affect would be on voter authorization to substitute $2.4
million of Town tax for the$2.4 of the Fire District tax. He reviewed the examples and stated that the Primary Tax Rate
would be $1.0900 per $100. His reason for giving the Council cross sections of examples and the form was that staff
could not tell anyone this evening what the affect would be. Mr. Farrell acknowledged that with this example, or if the
residents had their tax bill, they could calculate their Primary and Secondary values under the new substitution rate and
see what the affect would be for them. It was staff's opinion that the Town needed to continue the taxation of the
property for the support of the fire service. Mr. Farrell said that Director Gendler and Fire Chief Scott LaGreca, Ms.
Ghetti, the Administration Department and his office had spent much time this past month on budget analysis. Staff was
confident that for the next fiscal year, the same level of fire service could be delivered to the residents at $.2.4 million.
He stated that that roughly broke down to $183,000 per month for the Rural Metro contract and $17,000 for costs not
covered by the Rural Metro contract. It was staffs hope that the voters would approve the property tax transfer from the
Fire District to the Town which would allow the Town to continue,through the 2002-03 budget year,the fire services as
the residents had come to know them. That would also give Town staff and the Council a full year of operation to
monitor and an opportunity to find out in what areas improvements could be made and what capital expenditure was
needed in order to grow for the future and be able to provide the services.
Mr. Farrell acknowledged that the property tax issue had some difficulties associated with it that the voters would be
questioning. One issue: Could property taxes go up? He stated that the Council would have to honestly respond it was
possible that property taxes could increase. He pointed out that the property tax would decrease for 2002/03 because the
amount of the assessed property valuation from when this tax was approved would have risen. He said that the Council
could not promise that the rate would be lower than $1.09. He noted that the assessed value of the Town had never
decreased. He explained that this was a one-time permission from the voters pursuant under State Law. The only time
that a Council would have to go back to the voters would be if the Council didn't levy a property tax and completely
stopped it for one year. Then the Council would again have to ask the voters for their permission. He noted it would be
for possible future Councils to levy the tax for more money. That question would have to be asked of future
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 17,2002
Page 4 of 17
Councilmembers. His guess would be probably not because those Councils who raised the tax would find themselves
voted out of office by voter initiative. Mr. Farrell proposed that if the council asked the voters for new bond issues to
pay for roads or mountain preservation or something they would vote on the issue; but this was a property tax that went
Ito the general fund and the Council was not obligated in the same way as they were under the bond process. He
stated that paying for police and fire services were paid for out of the General Fund and therefore there wasn't any
ay that the council could continue to offer those fire and emergency medical services without that money unless the
Council wanted to tap the rainy day reserve. The issue that would face the Town if the voters said no on the property
tax would be, do you wish to fund the fire district operation and if so from where would the money be taken. He
clarified that would be a decision that the Council who was sworn in on the first Thursday of June 2002 would be
making. The answer to that question would come on May 21s` when the citizens vote on this issue. He repeated the
voters' options by stating if they supported what the Council did on October 3151' and if they supported keeping Rural
Metro, then this tax was vital and the Council would ask that the voters look with favor on its adoption. If the voters
were opposed to what the Council did, were opposed to keeping Rural Metro, and would prefer to have all firefighters as
town employees, the Council would ask the citizens to support this tax because the Town would need the money in
order to have that accomplished.
Mr. Farrell asked that this tax should not be treated as either ratification or condemnation of what the Council did. He
reminded everyone that if the Fire District were still in business, they would be levying the $2.4 million to run their
operation instead. Mr. Farrell reiterated that the Council in June of 2002 would still need to have $2.4 million to run
whatever the operation was. The Council was charged with running the fire operation. He hoped that the voters would
see it as a substitute tax. This would the first part of the item that would go before the voters if the Council passes this
resolution tonight. He said publicity pamphlets would be provided. There would be an opportunity for the voters to
have their voices in the publicity pamphlets. The Town would provide neutral information. He took this opportunity to
remind the Council that Town staff or equipment could not be used to influence the outcome of an election.
Mr. Farrell said the second part of the request was more confusing - the "expenditure limitation". He explained that in
1980 the voters of this state adopted an amendment to the Arizona Constitution that said the State had noticed cities and
towns in other states having financial difficulty. A cap was put on what local governments could spend, not what they
^ould tax, raise, charge in fees, or receive in grants. No matter how much money there was in the bank, the local
Le
,vernment would only be able to spend a certain amount of money. That initial expenditure limitation was based upon
municipality's population. He reminded the Council that in 1980 Fountain Hills did not exist as incorporation had
taken place in December of 1989. He explained that eleven years later the Town had reached its expenditure limitation
cap. That meant the Town had a limited amount of money that the Town could spend even though the Town had money
in the bank. He clarified that unless there was some relief from this expenditure limitation the Town would continue to
put money into the bank but the Town would have to start looking at reducing services and would have to stop spending
money on general fund activities. The Town would still have to pay the bonded indebtedness and would still have all
the money with which to pay the bonded indebtedness but the Town would have to start looking at a reduction in
general fund services.
Mr. Farrell acknowledged that the Town has been dancing around this issue for a couple of years. He stated that the
current limit was up to$14,554,855. The budget was higher but some of the expenditures were exempt. The Town was
about to start the semi-annual budget reduction process with some of the department heads in order to avoid the penalty
for exceeding the expenditure limitation. He reviewed that the penalty for exceeding the limitation was that Fountain
Hills would lose State Shared Revenues. He gave the Council a brief economic outlook for Fountain Hills. Mr. Farrell
explained how he reached the $20,500,000 he was asking for. He stated that $2.4 million would need to be placed into
the General Fund to accommodate the Fire District. He felt that the voters would agree that this was substitution tax and
support it. The ceiling would need to be raised by that $2.4 million as well as estimated monies for($1.2 million)park
projects, ($1.2 million) road projects, and ($1.2 million) the senior center project. All of these would be paid for out of
the General Fund budget if approved by the Council. He as assumed that the Council would want to complete these
projects over the next three or four years. The budget limitation exemption would then say Fountain Hills could spend
up to $20 million in a given fiscal year if there were revenues. It did not increase sales or property tax increase fees,
development fees, rental charges. It merely said that if the Town had money in the bank. The Town would be able to
spend that money and if there was income being generated from sales and property tax or other venues, the Town could
spend that particular money.
r. Farrell stated that if both issues were voted down then the Council seated in June would wrestle with some tough
cisions. That Council would be told that there was money in the bank but they could not spend it. They would then
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 17,2002
Page 5 of 17
have to look at cutting some things. He felt this issue would be difficult for the citizens to fully grasp. Staff would do
their very best to provide the information to the residents. He again reminded the Council that staff would have to
remain neutral and could not attempt to influence the outcome of any ballot measure. He restated that this was
something that the Council alone did not have the power to do and was a decision that needed voter approval. He stated
Jthat State Law required five of the seven councilmembers to vote affirmatively for this Resolution. If that occurred,
then staff would go forward with the process.
