HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002.0321.TCRM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE
FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
March 21,2002
Mayor Morgan convened the regular session at 5:00 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM#1 —PURSUANT TO A.R.S. 38-431.03.A.1,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 CONTRACT FOR THE ACTING TOWN
MANAGER AND RECRUITMENT FOR A NEW JUDGE DUE TO THE PENDING RETIREMENT OF JUDGE
SHOOB).
Councilwoman Fraverd MOVED that the Council convene the executive session and Councilwoman Hutcheson
SECONDED the motion,which carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM#2-RETURN TO REGULAR SESSION
Mayor Morgan recessed the executive session at 6:12 p.m. and convened the regular session at 6:30 p.m. Following the
pledge to the flag and a moment of silence,roll call was taken.
ROLL CALL - Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Sharon
CoviIorgan, Vice Mayor John Kavanagh, and Councilmembers Rick Melendez, Sharon Hutcheson, Susan Ralphe, and Leesa
raverd. Also present were Town Attorney Bill Farrell, Acting Town Manager Roy Pederson, and Interim Community
Development Director Jesse Drake.
MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Morgan presented resident William Cartee,the 68 year old McDonald's employee,who
helped feed the athletes in Salt Lake City as a member of the McDonald's Crew, with a certificate of reorganization.
AGENDA ITEM#1 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 7,2002.
AGENDA ITEM #2 - CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR FOUNTAIN VIEW
VILLAGE, LOCATED TO THE EAST OF FOUNTAIN HILLS BOULEVARD, WEST OF AVENUE OF THE
FOUNTAINS, AND NORTH OF AVENIDA VIDA BUENA, TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO TWO
LOTS,CASE NUMBER S2002-03.
AGENDA ITEM #3 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2002 — 11 DECLARING AND ADOPTING THE
RESULTS OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION HELD ON MARCH 12,2002.
AGENDA ITEM #4 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2002 - 12 ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT,
TITLE, OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT
LOCATED ALONG THE NORTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF PLAT 505B, BLOCK 2, LOT 11 (16207
BOTTLEBRUSH WAY) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 158, OF MAPS, PAGE 43 RECORDS OF MARICOPA
COUNTY,ARIZONA (SHERRE LYN BATSON AND THOMAS P.MCAULIFF)EA2002-04
AGENDA ITEM #5 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2002 - 13 ABANDONING TWO (2) SEGMENTS
OF THE 1-FOOT NON-VEHICULAR ACCESS EASEMENT (WEST AND EAST DRIVEWAYS) LOCATED
LONG THE NORTHERLY SHEA BOULEVARD PROPERTY LINE OF EAGLE MOUNTAIN TRACT C-3,
II°PARCEL 1. FRY'S FOOD STORE OF ARIZONA,NVAE 2002-02
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 21,2002
Page 1 of 14
Councilwoman Hutcheson MOVED to approve the consent agenda as read and Councilman Melendez SECONDED
the motion. A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
Councilwoman Hutcheson Aye
Mayor Morgan Aye ,vit)
Vice Mayor Kavanagh Aye
Councilwoman Ralphe Aye
Councilman Melendez Aye
Councilwoman Fraverd Aye
The motion CARRIED unanimously
AGENDA ITEM #6 - CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 02-03, AN AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN
CODE, CHAPTER 3, ADMINISTRATION, BY ADDING TO ARTICLE 3-1 OFFICER IN GENERAL,
SECTION 3-1-3 TOWN MAGISTRATE: SECTION 3-1-3 (A) EDUCATION AND CERTIFICATION,
SECTION 3-1-3 (B) LENGTH OF PRACTICE,SECTION 3-1-3 (C) LENGTH OF TERM,AND SECTION 3-1-
3(D)JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE.
Mr. Farrell shared the agenda item with Judge Shoob. Mr. Farrell explained that the ordinance dealt with suggested
changes to the Town Code primarily in the name of changing the office from Town Magistrate to Town Judge and
Presiding Judge. It would also increase and alter the qualifications for the job. The recommendation came about in part
through discussion that he and Judge had been having over a number years as well as the Judge's desire to correct and
update the Town Code.
Judge Stuart Shoob announced to the Council his imminent retirement, which he faced with mixed emotions. He noted
that during his period of employment the court had been transformed into one of the finest lower courts in the State of
Arizona. Recent audits and various inspections done by the Supreme Court and independent financial audits validated
this. Judge Shoob explained that the person who originally drafted the wording of this section of the Town Code twelve
years ago was apparently somewhat naive and not up to speed on everything. He stated that he could say that because
he was the guy who wrote it. He felt that it was time to clean up the text. He noted that there were very few magistrates
left in the world. They were now addressed as presiding judges. Judge Shoob reviewed the changes contained in the
ordinance. He understood that a Council would be leery to appoint a new judge to a four-year term because the judg
could only be removed for cause. He and Mr. Farrell discussed that a way to address this concern was to state that the
first term would be for the period of two years and assuming that there would be a reappointment, it would be for a four-
year reappointment term. This would eliminate the need to come back to the Council every two years for
reappointment. He felt this would bring more continuity to the office. He stated that better qualified people would
apply for the position because it would have a little more job security than a two-year term offered. Judge Shoob
suggested that the person serving, as the Council's presiding judge, be a member of the State Bar and have five years
experience either in practice or on the bench. He noted that the law practiced today was complicated and becoming
more so each day as the court dealt with constitutional law, search and seizure, and evidentiary matters. He explained
that while a layperson could make a good common sense decision but when dealing with these types of law issues, it
would require knowledge of the law. Mr. Farrell summarized that Ordinance 02-03 had been written in legislative style.
Additions were all capped words and the text changes were noted as being the removal of magistrate and presiding was
inserted. The balance of the text would remain unchanged in the Town Code. He asked that the Council look with
favor on and adopt Ordinance 02-03.
Councilwoman Fraverd MOVED to approve Ordinance 02-03 as presented and Councilwoman Ralphe SECONDED
the motion.
Kathleen Connelly Nicola, 17320 E Tejon Dr.
She felt the term of four years was not consistent with all Arizona cities and towns. By design, a new Town Council
was seated in Fountain Hills every two years and they should be unencumbered by previous appointments. She noted
that State Statute requires a minimum of two years for judicial appointment. She felt that Fountain Hills should remain
consistent with other cities and towns. She encouraged the Council to change the term to two years. She felt that the
selection process should be codified. She referred to information that she had just distributed to the Council. The
information included the Town of Gilbert's judicial selection process for the Council's consideration. She felt that the
Town Council should develop an appropriate performance evaluation with monies collected and cases filed not used as 2
consideration as these are generally a function of staff and not the presiding judge. She noted the Supreme Court had set
forth an administrative order as to the recruitment of pro tem judges and the Town should now follow that order for the
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 21,2002
Page 2 of 14
appointment of pro tem judges and implement a uniform method of recruitment, appointment, and evaluation for those
positions. Some jurisdictions allow the presiding judge to appoint and councils appointed others. Ms. Nicola felt the
terminology contained in Section 5.2.1 of the Town Code, which set forth that the judge may be removed only for cause,
was antiquated. She encouraged revision, as it was open for interpretation. Removal for cause generally meant only
%wafter a decision of judicial conduct at the Supreme Court. She pointed out that while that process was relatively simple,
it was intimidating and rarely used. Ms. Nicola felt the Town should protect itself from other unforeseen circumstances.
