HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003.0501.TCREM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR AND EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE
FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
May 1,2003
Mayor Beydler reconvened the Regular Session at 6:37 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor
Jon Beydler, Vice Mayor Susan Ralphe, Councilmembers Rick Melendez, Leesa Stevens, Kathleen Nicola,
Michael Archambault, and John Kavanagh. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire, Town Manager Tim Pickering,
Public Works Director Tom Ward, Senior Planner Dana Burkhart, Planner Denise Ruhling, Accounting
Supervisor Julie Ghetti and Bevelyn Bender,Town Clerk, were also present.
Invocation-A moment of silence was observed in honor and memory of U.S. Troops in Iraq.
During a review of the Consent Agenda items, #3 (Consideration of Approving the Meeting Minutes of April
3rd and 8, 2003) and #5 (Consideration of the Liquor License Application for Nick Morgan's Sports Grill
located at 16737 E. Parkview) were pulled for discussion purposes.
AGENDA ITEM #4 - CONSIDERATION OF THE LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR
DANIEL'S PLACE LOCATED AT 16726 E. EL PUEBLO. THE APPLICATION WAS FOR A NEW
CLASS#12 RESTAURANT LICENSE.
AGENDA ITEM #6 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2003-15 ABANDONING WHATEVER
RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAD IN CERTAIN UTILITY AND DRAINAGE
EASEMENTS LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 9, BLOCK 2, PLAT
505C (16440 N. KIM DRIVE) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 158 OF MAPS, PAGE 42, RECORDS OF
MARICOPA COUNTY,ARIZONA. EA 2003-02. THOMAS & LYN MOSER.
Lor AGENDA ITEM #7 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2003-18 APPROVING AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) BETWEEN THE TOWN AND ADOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHEA BLVD.BIKE LANES.
AGENDA ITEM #8 - CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTING A DONATED CANNON FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN LEGION POST #58 AND THE
VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS POST#7507 FOR THE VETERANS' MEMORIAL IN FOUNTAIN
PARK.
AGENDA ITEM #9 - CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 03-11 GRANTING A PARKING AND
ACCESS EASEMENT TO THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SCOTTSDALE, INC., LOCATED AT
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CALAVERAS AVENUE AND DEL CAMBRE AVENUE.
Councilman Archambault MOVED to approve the consent agenda as read (Items 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9) and
Councilwoman Nicola SECONDED the motion. - •
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
Vice Mayor Ralphe Aye .
Mayor Beydler Aye
Councilman Melendez Aye
Councilwoman Nicola Aye
Councilwoman Stevens Aye
Councilman Archambault Aye
Councilman Kavanagh Aye
The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7 TO 0).
AGENDA ITEM #3 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL
3RD AND 8TH,2003.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 1 of 30 5/16/2003
Councilman Archambault stated that the minutes were found to be incomplete. Town Manager Tim Pickering
added that following a review of the minutes, he concurred that there were sections of discussion missing
regarding the law enforcement issue. He stated that in order to clarify the minutes and provide the most accurate
information, he had requested that the minutes be pulled and tabled to the next meeting so that additions and
clarifications could occur.
Councilwoman Stevens MOVED to continue consideration of approving the meeting minutes of April 3rd and
8th, 2003 to the next regular meeting of the Council to be held on May 15th and Vice Mayor Ralphe
SECONDED the motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7 TO 0).
AGENDA ITEM #5 - CONSIDERATION OF THE LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR NICK
MORGAN'S SPORTS GRILL LOCATED AT 16737 E. PARKVIEW. THE APPLICATION WAS FOR
A TRANSFER OF A CLASS#6 BAR LICENSE.
Mayor Beydler stated that the reason he requested that this agenda item be pulled and discussed was because he
would like to understand exactly who the applicant was and determine whether they were the owners of the
liquor license. He asked whether anyone was present at the meeting representing the applicant and if so, asked
them to come forward at this time. No one came forward to speak on behalf of the applicant.
The Mayor noted that the Council was contacted by a number of individuals in the community who had
questioned whether the individual who was selling or transferring this liquor license to the new entity was
actually the owner of that liquor license. He noted that other issues might be involved, such as a "sale in
process" of the facility and asked whether the Council had or would create a potential liability for the Town if
some of those answers were not clarified.
Town Attorney Andrew McGuire responded that he believed that the Council should continue this item to their
next regular meeting if they had any questions at all regarding the license. He added that Staff would pursue
this matter with the applicant and provide the Council with the information they required prior to the date of the
next meeting.
Mayor Beydler asked Mr. McGuire what type of background research was conducted as part of the license
approval process. Mr. Pickering noted that an extensive background search on the applicant was conducted
through the Marshals Department. He added that he believed the Mayor was talking about a review of the
person who actually held the liquor license and noted that a review was not conducted on that person. He added
that it would be prudent for the Town to take the time and pose the additional questions that had surfaced in
order to ensure that everyone was comfortable with the matter.
Mayor Beydler agreed and said that although everything might be fine and in order, the Council wanted to
ensure that everything was "up front" and clear. Mayor Beydler MOVED to continue consideration of the
Liquor License Application for Nick Morgan's Sports Grill to the next regular meeting of the Council to be held
on May 15th and Councilman Archambault SECONDED the motion. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY(7 TO 0).
AGENDA ITEM #10 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A SETTLEMENT REGARDING THE
GIBSON LAWSUIT.
Councilwoman Nicola declared a potential conflict of interest regarding this agenda item and said that she
would not participate in the discussion or vote on it at this time. She left the dais while discussion of this agenda
item occurred.
Mayor Beydler stated that before the Council could discuss the particulars of any agenda item, a motion must be
made and requested that one be brought forward at this time.
Councilman Archambault MOVED to approve a settlement regarding the Gibson lawsuit. MOTION DIED
FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Councilwoman Stevens MOVED to continue this agenda item. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A
SECOND.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 2 of 30 5/16/2003
Mayor Beydler asked Mr. McGuire how to proceed. Mr. McGuire stated that without a motion to discuss he
was at a loss. He stated that the one thing that the Council has never had was a lack of a motion. He suggested
that any other contemplated motions be posed at this time. He stated this item was up to the Council's
discretion. Councilman Melendez MOVED to discuss this agenda item. In response to a request for
L. clarification from the Mayor relative to making a motion to discuss prior to a motion to approve, Mr. McGuire
stated that typically a motion to approve for purposes of discussion or a motion to deny for purposes of
discussion was put out on the floor first.
Councilman Archambault MOVED to continue this agenda item. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A
SECOND.
Councilwoman Stevens MOVED to approve agenda item#10 for the purpose of allowing discussion to occur
and Councilman Melendez SECONDED the motion.
Mayor Beydler stated that he would defer to the Town Attorney since the Council was discussing a settlement of
a lawsuit where the Town was at risk and stressed the importance of exercising discretion and following
Counsel's advice. •
Mr. McGuire addressed the members of the Council relative to this agenda item and cautioned the Council to
remember that although public discussion of the settlement would take place, the issue had not yet been settled
and dismissal had not been entered, and therefore a public record should not be created that could jeopardize the
settlement agreement in its current format.
Councilman Archambault called for the question. Councilman Kavanagh raised a point of order and noted that
citizens were in attendances that wish to speak on this agenda item and should be given the opportunity to do so.
He added that he did not believe that_one person could call the question and exclude public comment.
Mr. McGuire stated that he did not know whether calling the question before discussion would take precedence
over the original motion and requested that a short recess be declared so that research into this issue could take
glow place.
Councilman Archambault observed that it had been demonstrated at several Council meetings that debate had
been stopped by the question being called. Mr. McGuire thought that was correct but he was not certain of the
precedence of the moment.
Mayor Beydler declared a brief recess at 6:50 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 6:55 p.m. He asked for Mr.
McGuire's determination of the question.
Mr. McGuire stated the opinion that the issue required a two-thirds vote of the quorum (five of the seven
Councilmembers) in order to end debate and call the question. The Mayor clarified that the Council must now
vote on Councilman Archambault's motion to call the question and noted that five members would have to vote
in support of the motion in order to limit the debate. Mr. McGuire concurred with the Mayor's summation.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
Councilman Melendez Nay
Councilman Kavanagh Nay
Councilwoman Stevens Nay
Councilman Archambault Aye
Mayor Beydler Nay
Vice Mayor Ralphe Nay
The motion FAILED by majority vote (5 Nays, 1 Aye, 1 Abstention).
Mayor Beydler stated that the original motion to approve the settlement was now back on the floor and said that
prior to voting on this,members of the audience who wished to speak should come forward at this time.
Bob Prather, 15312 E. Sierra Madre
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 3 of 30 5/16/2003
Mr. Prather commented that given the unknown nature of moving forward with this matter, the Town could be
faced with much higher legal fees/costs than they were facing now. He noted that members of the public were
not aware of the proposed settlement amount and said that if it was reasonable, his suggestion was that they cut
their losses, settle the claim, and move forward without delay.
Phil Gaziano, 14946 E. Sierra Madre Drive
Mr. Gaziano stated he was speaking this evening as a private citizen. He noted that the issue was not one of
money, but rather one of honor, ethics, and truth. He said that when elected official inappropriately used their
office to do something against a private citizen, a wrongdoing took place. He added that even if the remarks that
were made were true, if that person was a private individual and he or she and their families suffered because of
the inappropriate action, then the entire community suffered as well. He stated the opinion that anyone who
would do this type of thing did not have the right to sit on the dais as a member of the Council. He also stated
that if the remarks turned out to be false,then that person at the very least should resign.
•
Mr. Gaziano said that he would like to see the costs reimbursed. He added that if an elected official made a bad
judgment call for good reason and for the public good that was understandable, but emphasized that elected
officials did not have the right to go against people as people. He stated the elected officials also had a fiduciary
responsibility to the public. He said that he would like to know how this situation happened, how the
information was obtained,and whether rules were broken and inappropriate actions taken as part of this process.
Bob Scarpetti, 14623 N. Glenpoint Drive
Mr. Scarpetti commented that when a person chose to run for public office he or she also chose to be in the
public eye and should be aware that all actions and decisions would be out in the open for all to see. He said
that the citizens of Fountain Hills had the right to know whether any of their elected officials were involved in
actions that could harm or embarrass the Town of Fountain Hills. He added that if such actions had taken place,
those elected officials should be held accountable. He noted that the Gibson lawsuit that the Town was
attempting to settle, involving Councilwoman Nicola, did not involve the Town writing an e-mail about three
Rural Metro firemen, it involved alleged comments in an e-mail made by Councilwoman Nicola about three
( Rural Metro firemen. He stated the opinion that Councilwoman Nicola's actions were irresponsible and said that
Now he realized that she was covered under the Town's insurance pool and that the Town pays the first $10,000 and
the deductible. He asked why the Town, that had had nothing to do with this incident, should be placed in the
position of paying for something that Councilwoman Nicola caused on her own. He added that the money, if
they should settle, should come from Councilwoman Nicola and no one else. He commented that irresponsible
behavior on the part of elected officials should not be tolerated and would cause responsible people in the Town
to take responsible action.
Beverly Kinsey, 17120 E. Fairway Court
Ms. Kinsey thanked the members of the Council who voted in support of removing this item from the Consent
Agenda. She said that she understood the issue to be that Councilwoman Nicola e-mailed a slanderous message
about some of the firefighters. She stated that she viewed this as a personal action and saw no reason that the
Town's insurance should pay any part of a settlement. She added that this action was not a part of
Councilwoman Nicola's responsibilities or official duties. She said that, as a taxpayer, she believed that the
public should be advised of the potential costs to the Town in both deductible limits and in extra legal fees. She
questioned whether the Town was listed as a defendant in this lawsuit. If not, the Town insurance should not be
applicable.
Janice Abramson, 15411 N.Tepic Lane
Ms. Abramson said she did not know the truth about this lawsuit and questioned whether there were many
people who actually did know all of the particulars. She expressed the opinion that the Town had other
important issues to address and stated that she would hate to see an inordinate amount of time and effort spent
on a lawsuit that they could make "go away" for what was probably a reasonable settlement.
Sharon Hutcheson, 1027 E. Tumbleweed
Ms. Hutcheson noted that never before in the history of Fountain Hills had the Town had to pay for the actions
of a Councilperson. She said that at one time an insurance claim was paid for Councilmember O'Brien who
started a suit with the Board of Adjustment. She reported that he was reimbursed because the Town had decided
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 4 of 30 5/16/2003
to take on that suit. She commented on the fact that actions had consequences and stressed the importance of
taking responsibility for our actions. She added that this also applied to everyone, including elected officials.