Councilwoman Fraverd MOVED to approve Resolution 2002-04 as presented and Councilman McNeill SECONDED
the motion.
Councilwoman Ralphe said it was very clear that in terms of spending authority the Town needed $2.4 million more.
She asked if the State determined the amount of the expenditure limitation. Mr. Farrell replied yes. The numbers that
the Town was obligated to live by were done by the Economic Estimates Commission, which was created by State
Statute. Councilwoman Ralphe asked if the Town could expect the State to increase the expenditure limitation year by
year as it has been done in the past. Mr. Farrell answered yes. Councilwoman Ralphe acknowledged that this past year
the Council had to make tough decisions at budget time. She asked if the limitation was increased to $18.5 million
rather than $20 million, could that amount meet the Town's needs. Mr. Farrell responded no. He explained that the
revenues would come in. If the Council were to only ask the citizens for that amount of authority, the Council would
have to go back to the voters again in 2004 because the community would have those needs. He reviewed that the Parks
and Recreation Department and other groups had wish lists that could easily use up $1.8 million. Councilwoman
Ralphe asked if it was anticipated that the Town would receive over the next five years $3.6 million annually in
additional revenue. Mr. Farrell felt that the Town's economy would rebound when the nation's and the state's economy
turned around,although he could not guarantee it would be $3.6 million. Councilwoman Ralphe asked if it was possible
to ask for the $20,500 million of spending authority but simply not spend it? Mr. Farrell agreed that was correct. He
acknowledged that was how the current rainy day fund had accumulated.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh commented this was the most complete presentation he had heard. He felt this issue was very
complicated. He was concerned that people would be misled and scared because of statements made by people who had
Lbeen stating that since the Town took over the fire services that there would be a new property tax imposed. The
problem with what they were saying was that they failed to tell the citizens that the new tax was replacing an identical
taxing amount that was going away. This was not really a new tax as the Town was merely shifting collection from the
Fire District to the Town so there really wasn't a new tax or tax increase. The reason that he had wanted to restate the
facts was because of the scare tactics that had been used by some to worry those citizens on fixed incomes.
Councilman Wyman asked how the wording would appear on the ballot. Would it refer to the $2.4 million or just the
primary tax? Mr. Farrell responded that the original suggested language had said, "Shall the Town of Fountain Hills be
allowed to assess a primary property tax". The bond attorneys were told that was not what the Council wanted to do. If
the language on at least the first tax question didn't state for whom and what the tax was for and for what amount, the
Council would not want to deal with the issue. After doing some soul searching, bond counsel approval was given so
that the language could identify an amount and intended use. That did not limit the Council to levying $2.4 million nor
did it say that the Council absolutely had to spend that on fire service. He explained that the check and balance came
with the integrity of the future Councils. If a tax were to be levied and the firefighters were fired or the contract with
Rural Metro cut out, the recourse of the citizens would be a recall rather than a rebate in the taxes. If the Council
decided a new fire station was needed in 2004 and $2.9 million was needed, the Council could levy taxes for that
amount. If the school district,the County, and the State had not increased their levy the four of the taxing entities sitting
on the limited property value in the primary tax column would have had a cap of 2%. He explained that the amount that
the taxpayers were protected from was well defined. He pointed out that as the Town grew and the other taxing entities
grew,a point could be reached where the assessor would say that the maximum taxing amount had been reached that the
Fountain Hills residents could be required to pay. Councilman Wyman remarked that with regard to the expenditure
limitation, citizens might not understand that the Town was restricted to balancing their budget every year. He
acknowledged that it was a little frustrating to have money in the bank that could not be used to fund the required
matching funds needed for a grant.
Councilwoman Fraverd asked Mr. Farrell to comment on the $2.4 million, as the Council had been beat up pretty badly
L.,over the fact that this amount would increase significantly after the Town took over the Fire District. She asked if the
Town was absorbing some of the extra costs from within the existing budget or was the Town balancing the cost
extremely well. She asked how the Town would be able to provide fire services for the $2.4 million. Mr. Farrell stated
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 17,2002
Page 6 of 17
that when the Town first started with the issue of the Fire District, he had asked for a copy of the Fire District budget. It
was a one-page document that showed $3.3 million in expenditures. Since he knew that the only way that the Town
would be able to do anything was with a property tax, he had asked Ms. Ghetti to project the tax rate needed to raise
kii $3.3 million. She had responded that the rate to raise $3.3 million would be $1.52. After November more details were
Jreceived and it was discovered that the $3.3 million budget had only contained a $2.4 million tax component with the
rest coming from other sources. When looking at the expense side of the budget at the $3.3 million, staff noticed that
the District had been acquiring more things and was bringing on a number of employees to replace Rural Metro. Staff
then focused their attention on the Rural Metro contract and what the actual expenses were. Mr. Farrell stated that staff
was comfortable that $2.4 million would run the Fire Department in 2002/03. He noted that staff felt the Town would
have savings through the efficiency of operation and savings that Rural Metro was being asked to look at. Mr. Farrell
thanked Chief LaGreca for the fine negotiations currently taking place with Rural Metro about increasing service at the
same rate of money. Chief LaGreca was comfortable that the Town would be able to operate safely, efficiently, and on
time for the $2.4 million. Mr. Farrell noted that the construction of a new fire station had been forestalled because the
second northern subdivision would be at least 18 month to 2 years before coming on line. He pointed out that the free
site for that substation was within that subdivision. Since there weren't any roads up there and the Town did not have
the lot,there wasn't any sense in starting the budget for Fire Station#3.