She noted that she has also included the City of Tempe's language contained in their City Code (Section 2.2.7—Filling
of the Vacancies) for Council review and consideration. She read the section aloud. She said that the State of Arizona
did not require the city or town magistrate or an elected justice of the peace to be a licensed attorney. Ms. Nicola
acknowledged that this had been the subject of debate for many years. She felt that the requested change to Section
5.2.1 requiring that the attorney have five-years experience in private practice or on the bench was excessive. She
suggested that five years experience in the justice system and an appropriate masters degree or higher education would
be sufficient for a court of this size and judicial complexity. Ms. Nicola was of the opinion that the Town of Fountain
Hills did not need a full time judge. The court administrator managed staff, prepared reports and handled all of the
administrative work for the court. The judge did initial appearances, hearings, and pre-trials once a week. She
estimated that the Town could save approximately $100,000 a year in salary and benefits by doing the research on this
and reducing the position to part-time. She noted that Paradise Valley, Carefree, and Cave Creek all had part-time
presiding judges. Ms. Nicola urged the Council to table this matter tonight and create a committee to assist the Council
with the development of the complete Town ordinance to determine the future needs of the court as well as put a
standard procedure into place. She volunteered her services to the Council and listed her qualifications to serve on such
a committee, which she felt would be of benefit to the Council when formulating a procedure for selection of a new
town judge. She noted that this issue had been addressed a couple of times during her employment with the Town as
Court Administrator.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh thanked Judge Shoob for his years of service. He addressed the different terms of the ordinance.
He felt that the term limits were a reasonable balance between the concerns of accountability and term lengths because it
would give the Council some flexibility. Vice Mayor Kavanagh agreed with Judge Shoob that the four year term,
subsequent to the initial two year term, was better as it would give the Town better candidates, continuity, and provide
independence for the judge. He explained that judges should not be worrying about reappointment when rendering
1ecisions. He noted this was something that most judiciaries recognize. Vice Mayor Kavanagh commented that a
—judge's first and only allegiance should be to the law and the principals of the law. Judges should not have to worry
every two years about a Town Council's view of them because of a decision rendered with respect to some issue,
because of the amount of fines collected, or something else. With respect to the removal and the performance review,
Vice Mayor Kavanagh felt that Ms. Nicola had raised some good points that could be addressed in the future. He did
not think that the ordinance was so damaging so as to stop the initial passage of this ordinance. He would not object to
having subsequent amendments considered in the future. He expressed concern on the performance appraisal because
that also smacked of the judge not being independent which he found troublesome. He concurred that if the removal for
cause was too vague and caused problems, then he would consider being more specific in that area in the future. Vice
Mayor Kavanagh discussed the proposed requirements of the judge being a licensed attorney with a specific level of
experience. He felt that experience was necessary because when looking at the rules of evidence and admissibility a
career person was needed. No only did that ensure that the person knew the law, it also ensured that he or she was an
intelligent person because the overall process of becoming a lawyer was a screening process. He said not all lawyers
should be judges but he felt it was a good standard. He was comfortable with the requirement that the judge should be
an attorney. He restated that in the future he would be willing to revisit and modify the section about removal for cause
and explore the performance appraisal aspects.
Councilwoman Hutcheson asked Mr. Farrell to discuss the difficulty of using pro tems as used in other towns. Mr.
Farrell responded that the State Supreme Court continued to demand more accountability and performance from the
courts. He explained that the efficiency of offices and supervision of the court administrator and staff was missing
which resulted in problems from the state court audit standpoint. He felt that lawyers were privileged in this society to
make a decent living practicing law and as a result if the economy scale were affected in terms of availability for a
salary, the market for qualified candidates would be drastically cut and limit the employment market or get someone
who did not bring the integrity or qualifications to the position. He reasoned that because Fountain Hills was a growing
community experiencing continuing issues in code enforcement and quality of life issues that there would be more
toning related matters that would come forward as the town reached build out. He said the temperament of the judge as
%Bowen as his or her demeanor and educational qualification would continue to be important. If the salary were decreased,
the Town would find the pool of candidates substantially lessened. He encouraged the Council to keep the judge
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 21,2002
Page 3 of 14
position at its current full-time level. Mr. Farrell referred to the listing the comparative pay ranges in the surrounding
areas that had been provided to the Council for their review. He noted that it was difficult to attract people if the
position paid below what the same judicial position would pay in another city. He requested that the Council keep this
position as described for those particular reasons.
Councilwoman Hutcheson expressed her concern with regard to the liability issue. She commented that as the cases
became more complicated a practicing attorney, or one who had passed the bar, might have a better grasp of the law and
would be less likely to expose the Town to liability. Mr.Farrell agreed with her but reminded the Council that the judge
was cloaked with judicial immunity. He felt that the liability went further to the heart of the law enforcement personnel
as they were looking for integrity, fairness, and consistency with the detainees looking for protection of their
Constitutional rights and a fair and impartial hearing. He explained that when that system or process erodes it could
lead to demoralization among the law enforcement personnel and a plethora of lawsuits from the defendants. Mr.
Farrell summarized the issue of qualifications from the liability standpoint by saying that the more integrity and more
professionalism from the person chosen,the safer the Town would be in the long run from litigation.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh asked what were the requirements in Scottsdale, Phoenix, Paradise Valley Cave Creek, and
Carefree with respect to the judge being a licensed attorney. Mr. Farrell replied that he did not know what their codes
said. He believed that Scottsdale's magistrates and judges were practicing attorneys; Carefree employed practicing
attorneys, as did Cave Creek and all of the volunteers in Paradise Valley were practicing attorneys. Judge Shoob
volunteered that Phoenix, Mesa, Chandler, Peoria, and the majority of the communities required attorneys in their
particular courts.
Councilman Melendez thanked Ms. Nicola for her remarks. He echoed Vice Mayor Kavanagh's appreciation for Judge
Shoob's service and stated that he would be missed. Councilman Melendez restated the three issues before this Council:
the loss of Judge Shoob's respected service; the replacement time period — Judge Shoob's term expires on June 30,
2002; and the pending installation of a new mayor and two new council members on June 6, 2002. He felt timing was
critical and the Council should move quickly. Judge Shoob commented that he had hoped he had not put this Council in
a bind time wise. He explained that he had given in excess of three months notice. He hoped the replacement process
could be taken care of in three months. He expressed that if this Council so desired, a selection committee could be
formed with someone from the incoming Council asked to serve on that committee. He did not want to see them ke
out of the process in any way.
