HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004.0413.TCWSM.Minutes MINUTES OF THE WORK-STUDY SESSION OF THE
FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
APRIL 13,2004
Mayor Wally Nichols convened the work-study session at 5:09 p.m.
ROLL CALL — Present for the roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council:
Mayor Wally Nichols; Councilmembers Michael Archambault, John Kavanagh, Susan Ralphe, and Leesa
Stevens. (Vice Mayor Rick Melendez was not present.)
ALSO PRESENT: Brian Perkins, SmithGroup; Keyvan Gharhreman, Kitchell; Andrew McGuire, Town
Attorney;Tim Pickering, Town Manager; and Bev Bender,Town Clerk
Mayor Nichols announced that there were two items on the agenda: (1) status update of Civic Center Phase II
Project,and(2)discussion of the Proposition 202 Funding.
Civic Center Phase II Project
Town Manager Tim Pickering gave a preliminary review on the Civic Center Phase II Project, indicating that
the architects, contractor, and exterior design committee had recently met to discuss the architecture style of the
building. He introduced Architects Brian Perkins (SmithGroup) and Keyvan Gharhreman (Kitchell). The
proposed floor plan was then discussed with Brian Perkins noting the following:
> Located on the first floor: the court(seating for approximately 25-35 individuals), Sheriff/Department of
Public Safety (2 daytime holding cells plus another possible juvenile holding area), and Council
Chambers/Senior Center (approximately 4700 sq. ft. usable space). Located on the second floor: Parks
& Recreation Department, Town administrative offices, permit offices, shared Council area, planning
offices,central mail room, and an IT area.
➢ Mr. Perkins identified on the display the location of various areas, i.e., workstations, conference rooms
(20— 25 person capacity), and staff/public restrooms. The proposed Council Chambers would seat 120
individuals (as opposed to 80 at the current location).
> The corner of the building (Avenue of the Fountains/La Montana) was anticipated to be an outside
open-air patio. He added that all areas of the building were being designed to be an efficient use of
space.
Mayor Nichols asked if specific security measures had been addressed, and Mr. Perkins responded that the
subject of security would continue to be researched and discussed with the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office.
Mr. Pickering advised that the square footage of the building was approximately 30,000 sq. ft. Councilman
Kavanagh voiced his concern that the square footage was driven by budget limitations as opposed to need; also
that the Senior Center(4,700 sq. ft.) had not been allotted the full 5,000 sq. ft. requested. Mr. Perkins responded
that if the square footage of the Senior Center was less than 5,000 sq. ft., it was due to the efficiency of the
proposed plan.
Councilman Kavanagh asked if the size of the entire facility was keyed to current or projected needs. Mr.
Perkins responded that the size of the facility was designed with some expansion possibilities geared to the
population estimated at "build out" in the year 2016. Mr. Pickering pointed out that at some point the Senior
Center and Department of Public Safety would move to their own facilities. He felt the space needs as presented
were correct for the next 15 years.
Councilwoman Nicola pointed out that the amount of office space currently utilized by the Department of Public
Safety (DPS) was fashioned from a 1994 arrangement used to justify the Town's moving into the second Town
building. She then questioned why so much space had been allotted to them in the new building, as the DPS
substation had not been approved. Mr. Pickering advised that DPS had given a verbal agreement to pay for the
cost of 700 sq. ft. (out of 2000 sq. ft.) of their space. Mr. Pickering then asked that he be informed if the Town
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Work-Study Session-4-13-04.doc Page 1 of 6
did not wish a substation at this building site. Mr. Pickering also informed the Council that any outside entity
residing in the building would be subject to a lease. Councilwoman Nicola suggested that liability and security
issues needed to be addressed in more depth. Mr. Perkins noted that employees would use card key access, and
Councilwoman Nicola voiced security concerns and suggested the utilization of emergency buttons where
L. appropriate.
Mayor Nichols thanked Mr. Perkins for the information he provided to Council. Mr. Pickering advised that the
next work-study session (May 11) would be dedicated entirely to the topic of the Civic Center Phase II Project
design.
Proposition 202
Mr. Pickering reviewed that at the March 4, 2004, Council meeting, staff had prepared a draft policy regarding
Proposition 202 funding and how the applications were to be received, who would be eligible to receive them,
and to which Indian communities applications would be sent. Council had five significant concerns as follows:
1. Lack of the inclusion of Town Council in the decision-making process
2. Possibility of additional priorities other than the three mentioned in the March 9 draft policy (public
safety,rehab education for gambling problems, and economic development/tourism)
3. Change in the order of the priorities
4. Ability to apply for funds from additional Indian communities
5. Exclusion of certain groups in town
Mr. Pickering added that the policy had been redrafted in order to incorporate Council's suggestions. The
following changes were made under Article 1. General Policies:
1.1 Any verbiage naming only Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation or the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community was eliminated. This step expanded the possibilities of requesting funds from other areas.