Councilman McNeill agreed Mr. Farrell had made a thorough presentation. He compared the ratio of the old fire district
tax of$.9739 and divided by the example tax of$1.09 it came out at about 90%. He noted that if a resident's primary
valuation was 90% or less the resident would come out better. If the primary tax value was over 90% of the secondary
tax value, the resident might pay a little bit more. He asked why there was such a wide variations for some of the
properties. He asked if that was because of exemptions or special provisions for senior citizens that might account for
some of the difference such as the ability to freeze the property value if over the age of 65. Mr. Farrell said Councilman
McNeill was correct with the 90% figure. In choosing the examples, both he and Ms. Ghetti had felt it better to give a
wider divergence than to have citizens leave the room and say that Mr. Farrell had stated the tax would not increase a
penny. Mr. Farrell stated alchemy would best describe the process by which the county assessor uses to reach property
values. He agreed that there were some exemptions involved. Councilman McNeill said he would support both pieces
of this resolution. He commented that with regard to the $2.4 million for fire protection he could not think of a single
Lproperty tax that the purpose of the tax was more closely aligned with the type of tax than having a property tax to pay
for fire protection. That tax money would be used to protect property and was an appropriate use. He reiterated that the
level of the tax was exactly the same as the previous tax in gross. Regarding the expenditure limitation, he also
supported that. He said it was extremely frustrating to have money in the bank and have citizens' needs that could not
be met simply because of an artificial limitation. He hoped that this Council and any future Councils would be mindful
that it was public money that they were spending and would chose to spend it wisely. Councilman McNeill wanted to
see this measure approved. He wanted the citizens to give their elected representatives the means to provide the needs
and wants that the citizens had expressed.
Councilwoman Hutcheson remarked it would be helpful if more residents would see what their tax bill looks at. She
noted comments made to her that the Town of Fountain Hills taxes residents too much. She stated that by reviewing the
tax valuation, the only thing that the Town taxes anybody on was $.56/per $100. That was for things that the residents
voted for in an election. Councilwoman Hutcheson noted that the Town of Fountain Hills did not tax property for
anything else. She reviewed that this tax would be substituting, transferring, or replacing. The Town was moving the
tax from one column (secondary) into the other column (primary) and moving the line item from the Fire District to the
Town. She was impressed that staff's figures were $900,000 less than the projected budget of the former Fire District.
Councilwoman Hutcheson stated that none of the councilmembers wanted to raise taxes. They were only trying to
provide the best service and give a realistic look at a true picture of residents' tax bills so everyone could understand the
issues. She urged everyone to take a close look at this and understand what he or she was paying for.
Mayor Morgan agreed with Vice Mayor Kavanagh's comments regarding the scare tactics and comments that she has
heard. The Council was not going to raise taxes but merely substituting or moving the amount to another valuation
column.
John Cutillo, 16714 Nicholas Drive.
He agreed with Councilwoman Raiphe. He suggested that the fire service costs be paid for with the excess in the
budget. Mr. Farrell responded that if the Council elected to do that at the end of two years the Town would have the
1/4409 savings gone and no authority to raise the funds to continue into year three and that Council would be back before the
voters asking for money to continue fire department operations and authority to spend that money.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 17,2002
Page 7 of 17
Mike Archambault, 15033 El Sobrante
He asked if a study had been done what the commercial property tax rate would be. Mr. Farrell replied that in addition
ik to the value of the building and the land there was personal property. He stated that the businessman would pay more in
In property tax and their primary and secondary values in most cases were identical. He acknowledged that commercial
properties didn't have any spread and it would be those owners who would see an increase as a result of the
implementation of the same property tax. Those property owners would bear an additional burden of more taxes.
Because the Town did not have any control over that assessment there wasn't anything that the Town could do to set an
alternate rate for commercial businesses as opposed to residential. Mr. Archambault said that as anticipated revenues
come on line in the form of sales tax, why did the Town need to assess a property tax. Why not use the rainy day fund
now since there would be additional revenue in the future? Mr. Farrell said that if what he was asking was to increase
the amount that could be spent without increasing the property tax. That would ask the Council to take on the $2.4
million of the fire district without any income. That would work for one or two years and require some reduction in
other services as that expense was balanced in. It would mean the total elimination of the rainy day fund. Then in 2004
the Council would have the authority to spend the funds but the Town would not have the revenues or the savings of the
past. Mr. Archambault responded that would be assuming that the Town would not have any increased revenues. Mr.
Farrell said the issue of the increased revenues brought with its increased demands for services. The Town would not be
funding parks or law enforcement, street maintenance or general government at the same level each year at that need
increases as new subdivisions come on board. The increased income would be matched by an increased need for level
of service in parks and other areas. Expenses could not be frozen at 2001 and bank all of the income.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh said it was important to recognize that Fountain Hills was a growing Town at only two thirds of
the way to build out. As more residents come in, more services would be needed. He acknowledged that the Town had
not completed all of the wish list items from when the Town was at a population of 10,000. The problem with giving
the increased growth income back to the taxpayers was that the Town would stop growing.
Councilwoman Hutcheson said Fountain Hills was growing but the revised population estimate was between 28,000-
28,500. If the Town was now at 22,000 that only gave the Town an opportunity to grow 6,000-6,500 to go. She noted
that Fountain Hills had not only population parameters but also land parameters. Fountain Hills needed to take
tilyadvantage of the Town's growth years but needed to also be mindful in the future because the Town would not continue
to grow at a rate that most other cities and towns do because Fountain Hills did not have the capacity to do so. In
talking about spending down the Town's savings account, the Council would have to be very careful when factoring all
things before proceeding. In her opinion to spend down the Town's savings and reserves was not very wise.
Mayor Morgan said that the Town was dependent on the State Legislature. She felt that it was only a matter of time
before the amount of state shared revenues received by Fountain Hills was affected. Mayor Morgan said that the
Council had to be very careful on how it was spent because the golden goose at the state capital might not give the cities
and towns the money that everyone is used to receiving. She did not think the Council could contemplate not having an
equal tax for this issue. A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
Councilwoman Ralphe Aye
Councilman Wyman Aye
Councilman McNeill Aye
Mayor Morgan Aye
Councilwoman Fraverd Aye
Vice Mayor Kavanagh Aye
Councilwoman Hutcheson Aye
The motion CARRIED unanimously.
Mayor Morgan recessed the regular session at 8:28 p.m. and reconvened the regular session at 8:41 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #10 - CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 2002-01 AMENDING THE TOWN CODE BY
ADDING ARTICLE 9-5 TO ESTABLISH RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE FOUNTAIN HILLS
MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN PRESERVE.
Director Valder noted that at the last meeting this ordinance had been introduced to the Council. At the McDowell
0 Mountain Preservation Commission meeting the Commission reviewed those suggestions made by the Council. The
lioy Commission asked Director Valder to modify the rules and regulations to address those suggestions. Those changes
were included in the revised draft ordinance that the Council had received in their packet. Director Valder pointed out
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 17,2002
Page 8 of 17
two errors he had made: a penalty section should be added to the heading of this section and under Section 9-5-3 the
phrase"six foot maximum leash"should be added after the words "unless on a".