Mayor Morgan agreed that someone from the newly elected group of officers should be included on the selection
committee. She wished Judge Shoob a wonderful retirement and commented that he would be missed. Councilwoman
Fraverd echoed the Council's thanks for Judge Shoob's years of service. She asked Judge Shoob what his qualifications
and experience had been when he was appointed to this position. Judge Shoob responded that he had been an attorney
in private practice in excess of 25 years, receiving his law degree from the University of Arizona in 1959. He went to
work for the City of Phoenix as an assistant city prosecutor, then on to be city prosecutor staying there three years and
continuing on into private practice where he stayed for another twenty some years. He stated that he left the private
practice of law in the 80's. Councilwoman Fraverd pointed out that the Town would be hard pressed to find someone of
Judge Shoob's caliber. Councilwoman Ralphe also thanked Judge Shoob for his service and wished him well. Judge
Shoob thanked the Council for their comments.
The motion CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #7 - DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE ACTION ON A MOTION TO DIRECT MARICOPA
COUNTY ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT TO REMOVE ONE OR BOTH ITEMS FROM THE MAY 218 r,2002,
GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT REGARDING PROPOSITION 400, A BASE LIMIT ADJUSTMENT, AND
PROPOSITION 401,A PRIMARY PROPERTY TAX LEVY.
Acting Town Manager Roy Pederson stated that the Town was in receipt of some good news, in writing, from the
Economics Estimates Commission (EEC). He confirmed this was the state agency in charge of overseeing the
expenditure limitation provisions of state law. The Town received notice from them that the request for the expanded
expenditure limitation, to fund the Fire Department previously financed by the Fire District, had been approved. This in
effect removed the need for Proposition 400. He concurred with Town Attorney Bill Farrell's recommendation tha
Proposition 400 be removed from the ballot. Mr. Pederson added that the action to remove the proposition must be done
prior to Friday, March 22, 2002, in order to get the matter removed from the ballot. He expressed that time was very
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 21,2002
Page 4 of 14
tight to deal with this issue. He reiterated that it was Mr. Farrell and staff's recommendation that Proposition 400 be
removed from the May 21,2002 ballot.
Mr. Pederson noted that Proposition 401 was a different consideration. He stated that there was no reasonable
lispexpectation that the Town could anticipate any similar action to provide the funding once generated by the Fire District
to finance the Fire Department now under the jurisdiction of the Town. He was confident that when this sequence of
events occurred that resulted in the Town assuming the Fire Department responsibility, it was also assumed that the
revenues previously received by the District would become available to the Town on an annual basis in order to meet
that operating expense. At this time the cost was estimated to be $2.4 million dollars annually. He pointed out that
unless there was a vehicle to provide that funding, the Town would have difficulty financing it's budget in the future.
Staff was recommending that Proposition 401 remain on the ballot allowing the Fountain Hills' voters to make the
decision as to whether or not they wished to authorize the Town to levy the tax necessary that had previously been
levied by the Fire District.
Mr. Pederson explained what was happening in connection with this matter. He referred to a packet of documents that
the Council recently received but noted that another document had been prepared that focused on this issue that avoided
the distraction of the other information, which raised many budgetary questions and discussions. He felt that if the first
document were to be used this would turn into a budgetary discussion instead of a discussion on Proposition 401. Mr.
Pederson used the visualizer to display a set of three fiscal periods and what the overall fiscal situation was regarding
the revenues and expenditures of the Town. He clarified that he did not possess any special qualities, which allowed
him to predict the future and that was what this exercise was about. He acknowledged that it was difficult to predict the
future and it was an almost impossible time line in which to deal with it. He presented the basic facts that he and Ms.
Ghetti had put together. Mr. Pederson held Ms. Ghetti in high regard as the Town's accounting supervisor. He stated
that he had also consulted with Mr. Jim Jenkins, the Town's financial consultant, who recently retired as Scottsdale's
Finance Director. Mr. Pederson acknowledged that they had worked together in Scottsdale when he had been the city
manager there. He stated that Mr. Jenkins was one of the finest finance directors that he had ever worked with. He
explained that this summary was the result of their collaborative efforts in trying to find a way to make the most sense
and to make it plain as to what it is that the Town is faced with. Mr. Pederson confirmed that what the bottom line was
that for the next fiscal year it was possible that without Proposition 401 authority, the Town would be facing a virtual
elimination of any reserve funds and a serious reduction in the Town's ability to fund any significant capital items. He
milWpointed out that the numbers used were conservative. He felt the numbers needed to be conservative. If the Town did
"hit the wall"that first year,there was no question in his mind it would happen the following year.
Mr. Pederson stated that the $2.4 million dollars could not be squeezed out of a budget the size of Fountain Hills' as that
was a large item. He restated that there was a need for funding authority to maintain all of the Town's other services
and to finance fire services. He noted that the figures were estimates and could be debated as to if they were 10% or
20% off but he pointed out that staff was predicting so they were guessing. He asked that if any one had a better number
to let him know what it is. He said the fact remains that given the fact that this was an estimate and no one ever guesses
exactly right, there was absolutely no question that the facts were stark and plain that it would be only a couple of years
before the Town would be penniless in terms of any sort of a surplus. The Town would be faced with the issue of how
to get out of the services that the Town currently provides. Mr. Pederson pointed out that would be a terrible budget for
a Council to ever have to deal with because the choices would be grim. It was staffs recommendation that the Council
leave Proposition 401 on the ballot with the hope that the voters would give favorable consideration on this issue in
May.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh asked the two propositions be separated. Vice Mayor Kavanagh MOVED to remove Proposition
400 from the May 21st, 2002 General Election Ballot. Councilwoman Fraverd SECONDED the motion.
Bob Travis, 14218 N. Chinook Plaza
He wanted to see the expenditure limitation proposition left on the ballot. He asked for Mr. Farrell's legal opinion on
the lawsuits.