She stated the opinion that it was very difficult for the public to accept the fact that this travesty could be in the
line of duty and said it clearly was not. She commented that she would like to see Councilwoman Nicola accept
responsibility for her actions, apologize, spare taxpayers the costs of her mistake, and move on.
Grace Jakubs, 16440 N. Aspen Drive
Ms. Jakubs stated that for the last six months, the citizens of Fountain Hills had witnessed tremendous cuts in
the number of employees and the recent budget cuts had involved every single department and program in the
Town. She said that despite this fact, tonight they were hearing about a matter involving a $10,000 settlement
that the citizens knew nothing about. She added that she realized that the funds would come out of risk
insurance but questioned whether this was the type of legacy the Council wanted to leave behind. She discussed
position and salary cuts that had taken place and said that they were now considering paying out $10,000. She
asked why an individual who was being sued as an individual was allowed to use Town insurance to pay for a
settlement. She requested that the Council vote in opposition to allowing Town insurance to be used for this
purpose.
Mayor Beydler thanked the citizens for their input.
Councilman Kavanagh commented on the fact that lengthy discussions regarding this matter would not take
place this evening as a result of advice that was been rendered by the Town Attorney. He said that even though
the lawsuit was against Councilwoman Nicola and the Town was not named in the action, the attorneys had
some concerns regarding peripheral involvement on the part of the Town. He said that for this reason the details
of the case would not be reviewed in depth at this time and the members of the Council would exercise restraint
in making their comments as directed by the Town Attorney. Councilman Kavanagh added that because he
concurred with many of the statements made by the citizens this evening, he would not vote in support of the
motion to settle.
itie Vice Mayor Ralphe stated that she had listened very carefully to the attorneys who told the Council that
whatever they discuss publicly about a legal matter could possibly be used against them if the case were to
proceed or be settled. She had asked one of the attorneys whether Councilwoman Nicola was acting in an
official Councilmember capacity or on her own and stated that it was her understanding that it was done in an
official capacity. She added the opinion that it might be helpful to be aware of this fact. She noted that because
she really didn't know what she could or couldn't say, remarks would be limited but added that the case was an
unfortunate one and no one would come out a winner. She commented on the fact that the attorneys had advised
that in order to pursue the case, taxpayer dollars would need to be spent. She added that she would love the
opportunity to express her opinion as to the appropriateness or inappropriateness of Councilwoman Nicola's
actions but unfortunately those remarks could not be presented at this time. She indicated her intention to
follow the advice of the attorneys and said she would vote in support of settling the claim and not incurring
additional financial losses for the Town. She noted that her vote was a very "unhappy" one.
The question was called and a roll call vote was taken with the following results:
Vice Mayor Ralphe Aye
Councilman Kavanagh Nay
Councilman Archambault Aye
Councilwoman Stevens Nay
Councilmember Melendez Nay
Mayor Beydler Nay
The motion FAILED by majority vote(4 Nays, 2 Ayes, 1 Abstention).
Councilwoman Stevens MOVED that this agenda item be continued for two weeks (to the May 15, 2003
Regular Council meeting). She commented that she could not support the agreement as•presented, but was still
hopeful that an agreement could and would be reached. She spoke in support of continuing this issue for
another couple of weeks to provide additional time to think about what had been said both privately and publicly
and attempt to arrive at the best possible solution for everyone involved.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 5 of 30 5/16/2003
Mayor Beydler SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE (4 TO 2 with
Councilmembers Archambault and Melendez voting Nay and Councilwoman Nicola abstaining.)
With action on this item completed, Councilwoman Nicola resumed her seat at the dais.
AGENDA ITEM #11 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2003-17 DECLARING SUPPORT FOR
THE EFFORTS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND COALITION FORCES AND THE
FUTURE OF THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT.
Mayor Beydler read Resolution No 2003-17, supporting the efforts of the United States Government and
coalition forces and the future of the Iraqi government into the official record of the meeting. He stated that
citizens had been calling and asking the Council what the community was doing to express its support for the
armed forces in Iraq and what we were trying to do to help the people in that country. He commented that with
assistance from Staff, as well as members of the community, the Resolution was crafted and said that it was his
honor to be a part of adopting this Resolution.
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED to adopt Resolution 2003-17 declaring support for the efforts of the United
States Government and Coalition Forces and the future of the Iraqi government, and Councilman Melendez
SECONDED the motion.
Councilwoman Nicola said that she was a little surprised to see this item on the agenda and asked how it came
about and whether other cities were adopting similar resolutions. Mayor Beydler advised that before the war
took place, many city and town councils across the country voted to express their support for the President's
policy, while still others voted not to. He said that when the war was in full stride,citizens, various people from
within the community, and members of different groups approached him as to what the Town of Fountain Hills
was doing/saying to show support for our troops. They questioned whether we believed this to be a just cause
and noted that we were part of the "world community" and therefore effort was expended to bring forth a
resolution that reflected our basic values based on similar actions that had occurred within many other
communities. He noted that it was crafted by Staff.
Peter Bordow, 14416 N. Silverado Drive
Mr. Bordow congratulated the Council on the resolution and noted that many people all around the country were
raising their voices and expressing their feelings. He emphasized the importance of standing unified in
situations such as this. He commented on the Iraqi people and their long-time suffering and said that he would
. like to propose a community project for the Town of Fountain Hills to show support for the free people of Iraq.
He said it was all about the rights of human beings to be free in this world. He asked that the Town of Fountain
Hills declare its support for the Iraqi community and take a stand and be responsible for an orphanage or a
hospital where they could declare that they were making a difference in those peoples' lives. He stated that he
had made contact with several organizations, including the Iraqi Foundation. He reiterated his congratulations
to the Council for developing the resolution and urged the Town of Fountain Hills to join him and participate in
a community project.
Mayor Beydler thanked Mr. Bordow for his comments.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7 TO 0).
AGENDA ITEM#12 - CONSIDERATION OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS ENTERING INTO
THE "PARTNERSHIPS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING" WHICH SUPPORTS THE
DEVELOPMENT,OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE ARIZONA TRAIL.
Mayor Beydler said that as Mayor, he served as a member of the Advisory Council for the Arizona Trail
Association. He said he would like the Council to consider supporting the development, operation and
maintenance of the Arizona trail and noted that no financial obligations were involved. He reported that the
organization was building a trail that would be approximately 6 feet wide and would run 790 miles, from Utah
to the Mexican border. He noted that the trail would run along the base of Four Peaks and was already 90%
kirr completed. He discussed the organization's intent to create a trail similar in nature to the Appalachian Trail and
commented on the exceptional recreational opportunities, including hiking, biking, and horseback riding that
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 6 of 30 5/16/2003
would be associated with the trail. He requested that the Council vote in support of entering into the
Partnerships Memorandum of Understanding.
Mayor Beydler MOVED to enter into the Partnerships Memorandum of Understanding supporting the
development, operation and maintenance of the Arizona Trail.
Vice Mayor Ralphe commented on the positive impacts of the Trail on various communities and noted that the
Town of Fountain Hills would be located closer to the Trail than any of the other surrounding communities in
the metro area. She said that it would serve as a wonderful complement to the trail that was being built in
Fountain Hills' mountain preserve and stated the opinion that both sets of trails would put Fountain Hills on the
map as a destination to the outdoors.
Mayor Beydler commented that Keno Hawker, the Mayor of Mesa, picked up five miles of the Arizona Trail to
maintain on an annual basis and noted that the cost was $100 a mile. He said that he would match Mayor
Hawker mile for mile if this item passed this evening so that he was doing his part to maintain this valuable
amenity too.
Councilwoman Nicola indicated her intention to assist with covering the maintenance costs for the five miles of
trail.
In response to a question from Councilwoman Stevens, the Mayor said both physical and/or monetary
contributions would be greatly appreciated. Councilwoman Stevens stated that she would like to obtain
additional information and added that an opportunity might exist to open this up to the community and get our
citizens involved as part of a planned "community day"event.
Mayor Beydler expressed excitement relative to this prospect and noted that the Executive Director had wanted
to hold one of the organization's board meetings right here in Fountain Hills. He said that once this item was
passed, he would encourage them to visit the Town to help coordinate a trail hike for anyone who would like to
participate.
Roy Kinsey, 17120 E. Fairway Court
Mr. Kinsey commented that he supported and encouraged the Council to approve this matter. He noted that the
Arizona Trail was a "project in progress" and a wonderful idea. He suggested that the Town's administration
develop some mechanisms to provide the necessary "follow through," (such as through Parks &Recreation).
The Mayor said that he asked Mr. Kinsey to provide "hands on assistance" and added that all types of help
would be needed to ensure the ongoing success of this wonderful venture.
Vice Mayor Ralphe SECONDED the motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7 TO 0).
AGENDA ITEM #13 - PRESENTATION BY THE MAYOR'S YOUTH COUNCIL OFFICERS, A
"YEAR IN REVIEW."
Parks &Recreational Coordinator Corey Hromek discussed his intent to provide a brief overview of this agenda
item and introduced the three 2002-03 Mayor's Youth Council Officers, Pavan Manhas, Jason Becklund, and
Kristen Anderson. He reported that across the Country, teenagers volunteered a total of 2.4 billion hours
annually, worth approximately $34.3 billion to the United States' economy. He noted that statistics proved that
volunteers were more likely to do well in school, graduate, and vote. He added that volunteers were also 50%
less likely to use drugs,alcohol,cigarettes,or engage in other destructive behavior.
Mr. Hromek reported that he received a total of 108 applications from students who were interested in joining
the Mayor's Youth Council this year, the highest number of applications ever received. He noted that service to
the community was a major component of the program and noted that the current group completed almost 1500
hours of service, representing a total savings of $7,725 for the community. He added that in 2002-03 the
organization participated in 20 different activities and projects, working with Town Staff as well as members of
the business community.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 7 of 30 5/16/2003
Ms. Anderson, Secretary of the Mayor's Youth Council, briefly outlined the duties she carried out in that
capacity, including helping to plan the agendas and coordinating/introducing guest speakers. She discussed the
students' desire to improve the community and outlined a numberr of various projects and events the group
participated in throughout the year.
Liff
Mr. Jason Becklund,Vice Chair of the Council, discussed a number of projects that took place during the course
of the year, including distributing ribbons and poppies in remembrance of September 11th. He added that the
students also helped out at the Community Center and adopted/cleaned a drive in the Town of Fountain Hills.
He commented on the group's assistance with the Oktoberfest event and the Turkey Trot. He discussed a trip
they took to the Maricopa County Medical Center where the members made tree decorations with the children
that were later sold at Safeway with the money raised used to buy toys and equipment for the Center's rec room.
Pavan Manhas, Chairman of the Mayor's Youth Council, noted that the youths strived to constantly improve
themselves and discussed group goals such as maintaining attendance levels and establishing relationships with
other Councils. He noted that for the last two years, a member of the Mayor's Youth Council had served as a
member of the Parks and Recreation Commission. Additional discussion ensued relative to goals, achievements
and successes of the members of this group.
Mr. Hromek congratulated the youths and all of the members on their efforts and said that their leadership
helped guide the Mayor's Youth Council to its most successful year ever.
Mayor Beydler presented plaques to Pavan, Jason and Kristen in recognition of their outstanding contributions
to the Town of Fountain Hills.
Councilmember Melendez said that before his term in office expires,he would like to work on putting together a
group of youths who would become involved in government. He congratulated the youths on the active roles
they played in the community.
AGENDA ITEM #14 - CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTING A DONATION OF ARTWORK FROM
Nov THE FOUNTAIN HILLS ARTS COUNCIL AND THE FOUNTAIN HILLS PUBLIC ART
COMMITTEE.
Accounting Supervisor Julie Ghetti addressed the Council and stated that Dr. Paul Kolwaite, representing the
Fountain Hills Arts Council and the Fountain Hills Public Art Committee, wished to donate another sculpture
piece to the Town of Fountain Hills.
Dr. Kolwaite commented on the fact that the Town of Fountain Hills was becoming known as an art community
and said that part of the reason for that was the selection of fine sculptures the Town had received at no cost to
the Town. He noted that two of the art contributors were the Sunridge Foundation and the Fountain Hills Civic
Association and he thanked both of those organizations for their hard work and generous donations.
