Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004.0304.TCREM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR AND EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL MARCH 4,2004 L Mayor Nichols called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. AGENDA ITEM#1—VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION: PURSUANT TO A.R.S.38-431.03.A.4 FOR DISCUSSION OR CONSULTATION WITH THE ATTORNEYS OF THE PUBLIC BODY IN ORDER TO CONSIDER ITS POSITION AND INSTRUCT ITS ATTORNEYS REGARDING THE PUBLIC BODY'S POSITION REGARDING CONTRACTS THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF NEGOTIATIONS, IN PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION OR IN SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS CONDUCTED IN ORDER TO AVOID OR RESOLVE LITIGATION. (SPECIFICALLY, KNAPP VS. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS AND HANSEN VS. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS LAWSUITS.) Councilman Archambault MOVED to convene the Executive Session and Councilwoman Stevens SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Nichols recessed the Executive Session at 6:20 p.m. AGENDA ITEM#2—RETURN TO REGULAR SESSION Mayor Nichols reconvened the Regular Session at 6:30 p.m. Following the invocation by Councilman Kavanagh, roll call was taken. ROLL CALL — Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Councilman Archambault,Mayor Nichols, Councilwoman Stevens, Councilman Kavanagh, Vice Mayor Melendez, Councilwoman Nicola, and Councilwoman Ralphe. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire, Town Manager Tim Pickering,Town Clerk Bev Bender, and Senior Planner Dana Burkhardt were also present. Items on the agenda were discussed out of order but for purposes of discussion will remain as listed on the agenda. MAYOR'S REPORT a) Mayor Nichols will read a"Relay for Life"proclamation. Mayor Nichols read a "Relay for Life " proclamation and noted that the American Cancer Society was the nationwide community-based voluntary faith organization dedicated to eliminating cancer as a major health problem, by preventing cancer, saving lives and diminishing suffering from cancer through research, education, advocacy and service. He added that the "Relay for Life" was the American Cancer Society's signature activity, offering everyone in the community a chance to participate in the fight against cancer. The Mayor explained that during the "Relay," teams of people will camp out at Fountain Hills High School and representatives will take turns walking or running around the track overnight, demonstrating that cancer does not sleep and for one night, they won't either. He said the power of the "Relay" allowed a community to grieve for those lost to cancer, celebrate the lives of those who had survived, offer those afflicted a chance to meet others who had survived the disease, help caregivers find hope and recognized the struggles and courage of cancer's long-term survivors. The Mayor said it was his honor to support the efforts of the Town's Relay for Life Teams participating in the event from April 16th through April 17th, 2004. He presented a copy of the proclamation to a representative from the Relay for Life event. b) Mayor Nichols will present "Certificates of Appreciation" to the sponsors of the St. Patrick's Day celebration. Mayor Nichols, on behalf of himself, the members of the Town Council, staff, and the residents of Fountain Hills, Nile recognized the contribution of the sponsors of the 2004 St. Patrick's Day Celebration that will take place at Fountain Park. He stated that last year Loving Family Dental and Majestic Coatings stepped forward to sponsor the E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004'3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 1 of 29 3/22/2004 annual celebration when the Town was unable to do so because of financial constraints. He added that the Fountain green on St. Patrick's Day had been a tradition since the early 1980's and said that thanks to Tim and Lisa Loving and Mike and Carol Martinez's generosity, this Fountain Hills signature event would once again provide enjoyment for many residents and visitors at the park on St. Patrick's Day, March l7`h. He thanked them for their willingness to serve the community through the sponsorship of this unique event. The Mayor presented the citizens who were present with"Certificates of Appreciation." CALL TO THE PUBLIC Town Clerk Bev Bender advised that a citizen, Sandy Zinn, submitted a Request to Speak card but indicated she did not want to speak. She wanted to express her disappointment about the manner in which the March 2, 2004, meeting was advertised and said a copy of her comments in entirety was given to the Council today. Hugh Henry, 15721 Sycamore, said he wanted to share a concern regarding the Tuesday night meeting and some of the financial information that was provided at that time. He commented on his experience relative to presenting financial analyses and cost comparisons and expressed the opinion that it was a "little over optimistic"to think that the Town was going to save $8.6 million. He explained that part of his training was to bring everything back to a current dollar value in the current timeframe, referred to as "a time value of money," and was called a "present worth calculation." He added that another aspect was to take out inflation factors,because they did not really apply when you talk to the time value of money and bringing it back to a current time period. He said that the size of the buildings was different and during the 15-year period,they might decide to add another 10,000 square feet to it. For comparison sake, it was important to have an "apples to apples" comparison. He stated that if the proposed building was going to be 32,000 square feet, he wanted to know what the cost was proportionately from the 32,000 square feet, which they currently operated. He noted that items such as utilities and maintenance on a new building were missing. Mr. Henry informed the Council that if he took off the inflation factor of about$3 million and added that the size of the building difference was approximately $3 million over a period of time; he could only speculate on what the utilities would be and stated the opinion that the time value of money would bring the project down to less than $3 million, not$8.6 million. 1,1i) Mr. John Riley, 16905 Nicklaus, stated concerns regarding the number of golf balls that were being hit onto his property from the driving range and the resurrection of this problem. He reported that to date he had suffered approximately $400 in damage to a lead glass window on his property and added that his car was also struck by balls in the driveway. He advised that the owner of Desert Canyon Golf Course had made a verbal agreement two years ago that if anything got damaged in the front, not the rear on the golf course, they would take care of it. He emphasized that the driving range was a different situation and said he went to them and said that he had $400 damage on the window, and didn't even talk about the car, and he said "that's why we need to put a net up." He stated that he told them the Council had voted in opposition to the placement of a large 20 to 30-foot "ugly fence," that would devalue his property as well as the properties of his neighbors who were also in opposition. He said it was his understanding that the owner had submitted an application for a new net, which would be before the Council at their next meeting,and emphasized that he was strongly opposed to the net and added that drivers should not be being used on the driving range, it should be "irons only"and no nets. He requested that the Council support him in this issue. Bob Travis, a 28-year resident of Fountain Hills, stated that he served as an elected Fire Commissioner for 18 years and was disappointed about the way the Council acted over the last couple of weeks. He said that they took over the fire district which ran well for years; never thanked any of the Commissioners, other than himself, for their years of dedicated service; possibly paid to spend taxpayers' money to have a plaque containing their names removed from the dedication wall at the fire station and how had given him the honor of being the first person in Fountain Hills history to be censored at a Council meeting so that his fellow residents could not hear him ask why it took nine months to get a legal opinion to sign the fire district petitions. He noted that it did not take nine months to censure him and stated the opinion that his civil rights and freedom of speech have been violated. He added that excuses were a cheap and easy way out and the incident should not have happened in the first place. He advised that he did not receive a telephone call to explain the action that was taken and advised the Council to "brush up" on their home rule laws and making decisions that violated the country's Constitution. E.\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 2 of 29 3/22/2004 Councilwoman Nicola requested that the Town Manager look into the removal of the plaque referred to by Mr. Travis. John McNeill, 14508 N. Creosote, said he wanted to discuss one item that took place at the public hearing regarding funding sources. He stated that he wanted to discuss other alternatives available to the Town in addition to building a new Town Hall. He said that they could look at extending the lease for a longer term until a bond election could be held and added that during that time period,the Town could sub-lease the extra 12,000 square feet that the Town said it doesn't need at the current time. He added that it was his understanding that the owner would be willing to enter into discussions regarding extending the lease. He also suggested that the Town use modular buildings for some of its staff until such time as a bond election could be held and explained that they were available for purchase and could also be rented at a relatively inexpensive cost. He added that they could also purchase the existing Town Hall and said that the owner offered the Town, back in August 2003, the opportunity to purchase the existing buildings at a price that equaled a little over$80 dollars a square foot, including all of the land versus the estimated cost of a new building at$5.3 million, approximately $177 dollars a square foot, which did not include the land value. He stated that there would be some renovation costs involved but expressed the opinion that $100,000 in taxes would be saved annually and said the Town could borrow $2.5 million instead of$3.5 million and pay $1 million down and, in his opinion, still be far ahead of the game. He stated that he doubted renovations would approach$100 per square foot difference in the cost of the two buildings. Mr. McNeill commented that at the hearing on Tuesday discussion also occurred relative to a dedicated source for the funds and noted that the Town issued bonds for the Community Center without any dedicated funds and the interest rate on those bonds was approximately equal to the interest rate on the library/museum General Obligation Bonds that were issued within a month of each other. Mayor Nichols thanked all of the speakers for their comments. CONSENT AGENDA (60 AGENDA ITEM #1 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF 2/9/04 and 2/19/04. AGENDA ITEM#2—CONSIDERATION OF THE LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE ALAMO SALOON LOCATED AT 11807 N. SAGUARO BLVD. THE APPLICATION IS FOR A CLASS 6 LIQUOR LICENSE. AGENDA ITEM #3— CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE OF THE ARTS COUNCIL TO ACCEPT FOUR PIECES OF ART TO BE PLACED EITHER AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE COMMUNITY OR IN THE ADJACENT COURTYARD. AGENDA ITEM#4— CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST BY THE HIGH SCHOOL ART PRORAM, THROUGH THE ARTS COUNCIL, TO PAINT A MURAL ON THE WALL OF THE PUMP HOUSE AT FOUNTAIN PARK. AGENDA ITEM #5 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE PERMANENT EXTENSION OF PREMISE LIQUOR LICENSE FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER. AGENDA ITEM #6 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2004-17 DECLARING DIERDORF, GERMANY,AS A SISTER CITY. Councilman Archambault MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda as read and Vice Mayor Melendez SECONDED the motion. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: Councilwoman Stevens Aye E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 3 of 29 3/22/2004 Vice Mayor Melendez Aye Councilman Kavanagh Aye Councilwoman Nicola Aye Mayor Nichols Aye Councilwoman Ralphe Aye Councilman Archambault Aye The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7 to 0). AGENDA ITEM #7 — CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR "SIERRA MADRE ESTATES, PHASE — 1," A 9-LOT, ONE-TRACT, 11.104-ACRE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, CASE S2001-16. Senior Planner Dana Burkhardt advised that Sierra Madre Estates, Phase 1 received a preliminary plat extension approximately nine months ago from the City Council and the final plat was now before them. He noted that this was a 9-lot subdivision located on the north side of Sierra Madre,just east of North Heights area. He stated that nothing much had changed with the plat layout since the preliminary plat. He noted that one issue of discussion was the alignment of the location of the sanitary sewer line and said it was agreed upon that it would be located entirely on private property in accordance with the Sanitary District and Town utility requirements. He added that final site line inspection would occur when the grading was completed. He said that staff recommended approval. Vice Mayor Melendez stated that on the last number in Mr. Burkhardt's report on the final plat (#15) stated that the Town may, at its option, post any portion of Sierra Madre Drive for"No Parking," due to the narrow width, curve and crest of the existing road design. He requested that Mr. Burkhardt expand upon this comment. Mr. Burkhardt responded that this was a preliminary plat stipulation that in the event people attempted on-street parking, that the Town had the ability to go in and sign it as "No Parking." He noted that Sierra Madre right-of-way was undersized based on the Town's guidelines and that was the reason staff was opposed to allowing parking along that Drive. He added that to date, there had not been any parking issues but if they did occur, the Town had the power to remedy the situation. Ms. Bender advised that Mr. Shawn White wished to speak on this agenda item. Mr. Shawn White, 16803 E. Palisades Blvd., an attorney with the firm Robert B. Sternfels, PLLC, addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and said that he was speaking on behalf of Mr. Stemfels who represented the applicant but was unable to be in attendance this evening. He advised that the applicant desired that the final plat be unconditionally approved so that the map could be recorded and a public report could be issued. He added that unfortunately the applicant was in a dispute between the CCWC and the DWR and had no alternative but to request that the final map be approved subject to the conditions set forth in the stipulations. The Mayor thanked Mr.White for his comments. Councilman Kavanagh MOVED and Councilwoman Stevens SECONDED a motion to approve the Final Plat for "Sierra Madre Estates,Phase 1,"Case#S2001-16. Councilwoman Ralphe stated that the final plat stage was not the appropriate time for a long discourse. She added that in August 2002, when the Council considered the preliminary plat, driveway safety and line of sight issues regarding the roads into the subdivision were raised. She said that she wanted to make it a part of the record that nothing had changed and safety questions still existed. She added the opinion that there was evidence of those concerns even in staffs recommendations and pointed out that Stipulation #3, which would require each property owner who bought a lot at that location to maintain their landscaping in a manner that provided safe vehicular site capability as required by the Town Engineer. She said that to the best of her knowledge, this Council never required that in the past and questioned how citizens could maintain their landscaping in accordance with engineering standards. She expressed concerns relative to potential fatal accidents at one of those two entrances and stated that she would not support the motion. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 4 of 29 3/22/2004 Councilwoman Nicola commented that in the past she had not supported this project for the same concerns just expressed by Councilwoman Ralphe but asked whether a Town ordinance was already in place that contained the same requirements. She noted that they already had Town-owned easements and ordinances that state they must remain free of landscaping for safety purposes. Mr. Burkhardt confirmed that what Councilwoman Nicola stated was correct and advised that abutting property owners were required by ordinance (Town Code and the subdivision ordinance) to maintain their property as well as the right-of-way and to maintain clear site lines. He noted that the Streets Department verified that site lines are being met and flags vegetation/shrubbery that was not. Councilwoman Ralphe said that she did not remember seeing wording such as what was being discussed in other final plats and questioned whether it was routine. Mr. Burkhardt responded that because of the scrutiny of the site lines, for liability purposes, staff wanted to clearly explain the issue to the developer, Council, the public, and for the public record. He added that it was also spelled out on the final plat and agreed that this was not usual. Mayor Nichols called for the vote on this item. The motion CARRIED by a majority vote(6 to 1)with Councilwoman Ralphe voting nay. AGENDA ITEM #8 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT FOR "PARCEL 5 AT ADERO CANYON," A 12-LOT, TWO TRACT, 18.942 ACRE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, CASE#S2002-32. Town Manager Tim Pickering stated that he was extremely proud of the effort and hard work that the Building Department staff expended on the various plats. Senior Planner Dana Burkhardt stated that parcels 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Adero Canyon were the last of all of the mountain plats. He said that the first parcel was Parcel 5, located on the north end of Adero Canyon. He explained that this was a 12-lot subdivision and added that all access would be from a single cul-de-sac. He noted that Parcel 6 was just beyond Parcel 5 and was a 22-lot subdivision with an extended cul-de-sac. He further stated that Parcel 7 was a 26-lot subdivision and added that Parcel 8 lay just south of Parcel 7, and was a 24-lot subdivision. He noted that they "zeroed out" in both a lot of disturbance areas as well as the lots and at the current time they were well in conformance with the settlement agreement and all of the other master plats that were previously approved. He stated that staff was looking forward to proceeding with the projects. Town Clerk Bev Bender stated that no one had submitted requests to speak on this issue. Councilman Kavanagh MOVED and Councilwoman Stevens SECONDED a motion to approve the Final Plat for "Parcel 5 at Adero Canyon,"Case#S2002-32. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7 to 0). AGENDA ITEM #9 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT FOR "PARCEL 6 AT ADERO CANYON," A 22-LOT, TWO-TRACT, 52.010 ACRE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, CASE#S2002-33. For discussion on this item see Agenda Item#8 above. Councilwoman Stevens MOVED and Vice Mayor Melendez SECONDED a motion to approve the Final Plat for "Parcel 6 at Adero Canyon,"Case#2002-33. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7 to 0). AGENDA ITEM #10 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT FOR "PARCEL 7 AT ADERO CANYON," A 26-LOT, FOUR-TRACT, 47.598 ACRE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION,CASE#S2002-31. For discussion on this item see Agenda Item#8 above. Councilman Archambault MOVED and Councilwoman Stevens SECONDED a motion to approve the Final Plat L.for"Parcel 7 at Adero Canyon,"Case#2002-31. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7 to 0). E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 5 of 29 3/22/2004 AGENDA ITEM #11 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT FOR "PARCEL 8 AT ADERO CANYON," A 24-LOT, SIX-TRACT, 89.708 ACRE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, CASE#S2002-30. For discussion on this item see Agenda Item#8 above. Councilman Kavanagh MOVED and Councilwoman Stevens SECONDED a motion to approve the final plat for "Parcel 8 at Adero Canyon,"Case#S2002-30. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7 to 0). AGENDA ITEM #12 — DISCUSSION WITH STAFF REGARDING EDITING OF POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE INFORMATION ON THE GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire said that this was the continuation of a discussion that took place at the last meeting. He stated that not long after the Citizens to Save Our Community's (CSOC) signature efforts began there was a request of the Town,through elected members then and now,to put on Channel 11 a video taped commercial (for lack of a better term) expanding upon the benefits the Town of Fountain Hills would reap if a Fire District was formed. He said that they advised the Committee that the government access channel, which was all the Town had since a public access channel had not existed since 1995, was not the appropriate place for that type of material under the interpretations that have been rendered on the Federal Cable Act. Mr. McGuire stressed the importance of being very clear on this issue so that discussions regarding the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would come to an end. He said he was not sure whether he or someone else misspoke,but in reading the meeting minutes it was clear that he was talking about the Federal Cable Act(FCA) as interpreted by the Federal courts in the Time/Warner case. He explained that there were two prongs to the analysis, government actor,being a government entity creating the materials about a government purpose. He added that this was the same discussion he had with the Council in December when they talked about all of the other people who had been on Channel 11 but should not have been on there. He said notice was then sent out to everyone to pare the appearances and information back to the true purpose of Channel 11. Mr. McGuire advised that sometime in January, Councilman Kavanagh asked for an update from the CSOC on where the numbers were at the next available meeting. He noted that the request was made of the CSOC for the Ned February 5th agenda and the materials were forwarded to Mr. Pickering's office prior to that meeting. He said that after reviewing the materials it was quickly determined that they were not really an update, rather it talked about why everyone should vote yes on CSOC's efforts and sign a petition. He added that Mr. Pickering contacted the Committee first by telephone and later by e-mail indicating there was a need to pare the presentation back to what was requested by Councilman Kavanagh. He advised that the initial response on Thursday of that week, when the packets go out on Friday, was "that's fine, we'll be happy to do that but we won't be meeting until Friday afternoon and so understanding we won't be able to get the revised materials to you till Friday evening or Monday." He stated that at approximately noon on Monday, Mr. Pickering e-mailed the Committee and said that the materials had not yet arrived and would they prefer to place the item on the February 19th agenda to allow them more time. He reported that the response back from the CSOC was "Is this a joke? Why don't we all just drink coca cola and run through fields or something crazy like that?" He said that staff wondered what this meant and again e-mailed and asked what they meant and whether they wanted to be placed on the February 19th agenda. He stated that no response was received,there was a complete shut down in communication. Mr. McGuire requested that the Council keep in mind that since the Council's rules were adopted, packet materials were done on Friday for everyone and that rule was rarely bent unless something came in after the cut off time. He said that this was a bending of the rule and the response back was something that did not provide an answer to the question. He further stated that later on in the week a response was received that the CSOC intended to break their presentation into four parts and present them during the Call to the Public. He informed the Council that that evening, he and the Town Manager discussed the issue as they listened to the presentation and said that he stated the opinion that the presentation could not be aired on Channel 11 for two reasons, one was the Time/Warner's court's interpretation of the FCA and the second was that State law existed on this issue. He advised that 9-500.14 was a direct prohibition against municipalities or any governmental entity using its resources (and resources were broadly defined and could mean copy machines, personnel, clearly Channel 11, etc.) to forward or support a ballot measure. He added that with this statute alone he had concerns that this particular type of action, signature E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 6 of 29 3/22/2004 gathering on petitions, was in place of an election. He emphasized that since there was not going to be an election, the process was more than just collecting signatures on petitions. Mr. McGuire said that a 2000 opinion from then Attorney General Janet Napolitano also stated that the 9-500.14 prohibitions applied to the signature gathering process before a ballot measure and that it was not just after its on the ballot that towns and municipalities could not be involved. She clearly stated that when citizens were out collecting petition signatures in an effort to try to create a ballot measure, before there was even a question officially out there to be voted upon, the law also applied. He commented that he believed this was a very clear indication that if the signature gathering process envisioned in 48-200 wasn't "grabbed up"by the statute, it clearly was in the Attorney General's mind because of the opinion she rendered. He advised that for those two reasons he believed it was very clear that the proposed presentation did not represent appropriate material for airing on Channel 11. Mr. McGuire said that people were saying this was never done before but stated that this was not true. The Town had been very careful that the material placed on Channel 11 consisted of regarding a number of previous ballot issues. He added that he spoke with Peter Putterman to obtain background information on Channel 11, when it began, and how did it get to this point, and Mr. Putterman confirmed that staff had been very careful during previous bond elections and on other issues to ensure that the contents of the materials shown on Channel 11 did not advocate for those issues. He expressed the opinion that the interpretation of the FCA were sufficient but when they add 9-500.14 and the Attorney General's opinion on top of that, all doubts were removed and that the material was not appropriate because the citizens were being urged to"vote yes"by signing. Mayor Nichols explained that this was not an action item but rather was an opportunity to receive comments from the Council and/or citizens. In response to a question from Councilwoman Nicola relative to whether they were going to "edit out" the last agenda item, Mr. McGuire advised that he had a discussion with Mr. Tripp and very clearly told him that if the agenda item was all the reasons for the Town to sign and the benefits that would be received, then there was a lot more latitude because it's a question before the Town Council. He said the point was "right time right place," and noted that the request at first was regarding signatures and where they were in the process. He added that the agenda item didn't have anything to do with whether or not the Town should sign the petitions. He stated that tonight it did and it made sense to have some discussion of the advantages the Town would receive as a result of signing the petition. He said that tonight's discussion would be aired in its entirety. Councilwoman Nicola questioned how the Town Manager could edit or control a private group's presentation. She also commented that prior staff members in the form of the Acting Town Manager/Town Attorney at the time were very involved in the merger of the Fire District. She said that seemed to fly in the face of the statutorial prohibition on staff interference. She noted that money had been spent on consultants and information was aired on Channel 11 regarding the property tax and that didn't seem to be problematic to the Town Attorney at the time. She commented that she sat through the presentation during the Call to the Public and did not see the Town Attorney interfering with the presentation, which she would assume he would do if it were problematic. She added that she was not convinced and was deeply disturbed and concerned about the actions that were taken. She stated that she would also like to go on record as saying that she was more disturbed by the fact that the actions were taken and no information was provided to the Council. She pointed out that the Council was informed of the action almost two weeks later,just prior to the Regular Council Meeting by members of the public. She stated that that insulted her. Mr. McGuire said he would take full responsibility and apologize if the information did not get to the Council in a timely fashion. He agreed that it should have been provided as a "heads up" as they do with many issues. He explained that the Council's use of Channel 11 had been initially to say, "go buy the equipment and go do it"and to fund it each year. He noted that earlier in the year they discussed having much heavier involvement in this area but things were left status quo. He reiterated his apology for offending Councilwoman Nicola. He said that with respect to the Town Manager editing Channel 11, that was tied to the same thing and it had always been a staff decision. He added that the Council had not been involved in Channel 11 programming because it was a staff decision. He noted that the merger with the Fire District was never a ballot measure or even a signature gathering process. It was a statutory allowance for the Town to overtake a district within its boundaries and no election or E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 7 of 29 3/22/2004 decision had to take place. He added that the signature gathering for that was actually a separate issue that would have been placed on the ballot in March or May of that year. Mr. McGuire also