Mr. Farrell responded to Mr. Travis' request for the legal opinion on the three lawsuits. He acknowledged that there
were three lawsuits filed,two of which touch this issue (Hoffman and the Robinson lawsuits). Mr. Farrell felt those two
tight be consolidated because they were almost identical. Mr. Farrell stated that the EEC granted the Council
$19,366,177 dollars of expenditure limitations for the 2002-2003'budget year. He pointed out that the litigation would
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 21,2002
Page 5 of 14
not be settled prior to the time when the new Council adopted their budget for 2002-2003. He reiterated that the new
Council would have $19,366,177 worth of expenditure limitation. If the courts or the new Council or some other
intervening force such as the State Legislature were to take the Town out of the fire business and allow a new district to
be formed or breathe life into the old district, then at that point, it would take the new district a year before they cou'
get back onto the tax rolls in order to finance their operation unless they were going to return to a pure volunteer fi?to)
department. Mr.Farrell said that would preclude any appeals from the decision by this Council or future Councils, if the
Town were to lose. Mr. Farrell stated it was his opinion that the Town was not going to lose these lawsuits and would
be in the fire business. He said that new Council would not have that restriction. If the district were to come back into
existence in 2003-2004,then at that period of time,the then seated Council would have two options: they could go back
to the Economic Estimates Commission and inform them that the Town was no longer in the fire business and request
that the expenditure limitation be reduced or the Council could call an election in May 2003 or May 2004 and place the
same question before the voters at that time. He reiterated that the figures gathered by Mr. Jenkins and Ms. Ghetti
indicated that if the Town did not fund fire, the new Council would have funds sufficient to carry on the level of service
that had been carried on in the past. He noted that funding of capital expenditures would be a difficult forecasting
decision that the new Council would be faced with in June and July of this year but the funds would be sufficient to
carry on operating expenses and debt service without exceeding the ordinary $15 million, but the Town would have
$19,366,177 of expenditure limitation. If the proposition were left on the ballot and the voters approved it, the Town
would have $24,080,923 of expenditure limitation and was far in excess of what this or future Councils would need to
have in the way of expenditure limitation for the future and it might create some additional public confusion. Mr.
Farrell stated that the grant by the EEC was in place and would not affect or hamstring the new Council seated on June
6, 2002. If the litigation goes the way that Mr. Travis hopes it does, then the Town would have plenty of time during
2002 or 2003 to put the District back together.
Frances Hoffman, 14215 N. Ashbrook
She was confused and asked why the Council now wanted to remove the public's opportunity to vote when all along the
Council had been stating that this action was needed.
Mayor Morgan responded that the Council did not know that the EEC would grant the increase in the expenditure
limitation. Ms. Ghetti explained that when the Town was faced with having to provide fire protection, staff was not sure
if the costs could be absorbed in the expenditure limitation. Staff researched all available methods of expanding th,,
town's expenditure limitation. She stated that there was a State Statute that applied to a government that assumed the
responsibility of a district that no longer existed. The EEC informed the Town that Fountain Hills fit into that statute
and granted the increase.
Mr. Pederson added that the reason that this action was proposed at this point was because the Council now had new
facts. If the Council had not placed this on the ballot and the EEC had not granted the increase, the Town would be in
serious trouble because the expenditure limitation would not allow the Town to spend money even it the Town had it.
When the EEC took their action, the Council was presented with new facts and that was why staff brought the action of
removal before the Council. There had been no way to predict the decision of the EEC. Vice Mayor Kavanagh agreed
that everyone but one candidate was reluctantly supporting the raising of the cap because it was restraining the Town
and would cause major problems. He confirmed that the Council only found out a couple of days ago that the appeal to
the EEC had been granted. Vice Mayor Kavanagh expressed concern that the proposed ballot, if approved, would raise
the spending limit to$24 million. He stated that the amount granted by the Economic Estimates Commission was much
better and kept the cap at$19 million. He pointed out that he did not intend to spend $19 million but he did not want a
limit of$24 million. If there was one message that came through during this last campaign, it was that people were very
concerned about taxes and spending. He was pleased that now that the ridiculous $24 million dollar ceiling could be
discarded and down to a more reasonable level.
Mike Archambault, 15033 El Sobrante
He suggested that the Council leave the proposition on the ballot so that the newly elected council members taking
office in June could get a read on the voters as to whether or not the voters trust the Council. If the voters gave their
approval for the expenditure limit increase that would tell the new officers that the public did trust them to be fiscally
responsible. He stated it could be used as a gauging tool. He disagreed with Mr. Farrell with regard to the outcome of
pending lawsuits.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh asked Mr. Farrell what would happen if the one of the lawsuits were successful. Would the
Town have adequate time to go to the voters to adjust the spending cap? Mr.Farrell responded yes.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 21,2002
Page 6 of 14
Jon Beydler, 13618 Sunset Dr.
He asked Vice Mayor Kavanagh for clarification if the amount on the ballot referenced $20 or $24 million. Mr. Farrell
responded that the amount was $20 million. Mr. Beydler asked if this were to move forward, would the verbiage be
changed to read $24 million or would it stay $20 million. Vice Mayor Kavanagh stated it would read $20 million. Mr.
3eydler said that was a subtle difference but important. He wanted to see that the people get the opportunity to vote on
this issue.
John Winter, 11247 N. Inca
He reiterated that without the vote the expenditure limitation would be $19 million and with the vote it would increase
to $20 million. He asked that the Council allow the people to vote on the issue. He was opposed to the higher
expenditure limitation of$24 million.
Rocky Dziepak, 16316 E Jacklin
He asked that the Council let the people vote on this issue.
Mr. Pederson asked Mr. Farrell what the implication of letting the public vote on the issue would be since the EEC had
approved the expenditure limitation increase to $19 million. Mr. Pederson questioned if the voters would be asked to
take a double hit in terms of raising the expenditure limitations twice as much as was really needed if both happened.
Mr. Farrell clarified that the ballot language asked for a $1 million dollar adjustment. The EEC gave the Town
$19,366,177 in expenditure limitation. He noted that the EEC was aware that there was the possibility of a ballot on this
issue. If the one-million ballot issue were to pass, then the Town would have $24,080,923 in expenditure limitation, but
if it failed the Town would have $19,366,177. Mr. Farrell reiterated that the $1 million would go on top of the
$19,366,177 amount that had been already granted by the Economic Estimates Commission (EEC). If the EEC had not
acted, then the one million dollars would have resulted in the spending limitation going to $20,284,124; but since the
EEC has acted and granted the Town within $900,000 of that $20,284,124, the additional one million would bring the
Town to$24,080,923. Those figures were not reflected on the ballot form. The ballot contained only one figure, which
was one million dollars. Vice Mayor Kavanagh asked for clarification as to what would the spending cap be if the
Council were to withdraw this motion and the voters approved the ballot issue. Mr.Farrell responded$24,080,923.
kirJohn Winter, 11247 N Inca
e asked what would happen if the EEC's approval were reversed and the Council just went for the vote by the public.
Why did staff go to the EEC when the Council knew that there was to be a vote of the people on this issue?