1.2 The discretion to review the applications was replaced with"Council"from"Manager".
1.3 Any verbiage naming only Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation or the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community was eliminated. This step also expanded the possibilities of requesting funds from other
areas.
1.4 (d) "Other Town-offered governmental services as determined by the Council"was added.
Mr. Pickering asked that policy decisions be discussed,however, such as "priorities" and the"use of funds",i.e.,
where does the Town Council wish the funds to go? Should they be prioritized for government services offered
by the Town such as the State law indicates, or does the Council want other entities to have access for the funds?
He also reiterated that the Indian community priorities were of utmost importance in these funding decisions.
Hypothetically speaking, he asked if an Indian community were to choose to provide funds for an activity that
was not deemed appropriate under the Town's guidelines, would the Town refuse those funds? He also noted
that Prop 202 funds collected but not dispensed from Indian communities would then be given to the
communities by the State. The State's opinion is that the funds must go to a service offered by the town.
Councilman Archambault asked how the Boys & Girls Club fit into the description of "service offered by a
town". Attorney McGuire opined that it would depend upon the definition of"government services", i.e., what
the government would provide. He added that the statute was broad in terms of services, but it did not specify,
"those only sponsored by the town" or any type of"public services". The Department of Commerce's opinion
was that if a town had a program that they were providing, that would then be called a "governmental issue".
He posed the question, "Why give money away?".
Attorney McGuire added that the purpose of Prop 202 was to mitigate the affects of gaming on local
communities that border the Indian communities who offer gaming. The Town had no guidance from statutory
agents to make a determination as to what was worthy of funding. The funds would be returned to the State if
lbw the Indian community did not agree with the Town. The State would then make a decision based upon the
statute in their priorities of economic development/tourism.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Work-Study Session-4-13-04.doc Page 2 of 6
Councilman Kavanagh clarified that under Section H.4 of Prop 202; the 12% would not be limited to those four
areas, only inclusive of those areas. Attorney McGuire agreed that those four areas were examples only and
continued that the State Department focused on (1) that the proposition was for cities, towns, and counties; and
(2) that it was for government purposes. The State added that if a town did not provide an area as a government
service, then they did not consider it a government service.
Councilman Kavanagh suggested that the Town of Fountain Hills use the widest interpretation possible in order
to take advantage of the monies available. Attorney McGuire indicated that towns were not allowed to supplant
funds in the budget with the funds that would come from the Indian community, only use them for new
programs.
Councilwoman Stevens recommended that the Town provide more verbiage in order to protect itself against the
possibility of having to re-fund monies. She suggested the possibility that if the Ft. McDowell Indian
Community listed "education" as an item, and if"government services" were listed on the Town's policy, the
Town could not ask for"education"funds for the school district.
Councilman Archambault asked if"supplanting" was considered in only a one-year budget, i.e., could the Town
obtain funds from an Indian community and expand the Parks & Recreation Department or Boys & Girls Club
programs? Attorney McGuire advised that staff had not yet seen that level of definition, only a requirement that
you could not supplant with something that you were already funding.
Councilman Archambault suggested that all applications be brought to the Town Council to determine which
would be forwarded to the Indian Community for funding.
Councilman Kavanagh recommended that 1.4 of Article 1 (General Policies) of the Policy and Procedures for
Proposition 202 Funding be eliminated entirely to avoid complications; priorities to be determined on a
quarterly basis. Mayor Nichols agreed that funds should never be lost for a good purpose and reminded the
Council that the Indian communities would make the decisions as to which they would fund. He suggested that
the Town Council set up a qualified list of organizations that they would support.
Mayor Nichols asked if the County had developed a Prop 202 policy, so that if the Town refused funds to a
certain organization, that organization could then go to the County for funding? Attorney McGuire responded
that the organization could indeed go to the County for funding. Mr. Pickering indicated that staff had found no
other communities that had developed a funding process. He reminded the Council there was a cost associated
with receiving and approving applications.
Councilman Kavanagh asked if the Town staff would provide a recommended list of approved funding to be
approved by the Town Council.
Councilwoman Nicola agreed with Councilman Kavanagh's proposal for a broad interpretation of State Statute
and the need to establish priorities. Mayor Nichols also agreed that the interpretation should be broad and that
1.4 should be deleted from Article 1.