Dr. Kolwaite advised that the current piece of artwork was a sculpture entitled "The Enduring Family" and had
been created by artist J.K. Laing. He advised that funding for the art would be provided through both of the
generous organizations he had previously listed. Councilmember Archambault commented on the beauty of the
sculpture and thanked Dr. Kolwaite, the Sunridge Foundation and the Fountain Hills Civic Association for their
efforts and generous contributions to the Town of Fountain Hills.
Councilwoman Nicola MOVED to accept a donation of artwork from the Fountain Hills Arts Council and the
Fountain Hills Public Arts Committee, and Councilman Archambault SECONDED the motion. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 TO 0).
AGENDA ITEM #15 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2003-14 ADOPTING A FUND
BALANCE POLICY.
Town Manager Tim Pickering stated that Accounting Supervisor Julie Ghetti had prepared the proposed fund
balance policy that was currently before the Council for review and consideration.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 8 of 30 5/16/2003
Ms. Ghetti said that the written formal financial policy represented the first step toward restoring fiscal
credibility in both the local community as well as the financial community. She noted that the policies were
prepared based on models provided by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) and other cities
that shared the same ratings as the Town of Fountain Hills. She added that written adopted policies were
recommended by GFOA and noted that although the policies had been in effect in the Town, they had not been
written down and formally adopted. She indicated that the intention tonight was to adopt Resolution 2003-14,
establishing written financial policies for the Town of Fountain Hills, incorporating a formal fund balance
policy. She explained that written policies also represented an important factor as far as the Town's bond rating
and reported that Moody's Investors Services had penalized the Town because it did not have written formal
policies in place. She added that the Moody's was watching the Town of Fountain Hills very closely to see
what actions were taken in the future to remedy that situation.
Ms. Ghetti added that another goal was to restore credibility in the community, both in the financial community
as well as the local community, and said that the Town would adhere to the professional standards of
government by adopting these policies, which would also assist in long-range planning efforts. She emphasized
that the adoption of this resolution was the first step towards getting the Town's "financial house" in order.
Ms. Ghetti read portions of the negative outlook issued by Moody's Investors Service. She noted that the goals
of the financial policies would be for cash solvency, which meant the ability to pay the Town's bills; budgetary
solvency, which meant the ability to balance the budget; long-run solvency, which was the ability to pay future
costs; and hopefully the establishment of a "pay as you go" procedure so that the need to borrow money in the
future was reduced, and service level solvency, which was the ability to provide the needed and desired services.
Ms. Ghetti pointed out that the most important element of the financial policies was the fund balance and said
this was the area that was most criticized by Moody's. She noted that the definition of fund balance was the
cumulative difference of all revenues and expenditures. She added that the fund balance level wais related to
the degree of uncertainty of resources and emphasized that the fund balance trend should be positive. She
informed the Council that a positive fund balance trend was a sign of strong management and long-range
planning.
Ms. Ghetti referred to a chart depicting the Town's Fund Balance and Reserves (General Fund) in 1997 and
1998 and leading up until 1999-2000, when the Town was forced to "dip into" the fund balance reserves for the
lake liner project and the community center project. She noted that the Town then got back on track to rise up
again but a significant dip occurred in 2001 and this resulted in Moody's concerns. She reported that the
structure of the proposed fund balance policy was threefold to provide flexibility and still meet the 30% desired
level in fund balances. She pointed out that the Town of Fountain Hills had a very good bond rating, Aa3, and
said that therefore a higher expectation level exists.
Ms. Ghetti reported that the three components of the policy included the undesignated unreserved funds, which
was what was left over after expenditures were taken out of the revenues (also known as a "rainy day fund"),
and said that it was designed to have 30 days' operating expenditures in place but said that by itself the 30 days
was not a sufficient fund balance; the second component was the designated unreserved, which means that the
funds were not appropriated but were set aside for future capital or infrastructure expenditures (beginning of a
"pay as you go policy"); and the third component was the reserved portion, funds that were not available for
appropriation. She noted that this would be the Town's absolute, bare minimum of reserves kept in the General
Fund and combined with the other two components, and met the 30% requirement. She emphasized that the
goal was to be at 30%.
Ms. Ghetti said that, if approved, the undesignated unreserved funds would be $1,022,750; designated
unreserved funds would be $1,230,675; reserved funds would be$2,461,350 for a total General Fund balance of
$4,714,775. She added that Special Revenue Funds would be based on a replacement schedule (street and
HURF funds)and debt service funds would be set aside to make a July 1st debt service payment. She stated that
capital project funds were development fee funds and would also be based on a schedule. She noted that those
funds could not be carried longer than six years or they would have to be paid back. She also commented on
financial planning and said that this set out the guidelines in the financial policy and directed that the Town
Manager prepare an annual budget that was balanced with current expenditures being paid from current revenue;
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 9 of 30 5/16/2003
expenditure control, which said that purchases would be made in accordance with the Town Code, a section on
revenues and collections that stated that the Town would seek a balanced and diversified stable revenue base for
operations, and a user-free cost recovery that said at all times possible fees that were established would recover
as much as possible the direct and indirect costs.
Councilwoman Stevens complimented Staff on their report and asked what the current fund balance for this year
would be. Mr. Pickering responded that Staff anticipated that the figure would be approximately $2.5 to $2.6
million at the end of this year and added that the policy sets out that within five years the Town would meet that
goal. He emphasized the importance of beginning to put money aside.
Ms. Stevens said that she thought that the Town Manager had previously asked for a 60-day "rainy day"
operating cushion and noted that the proposal calls for 30 days. She asked for a clarification on this issue. Mr.
Pickering stated that they were different, one was 30 days and one was 30% of the revenue. He added that the
30% of the revenue was actually a higher amount than the 60 days of expenditures. He reported that the policy
was actually asking for more than the original request.
Mr. Pickering read a portion from Moody's report and said that what Staff was attempting to do when they were
going through the discussion was to get the Town to a minimum and was very happy that they were there. He
added, however,that the financial community was saying "that's a minimum and that's nice, but it's low for your
rating and you need to display that in your fund balance." He further explained that he previously stated that 60
days of expenditures represents the "bare bones" figure that the Town would want. He noted that the proposed
policy exceeded that amount and required the Town to do more than just meet the minimum.
Councilmember Archambault asked what the trigger mechanism would be that would cause the Town to dip into
the 20% revenue. Mr. Pickering said that this would require Council action and added that according to the
proposed policy, the goal was not to allow this to occur. He added, however, that under certain circumstances
the Town could be forced to do that (such as lawsuits that had to be paid off, a catastrophe hitting the Town, or
the loss of State-Shared revenues). Mr. Pickering said that he would really like to see more than 20% set aside.
L. Additional discussion ensued relative to setting aside a trigger mechanism to fund back any monies that had to
be taken and used in emergency situations, the fact that as part of the upcoming budget process, Staff had
included setting aside a portion of sales tax funds to begin to increase the fund balance, undesignated unreserved
funds and the fact that use of these funds would also be determined as part of the budget process,the importance
of developing a "pay as you go" system, bonding alternatives for "big ticket" items, and the benefits of building
up and maintaining fund balances.
Mayor Beydler asked whether the Council, by adopting this proposal, was committing to a goal and legally
binding themselves to meet certain expectations. He noted that if the sales tax went away because Proposition
400 was approved, and the Fire District came back, it appeared to him that they would have all "shuffled" along
the same path of$2.6 to $3 million a year, but there would be no new growth in revenue. He asked where the
growth would come from and what revenue sources would be in place to set aside funds when the Town was
losing money every month. He added that some of the revenue sources would require voter approval and asked
whether the Town would be faced with Staff cutbacks in order to meet the goals.
Mr. Pickering commented that the question was a fair one and added that the proposal placed the onus on the
Staff, and somewhat on the Council, to know that this was one of the Town's goals, a direction in which they
wanted to head. He agreed that in order to succeed, cutbacks in operations might have to occur and noted that
the Town would not be able to spend every dollar that it took in. He explained that the proposal would be part
of the Town's overall financial plan to obtain stability and build a more solid foundation. He said that revenue
would be available as a result of not spending those dollars on other items and directing those funds instead
towards building the Town's base up and balancing the foundation before the monies were spent on other
desirable items. He said that the revenues would come from the Town's existing revenue base and a "self-will
cov goal" to build up the Town's revenue base.
Mayor Beydler stated that in accordance with Mr. Pickering's comments, he would assume that the budget
brought forward would be in line with this stated goal. Mr. Pickering responded that it would support this goal.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 10 of 30 5/16/2003
Councilman Kavanagh emphasized that the proposed policies and changes were driven by the negative
comments contained in the recent Moody's report. He added that he also believed the report contained good
news relative to the fact that the Town was able to maintain its Aa3 rating, an exceptional, stellar bond rating.
He commented on the financial dilemmas the Town had faced, particularly in view of the fire tax that failed to
(jam pass as well as the current downturn in the economy, but said that despite those major fiscal problems, the fact
that the Town responded by drastically cutting its budget, laying off people and identifying new revenue
sources, Moody's had recognized that the Town had continued to make the tough decisions that needed to be
made. He emphasized the importance of reading Moody's report and listening to what they were saying as far as
the Town's future inability to retain its high rating if it continued to rely on a volatile sales tax to fund vital
services. He added the opinion that Moody's was essentially saying that the.Town should consider funding vital
services through the implementation of a property tax and commented on the repercussions (specifically a
decreased bond rating)that might occur if the Town did not follow Moody's advice.
Mr. Pickering thanked Councilman Kavanagh for his comments and said that he made an excellent point. He
stated that Moody's commended the Town for taking the steps that it had in order to maintain its financial
solvency. He added that the organization told him that if the Council had not passed the temporary sales tax,
Moody's would not have even met with the Town and their bond rating would already have been reduced. He
added the opinion that the passage of fund balance policies and financial policies such as the ones being
discussed tonight would help keep the Town on the right track and would further prove to Moody's that the
Town intended to continue to improve and strengthen its financial condition.
Councilwoman Stevens commented on the fact that this was a partnership and budget cuts were made in the
beginning of the year. She stressed the importance of identifying new revenue sources in order to "add to the
pot" and encouraged the members of the Council to become actively creative in this important area. Mayor
Beydler concurred with Councilwoman Steven's comments.
Councilman Melendez commented on the fact that he remembered when the Town had a 50%reserve and asked
if he was correct in assuming that with the exception of the Highway User Revenue Funds, the funds were
dependent totally on excise sales taxes (property taxes, development fees and transfers from the General Fund).
He asked once the budgetary conditions of one or more of these funds were met, could the available surplus
funds be transferred out to the General Fund.
Mr. Pickering responded that the 3% represented the excise sales tax for paying off the debt for the mountains.
He agreed that a difference existed between the cost of what the Town's bond payments were and what was
brought in (more was brought in). He added that as far as the Town legally making those equal and putting the
rest into the General Fund, that was possible but discussion had occurred relative to this and the Town Council
had decided that they did not want to do that. The Council had wanted to keep putting money away for that
purpose. He reiterated that legally the Town could place approximately $180,000 to$200,000 annually into the
General Fund.
Mr. Pickering also commented that development fees could not be placed in the General Fund and noted that
there were restrictions placed upon the use of those funds, He added that if the funds were not used within a
certain timeframe, they must go back to the developer that paid them and could only be used for capital items
(police station, something park related, or the purchase of open space).
Mr. Pickering also emphasized that fund accounting meant that each individual account must exist on its own
like the General Fund,and fees such as development fees could not be co-mingled.
Vice Mayor Ralphe commented on the .3% that was available for mountains and said that although it was
possible that during a particular year more money was brought in than was needed, she questioned what would
happen if sales tax went down the next year and they had taken out and used all of the excess monies that were
available. She said it was possible that the Town could find itself having to "dip into" the General Fund and
L• stressed the importance of avoiding this type of action and ensuring that a little bit of"cushion" was in place.
Councilman Archambault said that this represented a contract with the community and would show the citizens
of this Town that they could be frugal and put money away for a rainy day fund. He added that this moved the
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 11 of 30 5/16/2003
Town one step closer to restoring public trust and indicated his support for the proposal. He also pointed out
that on November 13th of last year he had come forward with several ideas relative to generating additional
revenue and encouraged the Council to look into those ideas and hopefully move them along.