Vice Mayor Kavanagh again asked if the proposition stayed on the ballot and the people approved it what would the cap
be. Mr. Farrell replied the amount of the expenditure limitation would be$24,080,923. Vice Mayor Kavanagh asked if
Mr. Winters objected to that amount. Mr. Winters asked if the approval of the higher expenditure limitation granted by
the EEC could be withdrawn and then have the public vote on the expenditure limitation proposition. Vice Mayor
Kavanagh asked Mr. Farrell if that was an option. Mr. Farrell recognized that Ms. Ghetti, Mr. Nordin, the League of
Arizona Cities and Towns had performed some wonderful staff work. Staff spent a great deal of time researching this
option and went before the EEC, which in a rare decision on the EEC's part they recognized and rewarded staffs hard
work by granted the increase in the Town's expenditure limitation. He noted that the EEC meets very rarely, twice
during the year, when they set the estimates for every city and town in the county and for the school districts within the
state. Mr. Farrell stated that staff had no way of knowing that the Economic Estimates Commission would approve an
increase to $19,366,177. He pointed out that the Town should be thankful that the staff put that type of hard work into
this. He was sorry that it caused a disruption in the election process but it seemed that since the two numbers were
$900,000 apart that it would be in Town's best interest to not ask the voters to do that. He concluded that staff deserved
recognition and not criticism for their efforts.
Mr. Pederson stated that if the EEC were asked to reverse themselves, staff would have no way of knowing if they
would do that. He did not even know when they were meeting next. He acknowledged that this was a difficult issue
and the timing did not help anyone. Mr. Winters stated that he found it unfair that the Council had found a different way
around the issue so that the issue could be taken off the ballot instead of having the citizens' vote on it. He asked the
Council to let the voters have a voice in it. Vice Mayor Kavanagh commented that the Council had been trying to keep
the expenditure limitation as low as possible. Mr. Winters pointed out that the amounts were only $900,000 apart.
cotvlayor Morgan reminded the public that these issues were not on the ballot yet because the ballots had not been printed.
She restated that the Council had until Friday to take the issues off the ballots. Mr. Winters countered that the Council
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 21,2002
Page 7 of 14
was not allowing the voters to have a chance to vote on this issue. Mayor Morgan clarified that there wasn't any ballot.
Mr. Winters restated that the Council found another way around not letting the public vote on something one more time
and he felt that was unfair.
Mr. Beydler
He read the last paragraph from the letter sent to the Town from the EEC dated March 15, 2002. He questioned the
wording "conditioned on voter approval". Did that mean a vote? He confirmed that he had also contacted Mr. Mark
Killian, Chairman of the Arizona Department of Revenue, who cited the Arizona State Constitution that suggested that
if the Fire District were to be reinstated, the Town would have to roll back the cap from the $19 million to the current
cap. That action would be required. He expressed concern what message was being sent to the voters if this was pulled
from the ballot. Wasn't that an attempt to influence the election? Was this an attempt to influence the fire issue to serve
some particular interest because the threat of the Fire District coming back would make the voters feel nervous because
they might lose other services because the spending cap would be reduced to the$14 million dollar level? He expressed
concern that there might be ulterior motives here that may be politically based to influence agendas that were not so
obvious this evening. He felt that the letter from the Arizona Department of Revenue expected a vote and conditioned
their approval on voter approval. Mr. Beydler stated the Council had to give the community the right to vote, which
would tell the incoming Council whether or not the citizens felt that they were fiscally responsible enough to handle the
budget. He noted that over the next ninety days these issues would have to be aired again. He asked that the voters be
allowed to make a choice. Ten years from now the Council might not be afraid of the amount of$24 million dollars.
He remarked that the $24 million dollars did not exist and could not be spent. The mere fact that the expenditure
limitation was $24 million was irrelevant because the budget might only have $15 million in revenues to spend. He felt
the issue was that the Council had the fiduciary responsibility to the community to ensure that the Town had a spending
cap that allowed the Town to pay the bills. To jeopardize that by assuming the fire issue was resolved and the lawsuits
were going to go in the Town's favor was a stretch. If the Council could guarantee everyone in Town that all three
lawsuits would be won by the Town, that the Fire District would not come back, that the expenditure limit would not be
rolled back, and that the EEC would not care that the Town did not have vote,then take it off the ballot.
Fred Meuter, 15719 E Sunflower
He suggested the Council call a recess to allow staff the time to put the numbers up on the screen for the public to see.
He did not think that the Council knew what the numbers were.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh felt there was a clear desire to put this to a vote and he had no objections to a public vote so he
withdrew his motion and Councilwoman Fraverd withdrew her second.
Mr. Farrell displayed on the visualizer a document prepared by the staff of the Economic Estimates Commission, which
contained examples of the proposed adjustment to the Town's expenditure limitation due to the acquisition of a fire
district. Mr.Farrell discussed and explained each of the four examples. He stated that it was clear to the Town staff that
the EEC staff understood, by their unanimous vote, that the EEC was giving Fountain Hills the $19 million increase. It
was then up to the Town to determine if the Town would go forward with the voter approval of a base limit increase.
He stated that the EEC would adjust the base limit to $24 million and not subtract the difference between the $19 and
the $20 million. Mr. Farrell displayed the ballot language, which confirmed that only one amount; $1 million dollars
would be shown. He explained that the publicity pamphlet may contain the information about the differences in terms
of the adjustment of the Town's base. He also noted that a similar table could be contained in the publicity pamphlet but
the ballot had one number and one number only and that number was$1 million dollars.
Frances Hoffman
She agreed that the voters would be voting on the fiscal responsibility of the Council.
Carl Cudlitz, 14604 N. Saguaro Blvd.
He said this was a vote for the Town's budget and he wanted the opportunity to vote. He felt the ballot language was
misleading and asked that it be clarified.
Councilwoman Hutcheson recalled that over the last few months a significant amount of the public felt that an increase
in the expenditure limitation was not a good thing to have. She noted a significant difference in the public comment
tonight. One of the reasons the Council was having the discussion about removing this from the ballot was because nev
information was just given to them this week that raised the expenditure automatically to approximately $19 millio
dollars. She did not think this was a confusing issue at all. Councilwoman Hutcheson said that the Town had $15
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 21,2002
Page 8 of 14
million dollars that could be spent and the Council thought it would need to be raised to $20 million and that was why
the Council wanted to put it on the ballot. Many in the public did not want the Council to do that because they did not
want a $20 million cap. The Council was unaware that it was revisited and the fact that the Town was awarded
approximately $19 million dollars. If the public thought $20 million was too high, why in the world would the public
ant$24 million?
Vice Mayor Kavanagh asked for clarification purposes, if he withdrew his motion, the proposition would stay on the
ballot. Mr.Farrell agreed that would be the case unless another motion passed. Vice Mayor Kavanagh stated that if the
voters then approved the increase in the expenditure limitation the cap would be increased to approximately $24 million
dollars. If the public votes against the spending cap the amount would be approximately $19 million dollars. Vice
Mayor Kavanagh restated that he did not have a problem at this point with this issue going to the voters. He hoped the
amount would be$19 million.
Councilman Melendez again thanked Town staff Julie Ghetti, Paul Nordin, and Cassie Hansen for taking the time and
energy to go down to the Economic Estimates Commission. He felt that was good work on their part. Mr. Farrell stated
that if any member of the Council wished to remove the property tax issue from the ballot, now would be the
appropriate time but staffs recommendation was to leave the property tax issue on the ballot.