Director Valder briefly went over the penalty section stating that the suggestion had been to add a penalty section
1 similar to the recently adopted Parks and Recreation rules and regulation ordinance. He explained that he copied that
section but had taken it upon himself without help from the commission to assign those prohibited uses found in section
9-5-3 into one of the two categories. He stated there was a soft provision for those things that people might not know
about or were not that heinous. However, on those things that the town wanted to take a hard line on would be a Class I
misdemeanor. Director Valder stated that staff recommended approval of Ordinance 02-01.
Councilwoman Ralphe MOVED to approve Resolution 2002-01 as presented and Councilwoman Hutcheson
SECONDED the motion.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh stated that he was pleased with the end product and the fact that the Commission took into
account the comments made at the last Council meeting. He felt that Director Valder was wise to copy the penalty
format of the Parks and Recreation rules and regulations as the penalties and offenses were matched pretty well. Vice
Mayor Kavanagh said he still questioned making people stay on the trail but that question was not sufficient that he
would vote against this. He felt a"wait and see"attitude could be taken to see how that worked out.
Councilman McNeill said that one of the things that he had commented on at the last meeting was found in 9-5-4(F)that
prohibited parking vehicles in the school bus parking spaces. He asked if his suggestion had been considered by the
commission that the parking restrictions apply "except on weekends" when it was not likely that school buses would be
there. Director Valder responded that the Commission had talked about that. He did not remember them talking about
that it would be open on the weekends when it was assumed that a field trip would occur school days. The commission
generally felt that they did not want to deal with the signage that would be involved. If parking was not permitted and a
school bus came along, there might be a conflict. He stated that the commission did not talk about the weekend idea.
Director Valder had understood Councilman McNeill's comment as allowing people to park there if a school bus wasn't
there. What would happen if a person parked there because it was free and a school bus came along and found a car was
parked in the space. He stated that once the trailhead was constructed and it was determined as to how it would operate,
kb.,staff could come back and address that issue. Councilman McNeill suggested that perhaps signage stating "school bus
parking only except on weekends"maybe the town could allow some flexibility for additional users on the weekends.
Councilman McNeill amended the motion to modify the first sentence of 9-5-4 (F) to add the words "except on
weekends" after the last word "spaces" and Councilman Wyman seconded the amendment. The amendment motion
CARRIED unanimously.
Mike Archambault,El Sobrante
Regarding Section 9-5-7 (A) (Penalties),he asked if the word "committed" should be changed to"convicted"and in (B)
should"violations"be changed to"convictions".
Mr. Farrell said those changes could be made. Director Valder felt that it would depend upon when the Council wanted
to start the two-year clock when the offense actually occurred or if the person was convicted six months later. Mr.
Farrell said it would make a difference in challenging the penalty clause if a person were cited frequently but never
convicted. He felt that the defendant and his/her attorney would make the argument that they were being placed in
double jeopardy for an arrest when they were presumed innocent under the United Stated Constitution until convicted.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh agreed that the term "convicted" was used. Mr. Farrell said that change would be made if the
ordinance passed.
The amended motion CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #11 - CONSIDERATION OF INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 6,SECTION
6.03.C.6, SECTION 6.07.C.4 AND 6.07.D.5 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN
t. HILLS TO ADD NEW LANGUAGE THAT WOULD MODIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR MENU BOARDS
FOR DRIVE-IN OR DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANTS TO ALLOW LARGER MENU BOARDS, AND TO
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 17,2002
Page 9 of 17
ALLOW THE USE OF LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY (LCD) ORDER PLAY-BACK UNITS TO BE
INSTALLED AS A PART OF THE MENU BOARD,OR ADJACENT TO THE MENU BOARD.
Ms. Drake noted that it was Mayor Morgan who had initiated this amendment. She stated that a trend had started in
Town with menu boards having increased in size due to large graphics being applied to what was originally intended to
be a text board. In addition, some of the vendors and franchises were asking to put in LCD units, which had a speaker
so that the patron could verify what the order was before getting to the window. She reviewed that the staff report
included the existing menu board sizes in Town. She noted that the existing ordinance limit was 20 sq. feet and all but
one business was currently in violation. The staff report also included a comparison survey of what other communities
were doing. Staff proposed and reviewed the changes to three different section of this chapter: 6.03 (6); 6.07 (C)(4) (b),
(c), with the addition of(e,f, g); and changes to 6.07 (D)(5)(b), (c), with the addition of(e, f, g).
Councilwoman Fraverd MOVED to approve the initiation of an amendment to Chapter 6 as presented and
Councilwoman Hutcheson SECONDED the motion.
Councilwoman Fraverd asked if (g) would also included the LCD. Ms. Drake responded yes it would. The motion
CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #12 - CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR THE EAGLE MOUNTAIN PARCEL
10/11 TRACT "G" SUBDIVISION,A 2-LOT,3.43 ACRE SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
WESTWIND DRIVE, SOUTH OF THE PALISADES BOULEVARD TERMINUS IN THE EAGLE
MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY,CASE NUMBER S2001-27.
Director Valder reminded the Council that after three tries the Council approved the preliminary plat for the
resubdivision of Tract G in Eagle Mountain Parcel 10/11. He reviewed the project and staff's concerns and
recommendations as well as the Eagle Mountain Property Owners' concerns. Director Valder said there were two items
on the agenda that were affiliated with this request. One was for the final plat approval and the other was for the
approval of a resolution that would abandon a one-foot non-vehicular access easement that was on the property's
frontage on Westwind. He explained that in order for lots to be created on Tract G, the council would need to abandon
Lportions of the non-vehicular access easement so that a driveway for each of the lots could access the property. Right
now that could not legally be accomplished because of the existence of the non-vehicular access easement. Director
Valder said he had spoken with two property owners and the attorney for the Eagle Mountain Property Association both
of whom were both present. He was sure they would want to present their views on these two items. This was a
situation where there would probably be litigation between the parties. Staff was of the opinion that while they could
understand that there were some extenuating issues, Staff was limited in the scope of the final plat because of the
administrative nature of the action being taken tonight. He reviewed that if the final plat was consistent with the zoning
and the subdivision regulations staff did not have much choice other than to approve it. Therefore, staff was
recommending Town Council approval of the final plat and the abandonment of the non-vehicular access easement.
Councilman Wyman MOVED to approve the Final Plat as presented and Councilwoman Hutcheson SECONDED the
motion.