Mayor Beydler stated that the Town Manager presented an interesting statistic that in the Town of Fountain
Hills only 4% of the total available land was dedicated to the production of income or revenue (business) and
said that this was generating 65% of the revenue upon which the Town existed (sales tax revenue and State
Shared revenue). He added that what was said earlier about State Shared revenues was true. They hadn't
reduced the rate because of the fact that sales in general were down and towns and cities across the State were
losing hundreds of millions of dollars in this upcoming fiscal year budget because of their continued co-
dependency on sales tax revenues as the primary engine for generating community revenue.
Mayor Beydler stated the opinion that the issue of diversification was critical because the plan was only as good
as the effort that was put forth to fund it and ensure its overall success. He said that he was aware of at least one
proposal that would be coming forward relative to downtown development initiatives in the upcoming budget
which would allow the Town to assume a more proactive role in assisting the business community in identifying
suitable profiled uses for the Town to encourage more business development. He added that the Chamber's
Tourism Council would bring forth some ideas to help move in that direction and stressed the importance of
working in partnership with the business community.
Councilman Archambault MOVED to adopt Resolution No. 2003-14, adopting a Fund Balance Policy, and
Councilwoman Stevens SECONDED the motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7 TO 0).
AGENDA ITEM #16 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2003-11 DECLARING THE 2002
AMENDMENT TO THE TAX CODE A PUBLIC DOCUMENT.
Julie Ghetti also addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and explained that the Town of Fountain
Hills, when it enacted the local sales tax, adopted what was known as the Model City Tax Code, the purpose of
which was to accomplish uniformity in tax reporting. She noted that all of the cities and towns in Arizona had
adopted the Code. She added that there was a Tax Commission who met and made changes to the Model City
Tax Code and then presented those changes to the cities and towns for adoption. She noted that typically most
of the proposed changes were necessary in order to comply with State law and added that in this particular case
just two definitional changes were being proposed as well as one additional change that specified when a city of
town changed a tax rate, that they specify an effective date. She noted that the Town of Fountain Hills always
complied with this requirement since there was a 60-day notification requirement for the Arizona Department of
Revenue. She added that adoption of these changes would not result in any effects on the Town of Fountain
Hills.
Councilmember Stevens MOVED to adopt Resolution 2003-11 and Councilman Archambault SECONDED the
motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7 TO 0).
AGENDA ITEM #17 - CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 03-09 ADOPTING THE 2002
AMENDMENT TAX CODE BY REFERENCE.
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED to adopt Ordinance No. 03-09 and Councilwoman Stevens SECONDED the
motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7 TO 0).
AGENDA ITEM#18 - CONSIDERATION OF A CUT AND FILL WAIVER TO PERMIT A 15.5-FOOT
MAXIMUM CUT, LOCATED AT 14414 E. SHADOW CANYON DRIVE, AKA SHADOW CANYON
AT SUNRIDGE FINAL PLAT,LOT 41. CASE NUMBER CFW2003-01.
Senior Planner Dana Burkhardt explained that this agenda item related to a cut and fill waiver located in Shadow
Canyon for one of the last lots in the west of the community. He highlighted a brief PowerPoint presentation
and referred to a site plan and map showing the location of the cut. He noted that the request was for a 15.5 foot
maximum cut. He explained that the property was bounded by open space to the north and had custom lots on
either side. He noted that the request was for a 5.5 foot cut in excess of the ten foot maximum allowed in
accordance with the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance. He added that the portion of the proposed cut in
excess of ten feet was the entire lower level garage area and a portion of the driveway in front of the garage. He
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 12 of 30 5/16/2003
noted that the proposed site plan showed approximately six or seven different elevations stepping up along the
hillside and explained that basically the garage was sunken underneath the house.
Mr. Burkhardt pointed out that the Architectural Review Committee had a 20-foot height maximum and said for
that reason this house did not achieve a 24-foot height elevation from natural grade, where the Town allowed a
30-foot maximum height. He added that it essentially involved setting the house further down into the hill and
having less of an impact on the site. He also referred to the two terraced retaining walls that would be
landscaped to provide additional screening to the cut and noted the location of the driveway. He stated that the
exterior portion of the cut might not be visible from the right-of-way and not visible at all from the adjacent
properties. He explained that the members of the Commission believed that raising the elevation of the home
would have a greater visual impact than the proposed design.
Mr. Burkhardt noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission and Staff recommended approval of this cut and
fill waiver.
Councilman Archambault asked whether the height was under the 30-foot limit from the garage or driveway
level. Mr. Burkhardt responded that from natural grade the height was at 24 feet. He said that the purpose of
the natural grade was to place the house further down into the earth, to lower the grade, and said that the actual
elevation was approximately 30 feet or barely above that.
Vice Mayor Ralphe said that the Staff report stated that Staff had suggested that the applicant relocate the garage
out from underneath the residence and, in doing that, avoid a cut and fill. She asked whether that remained a
Staff preference.
Mr. Burkhardt responded that one of the criteria they were using to review items such as this stated: "to review
the measures applied by the designer to minimize the amount of cut and fill on the lot," and another was to
"consider possible alternatives to the proposed plan." He commented that Staff liked to discuss alternative
options with the designer and believed that this design would be much better than bringing the garage forward
ctoand bringing the floor elevation of the garage up to meet the 10-foot maximum cut. He stated the opinion that
this would just place the three-car garage main elevation on the frontage of the house in the main view from the
roadway. He added that Staff was also attempting to push lot coverage with this design. He stated that he
believes this option was preferable to doing a modification.
Councilwoman Archambault MOVED to approve a cut and fill waiver and Councilman Kavanagh.
SECONDED the motion.
Councilwoman Stevens indicated that she would not be able to support the motion and stated that when the
Council "tweaked" the text amendment for this, she sat on an advisory committee that knew that the 10-foot fill
would be a problem and that was why they added an additional 5%. She noted that this was meant for
anomalies in the grades so that if someone had a high corner or a low corner, or a little hill in between, people
did not have to come to the Council every time they were one foot, two feet or three feet off. She emphasized
that it was in no way meant for something like this and stated the opinion that the Council was opening
themselves up to requests from a lot of other applicants. She noted that 18% was just too much for her to
consider.
Councilwoman Stevens added that having indicated her unwillingness to support the motion, she did believe that
the proposal represented a slightly better plan and added that she could support it if it weren't so large, only the
garage and not the additional footage behind that. She urged the Council to look at this issue very seriously and
said that she believed this was the first case to come forward since the Council amended the rules and cautioned
against setting a precedent. She emphasized that 18% was a very large number and pushed the envelope just too
much. She stressed the importance of designing homes in Fountain Hills to fit the sites.
L. Councilwoman Nicola said that people lived in Fountain Hills because the community contained a lot of hills
and thus the name. She added that she would vote in support of the request because she believed the proposal
was attractive and represented a good use for the property. She added that she also believed in private property
rights.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 13 of 30 5/16/2003
Councilman Kavanagh commented on the fact that a number of cut and fills had taken place where the
disturbance was totally invisible and they had been allowed to proceed. He asked if they were to hold the
applicant to the terms of the current ordinance versus allowing this, how would the look vary from one another,
if at all.
Mr. Burkhardt responded that a lot of options to modify the plan existed and there were many areas in which to
make changes. He added the opinion that the applicant could probably answer the question better than he can.
Councilman Kavanagh asked if this was a case where the excess cut and fill, for all intents and purposes, would
be invisible or whether the applicant would be creating a lot more or some degree of disturbance. Mr. Burkhardt
stated that the end result would be almost un-noticeable from the street. He added that, in accordance with the
ordinance, he would suggest that they simply raise the entire house and said as ironic as it sounded, if they made
the house more visible they would comply with the law. He explained that this was why in the past Staff had
always supported buried cuts that weren't noticeable from the exterior. He added that fills were another story
because you were obviously placing structure above grade and there was no way to avoid that.
Vice Mayor Ralphe asked whether it was also true that the house could be built "to the land" to conform, either
smaller or with a slightly different configuration to it. Mr. Burkhardt agreed that this would be another option.
Councilwoman Stevens commented that if it was the direction of the Council that they were in support of any
cuts that the homeowner or applicant could make invisible, then they needed to go back and take a look at their
ordinance because right now there was a limit to it. She added that they needed to define their limit and their
comfort level and said that although this could be looked at on an individual basis, ultimately all different
percentages were going to be "pushed" and the Council therefore had to determine where "the line in the sand"
really was.
•
Thomas Bragg, the architect on this project, addressed the Council and referred to a site plan of the project. He
noted that the lot was only so wide and was three times as deep. He noted that the property sat at the end of a
cul-de-sac road up a 20-foot graded slope. He explained that this was the reasoning behind "pushing the house
Nimov down into the hill a little bit" and leveling the driveway out. He noted that the lot rose almost 35 feet from one
corner to the other. He said that they placed the garage at one level and came back a full depth of the garage and
came up another story to make the house sit over the top of it. He noted that these were the two cuts and the
retaining walls were used to get the driveway level to get to the garage door. He pointed out that you would
never see any exposed rock or visible disturbance from the 14-foot cut. He also emphasized that all retaining
wall and landscape finishes would blend into the surrounding desert.
Mr. Bragg noted that the homeowner association's regulations were stricter than those of the Town of Fountain
Hills and said that they had approved the proposal. He noted that the placement of the house on top of the
garage and stepping it back up the lot allowed the homeowner to enjoy views and was aesthetically pleasing as
well. In response to a question from Councilwoman Stevens, Mr. Bragg explained the layout of the garage,
most of which "tucked under"the house. She commented that a 5% maximum allowance was in place.
Councilman Kavanagh asked if the proposal were denied, what would the plan look like. Mr. Bragg responded
that he would have to bring the garage up out of the lot and garage doors and concrete would then be in view.
Councilman Melendez asked if the owner of the property was in attendance and Mr. Bragg responded that the
owner's nephew, the builder, was present. He added that they had lived in the Town of Fountain Hills for
several years. Mayor Beydler thanked Mr. Bragg for his input.
Councilman Kavanagh commented that the current ordinance was working because in order to do what was
being proposed in this case required special approval of the Council. He added that this means that the Council
was required to review the case and determine whether extenuating circumstances existed that make granting an
exception to the ordinance a reasonable thing to do. He added the opinion that this appeared to be a situation
where denial of the waiver would result in the creation of a house that would blend less with the environment
and be less environmentally friendly. He added that he didn't blame the authors of the laws. He believed that
because of varying topography and buildings, it would be impossible to craft a law that took into account every
conceivable situation. He added that denying this request would "sound nice" because the Council was
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 14 of 30 5/16/2003
protecting an existing law, but would have the ultimate result of allowing a project that would be
environmentally unfriendly.
Councilman Archambault MOVED to approve a cut and fill waiver to permit a 15.5-foot maximum cut and
Councilman Kavanagh SECONDED the motion. A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
Vice Mayor Ralphe Nay
Mayor Beydler Aye
Councilman Melendez Aye
Councilwoman Nicola Aye
Councilwoman Stevens Nay
Councilman Archambault Aye
Councilman Kavanagh Aye
MOTION CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE(5 TO 2).
AGENDA ITEM #19 - PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON A REQUEST FOR A
SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW PROPOSED DETACHED ACCESSORY GARAGE
STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH WITHIN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM REAR AND STREET-SIDE
YARD BUILDING SETBACK IN A "R-2" MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT
LOCATED AT 17219 E.RAND,AKA PLAT 201,BLOCK 6,LOT 6; CASE NUMBER SU2003-04.
Mayor Beydler declared the public hearing open at 8:58 p.m.
Mr. Burkhardt noted that this was the first request that had been received since the text amendments were made.
He noted that the Council amended the ordinance to restrict large accessory buildings from being permitted into
rear yard setbacks. He noted that prior to this amendment, the Zoning Ordinance permitted large accessory
structures (over 120 square feet in size) to encroach into rear yard setbacks, a distance no greater than the
minimum side yard setbacks and in this case, a 25 foot rear yard setback was required and the side yard was five
feet, so essentially prior to the adoption of this ordinance this structure could have been built five feet away from
the rear property line.
Mr. Burkhardt noted that the Council voted to amend the regulations to restrict buildings going into the rear yard
setbacks in order to avoid the potential of having two structures within ten feet of one another. He referred to a
site plan and identified the location of the property. He stated that the proposed accessory structure was located
adjacent to the rear of an existing duplex,approximately five feet from the lot's rear property line. He noted that
the alley currently provided access to two multiple-family buildings that contained approximately ten dwelling
units combined. He discussed the status of the alley and reported that it was currently "black topped" but was
not a completely improved roadway.