Councilwoman Ralphe MOVED to leave Proposition 401 on the ballot with direction to staff to provide public
information on the issues between now and the election. She suggested some forms of public education that could be
used such as news releases or in the form of special meetings without politicians but at the staff level where the politics
could be removed. She felt the public tonight had expressed confusion on the issues. She stated that the Council had
the responsibility to the citizens to inform and educate them. Councilwoman Ralphe expressed that she did not want to
be specific in the form the education process should take, as she wanted to leave that up the expertise of staff.
Councilwoman Fraverd SECONDED the motion.
Mr. Farrell clarified that State Law limited the ability that Town staff, personnel, equipment, material could be used to
influence the outcome of the election. He stated that staff would prepare a publicity pamphlet. He said the deadline for
arguments for pros and cons had long since passed on that publicity pamphlet and would contain only what State Law
Lallowed. Staff would answer questions, but he would caution staff not attempt in any way to influence the outcome of
an election. He explained that sometimes people get a little disappointed because of that but staff must remain neutral.
He pointed out that it would be up to the citizens, both those for and against the issues, to carry the education forward.
Staff would be able to provide statistical information. He mentioned a page on the Town's website that would become
available where the residents could compute the property tax individually. Mr. Farrell said that much beyond that staff
would be very uncomfortable going forward with information, such as appearing at service clubs.
Councilwoman Ralphe stated that she was aware that nothing pertaining to the Town could be used to influence an
election. She wanted to believe that there was a difference between trying to influence an election and trying to educate
and inform citizens. In her opinion, it could be done without violating the law. She said it was not her intent to try to
influence an election. Mr. Farrell responded that staff could try through the Compass, reports, and distribution of
random tax analyses,copies of the EEC's letter and their staff report could be made available. Mr. Farrell reminded the
Council that there would be a publicity pamphlet. Staff would make an effort,but his job was to make sure that staff did
not violate that law and influence the outcome of the election. He stated that he would rather err by not making a
statement that could be interpreted as influencing the outcome. He urged the citizens, elected officials, and the
candidates to investigate and carry the word out to the voters. Staff would facilitate information but they would have a
difficult time getting involved in the operation of the election itself.
Councilwoman Hutcheson asked if this situation was similar to that of the school district when they want to do a bond or
an override where they need to have an outside committee because they cannot do any promotion themselves. Mr.
Farrell agreed that school boards, special taxing districts, the county and municipalities were all restricted from
participating. Councilwoman Hutcheson asked which municipality recently experienced some significant difficulties
with this issue. Mr. Farrell said that each year there are complaints about the newsletter in Paradise Valley that included
the sentence "they pledged to be good stewards of your funds" in their request for an alternative expenditure limitation,
which was ruled to be influencing the outcome of an election. He explained that it was difficult to find out what the fine
line was. Mr. Farrell stated that staff would put together a publicity pamphlet and would put together a do-it-yourself
%retest on the website and that would be the end of the education edge of where staff felt comfortable.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 21,2002
Page 9 of 14
Vice Mayor Kavanagh asked if Mr. Farrell was comfortable with the wording of the motion or would he prefer it were
modified. Mr. Farrell responded it was fine. Councilman Melendez agreed that the residents needed further education.
That was why he supported Councilwoman Ralphe's motion. He suggested that the local newspaper could do a plain
simple plus and minus of what was good and bad. He did not think that the citizens looking at a website could make uA
their minds. He felt that between now and the time that the citizens vote, they needed to be educated on what was go IOW
and what was bad for the community. He felt that the local paper could do a great service to the town by articulating
that in writing. Mayor Morgan agreed that the paper could as long as they list only the facts without any editorializing
or commenting. She commented that it might not be found to be very interesting reading.
Frances Hoffman
She asked if the government channel could be used with a citizen's panel so they could talk about the facts. Mr. Farrell
proposed that they could contact Cox Communication and make arrangement for public access television. They could
go down and tape the program at their studios. He said that public access television was available. Ms. Hoffman asked
that this avenue be looked at as a possibility. Mr.Farrell stated the Channel 11 would not run political broadcasting.
Mr. Pederson said that the basic rule that staff tries to follow would be to publicize factual information but staff had to
stay away from advocacy. He admitted that sounded easy but it wasn't always easy as Mr.Farrell pointed out as the line
was somewhat murky. Mr. Pederson said that when dealing with this type of an issue, he felt that the motion was
appropriate and staff could respond to it, staff would make sure to run everything they felt was appropriate pass Mr.
Farrell to ensure that he was satisfied that it met the legal test. He admitted staff could do some things and Mr. Farrell
would exercise his usual care that staff did not step over that fine line.
Nancy Land 15833 Bursage Dr.
She felt the public should vote on Proposition 401. She stated that there should be a person designated who captured the
pros and cons that were presented at the meeting in facts only. As much as budget items come up and can be provided
by law the citizens need to see what the future holds for all in order to make a wise decision. She suggested that
answers be provided to the questions of what will happen if the citizens support this property tax and what will happen if
the voters do not support the property tax. It would help the citizens become informed voters.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh said that one of the other tasks before the Council was the preparation of the budget an
obviously the budget would have to take into account these very issues. He suspected that there might be two budget
versions that would be presented.
Councilwoman Fraverd asked Mr. Farrell if council members would be considered influencing the election if they
answered someone who asked them what the ramifications were of this ballot issue passing or not passing. Mr. Farrell
clarified that the legislature recognized the constitutional rights of free speech given to candidates. All members of the
Council, Mayor-elect Beydler, Council member-elect Archambault, and the two candidates as well as the citizens were
free to express their opinion in any way they see fit. It was the Town's staff that had the constraints. He noted that
Town resources could not be used to influence the election.
Mike Archambault
He congratulated and thanked Councilwoman Ralphe for putting this motion to the floor.
The motion CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #8 - CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO PERMIT A
GUEST HOUSE AS A SPECIAL USE IN AN "R1-35" RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, LOCATED AT
16648 N.BOULDER DRIVE,AKA PLAT 505C,BLOCK 1,LOT 28, CASE NUMBER SU2001-17.
Interim Community Development Director Jesse Drake reviewed that this was a request for a special use permit for a
house that was continued from the February 7th, 2002 Council meeting. The house had been permitted under a building
permit that showed an RV garage and workshop as an accessory building. She displayed the site plan on the visualizer
for public view. She noted that the main house was above the primary structure and described the topography of the
site. She explained that on the final inspection there were no improvements to this and conformed to the plan as it was
revealed when it was permitted. There were no kitchen or bathroom facilities at that time. Subsequent to the Tina'
inspection the applicant, with knowledge of the building code and in violation of the building code modified the interior
of the RV garage/workshop to include plumbing fixtures and appliances for a bathroom and kitchen. Ms. Drake stated
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 21,2002
Page 10 of 14
that guesthouses were permitted in single family zoning districts if all seven criteria were met. This particular
application was in violation of the Town Code because the guesthouse was not located behind the primary structure.