discussed the proposed promotion of the Town's property tax and advised that in accordance with the same statutes referred to above; the Town was allowed to put out informational material regarding measures on the ballot. He emphasized that staff spent many hours making sure that what was aired on Channel 11 with respect to the May election was focused specifically on facts. He noted that the Cromco case was recent enough to provide very good examples of what could and could not be done and they followed those to the letter. He commented on why he did not stop the live statement and said that he had always been accused of violating peoples' First Amendment rights by the Town exercising its absolute authority and discretion over Channel 11 under both the Cable Act,the cases he interpreted, the license agreement, and the Code. He added that that was the Town's decision as to what it wanted to rebroadcast and was not a right or in any way something that the Town had to provide. He further stated that stopping people from speaking at the podium and re-broadcasting a message he believed was clear advocacy were night and day differences. He said that he would not stand up and say, "don't say what you're going to say" and stifle the actual thought but it was not the Town's duty to re-broadcast that thought. Councilwoman Nicola clarified that she was not speaking to the Town Manager's decision after the fact, she was speaking to the Town Manager's contribution to what they were going to say. She noted that they were an independent group and added that she fully supported the fact that on other agendas brought forward by staff the Town Manager had full authority so speak to and/or critique issues and bring forward what he believed best. She questioned, however, his authority to go back and forth with CSOC to the extent that they were very frustrated and ended up replying with the e-mail previously mentioned. Mr. Pickering stated that the justification was in the policies that the Town adopted and noted that anyone who wanted to submit a presentation must submit it to the staff and they reviewed it. He explained that the only thing he was trying to do was get the information that the Council requested, i.e. how many petitions were signed, where were they in the activity, and how much further did they have left. He noted those questions were not answered and as they did with other groups and organizations, staff reviewed it to make sure that the material was not going away ` from the agenda item. He pointed out that the information strayed from the agenda item and so he telephoned the group and told them what items the Council wanted and commented that an advocacy problem might exist. He requested that they revise the information. Councilman Kavanagh stated the opinion that some facts needed to be re-stated in an effort to avoid confusion. He added that words like"censorship" were powerful words and people sometimes misinterpret them. He said that the removal of the Calls to the Public CSOC members' statements, or the statements of citizens speaking in support of their position, was not the first time that items were removed. He stated that they were all upset a month or two ago when they discovered they could not allow all the church and Little League announcements to be aired on Channel 11 and they were removed because of the same Cable Act. He noted that he did not hear anyone state at that time that they were censoring churches, Little Leagues and volunteer groups. He added that at that time the cable law was quite clear and no one challenged it but now suddenly when it involved a political group, the Cable Act no longer had any merit and the group should be able to speak. He expressed the opinion that this was not true and said they had no choice but to obey the Cable Act since they would be breaking the law if they didn't. Councilman Kavanagh added that no one was censored; no one was prevented from making his or her comments. He said they could not state them under the agenda item because that was not what the agenda item was about. He noted that as the Town Manager correctly stated, the agenda item was to update the Council on the petition collection; not an agenda item as to why people should sign the petitions. He commented that just like at the public hearing two days ago,the Mayor started off by saying "this public hearing is about how we are going to finance the new civic center, it is not about alternatives." He stated that the Mayor made it clear that no one would be allowed to discuss the alternatives. He reiterated that no one on the Council said that that was censorship or wrong, they all understood the importance of sticking to the agenda item. He added that under Call to the Public they presented their remarks and they were not censored. They were allowed their full time, and their comments were only vii) removed from Channel 11 because of the Cable Act and because of the Arizona State Statute, which stated that it was illegal. He commented that he could see why some of the CSOC people might have been misled because E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004'3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 8 of 29 3/22/2004 someone did start talking about the FCC and said it could even have been him in one of the e-mails because it was easy to confuse Federal Cable Act with the FCC. He stated that if he was responsible for the confusion, he apologized but added that it was his hope that now that everyone understood that it was in fact the Federal Cable Act and State law they were talking about so the problem could be cleared up. He emphasized that no one could r break the law. Councilwoman Nicola asked how the Cable Act applied to the viewing of the meeting on the website and Mr. McGuire responded that the Cable Act was not implicated with any of the items on the website but 9-500.14 still was and so it did not matter whether the comments were on cable television, the website or a bulletin board in Town Hall. He added that even if the Cable Act didn't exist, Channel 11 and the website were on the same "playing field"when it comes to the law. Vice Mayor Melendez commented that censorship was a repugnant word to him and said he came from a region in the western hemisphere where censorship occurred while he was growing up and people were escorted to the ballot boxes with bayonets and rifles. He added that he was extremely sensitive to that word and that was why he felt it appropriate to discuss the issue in public. He stated that on Channel 11 he remembered he was very disappointed during the Council meeting and asked Mr. McGuire, when he cited the 1994 Cable Act, "have we been non- compliant since 1994" and his answer was yes. He commented on his disappointment and noted that members of the Council had expended much time on Channel 11 as determined by them at their retreat two years ago. He explained that his concern centered around the fact that they were getting the legal clarification from the Town Attorney but stated that the lack of communication that occurred which resulted in citizens coming forward to state that they were being censored bothered him. He added that he would like to see a policy put into place whereby if someone felt that an issue should be censored, or rather deleted, that the Council should all be made aware of it so they could have a voice in it. Councilman Archambault agreed with the importance of notifying the Council and pointed out that the title under the U.S. Code associated with the Cable Act, was Title 45, Chapter 5, (Subchapter B through A, Part 3, Section 544). He stated that anyone wishing to access this information could do so by utilizing a search engine and typing in U.S. Code. He pointed that that former Attorney General Janet Napolitano made a pretty strong statement with her opinion that was rendered and questioned how that affected signature gathering for people running for Council or on Town property. He asked Mr. McGuire whether the opinion ran to that extent. Mr. McGuire responded that the Cromco case, coupled with the 9-500.14 and the Attorney General's opinion all talked about express advocacy on behalf of the Town. He added that this meant if any medium that the Town owned was used to expressly advocate for a position or a candidate, it was illegal. He stated that he did not believe that someone gathering signatures on Town property constituted the same act while driving around in a Town car to collect the signatures would be illegal. Councilwoman Nicola commented that it was a requirement under State law that the Council votes to approve the process and during that discussion the Council requested a report, which had not been received to date. She added that she did not feel unduly pressured by the comments made and wondered if there was going to be a public report from CSOC like the one originally requested. Mr. Pickering responded that that was a question that CSOC must answer because he posed it and did not receive a response. Councilman Kavanagh noted that numbers were provided during the agenda item and Councilwoman Nicola said that some of them were. In response to a question from the Mayor, Town Clerk Bev Bender advised that three citizens have submitted speaker cards,two of whom requested five minutes instead of the usual three. Mayor Nichols requested that the speakers come forward at this time and present their remarks. Robert Tripp, 16410 E. Tombstone Avenue, addressed the Council and said he would like to discuss in general the L. dangers of censorship. He spoke in opposition to the removal of materials presented during a Town Council meeting from Channel 11 and website media presentations. He commented on First Amendment rights and freedom of speech and said that he did not need to wave the flag in order to covey the importance of those rights. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 9 of 29 3/22/2004 He added that everyone watching the program this evening would probably agree that freedom of speech was a most sacred, important, and Constitutionally guaranteed right. He emphasized the importance of respecting and protecting that right. He stated that other dangers to the Town consisted of obligations and responsibilities the Council assumed when deciding to censor a Town Council Meeting include, (1) someone who had material censored might sue the Town for a violation of their right of free speech, and questioned whether the Town wanted Nor and could afford for this to happen; (2) someone who believed that material should have been censored but was not could sue the Town; (3) knowing that the presentations might be censored could have a chilling effect on what citizens felt free to present at Town Council Meetings; (4) if the Town Attorney spent time censoring, the cost could be significant and explained that what constituted official Town business might be difficult to determine (i.e. would the Mayor's congratulations of the Boy Scouts or another activity constitute Town business?); (5) where does one draw the line? Speeches by members of CSOC were removed and if citizens who were not members of CSOC had read the same speeches, would their speeches have been removed?; (6) since the Town Council Meetings were presented live on the website, censoring would have to be done in real time, which was simply not practical. Mr. Tripp stated that other dangers might exist but they could all be avoided very simply. He recommended that the Town Council adopt regulations along the lines of the following: (1) nothing may be removed from a Town Council presentation unless it was a libelous, obscene and obvious violation of decency; (2) if the Town Attorney believed that the presentation was improper for any reason,he should immediately stop the presentation and present his reasons for that action. He urged the Council to consider if it was in the best interest of the Town to step on the slippery slope of censorship. Mr. Tripp noted that Councilman Kavanagh talked about the importance of the "will of the people" and pointed out that with six weeks to go, including a week of non-recorded work, 3,293 property owners had signed the petition. He added that Councilman Kavanagh received 2,408 votes during his election. He said that a no vote on a second property tax had 3,282 votes and stated the opinion that by this time next week when everything had been counted it would show that this was what the people wanted. He noted that a majority of the people he spoke with supported this issue and said he wished they were having an election because the approval numbers would be overwhelming. He also discussed material removed from Channel 11 and said that nothing was ever removed from Noif a Town Council Meeting presentation in its ten years of operation. He added that the group was not advised that the materials were removed. They found out about it because someone watched the program and commented that CSOC was not on it. He thanked the Council for their time. Councilman Kavanagh said that sometimes it became difficult to keep to his pledge of not getting involved but added that he would like to respond to some critical statements directed towards him. He stated that to date the Committee had advised that they had 3,293 signatures, which he assumed were registered voters. Mr. Tripp responded that they were the property owners' signatures. Councilman Kavanagh added that once again they were only talking about 25% of all the registered voters and it took CSOC nine months to get those signatures. He pointed out that within approximately three weeks another group of citizens two years ago collected over 3,000 signatures of registered voters when they were trying to save the jobs of the Town's firefighters who the old Fire Board was trying to remove. He expressed the opinion that their results to date did not overwhelming swell of support for the CSOC effort. Mayor Nichols advised that the comments were not related to the agenda item, which was editing. Councilman Kavanagh said that Mr. Tripp stated that he hoped there would be a vote of the people on this issue and he questioned why, if it was not a vote, did the sandwich signboard in front of their headquarters say "Vote Here?" He emphasized that it did and that was all he had to say. Peter Putterman, a resident of Fountain Hills, advised that in 1991 he was charged with the responsibility of figuring out if and what they could do with Channel 11 and the other two channels, which at that time were controlled by the Town, Channel 99 and the Public Access Channel 22 that was defunct per the negotiations of the cable contract in 1995. He stated that Mr. Nordin, the former Town Manager, was the one who laid the ground rules down for how and what would happen with Channel 11 and he provided the instructions for setting it up. He said they started up with background music and a text-messaging system and it operated pretty well. He noted that over the year there had been a lot of insinuations regarding meetings being edited, comments being left out or E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 10 of 29 3/22/2004 people being denied permission to put anything on the Channel. He said he could state equivocally for the record that nothing was ever prevented from being placed on that Channel by any member of the Council. Mr. Putterman commented that when Jerry Miles was elected Mayor, one of the first things he said to him was "how do we improve Channel 11, can we get two cameras?" He explained that there were two reasons why they still