Mr. Burkhardt stated that the Special Use Permit request was to permit a garage structure to encroach within the
required minimum street-side building setback. He added that the proposed garage access was from the alley
adjacent to the rear of the property from a concrete driveway and said that the applicant was also proposing a
42-inch solid masonry fence along the rear and alley property lines to enclose the property. He also pointed out
that the proposed building was designed to respect the minimum required five foot side yard building setback
from the abutting property rear lot line, a 20-foot setback from the east alley side property line and a nine foot
setback from the south alley side property line. He also noted that the proposed structure was approximately
1,728 square feet in area and approximately 11.5 feet tall at the highest point.
Mr. Burkhardt informed the members of the Council that the owners of Lot 7,Joseph,Emma and Shirley Fritzel,
had protested this Special Use request at the public hearing. He noted that their primary concern was that if the
request were approved, the garage would block the views from their homes and pool/patio area. He noted that
the Planning and Zoning Commission and Staff have recommended denial of this Special Use request. He
added that Staff requested that the Council direct Staff to prepare a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to
prohibit large or small accessory structures by special use unless otherwise specified in the Zoning Ordinance.
Councilwoman Stevens commented on the irregular configuration of the property and said that it almost
appeared to be two lots. She asked if Mr. Burkhardt had any information relative to this issue. He referred to
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 15 of 30 5/16/2003
exhibits contained in the Council backup materials, specifically a memorandum from Andrew McGuire through
Paul Nordin to the Mayor and Council. He pointed out that in that memo it stated that staff was proposing that
the parcel be split into two tracts with the remainder reserved as public right-of-way.
Town Attorney Andrew McGuire provided a brief explanation relative to this matter and stated that the property
behind the two homes was a piece of town-owned property that was in the state of neglect. He said that the
property owners asked for permission to enter the subject property for the purpose of removing debris and
weeds in an effort to reduce fire danger and to maintain their views of the surrounding mountains. He explained
that identified a larger, more long-term problem, that this wasn't an area the Town had any use for since a cul-
de-sac bulb had been built down there and left this little "orphan" piece. He reported that a decision was made
at the time to put this piece of property up for sale and divide it into two small parcels. He noted that neither
parcel, either individually or together, could have been developed for a primary structure and therefore this
action was useful only to the adjacent property owners who were approached relative to the proposed sale. He
explained that property owners on one side were not as interested as property owners on the other who wanted
the entire property and therefore instead of having two longer lots, there was one bidder and an "L" shaped lot
belonging to him took up the space.
Mayor Beydler said that he would now allow input from citizens in the audience.
Lyle Aklestad, 17219 E. Rand Drive
Mr. Aklestad, the owner of the property, addressed the Council relative to this agenda item. He stated the
opinion that the case was unique and noted that the land had been for development and that was why it was
purchased. He noted that both of the property owners at one time had the opportunity to buy the portion behind
each lot. He commented on the fact that the coverage of the lot was well within the boundaries of the 50%
coverage rule and added that after working on this proposal for the last year and a half, he had learned that by
the time you go 50 feet from the curb in order to have an approach into the garage, you have to more or less
come into where the driveway was now. He referred to a secondary proposal that he distributed to the members
and said that if you look at that proposal everyone would be backing into the cul-de-sac. He stated the opinion
that everything was designed much safer this way than it would be if they went according to the ordinance. He
pointed out that if he built the home according to Town codes, it would be much higher, much more unsafe, and
would include excess concrete.
Mr. Aklestad noted that he had copies of letters from people living in the apartments and condominiums that
have this access and reported that they were very much in favor of the building. He added that he was an
antique car collector and had a museum at his other home. He said that he simply wanted to have a few cars at
this location as well. He commented on the fact that there were no curbs on the cul-de-sac and stated the
opinion that it needed to be developed and urged the Council to approve his request.
Councilwoman Stevens asked whether Mr. Aklestad had provided the Council with copies of a new layout and
he confirmed that he had but noted that the alternate layout showed how he could build the structure right now
without going through this special permit process.
Councilwoman Nicola posed a question to Staff relative to whether the Town had any plans to widen the alley to
increase safety in the future. Mr. Burkhardt responded that he was not aware of any plans to widen the alley in
the future. He noted that many multi-family projects take access through this alley but no improvements, other
than routine maintenance and upkeep,were proposed.
In response to a question from Councilwoman Nicola relative to the availability of block grants in order to
enhance safety on this access road, Mr. McGuire stated that he was not sure which type of grant funding would
be pursued to accomplish this goal but noted that Staff was constantly seeking Federal dollars for a variety of
improvements. He stated the opinion,after visiting this area,that the roadway was a 24-foot piece of pavement,
two full lanes of traffic,and noted that this was almost as wide as most of the Town's streets.
Public Works Director Tom Ward commented that curbing was not placed on these types of alleys because they
had an "inverted crown" and carried the water to the center of the street. He added that this was a very short
cul-de-sac and no reason existed to place curbing in this location.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 16 of 30 5/16/2003
Mr. Burkhardt also pointed out that the fact that this was an alley in a rear lot line to a number of lots and said
there were six-foot masonry walls right on those property lines as well as the alley line. He pointed out that
Staff's position relative to developing on alleys if there was a request was to take access from that alley and it
was treated as a front yard setback for that particular property. He noted that along the alley serious sight
obstructions existed in some instances and this wasn't designed or planned to carry a lot of traffic.
Councilwoman Nicola noted, however, that the alley was the only access to some of the buildings and Mr.
Burkhardt agreed.
Councilman Archambault referred to a diagram of the property, particularly the piece where a section was sold,
and asked what the "triangular pie" down at the bottom was. Mr. Burkhardt responded that this was a
turnaround for street and emergency vehicles. He noted that it"dead ends."
Jack Bercel, 17220 Malta Drive
Mr. Bercel referred to diagrams of the property and highlighted the location of his residence for the benefit of
the Council. He explained that from his patio he looked right towards the cleaned up spot that kept looking
better. He stated the opinion that the applicant was proposing the best use for the property and added that no
public safety issues existed and the turnaround was more than adequate. He said that he was not opposed at all
to this proposal and would look right at this structure. He added the opinion that the owner would extend his
landscaping and further improve the overall aesthetics. He urged the Council to approve the request. He added
that the project would improve the neighborhood as well. He also commented on the red "Big 0 Tires" sign
across the highway and said that this posed more of a problem for the neighbors than the current proposed
project.
Councilman Kavanagh indicated his interest in reviewing the site plan and in learning how the applicant could
in fact legally build at this location. Mr. Aklestad explained the details of the proposal to Councilman
Kavanagh. Councilman Kavanagh said he did not understand how the applicant could build the garage on that
site by moving it and asked whether he would in fact be moving into the five-foot setback. Mr. Aklestad
responded that he wouldn't be moving it; he would be eliminating a portion of the garage.
Councilman Archambault said he was curious, since a radius turnaround existed, what the 20-foot setback
would look like if they were following the radius. Mr. Burkhardt responded that Staff had not measured that
and he did not have those dimensions available at this time. He referred to a line on the plan that he believed
was the pavement line.
The Mayor asked if there were any additional citizens wishing to provide input at this time and there being none,
the Mayor declared the public hearing closed at 9:20 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM#20—CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A PROPOSED
DETACHED ACCESSORY GARAGE STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH WITHIN THE REQUIRED
MINIMUM REAR AND STREET-SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK IN A "R-2" MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 17219 E.RAND,AKA PLAT 201,BLOCK 6,LOT
6; CASE NUMBER SU2003-04.
Councilwoman Nicola asked the applicant if his garage was built a little smaller whether or not he would still be
able to utilize it. Mr. Aklestad responded that it would not be able to be utilized as well as he would like and
added that the structure would have to be higher if it was smaller because of center wall support issues. He
noted that he would only be able to store four antique cars and it would be harder to"look over"than the current
design.
Councilwoman Nicola commented on the fact that the Council had heard from two of the neighbors and a
neighborhood association who were all in support and said that for this reason she would present the following
motion for approval.
Councilwoman Nicola MOVED to approve a Special Use Permit to allow a proposed detached accessory
garage structure to encroach within the required minimum rear and street-side yard building setback in a "R-2"
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 17 of 30 5/16/2003
multi-family residential zoning district located at 17219 E. Rand, aka Plat 201, Block 6, Lot 6; Case Number
SU2003-04 and Councilman Archambault SECONDED the motion.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
Councilman Melendez Nay
Councilman Kavanagh ' Nay
Councilwoman Nicola Aye
Councilwoman Stevens Nay
Councilman Archambault Aye
Mayor Beydler Aye
Vice Mayor Ralphe Nay
The motion FAILED BY MAJORITY VOTE(4 TO 3).
AGENDA ITEM#21 — CONSIDERATION OF A CUT AND FILL WAIVER TO PERMIT A 13-FOOT
MAXIMUM CUT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT
10019 N.PALISADES BOULEVARD AKA,FIREROCK,LOT 12. CASE NUMBER CFW2003-02.
Planner Denise Ruhling addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and noted that the request was for a
cut and fill waiver. She added that in this instance they were looking at a cut and noted that the lot slopes
greatly from the street downward. She noted that the residence was already under construction,the issuance of a
building permit was approved, and an amendment was made which necessitated the cut and fill waiver. She
noted that the cut that was being discussed was located in the driveway and was not part of the house and
explained that they had pulled the retaining wall just a"tad"into the area and with the original permit,they were
right at the ten-foot requirement. She noted that there was one area that was at 13-feet and said that the waiver
was to permit a 13-foot maximum cut for the development of this home.
She referred to the location of the cut and noted that it would be located between the proposed home and
Palisades Boulevard, more specifically at a portion of the driveway and the southwest portion of the residence.
She added that there was an additional cut in excess of the maximum allowed located in the main floor of the
residence,which could be approved administratively.
Ms. Ruhling informed the Council that the proposed cuts would not be visible from the adjacent right-of-way
but would be evident to surrounding open space, golf course, and neighboring residence. She reported that the
members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, who supported this proposal (3 to 2 vote), believed that the
project being presented was aesthetically superior, reduced the number of retaining walls, and was a reasonable
request. She added that Staff also recommended approval.
Councilwoman Stevens asked what type of cuts were administratively approved in the house and Ms. Ruffling
responded that one very small cut was approved.
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED to approve a cut and fill waiver to permit and Councilwoman Nicola
SECONDED the motion.
Councilwoman Stevens commented on the fact that she voted against the previous two agenda items because the
ordinances were just amended and she did not support waiving them. She stated the opinion that this application
made sense, involved the driveway rather than the house, and indicated support for this request. She added that
perhaps driveways were another area that should be looked at as far as this issue goes.
Vice Mayor Ralphe asked how big an area the cut would encompass and was advised that it involved the very
corner of the garage and was necessary to facilitate getting the driveway to work in view of the slope. Ms.
Ruhling added that the cuts were really not that large and were long and skinny.
The motion CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE(6 TO 1)with Vice Mayor Ralphe voting Nay.
Mayor Beydler declared a brief recess at 9:30 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 9:39 p.m.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 18 of 30 5/16/2003
AGENDA ITEM #22 — PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE 03-07 AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF
THE ZONING ORDINANCE(SIGN ORDINANCE).
Mayor Beydler declared the public hearing open at 9:40 p.m.
Town Manager Tim Pickering commented on the number of public sessions that had been held on this issue and
�' noted that Planner Denise Ruhling would present an overview for the benefit of the Council and the audience.
Ms. Ruhling advised that she had been working on the issue for the last ten months and said that Staff decided to
undertake a complete"revamping"of the Sign Code because of the number of"holes" in the ordinance that they
were experiencing. She added that a significant amount of information remained unchanged and noted that
major changes included corner building total aggregate; neon; secondary entrance signage; and under canopy
signs. She explained that these areas were identified and addressed as part of public meetings held with
business owners and members of the community. She added that they then looked even further and came up
with changes to awnings/canopy signs; banners; window decorations/painting, and A-Frame signs. She noted
that in total seven "gimmes" were provided and one "take away," i.e. A-Frame signs were proposed to be
prohibited after January 1,2004.