Councilwoman Fraverd asked if this was always meant to be developed with one or more lots why was there this
easement. Director Valder reviewed that back when Eagle Mountain Parcel 10/11 were platted there was an information
note on the plat that said Tract G, in addition to other tracts in the project, were intended to be conveyed to the Eagle
Mountain Property Association as open space. Often times notes were put on plats to satisfy the Town's curiosity
because the Town would want to make sure what would happen to those lands and who would be responsible for the
maintenance of those properties. He restated that it was an informational note without any information on the plat that
indicated that those lands had been conveyed to the Association. That conveyance would have presumably occurred by
future instrument at some future date. Staff just wanted to know when that would happen. The platting of the non-
vehicular access easement was something that staff regularly required on lands where they were set aside as open space.
Staff wanted to put an added hurdle on anybody who would attempt to legally or otherwise access the property with a
vehicle. As he had been the planner on this project, Director Valder recalled meetings and conversations with
representatives of the developer that the disposition of this piece of land was talked about occasionally. The response
from the developer was that they might form three to four lots out of the tract sometime in the future. Director Valder
Lsaid the reason those were plans for the future was that the road that accessed the tract was actually contracted with a
future project and not with Eagle Mountain Parcel 10/11. There wasn't access to that land when the rest of the project
had been constructed. He said that the successor project that came in two years later,Eagle Mountain Parcel 13, was the
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 17,2002
Page 10 of 17
last subdivision platted and was the one where the road had been constructed. He clarified that while the right-of-way
had been conveyed with Eagle Mountain Parcel 10/11, the road had not been built. He commented that hadn't been a
pressing issue at the time when the plat was recorded. He did not remember a stipulation that said to plat the one-foot
NVAE. It was just a given that on any undeveloped tracts of land knowing that in the future if an application were to be
made, an abandonment would have to occur. Director Valder said it was his understanding that future lots would be
created on that tract. He understood that there was a lot of confusion and hard feelings among the property owners
because supposedly they thought that piece of land would remain undeveloped. Staff looked that at this as a civil issue
between the homebuilder, the property owners, and the developer of the subdivision and not something with which the
Town was a part. Councilwoman Fraverd asked if town staff had asked the developer to put that informational note on
the plat. Director Valder replied he did not know. He stated that he had gone through the technical review letters and
the preliminary plat stipulations and did not see that note. Director Valder said that could have been a written note in
response to a verbal question or red lined comment that wasn't in a letter.
Councilman McNeill asked if the non-vehicular easement was created at the same time on the same plat that had the
note that spoke about the tract being conveyed at a later date to the property owners' association. Director Valder said
he believed it was. Councilman McNeill reviewed that he had in the past expressed his concerns about the note.
Development might always have been intended but if the case was true that it not only had the note but it was at the
developer's option to choose where to draw a non-vehicular access easement he had concerns. He stated that there were
actions that the Council was being asked to consider. One was to abandon an easement that was held for the benefit of
the Town. That was something that the Town had no legal obligation to do. He admitted that he was still troubled by
both his original concern and that a non-vehicular easement was put in place. Councilman McNeill said that when the
Town wanted to protect a parcel from future development a non-vehicular easement was put into place. He was inclined
to vote against this issue.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh addressed the future situation. He was not sure how that statement about this area being future
open space wound up on the paperwork, the plat, and the map. He was not sure what role the Town had and he hoped it
wasn't an active role. He was disturbed that the Town knew something like that was on it and didn't do anything to
remove it knowing that to be only an empty promise. He felt that the Town had almost implicated themselves into
Ldeceiving people. He hoped that in the future that if someone put a notation like that on a plat and it was not actually
going to happen, that the Town would legally remove it or the Town would legally condition approval. he wanted to
have that done as he did not want to even passively contribute to that type of misinformation by allowing it to stay there.
With respect to the easement, Vice Mayor Kavanagh asked what would happen legally if the Council did not give up
that easement. Mr. Farrell said that the Town retained the right to abandon easements as a discretionary act and he
would probably defend that as a legislative act rather than an administrative act. The issue would be if the failure to
abandon were to render a piece of property unfit for any construction whatsoever, then a regulatory taking claim could
result from that particular act. Vice Mayor Kavanagh asked if that would in fact be the consequence of failing to
remove that easement. Mr. Farrell responded that would be best asked of the property owner rather than the defender of
the Town Council. Councilman McNeill observed that any litigation over the issue would be a purely voluntary act just
as the choice to plat this easement on the original plat, as a non-vehicular easement was a choice of the owner of the
property at that time. So while there might be room for a plaintiffs attorney to make an argument, he certainly would
hope and think that when someone had chosen to do something with their property for the benefit of the town,the Town
was not obligated to abandon its rights. He did not want to see the town yield that position.
Councilwoman Hutcheson expressed that she was concerned that even in the staff report it stated that the tract was
zoned R1-6A and there wasn't any representation from the developer to the Town that it would be left as open space.
Staff also commented that they considered Tract G developable. Councilwoman Hutcheson brought out that staff
admitted that these lots were developable so how could the Town then say you can't drive to them. Director Valder said
that the preliminary plat was approved with the stipulation that the NVAE be approved by the Town council and had
always been a stipulation. If the developer couldn't meet that stipulation, then the future success of that plat was in
jeopardy because there wouldn't be any way to access it with a vehicle. He stated that two houses could be constructed
there with the NVAE being absent. Director Valder clarified that the intent of the statement had been as to whether or
not two houses could be built which had be made with the presumed abandonment of the NVAE.
Beth Mulcahey,Attorney for Eagle Mountain Community Association
She stated that she was representing the Board and homeowners in Eagle Mountain. They were opposed to splitting
parcel 10/11 Tract G into two developable lots. The final plat for Eagle Mountain Parcel 10/11 stated, "Tract G is to
conveyed to the association as common area". Owners surrounding the subdivision of the two lots relied upon this
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 17,2002
Page 11 of 17
representation on the plat and the developer's representation that this would be common area. These owners paid a
premium based upon the fact that they would be surrounded by common area. She understood that the developer of
Eagle Mountain might have falsely represented to the council that he was in control of the association's board at the
time at the time when he appeared before the Council. She said that was not the case. The homeowners were in control
of the board and at all time since this issue has been pending. Because the developer was no longer in control of the
-- association according to the CCRs, the developer needed to get board approval, homeowner approval, VA approval, and
FHA approval before splitting parcels 10/11,Tract G into two developable lots. She pointed out that the association had
contacted the developer's attorney and their attorney refused to go through those procedures. The association had been
treating Tract G as common area for many years and the Association had been paying the taxes for the past four years as
well as maintaining Tract G. This, in combination with the homeowners' reliance upon the tract and the representations
that the developer made to the homeowners that this would be common area, was an unfair and inequitable injustice to
all homeowners of Eagle Mountain to allow this to be developed. The Association asked the council not to take any
action on agenda item #12 until they considered the next item on the agenda which was the resolution regarding the
abandonment of a portion of the non-vehicular easement along Parcel 10/11, Tract G. Ms. Mulcahey understood that
agenda item#13 was discretionary on the council's part. The association asked that the Council not approve agenda
item#13, which was the abandonment of the non-vehicular access easement along Parcel 10/11 Tract G or to continue
agenda items 12 and 13 until more information could be obtained.