Councilwoman Ralphe suggested that the result of establishing too broad a policy would be receiving no
funding and suggested a more narrow policy. Mr. Pickering responded that drafting the policy following State
law was the best and the most easily substantiated. Attorney McGuire responded that a non-exclusive list could
indicate the term"including but not limited to". His opinion was that the intent of the funds was that they should
be given to cities/towns. He cautioned that the tribe's interpretation had not been researched.
Attorney McGuire also questioned whether the Indian communities' interpretation of Section 12 money would
go to "education" as opposed to another funding priority in its entirety. The Indian communities had taken the
position that they could call for "education" in a single quarter to the exclusion of everything else, and he was
not certain of the accuracy of their position. He then cautioned against raising an argument in this regard, as the
Indian communities had absolute authority over whether or not uses were approved. If the Town did not approve
funding, the State would make the decision as to where the money would go, and it might not be the Town of
Fountain Hills.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Work-Study Session-4-13-04.doc Page 3 of 6
Councilwoman Nicola read in 4(b) of Prop 202, "Any monies comprising the 12% not so distributed by an
Indian tribe shall be deposited in the commerce and economic development commission local communities fund
established by Section 41-1505.12 for grants to cities,towns, and counties." She then requested that the Town of
Fountain Hills address alternative plans/provisions for grants to the State funding. Mr. Pickering stated that no
one had yet applied for the grants and that the Town would be able to apply for economic development,
infrastructure,and tourism dollars, and those items could be placed in the policy.
Councilman Archambault agreed that the Council should make the interpretation as broad as possible so that as
many funds could be obtained as possible, most importantly town-related needs such as roads and policing. He
anticipated that the legislature would soon redefine these issues. Councilwoman Stevens agreed that Town-
related items should take precedence in funding and asked how the Council could determine who would be
placed on the"qualified"list of town organizations/groups.
Councilwoman Nicola suggested that the Town apply to the State immediately and consistently for tourism
dollars. She added that the proposed policy currently stated that it would accept proposals made by Town-based,
non-profit organizations. One purpose of the 202 funds was to counsel gambling addiction and the Town did not
have a non-profit organization that provided that service. She felt that funding should not be restricted to non-
profit agencies only.
Councilman Kavanagh suggested that funding be extended to Town-based items. He felt that 1.2 "Discretion
Retained by Town Council" was key to the policy but suggested striking 1.3 (Town as Applicant) and proceed
with a case-by-case review quarterly. He noted that it was not wise to rush to pass a groundbreaking ordinance
that might become problematic in the future.
Councilwoman Ralphe agreed that Town projects needed to be given priority, but noted that it was not a
statutory responsibility of the Town Council to fund community-based organizations. She added that Section 1.3
(Town as Applicant) was vital for the proposal and that she would like to begin with the proposed listing of 1.4
(Preferred Fund Use Schedule), amending the policy as needed.
Councilman Archambault agreed that the policy could always be amended and suggested that the Town make
speedy requests for funds in order to take advantage of the "newness" of the proposition itself. He then
suggested that the Town could apply for funds for roads and policing, adding that by acquiring those funds,
Town funds could be freed up to use as the Council deemed appropriate.
Councilman Archambault then asked Mr. Pickering how the Council could budget imprecise funding. Mr.
Pickering responded that"undesignated grant funds"of$1.5 million were placed in the budget for that purpose.
Mr. Kavanagh suggested that Section 1.3 created a monopoly and should be deleted. He continued that the term,
"and prioritizing" should be added after the word"proposal"to Section 1.2.
Mayor Nichols responded that numerous prioritized applications could appear later in order to keep worthy
organizations from being excluded. Mr. McGuire reminded the Council that although the policy was drafted
according to State Statute, i.e., a monopolistic statute of cities, towns, and counties, it could be changed in order
to give others an opportunity for funding. Councilman Kavanagh felt that it was not the tribe's interpretation.
Councilwoman Nicola asked if staff had considered recurring/automatic applications. Mr. Pickering responded
that applicants would most likely submit annually, and the Indian communities would then become accustomed
to funding recurring projects.
Mr. Pickering then asked whether the Town should submit competing applications and suggested that 1.3 (Town
as Applicant) addressed that issue, i.e., a Town request versus an organizational request. Councilman
Archambault suggested that if Section 1.3 were deleted, the issue could become political and the Council could
then be lobbied by different organizations. He reiterated that Section 1.3 established the guidelines the Town
would need.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Work-Study Session-4-13-04.doc Page 4 of 6
Councilman Kavanagh stated the opinion that he did not view the various applications as "competing
applications". Mr. Pickering responded that the Indian communities must provide funding either through the
communities or through the State. How the money would come to the Town of Fountain Hills would be the
decision of the Town Council.
Councilman Kavanagh asked what criteria was used by the State for funding. Mr. Pickering responded that it
would go to any city/town—for economic development and tourism.