Ms. Drake stated that the Town had received nine applications for a special use permit for guesthouses from 1991 to the
present time. Every permit, with the exception of this applicant's permit, showed the location of the guesthouse behind
he front line of the primary in compliance with the zoning ordinance. As a part of this application the applicant
provided to staff a list of thirteen homes in Fountain Hills that indicate a guesthouse amenity. The list was generated
from a realtor's list of houses for sale. She noted that only one of the properties on the list had a special use permit. The
property with the special use permit met all of the code requirements including the requirement that the guesthouse be
located behind the primary structure. Therefore it appeared that all but one of the realtor's listing guesthouses as
supplied by Ms. Calvin were in violation of the Town's zoning ordinance.
Ms. Drake stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously voted to deny this application. Planning and
Zoning Chairman Bob Howes stated that the ordinance would need to be enforced and this particular application would
have to be denied if the rules were to be followed. Staff was in agreement with the Planning and Zoning Commission
and was recommending denial of this application.
Councilwoman Fraverd MOVED to deny the Special Use Permit and Councilwoman Ralphe SECONDED the motion.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh reviewed that the Council had originally tabled this issue because the Council wanted to
investigate the list of homes that the applicant said also were in violation. Of the thirteen identified only one was
actually permitted. Apparently the applicant only gathered the list from those homes that were listed for sale, so he
shuddered to think of the total number of guesthouses that were not permitted. Vice Mayor Kavanagh was not sure why
the Council tabled this because the results suggest massive non-compliance and that lead him to think that there were a
lot of people who were hard core law breakers or there were a lot of people who don't think this was something that
should be regulated. He expressed concern that this structure was not an eyesore in the neighborhood and no one had
complained about this usage. Vice Mayor Kavanagh was not excusing this applicant or the other non-permitted
guesthouses for noncompliance but he was wondering if the law needed to be looked at. He noted that this applicant
had complied with all but one of the required stipulations, which was the location requirement that the structure be
located behind the primary house. He was not convinced that the Council had an interest in telling people that they
an't turn the garages into guesthouses just because they were located in front of the property. If the Council were to
—initiate the text amendment process to revise the law and permit guesthouses in front of the house line so longthey
as
comply with the other five or six restrictions,then the Council would make a lot of the people who were illegal legal.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh AMENDED the motion to initiate the text amendment process that would reconsider the ban on
guesthouses in the front line of the property and TABLE this application until the Council decided if they wanted to
amend the law. The amendment DIED due to the lack of a second.
Ms. Drake pointed out that the list that was provided by the applicant may or may not contain guesthouses, as staff did
not go to each of the facilities to see if the structures were guesthouses according to the zoning ordinance. The
structures might not have kitchen and bathroom facilities. She stated that how a realtor judged and listed a facility was
subjective. Without going inside, staff would have no way of knowing what was contained inside these properties. In
fact, it might just be a workroom that they, the realtor, considered could be turned into a guesthouse or something else.
Ms. Drake commented that Councilwoman Fraverd and she were working on this part of the ordinance to modify both
the guesthouse section and the accessory building section to no only bring these properties into conformance with some
of these issues but also so that the accessory buildings and guesthouses were more in conformance with each other.
Staff recognized that this happened where buildings were converted. However, in the modification, this particular
application still would not comply. Vice Mayor Kavanagh asked because of what factor. Ms. Drake responded that the
proposed change would put the guesthouse structure in front of the primary structure but not by that distance because
staff did not want to encourage any sort of indication that this was a multi-family property in a single-family district.
Staff would encourage guesthouses that were located in front of a primary structure to be limited to the appearance of a
compound effect. Vice Mayor Kavanagh asked if that meant attached. Ms. Drake said attached or detached but at a less
of a distance than this application was.
Councilwoman Ralphe stated that the Town had been dreaming of a resort hotel within Fountain Hills. She did not
think it would happen as readily if all over town guesthouses were available up toward the front of the street, especially
%wit'those guesthouses were rented out. She felt it was a bad idea to encourage that type of use of accessory buildings.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh asked Ms. Drake if guesthouses could be'rented out Ms. Drake said that by law, a guesthouse
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 21,2002
Page 11 of 14
could not be rented out but very often they were. Vice Mayor Kavanagh remarked that he was not implying that people
could suddenly open up rental properties. Vice Mayor Kavanagh asked if the applicant's structure started out as a
guesthouse. Ms. Drake replied that on the building permit plan it was an RV garage with an attached workshop. Vice
Mayor Kavanagh asked if that was legal. Ms. Drake responded yes. Vice Mayor Kavanagh asked if on the outside if
looked like anything other than an RV garage. Ms. Drake described the outer appearance to be more of a residentia
structure because it had a patio on the outside.
Councilwoman Fraverd pointed out that the Development Advisory Committee had spent a great deal of time debating
and fine-tuning a text amendment that would address guesthouses and accessory structures. Councilwoman Fraverd
stated that this application did not meet the criteria or come close for approval. She reminded the Council that this
structure was already built and the Council was not asking the applicant to tear it down. The Council was just not
saying that it could be officially known as a guesthouse. By denying the application, the Council was saying that it
would just stay an accessory structure. Vice Mayor Kavanagh acknowledged that he was not aware of the revisiting of
the standards. Councilwoman Fraverd stated that the committee and staff knew there was a problem.
Joyce Calvin,the applicant
She stated that she had been working to get this permit since the end of December. She explained that this home was
built in '98 and it was a 2-acre site. It had been suggested to them when they built the lower RV garage to make it
aesthetically pleasing so it didn't look like a flat RV garage. At that time they constructed a porch on the side of it with
windows and doors to make it look cosmetically pleasing. Later it was decided to finish the inside of the garage. A
sprinkler system was installed per code,electrical was installed and all work was inspected. Basically what they did was
install an inner partition, a bathroom, and a little covered area with a kitchen sink. She stated that there weren't any
appliances in it. They had not altered the outer appearance of the structure. When the neighbors were notified of the
special use permit they were thinking that there was to be another structure built on the property and not that the existing
structure was being talked about. In talking with several neighbors, they did not have a problem with the structure. Ms.
Calvin stated that the problem came when they listed the house and it did sell. The buyer's agent wanted a separate
certificate of occupancy for the lower garage so that it could be used as a casita. She had been provided with a list of
other casitas in Fountain Hills. She had submitted pictures to the Council of what was listed as casitas and what
appeared to be casitas in various areas. She felt this had been a gray area for years. She pointed out that the last casita
that they built prior to this one had not required a special use permit. Ms. Calvin described this structure as bein
attached to the existing garage as was the prior one for which they had only needed a building permit. In talking with
Town staff and the Planning And Zoning Commission they were vague about when the changes were made to the Code.