Bert Fisher,resident of Eagle Mountain on Sunset Ridge
He was the Chairman of the Association's Finance Committee. He said the current 474 owners had relied on the plat
information. He commented that they had also maintained this property. He noted that the Association had been paying
taxes on that common area since 1997. He asked why would the developer charged the Association for the taxes had the
developer believed that that he owned the property.
Artie Hower,engineer for the developer Communities Southwest
He commented that the vehicular access easement and in his discussion with Town Engineer Randy Harrel in defining
where the abandonments would need to be. The reason that the NVAE was placed originally was because that street had
a hill in it and had a sharp curve and it had limited sight visibility, which would require careful placement of driveways.
By putting the NVAE on it originally that would cause the developer to later come in and clarify they type of street it
Lwould be and look at construction issues.
Mark Voight,President of Communities Southwest
He stated that any dispute between the developer and the HOA was not a zoning matter. He said that this was a land use
matter. Mr. Voight stated that he owned the land and paid the taxes on it. He restated that they had always represented
this property as a future development.
Susan Easselton,on the Eagle Mountain Board
She expressed that the slope was an issue of concern for them.
Richard Foster, Vice President of the Association
Those homeowners living below the slope have expressed concerns as to if the incredible slope and hillside cut will ever
stabilize. The residents' perception from sales and brochures by the developer's representative at that time was that it
would be open space common area.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh restated that the developer had said that the land had been portrayed as being future lots. Vice
Mayor Kavanagh asked the developer if he owned that property when that plat was submitted which had the notation
that it would be conveyed as common property. Mr. Voight responded yes. Vice Mayor Kavanagh questioned how he
could say that it was always portrayed, as future development when the company put on the plat it would be open space.
Mr. Voight explained that was because it wasn't unusual. Mr. Voight said that his company had made an affidavit of
correction from their engineer and they admitted that their engineer made a mistake on the plat. He restated that in two
hearings he had shown some of the improvement plans on the grading and drainage plans where the future lots were
shown. He continued that in all of the sales information, including the zoning information, they had showed it as
actually four lots and then they reduced it to two. Vice Mayor Kavanagh asked when the affidavit was filed. Mr.
Voight responded sometime in January.
i
ilitaw Councilman Wyman said there were two issues here: one was a zoning issue and the other was an ownership issue. He
did not know why the Council was being asked to function as a court or judge with regard to the ownership issue as that
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 17,2002
Page 12 of 17
could be resolved between the two parties. With regard to the zoning issue, he reviewed that the Planning and Zoning
Commission had voted in favor of this on a vote of 4 —1 including the stipulation of easement and the Council had
worked this issue at the time of the time of the preliminary plat. He did not hear anything different with regard to the
zoning issue at this point. With regard to ownership, he said the Council was not qualified to make that decision. He
did not see anything thing different from the time that the Council had approved the preliminary plat.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh agreed with staff that in terms of the plat approval the Council's hands were tied as it conformed.
To deny the plat would probably get the Town to spend money on a lawsuit. However, he felt that the issue of the
easement abandonment was a different issue and he did not think the Council's position was quite as clear.
Councilman McNeill agreed that agenda item #13 was a discretionary item for the Council to decide. Councilman
McNeill MOVED to suspend the motion that was on the floor and to suspend the rules to move agenda item#13 ahead
of agenda item #12 and Councilwoman Fraverd SECONDED the motion. Vice Mayor Kavanagh asked if there was
any legal or procedural ramification over doing it one way or the other. Mr. Farrell responded no. The inclusion of the
Town in any litigation was beyond control and staff was not recommending that the Council sue either the developer or
the homeowners. The motion to suspend the rule CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM#13- CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2001-54 ABANDONING PORTIONS OF A NON
VEHICULAR ACCESS EASEMENT ALONG EAGLE MOUNTAIN PARCEL 10/11 TRACT "G" AND
WESTWIND DRIVE IN THE EAGLE MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY.
Councilwoman Fraverd MOVED to deny Resolution 2001-54 and Councilman McNeill SECONDED the motion,
which CARRIED on a vote of 6- 1. Councilman Wyman cast the nay vote.
The Council returned to address Agenda Item#12:
AGENDA ITEM #12 - CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR THE EAGLE MOUNTAIN PARCEL
10/11 TRACT "G" SUBDIVISION,A 2-LOT,3.43 ACRE SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
WESTWIND DRIVE, SOUTH OF THE PALISADES BOULEVARD TERMINUS IN THE EAGLE
MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY,CASE NUMBER S2001-27.
Councilman McNeill MOVED to continue this item indefinitely and Councilwoman Fraverd SECONDED the motion,
kow which CARRIED on a vote of 6— 1. Councilman Wyman cast the nay vote.
AGENDA ITEM #14 - PUBLIC HEARING ON A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A 36-UNIT MULTIPLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, KNOWN AS "TOWN CENTER CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS"
PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN FINAL PLAT TOWN CENTER I, LOT 8, SOUTHEAST OF AVENUE OF
THE FOUNTAINS, WEST OF LA MONTANA BOULEVARD AND ON THE WEST SIDE THE UNITED
STATES POST OFFICE,CASE NUMBER SU2001-14.
Mayor Morgan recessed the regular session and opened the public hearing at 9:36 p.m.
Senior Planner Burkhardt reviewed and described the applicant's project and the preliminary plat. He stated that the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the Council approve the special use and preliminary plat on a vote
of 5 — 1. Staff was also recommending approval with a few stipulations. He stated that he had received one call of
opposition on this project. The individual said that he/she was representing the Villa Estate property owners, which
were just south of this project. The Villa Estates backed up to this project. The significant issue expressed was the
obstruction of the view towards the northeast, which contained mountain views and was currently open space. Mr.
Burkhardt said that the maximum height for each building was 24' 8" to 25'. If the property were to be developed
commercial the C-2 zoning district would allow for a maximum height of 40' without any Town Council approval.