Mr. Pickering indicated that the State law's listing was copied into the staffs proposed policy for Prop 202
Funding and stated that it was the decision of the Council as to whether or not the list should be broadened.
Mayor Nichols agreed with having priorities, but since the Indian community priorities were still unknown and
the Town could lose needed funds to the State, he felt that the list should be broadened.
Mr. McGuire reviewed the Council's discussion: (1)there was a strong desire for a broad interpretation to avoid
any closed funding doors; (2) there was support for the Town to have the ability to indicate a Town project as
priority when listing other potential funding possibilities; (3)the preferred schedule should include a mechanism
to allow visibility for consistent funding of Fountain Hills projects.
Mayor Nichols requested that suitable language be added to the policy to accommodate the possibility that the
policy might not be appropriate after case law was determined. Attorney McGuire indicated that they would
insert a"pull-back"provision, adding that organizations might not be able to repay the funds.
Councilwoman Nichols asked if the applications would be sent to all Indian communities or only designated
communities. Mr. Pickering responded that it would be up to the applicants, but the neighboring communities
provided the best opportunities, especially for the Town's needs.
Councilwoman Nicola suggested that if the interpretation were written too loosely, every organization in Town
would apply for funding. Attorney McGuire replied that Council must determine a minimum set of criteria. If
Li Council established no criteria, political processes would be created and the Town would then be open to the
"arbitrary and capricious challenge".
Councilwoman Stevens read from "Tribal Priorities" in a Ft. McDowell Nation publication regarding "direct
assistance to local governments"; she suggested that the Indian communities might not consider any
organizations except towns, cities, and counties. Mayor Nichols added that the Indian communities might
choose to fund social services,but the Town of Fountain Hills does not fund social services.
Councilwoman Stevens indicated that if the Town of Fountain Hills did not create an acceptable definition of
"government services", someone else would eventually create that definition. Councilman Kavanagh added that
it would be difficult to craft a definition, but Mr. Pickering indicated that there was a definition, i.e., "services
provided by the Town". He noted that the question whether or not to go beyond the services of the Town was a
decision for the Town Council.
Councilwoman Nicola quoted from Paragraph 2 of the proposed Policy for Prop 202 Funding. She suggested
that the Town have a "Social Services" section of the budget with line items to cover the Senior Center, the
Fountain Hills Community Theater, and the Boys &Girls Club.
Mr. Pickering reminded the Council that the Indian communities had defined the "bar", albeit very quickly and
as a result of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community having funds that the Boys & Girls Club were
requesting. Attorney McGuire added that under the Voter Protection Act, there might not be anything that could
be done for clarification on the issue, but the Department of Commerce might promulgate State regulations for
guidance.
Councilwoman Stevens asked if the Town Council was willing to take town based or town organization
applications for which they ultimately would have to be prepared to back up their position. Councilwoman
Nicola indicated that she preferred that the Town Council designate a "service", something normally in the
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Work-Study Session-4-13-04.doc Page 5 of 6
budget. Mayor Nichols vocalized that he wanted the funds to directly benefit the Town of Fountain Hills'
residents.
Mayor Nichols asked Attorney McGuire if he had obtained sufficient direction to proceed from the meeting.
(1., Attorney McGuire responded that he certainly did not have a consensus on the entire issue, but that staff could
provide the Council with another draft. Mayor Nichols suggested that the Council consider whether or not to
grant funding on an individual basis. Councilman Kavanagh felt that the current Town Council should vote on
the issue and requested that it be on the agenda before June 1. Mr. Pickering agreed this could be done.
Attorney McGuire suggested that staff also needed to determine whether other communities would adopt a
policy to be enforced unilaterally or if each would determine funding on an ad hoc basis.
Mayor Nichols asked Mr. Pickering for the deadline for the next grant from Yavapai Nation and Salt River
Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and to whom they were funding. Mr. Pickering responded that the deadlines
were on a Federal quarter(beginning in October), and he was uncertain as to their funding decisions.
Councilwoman Stevens MOVED to adjourn the meeting. The motion was SECONDED by Councilwoman
Ralphe and PASSED unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:47,p fin.
TOW OF 0 '.TAIN HILLS
By: • �`
W. J. i hols, ayor
ATTEST AND
PREPARED BY:/616Y,�r
Bevelyn J.yeer,Town Clerk
CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Work-Study Meeting
held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills on the 13th day of April 2004. I further certify that the meeting was
duly called and that a quorum was present.
DATED this 5th day of May 2004.
By: '-(,4-66�/�
Bevelyn J. B r,Town Clerk
L
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2004\Work-Study Session-4-13-04.doc Page 6 of 6