Ms. Ruhling stated that Staffs concerns regarding A-Frame signs included locations in the right-of-way, off-
premise locations (other person's property), improper placement, misuse as directional versus advertising, no
permit required, not required to be professionally made, loose/not attached and left in the right-of-way after
sunset. She explained that in accordance with current regulations, each business was allowed up to five A-
Frame signs and pointed out that with more than 499 business located in commercial zoning districts, this could
result in the display of over 2,495 A-Frame signs. She added that the were 744 home-based businesses in Town
as well and said that if each of those businesses displayed five signs,the Town would be looking at an additional
3,720 signs,for a total of 6,215 A-Frame signs.
Ms. Ruffling advised that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this issue at a workshop and at a
public hearing as well and recommended approval, by unanimous vote, with the change to allow A-Frame signs
(060 to remain until January 1, 2004, thereby allowing businesses adequate time to plan alternative advertising. She
added that at the recent Town Council workshop, a concern was expressed that the original intention of the
January 1, 2004, deadline was to allow a one-year phase out of the signs. She said that Staff suggested that the
Council might want to change the deadline to reflect a date one year from adoption of the ordinance. She noted
that additional concerns addressed at the workshop included enforcement as it pertained to banners and garage
sale signage. She pointed out that Staff had made changes to both of those and said that slight changes had been
made relative to banners and garage sale signs, which reflected a minimum size requirement.
Ms. Ruffling commented that discussion also took place regarding enforcement and she performed additional
research in this area and reported that from April, 2002, to March, 2003, 610 sign violations were processed. Of
those violations, 30 were processed within the last month. She noted that this number was down from the
number typically processed because of the pending changes to the Sign Ordinance. She reiterated that only one
sign component was being removed and stated the opinion that the proposed changes were positive ones for the
business community. She stated that Fountain Hills had been built on sign regulations and was successful
because of those regulations. She added that without regulations, Fountain Hills would become a Mecca center
for unlimited signage. She noted the significant amount of time and effort that had gone into this matter and
added that Staff was seeking Council support of the proposed sign ordinance as presented.
Councilman Archambault commented that approval of Staffs recommendations would eliminate the A-Frame
signs and asked when the one-year grace period would begin. Ms. Ruhling advised that the proposed ordinance
currently before the Council stated that the A-Frame signs would be eliminated as of January 1, 2004. She
added that if the Council desired to change that to reflect one year from the date of passage of the ordinance,this
too could be accomplished.
Councilman Archambault noted that discussions took place during Work Study Sessions relative to waiving
ilkw permit fees for monument signage in order to encourage this type of signage and asked whether she saw any
drawbacks to the waiver.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 19 of 30 5/16/2003
Ms. Ruffling stated that fees were not within her realm of responsibility and said that if the Council so desired,
Staff could be directed to pursue this issue and report back with their findings.
Councilman Archambault added that discussion also took place regarding different districts, such as the
downtown area, and asked whether Staff had had an opportunity to focus on identifying different areas. Ms.
Ruhling responded that she believed Public Works Director Tom Ward addressed some of this during the
workshop and noted that Staff was definitely open to the idea of signage for different districts. She added that
thought would have to be given as to how to proceed to achieve this goal. Councilman Archambault said that
this might be an issue that Staff could report on at a future time.
Councilman Melendez stated that he has had many small business owners ask him what was being done with
respect to businesses located south of Shea to identify that they do exist, and asked whether any effort had been
expended to let people know that the businesses were there. Ms. Ruhling said that she was not aware of any
immediate solution to that problem and added that being south of a major arterial street was something that most
people considered prior to purchasing their business locations. She stated that discussions had occurred relative
to signage for districts stating for example "retail center" with arrows pointing to the vicinity that would be
installed by the Town but added that they had not gone so far as to say that this was exactly what would take
place in an effort to alleviate the problem. She noted that currently the Town's ordinance did not allow any type
of signage on Shea Boulevard unless it was specifically on private property,fronted on Shea Boulevard,and met
certain setback requirements. She said that there was no perfect answer to that question at this time but it was
one of the issues that Staff would continue to look at as a community. She added that the businesses were going
to have to expend effort to reach a joint solution/conclusion together in addition to working with the Town.
Councilman Kavanagh commented that when Laser Drive was abandoned, a great deal of concern was
expressed by the businesses located there relative to their lack of public access. He stated that although the
Council did not vote on it, there was a certain amount of positive acceptance of the idea of a large entrance
monument in the Target area that would list the individual stores and there was even talk about some land being
donated for that purpose. He commented that in view of current fiscal restrictions, the Town was not in a
position to pursue this at the current time but added that he hoped that one-day one or two significant sized
attractive monument signs might be erected on Shea at the now sole entrance to the business area.
Councilman Melendez commented that the issue he had with any type of ordinance was how effective the
enforcement was going to be. He discussed previous reports that indicated there were over 150 sign violations
and commented on the contents of the Staff Report that noted that there were 511 calls for service on sign
violations and only three citations. He emphasized the importance of enforcing policies that were adopted by
the Council, determining impacts on the community, and deciding exactly who should be in charge of the actual
enforcement.
Councilman Kavanagh stated the opinion that one proposed significant change to the Sign Ordinance was in the
area of neon and said that many of the people who originally voiced support for neon,signage stressed the
importance of letting people know that they would be "open" neon signs, small with a true practical purpose,
and would not be on all the time. He noted that the Town Attorney had since ruled that there could not be any
restrictions placed on neon other than prohibiting beer signs. He added that the original limited scope of the
neon signs had now broadened significantly.
Town Attorney Andrew McGuire commented that the question that was posed was could a neon sign be limited
to just say "open" or "closed" and said when talking about content-based regulations, it was important to take a
very careful look at whether it was an appropriate time, place, and manner for such a restriction to take place.
He stated the opinion that in this case, Staff did not feel that the content of the signs could be limited and the
alternative option was to limit size. He agreed that this was one area where caution had been exercised.
Councilman Archambault said that discussion briefly touched on corner buildings and signage and asked
whether this ordinance would eliminate upper level signs. Ms. Ruhling responded that signs that were existing
Niliw on second story buildings would be allowed to stay because they would be "grand fathered-in" but any new
buildings would not be allowed to display signage on second stories. Councilman Archambault also commented
on mobile signs and Ms. Ruhling indicated Staffs intention to look closer at this area and report their findings.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 20 of 30 5/16/2003
Councilman Archambault said that his trailer had a huge sign on it and as long as he was not parking it out on
the street as a form of advertising, it was his understanding that he was in compliance with the ordinance. He
asked for confirmation of this fact.
Mr. McGuire responded that this question had generated significant interest lately mainly because it was a
difficult regulation to write and indicated that Staff was seeking a good solution that represented a fair
compromise that addressed abuses. Ms. Ruhling stated the opinion that trailers that were not purposely placed
on lots to serve as additional advertising mechanisms were not considered violations.
Mayor Beydler stated that he would now like to hear from any citizens who wished to speak regarding this
agenda item.
Town Clerk Bev Bender noted that Sharla Shore, the owner of Bodyworks, 16913 Enterprise Drive, had filled
out a card indicating that she did not support the proposed changes to the Sign Code, specifically the elimination
of A-Frame signs, but said that she did not wish to speak. Ms. Bender added that the following speaker, Sherry
Sledge,had indicated that she would be speaking on behalf of six businesses,and requested that she be provided
a total of five minutes in which to present her remarks.
Sherry Sledge, 16913 Enterprise Drive
Ms. Sledge, the owner of Bodyworks Center for Perfect Health, said that she chose to open her business in
Fountain Hills so that she could serve the citizens of this community. She noted that over 300 people have
signed in support of the benefits of allowing A-Frames signs to continue to be placed within the Town. She said
that it was her understanding that realtors would still be able to utilize A-Frame signs and added that she was a
real estate broker and at one point had 15 offices in California, all of which utilized A-Frame signs. She said
that she considered that a business and she was still involved in a business, although it was no longer real estate,
and questioned why she could use them if she was still doing real estate but couldn't use them because she was
involved in a different type of business. She expressed the opinion that the proposed ordinance was
discriminatory and commented on the extensive amount of advertising she did and the money she spent in an
effort to attract customers. She reported that Planning and Zoning staff made a comment that instead of living in
the "cheaper" area of Town, she should move to the area around the Fountain and spend more money on
advertising. She said that she found this remark to be insulting and unwarranted.
Ms. Sledge noted that she tracked where her business came from and reported that 15% of her business was the
result of A-Frame signs and represented newly generated business. She commented on the negative effects that
the elimination of those signs would have on her business and revenues. She noted that she had photographs of
A-Frame signs displayed in Scottsdale as well as Paradise Valley, some with balloons attached, and indicated
that the same should be allowed in Fountain Hills. She recommended that the Council consider issuing some
type of sticker or permit for the signs and said that perhaps a group of business leaders could get together and
perform the actual policing. She stressed the importance of providing the business community methods of
retaining profitability and attracting customers. She said that she liked the basic sign ordinance but asked the
Council to delay action on the A-Frame portion until a group of business owners could be formed to come up
with alternatives and options that would benefit everyone.
Louis Mirabella, 16524 Fairfax Drive
Mr. Mirabella stated that he and his wife also owned a business in Fountain Hills, utilized A-Frame signs and
believed they were beneficial to the business. He said that most of the people he had talked to were either
indifferent about A-Frame signs or believed they were helpful. He added the opinion that a very small minority
group was against the A-Frame signs. He commented on the fact that there was a tent sign law already on the
books and suggested that this law be enforced and the elimination of A-Frame signs be abandoned.
Vladimir Hulpach
Mr. Vladimir Hulpach, representing the Fountain Hills Chamber of Commerce, discussed the Chambers'
involvement in this issue and noted that they did not recommend banning the signs entirely, but rather suggested
replacing A-Frames with directional signs. He suggested that the Council consider implementing an 18-month
phase-out period for A-Frame signs and noted that .the idea behind this was to provide the businesses with a
sufficient amount of time. He also urged the businesses to become active in alternative methods of advertising
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 21 of 30 5/16/2003
and indicated the Chamber's willingness to work with them to accomplish this goal and limit impacts on their
businesses.
Sal Ripoli, 16852 E. Parkview Avenue
Le Mr. Ripoli stated that he was the owner of Mama's Italian Kitchen and stated that A-Frame signs had a very
important value and had been proven to increase business volume. He stated the opinion that the A-Frame signs
must be retained but agreed that this should be done in a professional and aesthetically pleasing manner. He
suggested that the business owners be provided an opportunity to develop viable attractive options for
consideration. He urged the Council to allow this issue to proceed in that manner rather than ban them
throughout the Town of Fountain Hills.
There were no additional citizens indicating their desire to speak at this time and the Mayor declared the public
hearing closed at 10:15 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM#23—CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 03-07 AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE(SIGN ORDINANCE).
Mayor Beydler stated that he had asked the Mayor's Youth Council to conduct a baseline service for the Council
and reported that last Saturday, April 26th, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 12 p.m., they counted every single
tent sign that was displayed in the Town of Fountain Hills. The Mayor reported that there were 235 total tent
signs, 85 of them,representing 36%, were real estate related; 150 were non-real estate, however of those 150,42
were garage sale or moving sale signs. He reported that in essence 45% or less than half of the tent signs were
for non-real estate, garage sale or moving sale signs. He noted that the majority of all these signs were found in
the blocks around the Town between Saguaro,Fountain Hills Boulevard,Palisades and El Lago. He agreed with
Mr. Hulpach's comment that 90% of what was contained in the policy was extremely well thought out but a
couple of "sore spots" remained, namely the tent signs. He urged everyone not to forget that 90% of the
document was acceptable and commendable although some "fine tuning"remained to be done.
The Mayor said that there was a reason why the business owners wanted to be seen, why they want those signs
out there. , Businesses were not making enough money and they wanted to attract more customers. He
lbw discussed difficulties associated with letting people know that the businesses "are here,"particularly in Fountain
Hills. He recalled his personal signage experiences when he campaigned for office and said that his "take" was
you didn't take away without giving back something of equal of more value than what people already had. He
said that they had talked about business districts with some monument signage and had been told that Staff was
looking into this but the Town was not ready to proceed in this direction yet. He stressed the importance of
making this a priority and a reality.