had the single camera televising the meetings, first the cost and associated expenses such as personnel to operate them and second "editing." He said that if one of the Councilmembers comments were eliminated from a meeting while it was being edited,there would be a big problem. He added that the one camera was a convenience to the community and not an official record so that if something was cut out of the presentation, it was simply out of it, but because it was not an official document; this should not be a big issue. He advised that when it appeared citizens were misusing the process by turning around and facing the camera when they spoke, he directed the camera staff to put the camera on a wide shot on the Council and when the Mayor chose to end that person's comments because they were off topic or inappropriate, then it would return to the meeting of the Council. He emphasized that they were meetings of the Council, not meetings of citizens or initiative groups with the Council. He expressed the opinion that a little leadership from the Town Manager, the Mayor, and Council would go a long way in avoiding these issues and regaining control over what should be a pleasant convenience for the community. He added that if someone got off topic or made inappropriate comments, the gavel should be used although it was sometimes not a popular thing to do,but it avoided the issue and eliminated the problem. Mr. Putterman noted that as far as Mr. Pickering and Mr. McGuire's decision to edit the videotape, he believed this was a very bad decision and a precedent had been set that for eight or nine years he worked hard to avoid. He added that they could always spend lots of money and put a five-second delay in to block anything going out over the web that was deemed inappropriate or off topic, but stated the opinion that the community could get by with a couple of comments every once in a while without everyone being offended. He stated the opinion that censorship did not occur. It was not a censorship issue; it was an issue of something that was allowed to go too far. He said he applauded Mr. Tripp on his creative methods to place his presentation on the earlier agenda item tonight and added that it was off topic and half of the conversation this evening before he approached the podium was off topic. Marshall Friedman, 15245 E. Carmelita, said he believed censorship was the appropriate term in this situation and added that he sent a letter to the Mayor and Council regarding two subjects. He stated that he would like the first subject to be withdrawn since it had been addressed to his satisfaction but said he stood totally behind what he said about the other item, namely censorship. He expressed the opinion that the Council was totally responsible to the citizens who were the stockholders while the Councilmembers ran the organization. He said it might be totally appropriate for the citizens of Fountain Hills to consider the establishment of a Town Charter that would provide the citizens with a greater command over what happened. He added they should establish rules and regulations that everyone could live with and said although he didn't feel it was necessary, if the Council did not stand up and do what was needed,the citizens should take more control. Mayor Nichols thanked the speakers for their input. AGENDA ITEM #13 — CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE COMMITTEE TO SAVE OUR COMMUNITY'S FIRE DISTRICT PETITION(S) FOR TOWN PROPERTY. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire stated that a couple of months ago the Town was presented with a set of petitions from the Fire District Committee, CSOC, requesting that the Council sign on behalf of the Town's property, which was somewhere in the area of 60 parcels. He said that they contacted the County Attorney's Office and inquired as to which petitions the Council could and could not sign and was advised that the Town could in fact sign the petitions in terms of the number of property owners but not the petitions for value. He noted that a formal request was made to sign the one set of petitions and that issue was placed on the agenda this evening for the Council's consideration. Councilman Archambault asked whether the Town had any properties that were of any value and Mr. McGuire Le responded that many of the properties had value in terms of "market value," but because the Town did not pay property taxes, the assessed valuation on properties owned by municipal entities or the State were considered to be zero. He concurred that none of the Town's properties had any assessed valuation. He also stated that he had E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 11 of 29 3/22/2004 expressed the opinion that the Town properties should either be removed from the list or not included in the computation of assessed value and noted that he had received concurrence. Ms. Bender advised that two citizens wished to speak on this agenda item, Hugh Henry and Bob Tripp and added that Rita Brown indicated that she was also available to answer any questions the Council may have. Mayor Nair Nichols asked that they come forward at this time and present their remarks. Hugh Henry, 15731 E. Sycamore, speaking on behalf of CSOC, said that a year ago when this all began, they collected $7,000 within a short period of time. He added that rather than establishing a non-profit organization to account for all the funds they received, they went the PAC (Political Action Committee) route, which would essentially accomplish the same thing. He emphasized that the group never considered themselves a political organization and said it was unfortunate that they used a vehicle that was coming back "to bite them." He added that Rita Brown had some information that was just received today from the County Assessor and stated that there were two categories of ownership of land, exempt and non-exempt. He stated that Ms. Brown would expand on the information received. Rita Brown, 16738 E. Nicklaus Drive, a member of CSOC, advised that the Town owned property in two categories, tax exempt and non-tax exempt. She commented on lengthy discussions held with the County Assessor and reported that the sum of the non-tax exempt properties were in transition. She explained that they received properties that were deeded to the Town and had a considerable dollar value and noted that they were in the title of the Town and in the process of being transferred to a non-tax exempt status. She advised that the County Assessor commented that the Town would give one legal signature and at the time of the validation of the petitions, there might or might not be tax-exempt properties owned by the Town. She added that the County Assessor was working on two very large and extensive deeds at this time involving properties being transferred to the ownership of the Town and were still taxable properties. She explained that at the time of the validation of the petitions, the County Assessor would not credit Fire District petitioners with unjust valuations. In other words, he would not add the value of properties that were in transition (such as MCO Properties) if they were not applied to them in the requirements for the total assessed valuation. She commented on the lengthy process that would be followed and said that the County Assessor asked that a signature be given along with wording such as the following: "Owner in 4410 trust of all property listed in the County Assessor's records under the name Town of Fountain Hills or any other combination of the same words signifying Town ownership." Ms. Brown advised that the Town Attorney and the County Assessor spoke with the County Attorney and they all understood that the process would be accomplished as fairly as the Assessor deemed, based on the last certified County Assessor's roll. Councilman Kavanagh said that he was under the impression that what was on the agenda this evening was one signature from the Town on the property owner petition section of the drive and not the assessed valuation petition. Mr. McGuire clarified that the agenda item authorized the Mayor to sign CSOC's Fire District petition or petitions and noted that staff had not received any direction from the County Attorney or anyone else other than an e-mail received a few weeks back that indicated that the Town could sign in terms of numbers. He explained that that was all they were asking for, if and which one, and the answer was that the Mayor could sign petitions with respect to the number of properties. He added that his understanding from the CSOC was that there was one on that side of the ledger. Councilman Kavanagh questioned whether the issue this evening was signing as one property owner on the petition that dealt with 50% plus one of the property owners and Mr. McGuire responded that staff had not been given any information other than what he has stated. In response to a comment from Councilman Kavanagh, Ms. Brown stated that there was no discrepancy, one petition went to the County Assessor and that petition listed ownership and valuation. She emphasized that one single petition would go to the County Assessor although there were two actual petitions. Robert Tripp, 16410 E. Tombstone Avenue, a member of CSOC, said that he wanted to talk this evening about how to obtain a free Town Hall. He stated that a growing consensus existed regarding the importance of building a new E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 12 of 29 3/22/2004 Town Hall and noted that several financing methods were recently presented to the Council. He advised that discussions took place relative to the fact that the necessary $320,000 per year could be generated by a one-tenth of one percent sales tax. He stated the opinion that there was another way to accomplish this goal and suggested that the State provide the $320,000 and explained that if the Town established a Fire District,the State would contribute ‘160, $320,000 per year, slightly more than what was needed to build the Town Hall. He added that the current Fountain Hills sales tax, with 1% dedicated to pay for fire and emergency services, was already the third highest in the State and higher than Scottsdale. He question whether the Town could afford to increase this tax even more, even for a good cause such as a Town Hall, and noted that if a Fire District was approved, not only would the Town receive the $320,000 per year, the 1% sales tax also disappeared and the Town would have room to add small, dedicated increases to the sales tax for important bond issues. He expressed the opinion that the additional saved revenues would be sufficient to build a new Town recreational center that would serve the entire community. He urged the Council to seize the opportunities and that all eligible Town properties, determined by however the County determines it,be signed to pay for the Fire District. Councilman Archambault MOVED and Councilwoman Nicola SECONDED a motion to authorize the Mayor to sign the Committee to Save Our Community's Fire District petition(s)for Town property. In response to a question from Councilman Archambault relative to whether the Town had to apply for a non- assessment valuation, Mr. McGuire explained that the Town did not take any steps beyond recording the transfer instrument. He stated the opinion that this transfer related to the parcels that MCO deeded over to the Town and all the washes, which happened quite some time ago. He added that he assumed they were talking about their internal process of taking the property(washes) off the tax roles. Councilman Archambault asked when petitions were submitted to the County Assessor, at that time, whoever owned the property at the time according to County records, was what would count. Ms. Brown responded that that was correct. It would be based on the last certified County Assessor's list and added that she did not know when they pulled and updated that list. Mr. McGuire pointed out that the Town was already listed as the owner on these properties and they had not taken the extra step to remove the properties from the assessed valuation. In response to a comment from Councilman Archambault, Mr. McGuire said that he had a conversation with the County Attorney's Office relative to the fact that they could not have it both ways. Either the Town properties were out of the number of assessed valuations and could not sign or it was in and they could sign, but they could not do both. He added that it appeared to be reaching the point where they could not sign and they expressed the understanding that at the end of the day it could not be both ways. He said it might take them a while a get the "nuts and bolts"done and make the list accurate. Councilwoman Ralphe stated that she could not support the motion and expressed the opinion that for her it would be unethical to do so because the Town and the Council was precluded by State law from trying to influence an election. She said that although there was no election, the process was a political one just as though it was an election. Councilman Kavanagh noted that the Fire District issue had been controversial from the beginning and a lot of people had strong opinions both ways. He said he had tried not to be his usual outspoken self publicly on the CSOC drive to get the petitions and decided to allow them to approach people, make their pitch, and allow the voters to decide. He added that, in reality, signing the petition was a vote because it was not the usual petition where someone signed and an election was called; signing the petition was a vote. He stated that he would not support the motion and clarified that he was not going back on his personal pledge not to get involved in this issue. He emphasized that his vote in opposition to this was not a statement of pro or con on the drive and said he had a very strong opinion, which he had told to people who approached him on this matter. He added that his opinion was also listed on his website. Councilman Kavanagh explained that he was voting no this evening because he agreed with Councilwoman Ralphe Le and said he had an ethical problem with casting this essentially symbolic vote on behalf of the taxpayers of Fountain Hills. He noted that it was clearly legal to proceed in this manner but stated that just because it was legal did not mean it was necessarily ethical. He added that if the Committee had gotten their 50% by now it would be a E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 13 of 29 3/22/2004 different story because there would clearly be a public mandate, but the latest counts he had seen put them between 25% and 33% of the registered voters, which meant that a clear mandate from the citizens had not yet materialized. He further stated that by voting for this motion he would be committing the people of Fountain Hills to a vote for them and he believed it to be a bit premature at this time. He emphasized that he was voting no not because he was taking a position on it publicly, but rather because he did not feel he had the right to take that symbolic vote to the people. He added that it was a symbolic vote because the people who wanted to get the signatures could get far more by going door-to-door. He reiterated that it was an ethical issue and if the group continued and obtained the 50%,then that was fine but he did not have the right to speak for the people and no clear consensus existed to date. Councilwoman Nicola commented that in 2001, signatures were gathered to put the vote to the people on whether or