She had asked for a list of special use permits that were granted and she was never given any list. The pictures that she
gave to the Council, especially the one that is clearly located in front of the house in Stoneridge on Valverde, was
situated similarly to hers and was not permitted either. She felt that it would open a can of worms for all of these homes
that may have been sold with guest casitas attached/detached with or without cooking facilities. She questioned how
anyone would inspect all of the facilities and determine if they were permitted or not. She agreed and understood that
there had to be rules and people needed to know kind of procedures they had to go through and needed to be re-
evaluated. Her position was that she had been waiting for three months and delayed while others were investigating and
checking out the other residents. She asked the Council for some type of closure on the situation. At one time it had
been suggested that the structure needed to be inspected and at times when people have done things without getting the
proper permit there were fines that had been levied and inspections done. These structures were then permitted once
they were considered safe and legal. In this instance all the existing guesthouses should somehow either be permitted or
grandfathered as long as they were safe for the public. She felt that from now on people should be aware of what the
stipulations were and what the process was. She felt the process should be more user, builder, and homeowner friendly
as people needed to know what steps to go by. She admitted that the process had confused them and it wasn't their first
custom house it was their second. Ms. Calvin stated that the buyers were happy with the house and wanted to use the
structure as a guesthouse. She found this to be a frustrating situation. She asked the Council to have the guesthouse
inspected and permitted. The buyers did not want to rent it out, as they wanted to use it for family who would be
staying for three to five days as they had a large extended family. She again asked for the Council's help in closing the
situation.
The motion CARRIED.
AGENDA ITEM #9 - COUNCIL DISCUSSION CONCERNING ITEMS/ISSUES TO BE INCLUDED IN TH01111)
MANAGER'S PREPARATION OF THE TOWN'S 2002-2003 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 21,2002
Page 12 of 14
Mr. Pederson stated that staff was at the point in budget preparation process where if there was anything that the Council
wished to give in terms of policy staff would appreciate getting input at this time. He admitted that there were more
unknowns now than the Council usually has during budget times.
L'Councilwoman Fraverd stated that in light of the anticipated May Election it was prudent to have a very conservative
budget. She was looking for the budget to be approximately $15.3 million with staff sorting out the numbers. This
would give the Town some reserve, if needed. It allowed for some spending, to pay for the Fire Department, but didn't
allow for much extra. Councilwoman Fraverd indicated that staff would have to figure out what that did with staffing
and any capital improvements. She was not interested in seeing two budgets. If the measure passed in May,the Council
could consider adding items back in.
Vice Mayor Kavanagh asked to see a bare bones budget. He wanted to also see a listing of"the wishes" with costs. He
talked about the wish list containing immediate needs and the immediate wants such as the park improvements, senior
center, and the skate park. He asked that the Council and the elected officials receive the information as it was gathered
and as the final information was available as to how much money the Town would be getting, and then everyone (this
Council and the Council elect) could sit down and put the budget together. He commented that it would be the new
Council that would be voting on the final budget so everyone needed to have maximum input.
Councilwoman Ralphe also asked for a bare bones budget around $15.3 million. She was not interested in putting
together any wish lists beyond a basic budget and low on any new capital spending.
Kathleen Connelly Nicola
She asked what the current magistrate's salary was. Mr.Farrell was not certain. The Council did not know. Ms. Nicola
stated that was interesting. Mayor Morgan stated that she did not have everyone's salary committed to memory. Ms.
Nicola explained that she thought that the Council would have been aware of the salaries of the four appointed
employees. She reiterated her earlier comments. She restated that she worked for the court for nine years. She stated
that the judge had never worked a forty-hour week in twelve years yet he had been compensated as such including
benefits. She encouraged the Council, before laying off any full-time staffers, to consider reducing that position to a
part-time position.
LMr. Pederson mentioned that he had the report that indicated Judge Shoob's salary as $6,500 per month roughly
$78,000-$79,000 per year. g Y
Councilwoman Ralphe commented that none of the Council on the dias had ever said that word "layoff'. She had no
intention of any Town layoffs and she did not think any of her colleagues did either. Mr. Pederson echoed that he did
not anticipate any staff layoffs either.
Jon Beydler
He mentioned that he had put together a transition team. He felt the team had a big agenda ahead of them over the next
ninety days. He asked for assurances that he would receive budget planning information along with the current Mayor
and Council so that they could do some of their own planning and guestimates and estimates at the same time. Mayor
Morgan stated that was correct. Mr. Beydler asked if it would be an open flow of information during this transition.
Mayor Morgan again responded yes. Mr. Beydler thanked the Council.
AGENDA ITEM#10- CALL TO THE PUBLIC AND ADJOURNMENT.
Kathleen Connelly Nicola
She referred to the past special council meeting where the Council heard a presentation from Fort McDowell. She stated
that she read the papers everyday and watch the news everyday and she has known for some time that Fort McDowell
would like to have something there. She felt that when it was presented to the Council, they had seemed to be
unprepared and didn't have time to get public comment. She suggested that the Town schedule some public meetings
because she believed that something big was going to happen out there. It would be incumbent upon the Town to
become a part of the planning, preparation so that it wasn't a surprise to the public after it's done. She felt the council
could work closer with the neighbors and anticipate future projects.
flrr
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 21,2002
Page 13 of 14
Bob Travis
He asked for clarification if the two ballot issues were put on in an emergency meeting. If it had to be put on back then
as an emergency in order to get on the ballot in time, how was it tonight that the Council could have them removed from
the ballot or add the run-off names.
Mr. Farrell responded that the County sets deadlines that are outside the control of the Mayor and Council. He noted
that February 7 was the deadline to reserve ballot space. The County anticipated that there could be a run-off and
reserved the space for the names of those candidates who did not get elected. He stated that the County had been
contacted last Friday as to whether or not the Town could remove something, if needed, and the County had replied that
Friday, March 22, 2002, was the deadline for removal. Mr. Farrell explained that staff often works in a world where
someone else sets the deadlines over which staff did not have a lot of control. He pointed out that the Town contracts
with the County for elections and that was why the Town had those deadlines. He reminded the Council and the public
that the issue of the fire district had been contentious and staff had needed the time to gather the information. Mr.
Farrell restated that staff had acted within the timelines on February 7, 2002, and staff has acted within the time limits
this evening.
Councilwoman Fraverd MOVED to adjourn and Councilwoman Hutcheson SECONDED the motion, which
CARRIED unanimously. Mayor Morgan adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
/2/
Bye La✓ "'71e- CU--��
l Sharon Morgan,Mayo
ATTEST: ,`.c
Cassie B. Hansen,
Director of Administration/Town Clerk
PREPARED BY: ,do_
,?4 6%&t 'A..-'
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 21st day of March, 2002. I further certify that the meeting
was duly called and that a quorum was present.
DATED this 4th day of April 2002. 1
c Llt iji
Cassie B. Hansen,Director of Administration/Town Clerk
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 21,2002
Page 14 of 14