Mayor Beydler commented that he was informed by Staff that monument signs could cost upwards of$25,000
each and said that driving into Town today from Scottsdale he was listening to the radio and heard a discussion
about the new name for the Squaw Peak Parkway. He noted that $2500 had been allocated to cover the entire
cost of the revised sign package for that freeway. He stated that he had talked to many business owners in the
community and they said, "Give us the district, the criteria and the rules of the game and we'll pay for the signs
to give ourselves some identity." He emphasized that the owners wanted to have the opportunity to protect
themselves and minimize impacts on their businesses. He reiterated that effort must be expended to give the
business owners, who represented "the butter on the Town's bread" something equally as good or even better
should a decision was made to take something away.
Councilwoman Nicola MOVED to approve Ordinance No. 03-07 amending Chapter 6 of the Zoning Ordinance
(Sign Ordinance) subject to the removal of provisions 6.08(2)(a)that stated"A-Frame signs would be prohibited
in all zoning districts after January 1, 2004" and substituting that language with the following provision: "A-
Frame signs shall be professionally made and shall be issued a permit from Building Safety/Community
Development." Mayor Beydler SECONDED the motion.
Councilman Melendez stated the opinion that small businesses really needed a "boost" and said that the
customer base the businesses attributed as a result of the A-Frame signs was significant. He added that he also
felt that the issue of sign pollution needed to be looked at and commented that he liked the idea of monument
signs. He said that he had talked to some businesses about contributing to the cost of these types of signs and
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 22 of 30 5/16/2003
noted that he was aware of the fact that this represented a work in progress. He indicated that he would support
Councilwoman Nicola's motion with the understanding that they continue to look into the issue of monument
signs.
Councilwoman Nicola indicated her intention to offer an additional amendment to the motion. She stated that
the code stated that there shall not be more than five A-Frame signs allowed at any one destination and said that
she was not aware of any business that utilized more than three. She commented that she would like to
AMEND her motion to change the maximum number of signs to three at one destination.
Councilwoman Stevens SECONDED the amendment to the motion.
Councilman Kavanagh indicated his intention to amend the amendment and stated the opinion that a major
problem the Town was experiencing with A-Frame signs was that some people were abusing them. He said he
had seen some stores with multiple A-Frame signs next to each other on major streets and added that he would
like to amend the motion to state that any store (not real estate signs) located on a major streets (i.e. Fountain
Hills Boulevard, Saguaro Boulevard, Palisades Boulevard and Avenue of the Fountains) shall be limited to one
A-Frame sign.
Town Attorney Andrew McGuire requested that if the Council wants to extract out A-Frame signs from the
ordinance,that Ms. Ruhling be provided an opportunity to draft language relative to the A-Frame sign issue that
would stand alone. He said that opportunity should be provided to discuss this further and determine the best
possible manner in which to address this item. He said that in the meantime, the restrictions would be removed
and A-Frame signs would continue to be allowed. He added that the first part of Councilwoman Nicola's
motion that the prohibition on A-Frame signs be struck would be pulled out and brought back as a separate item
to be addressed at a future meeting.
The Mayor asked whether all of the other items discussed such as the number of signs and locations would also
be addressed at a later time. Mr. McGuire said that this was correct. Mayor Beydler stated that they were now
back to the main motion with the amendment to remove the tent sign verbiage from the document.
Ms. Ruhling stated that the Council would not vote to prohibit the use of A-Frame signs as they were still not
specifically allowed, but they were not prohibited and Staff would work on language and recommendations and
present their recommendations as soon as possible regarding this issue. She added that there were communities
with A-Frame regulations in place and she would research that area as well.
Councilman Archambault asked for a clarification as to where they stood at this point. Mr. McGuire clarified
that his suggestion was that they take out the prohibition against A-Frame signs after January 1, 2004, and then
address that as a separate issue.
Councilwoman Nicola restated her motion and stated that she MOVED to approve the new Sign Ordinance with
the exception of 6.08(2)(a) stating that A-Frame signs would be prohibited in all zoning districts after January 1,
2004, and with the stipulation that similar language would be removed over other areas of the ordinance.
Councilwoman Stevens SECONDED the motion.
Vice Mayor Ralphe said that she supported this motion and added that she had come to this meeting with a
strong sense that whatever occurred ought to be fair and equitable to all businesses. She added that she was
troubled that some businesses would be moving towards no A-Frame signs while other businesses, realtors,
would be allowed directional signs which look somewhat like A-Frame signs. She said that after listening to the
business owners and hearing how much they need those signs, she realized that they needed support in this area.
Vice Mayor Ralphe said she would also like to direct Staff to pursue Ms. Ruhling's suggestions relative to items
that could be brought back, even to the point of broadening it to include monument signs, input from business
ititie owners,and other ideas that might improve signage and assist business owners in this area.
Councilwoman Stevens agreed that signage rules for one group should apply to all groups and stressed the
importance of across the board regulations and fairness to everyone, including realtors. She added that either
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 23 of 30 5/16/2003
they liked the look of the signs or they didn't, but said that uniformity and consistency was paramount and
should also apply to garage sale signs. She said that those two A-Frame categories (realtors and garage sale
signs) should also fall under this and said she would AMEND the motion to also remove those and direct Staff
to come back with compatible ideas for those areas as well. She added that open house directional signs and
garage sale signs also fell into the category of alternative ideas. Vice Mayor Ralphe SECONDED the
amendment to the motion.
Councilwoman Nicola commented that she agreed with many of the issues that had been discussed, such as the
importance of having the signs professionally made, but said that her concern relative to permitting garage sale
signs was that they belong to the Town anyway. They were loaned to people who were having garage sales. She
added that realtors who held open houses in the Town did not always live in the Town and questioned how this
area would be regulated.
Councilwoman Stevens said that she did not believe they had decided upon a permitting process yet and added
that she believed the intent was to open up this issue to any and all ideas and permitting was just one idea that
would be explored. Mayor Beydler said that he understood that Councilwoman Nicola was requesting two
categories and research be added to the overall discussion that was going to occur.
The Mayor asked for a vote on the amendment. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7 TO 0).
Mayor Beydler directed Staff to research business enterprise districts thoroughly. He added that he would like
to see marquee signage looked into as well and a policy recommended to the Council for their consideration
regarding all of the issues associated with them. He said that he did not believe that long-term tent signs for
successful retail businesses were going to be all that necessary if the Town eventually came to grips with
beautiful monument signage that advertised the businesses' existence and provides a sense of identity. He also
emphasized the importance of involving members of the business community in discussions relative to this
issue. He added that he would like Staff to take this matter "to heart" and come back with a recommendation
relative to whether business enterprise districts would work.
Le Councilwoman Stevens agreed with the Mayor's comments and encouraged the members of the business
community to bring forward their recommendations and ideas.
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED to strike the permission to use neon and to retain the current ban on neon.
Vice Mayor Ralphe SECONDED the motion.
Councilman Kavanagh stated the opinion that the Council was wise to ban neon in the past and added that he
believed the continued ban was consistent with the look that the Town was trying to project. He said that he did
not believe stores had to use neon to "announce" that they were open and noted that the overwhelming majority
of stores did not display "open" signs, and therefore this does not seem to represent a necessity. He also pointed
out that they had discovered that the signs could not be restricted to open neon signs and said that these were the
reasons for his motion.
Councilman Archambault said that he could not support the amendment to ban neon and added that if the
Council continued in this direction, they were going to "dismantle" all of the efforts that had gone into this
important issue. He stated that he believed the proposal represented a well-crafted sign ordinance.
Councilwoman Nicola read from the document for the benefit of the audience that neon was only allowed as
follows: as part of a wall sign or for window signage with a maximum size of 4 square feet. She announced
that she also would not support the proposed amendment to ban neon.
Mayor Beydler noted that he would not vote in support of banning neon either and said that he liked the look.
Councilman Melendez asked Councilman Kavanagh if his proposed amendment "grand fathered" the existing
businesses with neon signage. Councilman Kavanagh responded that every existing business in Town with neon
was in violation of the law and added that he was personally disappointed that zero enforcement had taken
place. He said that all neon in Town, except for perhaps some of the very old stores that might have been
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 24 of 30 5/16/2003
"grand fathered" was illegal. He added that he believed that the amount of neon many of the stores were
displaying was excessive as well and major violations existed.
Mayor Beydler called for a vote on the amendment to ban neon. A roll call vote was taken with the following
results:
Councilwoman Nicola Nay
Councilman Archambault Nay
Councilman Kavanagh Aye
Councilwoman Stevens Aye
Mayor Beydler Nay
Councilman Melendez Aye
Vice Mayor Ralphe Aye
MOTION CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE(4 TO 3).
Councilman Kavanagh asked for a clarification on the time that banners would be permitted and said he believes
a contradiction may exist.
Mayor Beydler called for a point of information and requested that prior to moving on, Councilman Kavanagh
clarified his neon motion, specifically what effect this would have on existing and future businesses that wished
to use neon.
Councilman Kavanagh clarified that any and all businesses that currently had legal neon would be allowed to
keep neon until they go out of business or for as long as they remained in business. He added that all illegal
neon must be removed and no new neon signage would be allowed.
Mayor Beydler asked Councilman Kavanagh to define "illegal" neon and Councilman Kavanagh responded that
this term referred to any neon that was put up since neon was banned, approximately two years ago, and/or any
neon that was in excess of permitted neon for those that had neon in place prior to the ban.
Councilman Kavanagh went back to his original question relative to banners and asked for a clarification on
how often banners could be put up.
Ms. Ruhling advised that the proposed ordinance contained the correct language, namely that the banners be
allowed for grand openings, a change in business name or changes in ownership for up to 14 days. Councilman
Kavanagh said that this was fine with him and thanked Ms. Ruhling for her clarification.
Mayor Beydler called for the question and asked all those in favor of the policy as amended to vote at this time.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7 TO 0).
AGENDA ITEM #24 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2003-20 AMENDING RESOLUTION
2003-02 ENDORSING THE FORMATION OF A NEW FIRE DISTRICT TO EXTEND THE
EXPIRATION DATE TO APRIL 16,2004.
Town Attorney Andrew McGuire stated that he met with representatives of the Committee to Save Our
Community earlier this week and they had discussed amendments to change the date in the original resolution
and extend it to April 16, 2004. He added that he now understood that the request was for a date that
represented more of a "floating number," namely one year from the time that they began to circulate petitions.
He noted that the purpose of the original deadline Staff proposed had nothing to do with the one year, but rather
dealt with the time that Staff would need in order to place an item on the ballot next May if there were no
indications that the District would be formed and in the case that the property tax was defeated this month.
Mr. McGuire stated that the question currently before the Council was whether they wanted to amend the
Resolution and approve the "floating date." He said that Staff was seeking direction at this time.
Councilman Archambault commented that he had performed extensive research on this issue and had talked to
many people down at the County Supervisors' Office as well as Jill Kennedy with the County Attorney's Office.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 25 of 30 5/16/2003
He explained that the timeframe appeared to be a "moving target." He referred to a recent conversation he had
with Ms. Kennedy and said it appeared the Town had "shot themselves in the foot" by placing restrictions on the
County as a result of the December 31st date. He noted that three stipulations were put in place in the original
resolution, namely: 1) the December 31st date; 2) the approval of the County at their hearing; and 3) the
tillw approval of the County after they counted all of the petitions that group turned in. He noted that it was
"whichever came first." He stated that the County had already met the first requirement, so that one was already
gone. He explained that inadvertently what they had done was set the County up to require that the petitions be
turned in sometime during the early part of November in order for the County to have all of their work
completed by December 31st. He said that the Town indicated that on December 31st it would pull its support
for the resolution if they weren't that far along.
Councilman Archambault stated that he had tried to get Ms. Kennedy to read the minutes of the January 16th
meeting in an effort to give her a better understanding of their intentions at that time and noted that they were
not looking to place a restriction on the County but rather for the Town to come back and look at how far along
the citizen group that they were supporting had gotten. He added that if the Committee was far enough along,
the Council obviously wanted to continue to provide them support. He stated that Ms. Kennedy concurred that
the Council should probably eliminate all of those particular little items and just support the citizens' group
moving forward to form a fire district. He said that he would like to change the resolution and offer the
following motion.
Councilman Archambault MOVED that the Council remove the December 31st date as well as the other
stipulations that went along with the resolution and just keep it as an approval for the citizens' group to move
forward to form a fire district. Councilman Archambault added that he had also found out that no one had been
able to find a specific deadline for forming fire districts. Councilwoman Nicola SECONDED the motion.