Councilwoman Fraverd asked why this was being changed from commercial to multi-family zoning. Was it because
there was an agreement for the downtown area with a certain number of multi-family units were to go in? Was this a
part of that agreement. Mr. Burkhardt responded that was correct. It was part of the 1997 development agreement with
MCO Properties for the Town Center, which allowed 700 units to infill the Town Center parcels. That was reduced at
the time of the Fire Rock Master Plat down to about 400 units. Mr. Burkhardt said that in that area the Town was
reaching about 250 units so there was some way to go. With the development of Town Center III the Town might
amend that agreement to allow a bit more density downtown.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 17,2002
Page 13 of 17
Councilwoman Ralphe asked about the building setback along the western side (20' vs. 10'). Mr. Burkhardt explained
that when initially reviewing the project staff was anticipating that lots 3 and 4 could potentially be developed as
commercial. If that was the case, typically with special use permits or the infill of multi-family into commercial
districts, staff liked to require that the multi-family provide those buffers and barriers in screening from the commercial
Nor projects because the commercial projects weren't obligated to provide those buffers that were typically required. He
further explained that when a residential zoning district abutted a commercial development it was the commercial
development's responsibility to provide the setbacks and the buffers from the residential zoning district. So in this case
the developer of the multi-family was being asked to provide a setback. Mr. Burkhardt noted that Mr. Carl Bommarito,
from MCO, had given a letter of reassurance that lots 3 and 4 would be developed residentially. He said that staff had
confidence in allowing it to be developed as that parking area. What had been expressed was that staff would like there
to be a 20' landscaped buffer with no development. But given the reassurance from MCO, staff was confident that lots
3 and 4 would be developed residentially and that there still would be a significant setback from that property. Also if
the property were developed commercially an eight-foot perimeter wall would be required along the western boundary.
If lots 3 and 4 were developed residentially a six-foot wall would be required and there would essentially be two multi-
family developments abutting each other.
Councilman McNeill asked if lot 3 was going through the approval process. Mr. Burkhardt said a conceptual plan had
been filed for lots 3 and 4 and 2 with the Town. The plan for lot 3 had gone through one review and staff was waiting
for a resubmittal. Councilman McNeill referred to the letter submitted by Mr. Bommarito. Councilman McNeill
suggested adding a stipulation for the approval to the special use permit to include "approval of both site plans was
contingent upon the adjacent property being developed as residential". Director Valder stated that with the approval of
the property owner, as long as they were under common ownership that might be OK. He clarified that the Town had
that letter from MCO telling the Town that if lots 3 and 4 were used commercially, that lots 3 and 4 would provide the
20' area and staff was comfortable with that assurance.
Gene Baker,Hallcraft, the developer
He envisioned the 36-unit development as a moderately priced, gated, resort type project. He described the amenities
that would be provided. They felt that the buyers would be winter visitors or transitional people that needed a place to
live while a more expensive home was being built. He stated that the average price would be somewhere between
Lk $180,000 and$200,000 per unit. He asked for favorable consideration from the Council.
Robert Blackburn, resident of Villa Estates
He expressed concerns about the density of the construction and the added traffic congestion. He asked the Council to
put the project on hold temporarily until further consideration was given toward development of all plots.
Bob Miller,resident of Villa Estates
He expressed concern with the extreme density. He questioned the parking and the egress and ingress from the property
itself. He asked why they had to have a high-rise building complex in the downtown area as opposed to having one-
story units similar to theirs in Villa Estates. He asked the Council to put the project on hold until more facts and
information could be accumulated for the Council. He said that when they bought their house it had been represented to
them that the Post Office was at a height of 18' and if there was any other development to be built it would not be any
higher than the Post Office.
Bill Brown, Sales representative for Villa Estates
He stated that to his knowledge no one was ever promised any height restrictions. He noted that the area was zoned
commercial unless the Council granted the special use permit. He said that he had talked to everyone that bought in
Villa Estates and no one ever told buyers that nothing would ever be higher than the Post Office.
Carl Bommarito,MCO representative
He noted that this project was a better use than many of the commercial uses that could be built there. He gave an
example of what could be built there: a Sonic Hamburger, which would bring traffic and lights.
Katherine Miller, homeowner in Villa Estates
She stated that most of the homeowners were unaware of the meeting and this project. She asked that the Council table
this project. She noted that they had not formed their homeowners group yet. Fountain Hills did not need another resort
type project.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 17,2002
Page 14 of 17
Katherine Walters,Thistle Dr.
She was against this project, as she preferred commercial development. She felt that Fountain Hills should be a
community that welcomed commercial businesses.
i
ilitay Polly Pollack,resident of Villa Estates
She was against this project.
Mayor Morgan commented that she was hearing was that the residents did not want condos there. She pointed out that
there were so many things that could have built in the C-2 zoning district. She asked, given the choice, what would the
residents prefer,a Sonic Hamburger restaurant or condos.
Councilwoman Fraverd stated that a multi-family use had to come to the Council for a special use permit. She noted
that the Council did not have to approve a commercial project before it was built. She stated that a commercial project
could be built as high as 40'. She reviewed a few of the commercial projects that could be built in a C-2 zoning district:
a car repair business or a car wash. Councilwoman Fraverd noted that the projects would not have to come to the
Council for approval. Director Valder clarified that the project would have to come before the Planning and Zoning
Commission for a conceptual site plan review. Councilwoman Fraverd said that as long as the project was not on one of
the lists of prohibited uses,the project was at the property owners' discretion. She made the point that she felt sympathy
for the property owners but they needed to look at what else was possible. If the residents were still opposed to it, she
was open to listening to that, but the Council was not going to see a commercial project for approval and that was
something to consider.
Robert Blackburn,Villa Estates
He was not opposed to having the area rezoned as a family use, only to the density of the development.
Polly Pollack, Villa Estates
She did not object to the condos only to the density being proposed.
Katherine Miller, Villa Estates
LShe did not object to condos. She requested that the Council put the issue aside to allow the homeowners time to get
together with Hallmark Homes to address some of Villa Estates' concerns.
Gene Baker,Hallmark Homes
He asked that the project not be delayed because the Villa Estates had not formed their homeowners' association yet.
He said that he spoken with the lady from the Estates last Thursday and told her that he would meet with her anytime.
He noted that he had yet to hear from her.
Katherine Miller, Villa Estates
She explained that she had been ill and unable to call him. She did not want to see more resort type communities, or
transient people/renters. She asked why not think "year-round residents" and build a more attractive development. She
felt their community was very attractive.
Mayor Morgan said that one of the industries that the Town was trying to promote was tourism. She stated that tourism
brought resorts and people who aren't here year-round and tourism doesn't bring, in her eyes, transients. Councilman
Wyman stated that the 1997 development agreement with MCO on the part of the Town permitted 38 units on this
parcel and the developer was only putting in 36 units.