not to dissolve and her colleagues on the prior Council took that vote and emerged with the Fire District. She said that she would support the motion for obvious reasons and asked whether they would be signing for all Town properties. She pointed out that the motion did not state all Town properties. In response to a question from the Mayor, Mr. McGuire stated that it would be up to the person who made the motion to clarify its intent, but said he believed that the intent was to give the Mayor the authority to sign whatever the Town was authorized to sign for. Councilman Archambault clarified that that was the intent of the motion and Councilwoman Nicola said that was her understanding as well when she seconded the motion. Councilman Archambault advised that in January of last year the Council gave approval to the CSOC to move forward with the formation of a Fire District. He noted that it was the recommendation of a Blue Ribbon Committee that was established and even though they were directed not even to look at that direction, they came back and told us that that was what we needed to do. He said that Councilman Kavanagh brought up an important point regarding signature gathering and stated that he would like to know how many signatures of registered voters had been collected to date. Ms. Brown responded that before this last weekend over 3,500 signatures had been collected representing 53% of j their goal. Councilman Archambault commented that that represented a pretty strong message and he would support the issue. Councilman Kavanagh clarified that 3,500 signatures out of 12,000 registered voters represented approximately 28% of the total voters and nowhere near any consensus or majority. Councilman Archambault responded that 3,500 was a good voter turnout at the polls and said it would be interesting to see how many citizens came out to the polls next Tuesday. The Vice Mayor commented that this item was on the Council's agenda in January and he believed he was the person who made the motion to let the CSOC proceed with obtaining the signatures. He stated that he would vote in favor of this agenda item and emphasized the importance of remaining consistent. He added that whenever the question of ethics arose, he got concerned because he believed that in voting on this matter, no ethical questions were involved as far as he was concerned. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: Councilwoman Ralphe Nay Mayor Nichols Aye Vice Mayor Melendez Aye Councilwoman Nicola Aye Councilwoman Stevens Nay Councilman Archambault Aye Councilman Kavanagh Nay The motion CARRIED by majority vote(4 to 3). E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 14 of 29 3/22/2004 AGENDA ITEM#14— CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2004-18 ESTABLISHING THE PRIORITY GOALS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-05. Mr. Pickering addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and said that goals were determined at the January 6th and 7th Goal-Setting Retreat, which were followed up at a Management Retreat with the staff in order to look at the timelines, action plan, support teams and budget implications as far as implementation. He added that the individual goals were also presented at an individual Workshop and staff also met with the individual candidates for Council and provided them with a presentation on the goals as well since they will be the implementers of the goals. Mr. Pickering listed the following seven goals for FY 2004-05 that were established: • Develop an operational contingency plan for fire service. He noted that the Town continued to have Rural Metro provide fire service but a back up plan should be in place just in case. • Monitor and analyze the impact of the pending State Trust Land ballot measure regarding preservation. Additionally, work with State Trust Land staff to properly plan for the annexation and development of the adjacent parcels. • Develop and present a comprehensive public information program to make information readily available to the public. • Conduct a financial analysis of the potential impact of the water issue on the Town's long-range financial projections. • Prepare, if warranted, a revenue ballot measure that was consistent with the findings and recommendations of the community strategic plan, no earlier than May 2005. Mr. Pickering noted that when this was originally discussed, the Council determined that by November 2004 the strategic plan should be completed. He said that once staff worked through the timing on this, they recommended a long process because of the timing of the public input. He explained that if they proceeded with the earlier target date public input would only be obtained during the summer when a lot of people are out of Town and this was a concern. He added that the date was stretched out to July of 2005. • Complete a community strategic plan by November 2004. He explained that if there were amenities desired by the citizens and funding was needed, either a bonding issue or a possible revenue ballot measure would be undertaken. • Develop a succession plan staffing analysis and appropriate recommendations. He emphasized the importance of the analysis in order to maintain high standards of operation when current employees became ill or retired. Mr. Pickering said he would respond to any questions from the Council. Councilman Kavanagh requested a division of the questions so that they could discuss in order each of the separate and distinct goals and vote on them separately as well. Mr. McGuire responded to a question from the Mayor and stated the opinion that in this particular situation, the questions that were presented, one through seven, were divisible types since they were on individual topics, and a request by a Councilmember to divide them into separate actions was not a motion and if the request was made,they needed to be discussed and voted on separately. 1. Development of an operational contingency plan for fire service. Councilman Kavanagh noted that under the support team it stated that it pre-supposed an Assistant Town Manager and said he would like that to be stricken since the issue had not been discussed. Mr. McGuire suggested that the Town Manager keep a "running red line" of what has been moved and approved and at the end of the time they would have the resolution adopted with appropriate amended language to reflect any changes. Mr. Pickering commented that one of the things they discussed and he made very clear at the Workshop was that if the support team and the budgets were not adopted, then staff could not be expected to achieve those goals. He emphasized the importance of putting in what it would take to accomplish whichever goal they were talking about. He added that this was not passing the budget or saying those items would be in it and said if E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 15 of 29 3/22/2004 the budgets were not passed for any additional hirings (consultant, staff, etc.) it was not fair to direct staff to accomplish a goal and then not provide them with the tools to do so. Councilman Archambault said he understood that the Town Manager needed some funding for a staff member because there was only so much limited staff could do and it was his understanding at the Work Study Session vid that he was simply budgeting for a position. He stated the opinion that if they just took the wording "Assistant Town Manager" out of there and make it a position, they could decide later what they position would be. He said he did not want to take the funding away. Councilwoman Stevens commented that she was going to suggest the same thing and recommended that the verbiage be"additional personnel." Mayor Nichols advised that this item was not authorizing the hiring of personnel; it was merely to identify goals and the resources needed to accomplish them. Councilwoman Nicola said she read an article in the Arizona Republic that peaked her interest. She noted that the City of Scottsdale received advice, information, and guidance at no cost from persons all over the country through the Public Technology Institute. She asked whether the Town was a member of that organization. Mr. Pickering responded that the Town was not a member and said that the Town was a member of the group participating in that, the Innovations Group, which was receiving national attention because of its uniqueness. Mr. Pickering commented that doing a strategic plan, although a first for the Town was not a unique proposal for a community but encouraged anyone with expertise in the area to volunteer their services. Councilwoman Ralphe said if she voted for the strategic plan, as she wanted to, she wanted to make sure that it was not a vote for any additional personnel or specific new dollars. Mr. Pickering said Councilwoman Ralphe was correct but clarified that the intention was to place those items and dollars in the budget. He acknowledged that that would be subject to a vote of the Council but explained that if the additional funding was not approved eventually, staff could not be expected to accomplish the targeted goals within the specified timelines. He emphasized that it was not a budget authorization or appropriation for those dollars to be spent. He added that the budget was the only thing that gave them the legal authority to add personnel or hire a consultant. Councilwoman Nicola questioned whether the current fiscal year budget included personnel and funding for a Public Safety Coordinator and Mr. Pickering confirmed that fact. He added that he did not foresee that person fulfilling the responsibilities of the position he was talking about. Councilman Archambault clarified that they were working on the development of an operational contingency plan for fire service, not a strategic plan as previously stated. He stated that the Council asked staff to conduct a retreat following their two-day retreat and on Page 3 (last paragraph, last line) of Latshaw & Associates' briefing, staff came back with a very profound statement, "It is incumbent on the leadership of the organization to find ways to bring them to life and make them a part of the Town's organizational culture." He said that that was exactly what Mr. Pickering was telling them, if they wanted to achieve the goal, there were associated costs. He expressed the opinion that staff was basically "calling their bluff' to see whether they would stand by their objectives or not. Mr. McGuire stressed the importance of keeping in mind that any citizens who had submitted speaker cards should be allowed to provide input on the item(s)they would like to address. Ms. Bender advised that she had one speaker request form and the citizens wished to speak on each of the items. Peter Putterman addressed the Council and commended the Council for asking staff to put together some planning documents. He also questioned why the Town Manager decided to make an entire presentation this j evening without once using the words "staff, personnel, or increase." He advised that this was the person who dis-assembled the existing Town staff and the Town resources to provide things. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 16 of 29 3/22/2004 Mayor Nichols asked whether Mr. Putterman was talking about the fire service. Mr. Putterman responded that he was talking about this issue, which pertained to personnel matters. He said he would re-address them at a later time. The Mayor noted that Mr. Putterman had previously requested that he "take control" over the meeting and items discussed. Councilwoman Nicola MOVED and Councilman Archambault SECONDED a motion to accept Goal 1. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7 to 0). 2. Monitor and analyze the impact of the pending State Trust Land ballot measure regarding preservation. Additionally, work with State Trust Land staff to properly plan for the annexation and development of the adjacent parcels. Councilman Kavanagh advised that he had no problem with the overall item although it specifically mentioned a Public Information Officer's position, which had not been approved. He clarified that the Council by voting in the affirmative was not authorizing that position. Councilwoman Stevens stated that she did not support the funding for a consultant for contracted services. She pointed out that the Town did not own the State land and did not have any reason to believe that they would be able to annex it. She expressed the opinion that they if they wanted to pressure the State Land Department or lobby them, the citizens of the Town and members of the Council could adequately accomplish that goal. Mayor Nichols commented that he and members of staff met with the State Trust Land people today, Mark Winkleman and four other staff members, and they were very receptive and willing to work with the Town in an effort to come up with a concept plan. He added that he was very impressed with their willingness to work with the Town. Mr. McGuire clarified that in order to annex State land, a concept plan must be approved and that, in their vernacular, was the equivalent of the Town's General Plan. He added that in order to reach the level of annexation, at least a general plan over that area must be completed. He noted that this agenda item referred to hiring a planning consultant, an actual firm or person, who would work with the Stand Land Department to generate that general plan(concept plan). Councilwoman Stevens said that if the Town had received a letter from the State Land Department indicating their intention to delay the auction of the property, she would be more convinced to go along with this item but noted that such a letter had not been received and she was not privy to any conversations with them. She stated that she would not support this item. Councilman Kavanagh indicated that he had similar concerns during the Retreat and said he commented that it would be embarrassing to start planning land that was not within the Town owned by private parties until they were sure it was going to be annexed. He added that he believed that was the reason why the word "consider" was placed in front. He said it was his understanding that they would not be jumping to hire a consultant unless they actually knew for a fact that they would be able to annex the land. Mayor Nichols agreed and commented that that was why they met with them today, to find out what the process was, what they would recommend,how they viewed the Town, etc. Mayor Nichols stated that the only revision would be a change in the wording from Public Information Officer to appropriate personnel. Mr. Putterman readdressed the Council and asked how the hiring of a Public Information Officer would benefit the item the Council was about to vote on. He said that they had discussed a consultant and planning people to put the project together and asked where it was proposed that the Public Information Officer would be. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 17 of 29 3/22/2004 Mayor Nichols clarified that they "scratched" the position as well as the authorization to hire and just talked about having resources. Councilwoman Nicola commented that she was confused because her understanding was that the annexation would go to a public vote sometime in 2005. Mr. McGuire responded that the annexation process with State NItif land goes through a State Selection Committee composed of the Treasurer, the Governor and the Attorney General. He added that it was not necessarily the same as the Town's annexations, which were a signature process and did not require elections. He reiterated that annexations were not typically election matters. Councilwoman Nicola asked how they could use Town funds and resources for an annexation process that appeared to be quite similar to an earlier discussion of a creation, not an election. Mr. McGuire said that with respect to annexation, that was a Town matter of going forward to extend the corporate limits. Councilwoman Nicola commented that the owners of the property proposed to be annexed must participate in a signature process in order to allow that to happen. Mr. McGuire explained that they were talking about a signature process that would not lead to an election. He added that if the State and Town could not agree on a concept plan in order to allow the annexation and a pre-annexation development agreement, it was clear that they would allow the land to be entitled in the County. Councilman Archambault reminded the Council that the reason they put Public Information in there as one of the costs for doing this was because it was so "near and dear" to the Town about the concern with the State Trust Land. He added that he believed there was a consensus of the Council at the Retreat who agreed with the importance of keeping the public informed. Councilwoman Stevens recommended that they remove the hiring of a consultant. Councilman Kavanagh asked whether Councilwoman Stevens would be comfortable if the word "consider" was added and she responded that she put her faith in staff and believed that they and the Council could do a better job than a consultant. Mr. Pickering noted that they were talking about doing a land use plan that the State could use and that could be used for the Town's General Plan Amendment. He stated that he would highly recommend that a consultant who had been through that process with the State be hired to assist the Town. He said that staff did not have the expertise to accomplish this huge goal (1300 acre Land Use Plan) and stressed the importance of hiring a consultant to do the job right. Councilwoman Stevens asked who was actually preparing the plan and Mr. Pickering responded that staff had talked with the State about that but it had not yet been determined. He added that they talked about the Town actually preparing the plan with the State's assistance and also discussed the Town assisting the State, but no determination was made. He said that at this point they were basically putting together timelines and presenting those to the State. Councilwoman Stevens noted that they also asked whether the State would be willing to set aside that land and not put it up for auction until the Town proceeded with the process and asked whether they had received a response. Mr. Pickering stated that the land could not be put up for auction until the land use plan was completed in accordance with Growing Smarter legislation. Mayor Nichols commented that this was a way for the Town to say to the State "We are serious players in the game," and said that if this was what was needed in order to step up to the plate, the development of a plan, they would do it either by volunteers or by expending some funds. He reported that the State had 9 million acres of land that they were working on at the current time. He noted that when he asked the State what they did to control trespassers on State land he was advised that they only had two troopers who dealt with that issue for the 9 million acres. Councilman Kavanagh recommended that the language be modified to say "to prepare or assist the State in preparing a development plan"and it was the consensus of the Council that this suggestion be approved. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 18 of 29 3/22/2004 The Mayor asked for a motion to accept the item. Councilwoman Nicola MOVED and Councilman Archambault SECONDED a motion to accept Goal 2 as amended. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7 to 0). 3. Develop and present a comprehensive public information program. Mr. Putterman did not speak on this item. Councilman Kavanagh MOVED and Councilman Archambault SECONDED a motion to accept Goal 3. Councilman Kavanagh stated that he opposed this item because it was premature to propose the position of Public Information Officer. He added that he was not 100% sure that it was necessary and said it would be best to defer any type of hiring to the next Council. Mayor Nichols asked whether Councilman Kavanagh had a problem with developing a program and he responded that he did not,just the hiring of a Public Information Officer. He said that if they wanted to delete the position and keep that issue open,he would support moving in that direction. Councilwoman Nicola advised that she could not support this item at the present time because of the additional personnel required in its current form. She said that she had requested on several occasions an updated pay scale resolution and was told that the information as well as discussions on positions would occur at budget time. She added that she would support a public information program that eliminated any reference to staff. Mayor Nichols asked whether she would oppose it if it stated they had to allocate personnel resources to the program and she responded she would not. The Mayor said that if the Council was going to ask people to carry out certain goals, they must also provide them with the tools to accomplish the job. He added that they would debate exactly what those tools were during the budget process. He stated the opinion that putting in here"to provide appropriate resources" was necessary. Vice Mayor Melendez concurred with Councilwoman Nicola and the Mayor and said that this particular position was of high importance to the Town. He added that he had been talking about this for the last two and a half years and would support it with the wording"Public Information Officer." Councilwoman Ralphe said that she believed what they were doing this evening was Okaying or not okaying seven goals and all of the details related to either additional specific personnel or dollars would be discussed and approved during the budget process. She stressed that this was a blueprint that reflected something they wanted to do some day,nothing more. Mayor Nichols clarified that the motion before them was to develop and present a comprehensive public information program and said they would leave the reference to the hiring of a Public Information Officer in there but noted that it would not say that the position was authorized. Councilman Kavanagh MOVED to amend the motion to delete the reference to a Public Information Officer and changing it to having"appropriate staff or personnel." Councilwoman Nicola SECONDED the motion. Councilman Archambault noted that the item was to develop and present a comprehensive public information program and asked what the person who did that would be called if not a Public Information Officer. Councilman Kavanagh responded that the words "additional personnel" could be used. He added that there was talk about hiring a lot of positions and said that perhaps some of the positions could be consolidated. He stressed the importance of keeping their options open. Mayor Nichols commented that that was the purpose of the budget process not this meeting. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 19 of 29 3/22/2004 Mr. Putterman stated that he believed it appropriate, on the amendment, to delete the position of Public Information Officer and expressed the opinion that such a position was not justified or warranted at this time. The Mayor clarified that they were amending the motion to read "appropriate staff." The amendment CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7 to 0). Mayor Nichols called for a vote on the original motion. The motion CARRIED by majority vote(7 to 0). The Mayor declared a brief recess at 8:45 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m. 4. Conducting a financial analysis of the potential impact of the water issue on the Town's long-range financial projections. Councilwoman Nicola MOVED and Councilwoman Ralphe SECONDED a motion to accept Goal 4. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7 TO 0). Mr. Putterman was not present to present any remarks. 5. Prepare, if warranted, a revenue ballot measure that is consistent with the findings and recommendations of the community strategic plan by November 2004. In response to a question from Councilwoman Ralphe,Mr. Pickering advised that surveys would be conducted during the strategic planning public input process to verify that results obtained as a result of public forums were accurate. Councilwoman Ralphe said it was her understanding that they would form various focus groups representing different demographics and interests and from there, the input would be used to form the questions that would be in the survey. Mr. Pickering confirmed her understanding and said that although no one had been selected to assist the Town with this process and its timing, he believed that was the way it would proceed. Nod Councilman Kavanagh said that he agreed with the survey and said he wanted to make sure the rest of the members were on the same track and talking about a scientific survey conducted by a professional. He added that included in that survey would be a question concerning how people feel priority wise about all of the potential major projects that may be considered down the road. Mayor Nichols noted that that was just one part of it and said it must be all-inclusive so that everyone in the Town had the ability to provide input. He agreed that a scientific survey would be part of the process. Councilman Kavanagh said she had no problem with focus groups but he wanted the survey because that was the one part that was not manipulated and geared towards special interest groups. He added that it provided a broader public view that balanced everything else. Mayor Nichols said that he wanted to speak against this item because he would prefer to do Plan 5A, which would give them the time to do the job properly. He noted that the strategic plan would be done by July 2005. He stressed the importance of doing a good job over an appropriate period of time. He said the first one said they had to solicit input in June, July and August and said not only would the winter residents would be gone; many of the full-time residents would be gone because they traveled to escape the heat. He said his preference would be to do it over a longer period of time and make sure they had a much more inclusive group of people to respond and not rush it. He spoke in support of 5A. Councilman Kavanagh said that he did not have a problem with that and requested that staff revise the language to state "appropriate staff." Councilwoman Nicola asked whether the cost of the scientific study was included in the consulting services estimated to be $70,000 to$150,000 and Mr. Pickering confirmed that it was. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 20 of 29 3/22/2004 Councilman Archambault MOVED, and Councilman Ralphe SECONDED a motion to accept Goal 5A, which would be completed by July 2005. tilbre Mr. Putterman had left the meeting. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7 to 0). 6. Prepare, if warranted, a revenue ballot measure that is consistent with the findings and recommendations of the community strategic plan,no earlier than May 2005. Mayor Nichols explained that since they voted for 5A above, they should now scratch out approve 6 and approve 6A. He again stated that any reference to personnel would be"appropriate personnel or staff." Councilman Kavanagh stated that he would not vote in support of this and said that after they completed the planning and budgetary processes, if sufficient monies were not available they could look at other revenue means. He added that to direct staff to put this together now suggested that it was a foregone conclusion and everything else was just going through the motions. He said that extensive planning that had to be started now was not called for. He also pointed out that revenue ballots were not the most popular issues in Town. He believed the timing was poor and it would aggravate a lot of people. Councilman Archambault said that he believed this was actually part two of the previous item that the Council just approved. He added that it was simply a statement that it was warranted and if the citizens came to them and said they wanted certain amenities and were willing to pay for them, then the Council would move forward with them. He reiterated that it was just a simple motion or statement. Councilman Kavanagh responded that they could say that about anything needed down the road and plan for it now but said there was no need to have a property tax raise its unpopular head in the Town and create more controversy at this time. Councilman Archambault MOVED, and Councilwoman Nicola SECONDED a motion to accept Goal 6A. Councilwoman Nicola stated that she would support this because she believed once they did go out to the public and conduct surveys and public meetings; it would be an insult not to have mechanisms in place to find the funding for those. Councilman Kavanagh commented that they could always place a question on the survey asking if they wanted to have a property tax and then they would know for sure whether support existed. He stated that they could save a lot of money if the answer was an overwhelming no as it had been for the last two years. Mayor Nichols said that that one of the questions in the survey would probably be, "Were they willing to pay for the amenities they were requesting". Mr. McGuire noted that because they were a general law Town, they were not allowed to have advisory elections of any sort and stressed that they would have to be very careful in the wording of any kind of survey questions since there was not going to be an election. The motion CARRIED by majority vote, (6 to 1) with Councilman Kavanagh voting nay. 7. Develop a succession plan staffing analysis and appropriate recommendations. Councilwoman Nicola MOVED, and Councilman Archambault SECONDED a motion to accept Goal 7. The motion CARRIED by majority vote(7 to 0). Mr.McGuire noted that before the resolution was signed,the plan would be changed to reflect the changes. AGENDA ITEM #15 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2004-08 ADOPTING THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS' POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR PROPOSITION 202 FUNDING. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 21 of 29 3/22/2004 Mr. Pickering advised that he and the Assistant Town Attorney put this policy together and tried to reflect the discussion they had on this policy before. He said that it provided information to the public and groups in Fountain Hills who might be interested in Proposition 200 funding regarding the priorities for the funding and the process they would have to go through in order to submit requests for some funding. He noted that the difference between this policy and past policy was that it specifically stated that all requests would come to the Town first before they went to the Indian Community. He added that both of the Town's Indian Community neighbors had been advised of the policy and they would be provided copies as well. He said that he also wanted to talk about the funding use and advised that the use of the funds was specifically laid out in the Proposition that was passed and became State law. He noted that the funding sources that they had prioritized came straight from the language in the Proposition, i.e. public safety; the mitigation of impacts of gaming, which included education, social services, health care and the promotion of commerce and economic development, which meant transportation, tourism and items such as that. He said he would be happy to answer any questions from the Council. Councilman Kavanagh commented that he was a little concerned about the selection and read from the policy "the Town Manager or his designee makes a selection of the requests." He asked Mr.Pickering to address that matter. Mr. Pickering responded that staff wanted to lay out how the requests would go so it was not a definite determination that he would approve or reject the proposals. He said it was basically the first determination they would have. He noted that requests for funding in each quarter of the year would be submitted and the very first thing they would do would be to find out if the Town had put in a request. He said if the Town had put in a request for public safety or economic development, etc., no other request would be submitted and that would be the first step. He added that if they had not submitted a request, then it would go in the order that was listed on the preferred fund use schedule,beginning with public safety. Councilman Kavanagh asked where it stated that the Town Council would decide which requests to process and Mr. Pickering responded that it did not since they would all eventually be processed. He said as long as there were no requests from the Town, there would be no reason not to submit them. He added that the Council would not decide the funding. The Indian Community would decide that, and they were merely reviewing the applications to make sure that they met the above listed criteria for funding and submitting them to the Indian Communities. Councilman Kavanagh commented that in a sense they would be performing a clerical function and Mr. Pickering agreed in the sense that they would ensure that the application was thorough and had the budget and they were using the funds for their intended purpose. In response to a question from Councilwoman Nicola, Mr. Pickering explained that they could certainly state in the policy that any application would be approved by the Council first. Councilwoman Nicola said she had a problem with this because she viewed it as a policy decision, as she did all applications that came in that are expected to be forwarded to one or both of the Communities. She emphasized that it was a policy decision and not a managerial function and indicated that she would not support the policy in its current form. She encouraged staff to bring forward a policy on Town applications so the issue could be clarified and avoid future problems. Mr. McGuire stated the opinion that they could insert the Town into the policy but noted that whenever the Town did one, it would be an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) and all of those had to come before the Council. He discussed the difference between grant applications and grant approvals and noted that before approval the Town would have to do an IGA as they did the last time. He added that if the Council wanted to have that be a Council action before submittal, he did not see any problem in proceeding in that manner. Councilwoman Ralphe concurred with Councilwoman Nicola's comments and said she had hoped to see a policy involving Town submittals for Proposition 202 funds because their responsibility as a Town Council was to enhance revenue coming in so that revenues expended for projects did not have to come out of the citizens' pockets. She expressed the opinion that their first priority needed to be a policy that governed the Town's applications and once that was in place,they could think about the rest. Mr. McGuire asked if Councilwoman Ralphe preferred a stringent set of guidelines or simply state that all applications by the Town shall be approved by the Town Council. She said that she did not know the answer to that E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004'3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 22 of 29 3/22/2004 question but said most of the time when they were looking for a policy or procedure, it was more than a paragraph, and it was a big legal deal. Councilman Kavanagh said he had a lot of questions on this that were just becoming apparent at this time. He e noted that the Town was acting as a "gatekeeper" but had the ability to only allow Town grants through the gate. He stated that if they allowed other grants through the gate, they might lose control. He questioned whether they were required to forward all other (non-Town) requests without comment or prioritization or whether they could hold up some of those request or prioritize them. Mr. Pickering advised that there was no law in place that governed this and Councilman Kavanagh suggested that they make the law similar to the one they use for the HURF funds, where people submitted their requests and the Council prioritized and submitted them. Mr. Pickering pointed out that there was a difference in saying "We're not going to have any priorities,just submit all of them" and really not deciding a policy and what they were doing this evening, setting an actual policy. He said they were saying that priorities were first Town projects and the requests could be submitted first to the Town Attorney if they so wished,and the second priority was public safety, and so on as listed above. Mayor Nichols commented that a policy lets others now what the Town planned to do and the organization could apply to the Indian Community but if the Community approved the request, the monies would not be funneled through the Town's books because it did not come to the Town first. He said that Proposition 202 funds could not go directly to the charity or even directly to the Fountain Hills School District, it must come from the Indian Nation to the Town and be funneled through the Town's books. He emphasized that the policy stated that the only time the Town would act as a carrier for the funds was if the Town approved the request according to the policy. Mr. McGuire stated that it was important to keep in mind when talking about Proposition 202 funds that one of the primary reasons it existed was the local municipalities and the State in particular were seeking to get more money back into local governments from the Indian gaming operations. He added that that was why the Prop. 200 languages stated, "Through cities and towns and these are the things we will fund." He emphasized that it was meant for the funds to go through the cities and towns but other organizations had seized the moment and come forward and asked that funds be processed through the Town. He noted that the Town was the indiscriminate gatekeeper and decisions would be based only on the Town's priorities and needs. Councilman Kavanagh said he understood they could "close the gate" and only let the Town go through but stated that if they "opened the gate" would it be everybody or nobody or could the Town control who came through the gate. Mr. McGuire responded that the Town had absolute discretion as to whether or not to provide the conduit for the funds. In response to a question from Councilman Kavanagh, Mr. McGuire agreed that although the law stated "government services including," only three allowable uses were listed and said they did not know whether the list was inclusive or exclusive. Councilwoman Nicola expressed the opinion that it was a "stretch" to believe that it was the intent of the law that the three above listed provisions were placed in their preferred stated order. She reiterated concerns relative to giving up policy discretion to the Town Manager and added that with a proposed $8 million loss under funding for the streets, she did not see a quarter in which the Town would not be applying for funds. She said she thought they were going to develop a policy and a schedule and then submit possible grant funding applications to the Indian Community. She questioned where the rest of them fell in if they were in the door first and said we are not going to forward others' applications. Mr. Pickering noted that the money would not be used for streets according to the policy and added that they would be limiting themselves somewhat by saying these were the government services that the Town prioritized and if they wanted to rearrange them that was up to them. He added that if the Town continued to submit and no one else got in the door, the funding must be used for government and if needs existed that they repeatedly request funding E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 23 of 29 3/22/2004 for, why would they want to battle with another entity over a use they believe may not be the highest and best use for those dollars. He emphasized that it merely ranked the priorities and the priorities could be amended. In response to a question from Councilman Archambault, Mr. Pickering advised that if the priority of the Council was to request funding for gambling mitigation for education, then they would not submit a request and they would take an application, such as one for education, and submit that. Councilwoman Stevens commented that it was her understanding that they were going to change the kind of applications they would accept on a quarterly basis and that was why they rejected the one for the Town funds. She questioned whether they had to fit into a certain category quarter by quarter. Mr. Pickering responded that he had not heard that and was advised that the Indian Community decided to do tourism this time around but their policy did not specifically state that the first quarter was tourism, the second quarter was education and so on. Mayor Nichols noted that he spoke with Bernadette Ward approximately one month ago and she advised they were going to specify an area for each quarter, and this quarter happened to be education. He said they could put everything in each quarter and let them select what they wanted to fund. Mr. Pickering confirmed for Councilwoman Nicola that the grant funds could not be used for roads by anyone, other entities or the Town and said he was not sure whether they defined qualified entities as themselves but they could clarify that. Mr. McGuire stated that the statute said government services so if they took this in its most strict interpretation that meant the Town would make all of the applications and all other requests from other entities were handled in a different manner, through the budget,etc. Councilman Kavanagh pointed out that the Boys & Girls Club received funds and stated that the proposed policy would not allow this to occur. Mr. Pickering responded that the law did not state that the Club should be given Prop. 202 funds. He reiterated that staff's purpose was to set policy to let outside people, the Indian Communities, and themselves know what they were doing. He said they were also trying to remain in compliance with the law and stated that to him, government services did not mean that monies go to the Boys & Girls Club although it was an excellent organization and he was glad they could help them out the first time,but he did not believe it fell under that category. Councilman Archambault asked why the Town was limiting itself to just the two bordering Communities and said he heard from other towns that they were applying for a number of funding grants. Mr. Pickering said that staff thought for clarification purposes they did not want to apply all over the place and spread themselves thin. He commented on the good relationship that existed with both of the Indian Communities and wanted them to know that was where the Town was going to conduct its business. He agreed that grant money was available for all kinds of things but said they did not apply for every Federal grant that came along either. Mayor Nichols expressed the opinion that the focus might be a little bit too narrow because if you took a strict interpretation on government services that would mean that tourism could not apply for future funding because they were not a government service and neither were the Seniors' Club and the Boys & Girls Club. He said he thought they had to be a little broader in what they believed the Indian Community was willing to fund with Prop. 202 funds. Councilwoman Nicola asked whether the Town had received any applications to date and Mr. Pickering reported that one was received from the posse for funding for a police car. He said he told them he wanted to hold off until a policy was adopted. Councilwoman Stevens commented that it would really have been helpful to have the Prop. 202 verbiage in front of them and said they were all trying to remember exactly what it said rather than having the Town Attorney read it or provide his interpretation. She added that grants are applied for all the time and they don't come to the Council, it's part of the Staff process. She encouraged Mr. Pickering and staff to apply for any and all available grants. She added that this really didn't bother her except for the fact that there might be a conflict and Mr. Pickering, as the Town Manager, would be making the decisions as to who qualified per the Prop. 202 verbiage to apply for the funds. She said if the Manager made a decision on something that might or might not qualify and the group E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 24 of 29 3/22/2004 submitting the request did not agree with his decision. She questioned how the Manager, the Town, and the Council would resolve those conflicts. Councilwoman Nicola stated the opinion that the Council did not have sufficient information and too many d unanswered questions existed. She added that they were going about this "backwards" since the Council had not yet formulated its goals and intents. Councilwoman Nicola MOVED to table this item until after the Council could hold a Work Study Session and review other cities' and towns' policies. Councilman Kavanagh SECONDED the motion. Mr. McGuire pointed out that there were no existing policies in place anywhere else. Councilwoman Nicola said she recently learned that the Phoenix City Council approved $1 million grant application for the Heard Museum. She added the opinion that other cities and towns had adopted an informal policy that all grant applications were a policy decision and the policy maker should make a decision as to whether or not they went forward. Councilman Kavanagh commented that at least five significant questions had been brought up about this policy; (1) the lack of the Town Council making decisions in this area; (2) there might be more priorities than the three mentioned in the policy; (3) the priorities might not have to be ordered the way it had been suggested; (4) they might want to make themselves available for funds from additional tribes and (5) he believed it was written too narrowly and would exclude groups in the Town. He stated the opinion that a Work Study Session was in order. Mr. Pickering indicated that the item could be discussed at an April Work Study Session. Mayor Nichols said he had a request to call the question and asked all those in favor to say aye. The motion CARRIED by majority vote (6 to 1) with Councilman Archambault voting nay_ The Mayor then asked for a vote on the motion to table the item. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7 to 0). AGENDA ITEM #16 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2004-07 ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION AND DISCUSSION WITH AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE TOWN MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION OF A NEW POSITION TO BE ESTABLISHED. Mr. Pickering briefly stated that this item had been discussed in the past and a draft resolution had been prepared for the Council's consideration and direction. Councilwoman Nicola MOVED and Councilman Archambault SECONDED a motion to accept Alternative A. Councilman Kavanagh MOVED to amend that there be one Police Commissioner and one Fire/Emergency Service Commissioner. The motion DIED for lack of a second. Councilman Kavanagh said he wanted to go on record as stating that he did not think it was going to work. Councilman Kavanagh amended the motion and replaced Alternate B with alternate A. Mayor Nichols said they would just treat that as a vote on Alternate A to avoid confusion. Councilwoman Nicola said she found it to be very well written and believed what he envisioned for a public safety commission. She said she would like to add one thing to Section 9, which currently stated "all complaints regarding services be forwarded to the Town Manager for resolution." Councilwoman Nicola MOVED that they amend it to state, "The Town Manager shall advise the Town Council of all complaints and their resolutions." E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 25 of 29 3/22/2004 Mr. Pickering commented on the large number of complaints he received daily just on speeding but said if complaints were significant he did provide copies of the information to the Council. He stated the opinion that it would be extremely burdensome to inform the Council of every complaint issued. The amendment DIED for lack of a second. Councilman Kavanagh noted that Alternate A only said seven members, did not require any balance between the fire and the police aspect and did not require that anyone have any background in the area. He added that Alternate B made it a more balanced commission between police and fire and required four of the members to have some experience. He added that approving Alternate A would set the commission off to a bad start. He pointed out that the commission would be dealing with two issues, not one, and stressed the importance of having a balance of expertise on both sides. Mayor Nichols said that he had to vote against the motion because he did not believe a need existed for a Public Safety Commission. Vice Mayor Melendez said he had been talking about public safety for years and he believed it should include water and sanitation. He added the opinion that there should be an oversight committee that looked at water quality and important sanitation issues that could impact the community. He said that if they were going to create a Public Safety Commission, it would have to be staffed and questioned what resources were available to do so. Mr. Pickering responded that currently there was no one on staff but they did budget monies for the year for a Coordinator. Councilman Archambault pointed out that this was passed in a resolution by the Council in April of last year and they were finally targeting their expectations. He said that comments had been made relative to the importance of ensuring that members possess certain expertise and noted that it was clear that the Council was not going to give direction to any of the departments including fire and emergency medical services. He added that that was the responsibility of the Town Manager. He said that because a unique situation existed consisting of two different entities that contract with the Town, the Sheriff and Rural Metro, they were unique and he thought the Council had the wisdom to understand that a Public Safety Commission was a necessity. He commented that if that item were not added to the resolution,it would never have passed. He said he would support it. Councilwoman Nicola agreed with Councilman Archambault's comment that a resolution was already in place and the Town Council and Manager were bound by that. She added that she supported this proposal because she believed it was a good part of the Town's public information program, and they had been saying they needed more two-way communication. She stated the problem with securing people with extensive expertise and significant background was that it might result in philosophical differences between the Fire Chief and the current Captain. She added that the former Chief suggested to her once that it should be more of a public body without people who came with preconceived notions and preconceived background. She commented that she supported it and encouraged the rest of the Council to do the same. Councilwoman Ralphe said she liked the structure of Alternative A because it paralleled the structure of the other Town commissions and expressed the opinion that it was not as important to have members with background and expertise as it was to have citizens becoming involved. She added that for right now it was right to include just police and fire because that was what they had responsibility for right now but added that in the future she would like to see the Town have the responsibility for supplying water and for supplying sanitary services. She stated that that was not possible at this time and added that because the Town's police and fire services were via contract, a commission could help bridge the gap between citizens and a distanced contract agency by putting a town process in the middle. She said she thought it was a very good idea. Councilman Kavanagh stressed the importance of ensuring that safeguards be put in place to avoid the somewhat unfortunate fate that befell the LEAP Committee and fractured its membership. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 26 of 29 3/22/2004 Councilman Kavanagh MOVED to amend the motion to reflect that the commission serve in an advisory capacity only and that when they dealt with either police or fire personnel it was through Town staff and were not involved with direct dealings other than informational exchanges; that they did not become involved in any enforcement policies with the police and that they not be responsible for addressing the issue of who provides the service, Town or by contract. Councilwoman Stevens SECONDED the motion four purposes of discussion. Councilwoman Stevens said that the stated concerns were valid and articulated through discussions and Work Study Sessions and she felt comfortable that they had been addressed and none of the transgressions would occur. She said she would not support the amendment. Councilman Archambault asked whether all of the concerns expressed by Councilman Kavanagh were already addressed in the resolution and Mr. Pickering responded no. He explained that "researching and making recommendations to the Town Council and Town Manager on community issues" could include who provided the service,tolerance levels, etc. and said they could be "wide open." Mayor Nichols discussed the proposed duties and asked what the Commission could talk about during a meeting. He pointed out they could not talk about enforcement, speeding or ticket issues and said he had a problem understanding what was going to take up the Commission's time. Councilman Kavanagh responded that they were talking about two technical professions with rigid rules and procedures, technical equipment, and standards. He said they were not talking about siting a park, they were talking about arresting people, pulling them over and fighting fires. He stated the opinion that this was not a good time to say, "Hi, inexperienced people, come on in and let's start directing fire and police." He added that that would be very dangerous. Councilwoman Nicola stated that the members of the Commission could address fire hydrants and, like Paradise Valley's commission, look into water pressure (pipes breaking), equipment purchases, Public Safety Week, and education and prevention programs. She added that she was sure there were many other things they could pursue. tilir Mr. Pickering commented that that was where the problem came in and said he viewed three of the five mentioned - by Councilwoman Nicola as being problematic. He added that he could not see staff bring equipment requests before them and noted that he relied on the Fire Department, for example, to provide recommendations. He noted that they were currently changing their whole breathing apparatus and equipment purchases and they would make a presentation on that to the Council. He said to allow people who were not professionals in the fire area to make those decisions would be dangerous. He added that he agreed they could be involved in Public Safety Week and education and prevention programs and things like bicycle rodeo days but not equipment or operational areas. He stressed the importance of clarifying their duties. Councilwoman Nicola stated that when she discussed the purchase of equipment she was talking about a forum for a public discussion, an opportunity for a public hearing, and said she did not see anything wrong with that. She added that she was looking for more communication and information. Mayor Nichols commented that the Town Manager dealt with the contractor, not the general public, on equipment purchases and said if it required Council approval,the item came before them. Mr. Pickering noted that if they budgeted for that it would be a definite Council discussion and they should have those. He added,however,that deciding the type of equipment was not a public discussion. Councilwoman Nicola commented that that was not what she meant. Vice Mayor Melendez stated that he felt somewhat obligated to vote for this because he was the author together with Councilman Kavanagh of the resolution. He pointed out that Sections 4 and 5 clearly stated that they should have a Public Safety Commission and the Town Manager was authorized to take all steps to achieve this. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 27 of 29 3/22/2004 Councilman Kavanagh declared a point of order and said they were straying from his amendment, which was an attempt to, if this went through,to minimize certain problems. Mayor Nichols asked if the Council had any more questions on the amendment and there being none he called for the vote. The motion FAILED by majority vote (6 to 1) with Councilman Kavanagh voting aye. The Vice Mayor stated that he did not believe the whole resolution, which dealt with changing the delivery of law enforcement changes, would have passed without the two amendments. He said it was appropriate to talk about how the whole thing started and where it was headed. He said he previously asked Mr. McGuire whether this Council could amend the resolution by lifting Sections 4 and 5 and did so again. Mr. McGuire said he would again respond that the Council was free to declare its policy on a day-to-day basis if it wanted to and could in fact amend or even ignore the resolution. He clarified that the Council was not restricted in its ability to make policy today by the policy that was made yesterday. He added that they could in fact change their minds. Councilman Kavanagh commented that the motion had evolved far beyond what they had originally talked about, major problems would result, and said he would oppose the entire amendment. Mayor Nichols agreed with Councilman Kavanaugh's comments and said before he could support a Public Safety Commission he needed more details on the members' duties in order to avoid problems in the future. Councilwoman Nicola AMENDED the motion by eliminating letter D, which suggested that the Commission research and make recommendations to the Town Council and the Town Manager on issues related to emergency procedures, law enforcement services and fire services. Councilman Archambault SECONDED the amendment to the motion. The Mayor called for a vote on the amendment. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7 to 0). The Mayor was asked to call the question and the Council unanimously supported the request. The Mayor called the question. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: Councilman Archambault Aye Vice Mayor Melendez Nay Councilwoman Stevens Aye Councilman Kavanagh Nay Councilwoman Ralphe Aye Councilwoman Nicola Aye Mayor Nichols Nay The motion CARRIED by majority vote (4 to 3). AGENDA ITEM #17 - COUNCIL ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW OF THE MEETING TO IDENTIFY PROCEDURAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES AND DISCUSS POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS. Councilwoman Stevens again expressed opposition to allowing speakers who did not represent groups to speak beyond the three-minute limit. Mayor Nichols said that when the Council discussed the seven priorities, it would have been helpful if Councilman Kavanagh had let him know a little ahead of time that he wanted to go over them item by item because that extended the period of time and he might have asked that they be removed from the agenda so that the meeting would not run this late. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 28 of 29 3/22/2004 Councilman Kavanagh stated that when items were that distinct, staff should separate them ahead of time. AGENDA ITEM #18 — COUNCIL DISCUSSION/DIRECTION TO THE TOWN MANAGER. ITEMS LISTED BELOW ARE RELATED ONLY TO THE PROPRIETY OF (i) PLACING SUCH ITEMS ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION OR (ii) OR DIRECTING STAFF TO CONDUCT FURTHER RESEARCH AND REPORT BACK TO THE COUNCIL: A. REQUESTED BY VICE MAYOR MELENDEZ — PLACING THE ITEM OF PROVIDING AN UPDATE TO THE COUNCIL ON THE CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM IN THE FUTURE. Vice Mayor Melendez commented that the Code Enforcement Department had been in operation for approximately six months and said that staff should provide a status report at a future Council Meeting. He added that he had concerns regarding duplication of efforts and said that other items needed to be clarified. Mr. Pickering stated that staff would like to have that time to present a report on the Code Enforcement Department's activities because they had been very active. Councilwoman Nicola asked whether part of that discussion could also be the ongoing efforts of the Willdan consultant that the Town hired. Mr. Pickering said he would ask him to present an update but noted that his contract was almost ended so it would be his last report. AGENDA ITEM#19—SUMMARY OF COUNCIL REQUESTS BY TOWN MANAGER Mr. Pickering advised that he would look into a plaque at the Fire Station that was removed. He would also inform the Council in the future if a tape was deleted or edited. He would schedule a Work Shop on Proposition 202 and would prepare a Code Enforcement report. Councilman Archambault said he thought they hadn't talked about a plaque,but rather names on a bell,and Mr. Pickering stated that he would pursue it. AGENDA ITEM#20-ADJOURNMENT Councilman Kavanagh MOVED that the Council adjourn and Councilman Archambault SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. TOWN OF FOUNTAN HILLS / , By Wally N. .ols, a _ ATTEST AND PREPARED BY: .(')'('S I mi' zlLi Bevelyn J.Aens.'r,Town Clerk CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Session held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills on the 4th day of March, 2004. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 18th day of March,2004/&4G'/� Litt Bevelyn J. Bidder,Town Clerk c E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\3-4-04 regular and exeutive.doc Page 29 of 29 3/22/2004