Councilman Kavanagh asked what stipulations would be removed as a result of Councilman Archambault's
motion and Mr. McGuire indicated Staffs intention to obtain a copy of the original motion and specifically
outlined the various items for the purpose of accuracy and clarification.
iikw Councilwoman Nicola asked Mr. McGuire if he was aware of the stipulations that were placed upon the Town at
last month's Board of Supervisor's meeting. He responded that the only real stipulation that was outstanding
from the Town's perspective was approval of the map and added that approval of the amended impact statement
was not something that was going to come back to the Town that soon. Councilwoman Nicola asked Mr.
McGuire whether the Council was "fragmenting" the procedure or addressing everything that needed to be
addressed so that the Committee could move forward. Mr. McGuire stated the opinion that there were no
impediments to moving forward at this time.
Councilman Melendez stated that it was his understanding that the motion removed all of the specific
timeframes and simply allowed the members of the group to form a fire district. Mr. McGuire concurred that
this was correct.
Vice Mayor Ralphe stressed the importance of citizen involvement and said that was why she voted in support
of the citizens pursuing the formation of a fire district. She pointed out that she did not vote in favor of a fire
district,but rather allowing the citizens to be active in the community and to pursue their goals. She commented
on the fact that initiatives and referendums were governed by State law and contained specific time deadlines so
that citizens would know when an answer relative to an issue would be forthcoming. She stated that she did not
favor something that did not have a specific date attached and added that with citizen activism came a
responsibility. She also commented on the Council's responsibility to the citizens of the Town relative to
funding for fire services. She expressed the opinion that citizens had the right to know whether the Town was
going to continue funding, if and when a fire district was formed.
Mayor Beydler explained that when he attended the Board of Supervisor's meeting as a representative of the
Town, it was made clear that the reason for this was not so much "policy driven" as it was "legally driven" and
stated that the County, the State, and the Department of Justice were higher authorities than the Town of
Fountain Hills. He added that Don Stapley and the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors asked the Town to
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 26 of 30 5/16/2003
comply with their timeline. He said that they did not want the Town to administratively be a "roadblock"as far
as the process goes.
Councilman Kavanagh asked if a resolution could be crafted that would provide the Committee the same one-
year time frame that the County apparently wanted to grant them. He added that the one-year period would
begin at the same time the County "started their clock." Mr. McGuire agreed that this could occur. Councilman
Kavanagh MOVED to amend the motion to reflect that the only change enacted by the Council was to coincide
the Town's one year period with the County's one year period. Councilman Melendez SECONDED the
motion.
Mr. McGuire commented that the issue from Staffs perspective had never been tied to the year time frame, but
rather was election driven. He noted that a requirement existed that any property tax election must be on the
May ballot and therefore the one year timeframe was necessary in the event this took place. He added that tying
it to one year from when the County Board of Supervisors said to"go forth and get signatures"did not represent
a problem from the resolution's technical perspective.
Mayor Beydler indicated support for the amendment as proposed by Councilman Kavanagh.
Hugh Henry,Chairman of the Committee to Save Our Community
Mr. Henry addressed the members of the Council and stated that he attended a hearing at the Senate
approximately two months ago relative to the circulation of petitions and said that at the time Representative
Quinlan from the House came over and talked about a Bill that he wanted to get passed that would change the
length of time in which petitions could be signed. He said that he was there with a Councilwoman from Mesa
and they had a long discussion. He pointed out that there was already a time limit on the books when looking in
the ARS Statutes regarding petitions and reported that the time limit for initiatives by the public was one year.
He added that they talked the Representative into withdrawing the Bill and explained that he wanted to cut the
time back to eight months.
Councilman Archambault indicated support for the amendment to the motion.
Councilwoman Stevens stated the opinion that the Council needed to look at the finances and asked whether the
property tax would be needed for an extra year.
Mr. McGuire commented that under the method for notification of a new district or a new entity or a change in
the boundaries of a taxing entity of any kind,the deadline for notification was the end of the year. He added that
an extension provision allowed going into February but the need to have an entity to ask for the extension. He
said that realistically they were looking at the end of this year as one benchmark and said if the district was not
formed by then,that entity would not be collecting taxes in the next fiscal year and the Town would have to. He
stated that it was an "end of the year benchmark" each year as you go around and the December deadline was
key for the Town if there was going to be a ballot measure.
Councilwoman Stevens asked whether a tax measure could be placed on the ballot of a November election. Mr.
McGuire responded that property tax measures could only be placed on May election ballots.
Councilman Archambault commented that he and Mr. McGuire discussed the fact that if the property tax did not
pass this month, they could still run concurrently with the citizens collecting those petitions knowing they were
still going to need the property tax next year and an attempt would be made then since an election would be
taking place and the Town would not have to spend money to call a Special Election. He said it was his
understanding that they could still continue to do that and use the same ballot language.
Mr. McGuire agreed that it was possible to proceed in this manner and to run both measures and both processes
at the same time.
Councilman Kavanagh stated that if the residents rejected the property tax this time around, he could not see
placing the issue on the ballot of another election. He said that after all the work that had gone into this issue,
all of the layoffs and cutbacks that had occurred, if the citizens still aren't convinced of the critical need for the
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 27 of 30 5/16/2003
tax, then they would just have to live in a Town that was no longer the nice, up-scale community he dreamed of
living in that contained great parks and other amenities. He also discussed the Moody's report and say it was a
real "eye opener" in terms of what that organization expected from the Town. He noted that they clearly
expected a long-term financial plan. He agreed with Councilwoman Ralphe's comment that to collect signatures
on an open ended basis just did not work.
r Councilman Kavanagh stated the opinion that they needed to keep very close track of the progress of the petition
drive because if the voters rejected the property tax, then the Town had placed all of the "eggs" in the "fire
district basket." He said he did not believe that they would have any problem getting the 50% of the assessed
valuation plus 1 but added that he did have real doubts about reaching 50% plus 1 registered voter and 50% plus
1 property owner. He requested that the members of the Committee to Save Our Community provide the
Council with monthly counts on those two areas, the total number of registered voters and the total number of
property owners.
Mr. Henry stated the opinion that the request was a legitimate one and said that he would like the opportunity to
talk to the rest of the group about it at their next meeting. He commented on the fact that the summer months
were "dead"and so the Council would not get anything from the group to speak of during that time period. He
reiterated that he would speak to the other members but stated the opinion that providing the requested
information would not be a problem.
In response to a request for input from the Mayor, Town Clerk Bev Bender advised that two speakers requested
cards were submitted, from Rita Brown, a member of the Committee to Save our Community and Sandy Zinn.
She said that Ms. Brown offered to speak if the Council had any questions for her and Ms. Zinn indicated
support for the item.
Mayor Beydler called for a vote on the amendment to the resolution as presented. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY(7 TO 0).
Councilman Archambault stated that the Council now had to vote on the main motion to remove the December
Nov 3151 date and the other restrictions.
Councilman Kavanagh noted that the amendment was to undo that and just change the dates to coincide with the
County's one-year period.
Councilman Archambault said that in this case the Council had just "shot themselves in the foot again and cut
off another six weeks." He commented on the fact that the idea was to run concurrent with the County but asked
Mr. McGuire to identify what the last item in the resolution was and said it was "whatever came first." Mr.
McGuire stated that there was a series of four things, the December 31 st date which had now been amended to be
one year from the date that Maricopa County Board of Supervisors authorized the Committee to circulate
petitions for the formation of a fire district or to the date (if any) that the Board either denied the request or
indicated that the petitions were insufficient.
Councilman Archambault stated that what happens was the last item "or that the petitions were insufficient"
would require them to turn those petitions in at least six weeks before that one year date so therefore you were
not complying with the County. He said that was why he had wanted to remove it and because of that, the
County was going to tell them that they had to turn in all of their petitions six weeks before the one-year date.
He said that this was the information that Jill Kennedy had shared with him. Councilman Archambault said that
he was attempting to clarify the issues and that was why he made the motion to begin with.
In response to a request for input, Mr. Henry said that he was involved with circulating petitions a couple of
years ago to reduce license fees in the State and said that the way he understood it, they had one calendar year
and if you started on July 1, you had till July 1 of the following year. He said that after that time they validated
L the petitions and in this particular case, the group failed to obtain the necessary signatures. Discussion ensued
relative to the fact that the proposed resolution contains the wording "whichever comes first"and the possibility
that this language could cause a problem if it was not removed.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 28 of 30 5/16/2003
Mr. McGuire commented that if the County Board of Supervisors required six weeks lead time before their
hearing and the petitions had to be turned in during that period, that was the County's own process not
necessarily the actual petition circulation timeframe. He said that the County's process, because it was long and
protracted, was affecting the resolution and said he was having a hard time getting past the concept that the
signatures would be invalid after a year.
Councilman Archambault said that he was told that the Town's resolution was affecting the County's actions
because they restricted themselves with the resolution. He added that in doing so, they were also restricting the
County and that was why he made a motion to just remove that language. He noted that the County was either
going to validate the petitions or they weren't and at the end of the year there were either enough valid
signatures or there weren't, so to say"whichever one comes first"cuts the timeframe down.
Mr. McGuire stated the opinion that the point was if they were good for one year from the time they were
allowed to circulate and they go for that full one year and if the County had its meeting six weeks later, it didn't
matter. Additional discussion ensued relative to attempting to "uncomplicate" this issue and Jill Kennedy's
interpretation of the resolution.
Councilman Melendez requested that the Town Attorney meet with County Attorney Jill Kennedy in an effort to
pursue and address this issue. He added that confusion existed and they were talking about different issues. He
stressed the importance of getting this issue straightened out and clarified so that they could move ahead. He
stated the opinion that both attorneys working together could achieve this goal.
Councilwoman Nicola said that it was her understanding that they were asking that the expiration date be
extended for one year from the date the County approved the circulation of the petitions. She added that the
point Councilman Archambault was attempting to make was that we had that one year but then they had six
weeks to get the issue back on their schedule. She asked if this was correct and was advised that it was not.
Councilman Kavanagh suggested that the Council vote to pass the motion as presented and that Mr. McGuire be
directed to contact County Attorney Jill Kennedy to discuss this matter in depth. He added that if"tweaking"
were needed to prevent this six-week loss, it could be done at the next meeting without disrupting the process.
He added that if the "tweaking" must be done before the next meeting, in order to keep the process rolling, a
special meeting could be held for that purpose.
Mr. McGuire requested that the Council provide him additional leeway and include in the motion language to
the effect that if the matter required that the wording be "tweaked"to allow for the gap in the County's process,
that Staff be directed to make that change prior to it being executed by the Mayor. He added that he and the
Town Clerk could then move forward on this matter. Councilwoman Nicola MOVED and Councilmember
Archambault SECONDED the proposed amendment to the motion as outlined above by Town Attorney
Andrew McGuire.
Councilwoman Nicola requested that all conversations with Jill Kennedy relative to this issue be documented in
writing. Mr. McGuire said that he would put together a memo outlining the conclusions that were reached as a
result of their conversation for review by the members of the Council.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7 TO 0).
AGENDA ITEM #25 - COUNCIL ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW OF THE MEETING TO IDENTIFY
PROCEDURAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES AND DISCUSS POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR FUTURE MEETINGS.
Discussion ensued relative to the extended length of the meeting.
AGENDA ITEM #26 - SUMMARY OF COUNCIL REQUESTS REVIEWED BY THE TOWN
MANAGER.
Mr. Pickering said that Staff was going to look at the settlement issue again and noted that a recommendation
was received relative to A-Frame signs and monument signs. In addition, County Attorney Jill Kennedy would
be contacted as directed.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 29 of 30 5/16/2003
AGENDA ITEM#27- CALL TO THE PUBLIC:
There were no citizens wishing to speak at this time.
AGENDA ITEM#28- ADJOURNMENT
Councilwoman Stevens MOVED that the Council adjourn and Councilman Archambault SECONDED the
motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The meeting adjourned at 11:19 p.m.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
By:
Jon :eydle ,May,.
ATTEST AND
PREPARED BY:
i jA. , J
Bevelyn J. Bender,Town Clerk
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular and
coExecutive Session held b the Town Council of Fountain Hills on the 1st day of May 2003. I further certify that
the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present.
DATED this 15th day of May 2003.
•
Bevelyn J. Bender,Town Clerk
-
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular 5-01-03.doc Page 30 of 30 5/16/2003