Councilwoman Hutcheson said Councilman Wyman made a significant point that this was part of a development
agreement that was done in 1997, which had something to do with the approval of the FireRock Country Club. In that
development agreement, the property owner was entitled to put 12 dwelling units per acre and the density of this project
was less than that. She commented that 25' in height was less than the 40' allowed for commercial development.
Councilwoman Hutcheson said she was not hearing that these units would be rentals. She had heard. Mr. Baker give a
price for these units and she understood resort types. It was a leap at this time to say these units would be rental units.
She pointed out that this had been decided in a 1997 development agreement and to have a successful and viable
downtown, critical mass would be needed in the downtown area. She felt this was the location where some density
would be wanted.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 17,2002
Page 15 of 17
Vice Mayor Kavanagh said this situation gave proof that there was no such thing as a free ride. The Town had basically
been trading density to get nicer views and less density in other parts of Town so the density had been transferred to the
central part of Town. Back in 1995, because the Town couldn't take the land away from the property owner because it
was their right to build x number of units, the only way to get the developer to be less dense in certain areas,the Council
tra at that time had to give the developer something in return and this was the result. Vice Mayor Kavanagh said that this
lisr Council did not have much choice other than to honor the agreement that was entered into years ago. Mr. Burkhardt
said that this project's property sat down on average about 5' lower than the Villa Estates' finished floors so on average
the project would be perceived as about 20' in maximum height from the Villa Estates.
Councilman McNeill asked if the number of parking spaces was in compliance with the Town's requirements. Mr.
Burkhardt responded the developer would be providing 81 spaces. He described the parking in the project.
Mayor Morgan closed the public hearing the 10:15 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #15 - CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A 36-UNIT MULTIPLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, KNOWN AS TOWN CENTER CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS
PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN FINAL PLAT TOWN CENTER I, LOT 8, SOUTHEAST OF AVENUE OF
THE FOUNTAINS, WEST OF LA MONTANA BOULEVARD AND ON THE WEST SIDE THE UNITED
STATES POST OFFICE,CASE NUMBER SU2001-14.
Councilman McNeill MOVED to approve the Special Use Permit as presented and Councilman Wyman SECONDED
the motion.
Councilman McNeill mentioned that the average housing price in the Phoenix area. He stated that the median sales
price in Phoenix was about $130,000 for a residential unit. This project was about 50% above the average unit sales
price in the Phoenix area. He noted that this was not exactly low cost housing by many people's standards.
Councilwoman Hutcheson asked if the site was lower. Mr. Burkhardt said that was correct. Councilwoman Hutcheson
said that that the no more height would be viewed than a single family home.
The motion CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #16 - CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE TOWN CENTER
CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS, A 3.22t ACRE, 36-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED TO
BE LOCATED IN FINAL PLAT TOWN CENTER I, LOT 8, SOUTHEAST OF AVENUE OF THE
FOUNTAINS, WEST OF LA MONTANA BOULEVARD AND ON THE WEST SIDE THE UNITED STATES
POST OFFICE,CASE NUMBER S2001-26.
Mr. Burkhardt stated that he had combined his reports and he would be happy to answer any questions. Staff was
recommending approval.
Councilwoman Fraverd MOVED to approve the Preliminary Plat as presented and Councilman McNeill SECONDED
the motion, which CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #17 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2002-06, ABANDONING APPROXIMATELY
42,331 SQUARE FEET OF HILLSIDE PROTECTION EASEMENT AND DEDICATING 49,403 SQUARE
FEET OF HILLSIDE PROTECTION EASEMENT ON LOT 1 OF TOWN CENTER II FINAL PLAT,
LOCATED ON THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF EL LAGO BOULEVARD AND MARY MUNDE WALK;
CASE#HPE01-01.
Mr. Burkhardt clarified that the agenda item changed slightly so the memos were correct but the numbers were slightly
different. The numbers were equal in what they were abandoning and what they were granting the Town in terms of
total area. The only difference between the areas in terms of the slope categories was that they were providing more
hillside. The reason for the configuration was to allow more sensitivity for the development of the future Church of the
Ascension. He displayed the map of the lot on the visualizer as he described the project. Staff recommended approval.
�1rr
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 17,2002
Page 16 of 17
Vice Mayor Kavanagh MOVED to approve Resolution 2002-06 as presented and Councilwoman Fraverd SECONDED
the motion.
r Councilwoman Ralphe said that she liked to think that hillside protection easements were located on property for a good
ilay reason. She would not want to encourage lot owners or perspective lot owners to come to the Council asking to change
the position of the easement so that the position of the house could change. However, this seemed like a good deal.
This preserved equal areas and preserved steeper slopes. She thought it was an attractive deal.
Councilman McNeill commented that in addition to preserving the steeper slopes in the HPE, it would also screen the
traffic from El Lago. He felt that was another benefit.
The motion CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #18 - CONSIDERATION OF AN ALTERNATIVE SCREENING MATERIAL FOR
OUTDOOR BOAT AND TRUCK CAMPER STORAGE ON A SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY LOCATED AT
10219 N.NICKLAUS DRIVE,LOT 12,BLOCK 3 OF FINAL PLAT 401-B.
Mr. Burkhardt explained the applicant was appealing to the Council for an alternative screening.method. He had
constructed a fence of wood slats illegally. This was in response to a code enforcement issue regarding him storing a
boat and an RV on his side yard. Staff recommended that the Council deny this alternative screening method.
Councilwoman Fraverd MOVED to deny the request and Councilman Wyman SECONDED the motion, which
CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM#19- CALL TO THE PUBLIC.
No one came forward.
it AGENDA ITEM#20-ADJOURNMENT.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh MOVED to adjourn and Councilwoman Fraverd SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED
unanimously. Mayor Morgan adjourned the meeting at 10:27 p.m.
TOW F OUNTAIN ILLS
i
By: ��t/'"-'
ATTEST: (itt.1-1-- Sharon Morgan,Ma
yor
or
k-ti L.L
Cassie B. Hansen,
Director of Administration/Town Clerk
PREPARED BY: 9 6' e c_-4.
ev Bender,Executive Assistant
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting held by the
Town Council of Fountain Hills on the 17th day of January 2002. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and
that a quorum was present.
DATED this 70h day of February 2002. f ,
i ( ilk,2,-1,.L_4_1) ,L11
,„ Cassie B. Hansen,
Director of Administration/Town Clerk
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 17,2002
Page 17 of 17