HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006.0105.TCREM.MinutesV.
4W
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR AND EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE
FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
January 5, 2006
Mayor Nichols called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #1 — VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION: PURSUANT TO A.R.S. 38-
431.03.A1 FOR DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION OF EMPLOYMENT, ASSIGNMENT,
APPOINTMENT PROMOTION DEMOTION, DISMISSAL, SALARIES, DISCIPLINING OR
RESIGNATION OF A PUBLIC OFFICER, APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE OF ANY BODY, EXCEPT
THAT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SALARY DISCUSSIONS, AN OFFICER, APPOINTEE OR
EMPLOYEE MAY DEMAND THAT THE DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION OCCUR AT A
PUBLIC MEETING. THE PUBLIC BODY SHALL PROVIDE THE OFFICER, APPOINTEE OR
EMPLOYEE WITH WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AS IS APPROPRIATE
BUT NOT LESS THAN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS FOR THE OFFICER, APPOINTEE OR
EMPLOYEE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION SHOULD
OCCUR AT A PUBLIC MEETING. (SPECIFICALLY REVIEW OF ALL APPLICATIONS RECEIVED
FOR THE (i) SENIOR CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AND THE (d) STRATEGIC PLANNING
ADVISORY COMMISSION, AND (iii) TWO COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION
APPLICANT INTERVIEWS WILL BE CONDUCTED.) PURSUANT TO A.R.S. 38-431-03A.4,
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, THE
NATIONAL CENTURY FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LITIGATION.)
- ice Mayor Schlum MOVED to convene the Executive Session and Councilman McMahan SECONDED the
motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0). Mayor Nichols recessed the Executive Session at 5:50
Zm.
;ENDA ITEM #2 — RETURN TO REGULAR SESSION
,ayor Nichols convened the Regular Session at 6:30 p.m.
INVOCATION — Father Robert Hart, Angelican Church of the Atonement.
ROLL CALL — Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council:
Councilman Archambault, Mayor Nichols, Vice Mayor Schlum, Councilman Kavanagh, Councilman Kehe and
Councilman McMahan. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire, Town Manager Tim Pickering and Assistant Town
Manager Ellen Pence, Public Works Director Tom Ward, Finance Administrator Julie Ghetti, Planning and
Zoning Administrator Richard Turner, Senior Planner Robert Rodgers and Jane Robinson were also present.
MAYOR'S REPORT
(i) The Mayor presented "Certificates of Appreciation" to special event sponsors, Fountain Hills Wood Whims
and Fun 2B Fit.
Mayor Nichols requested that Roger Bates, from Wood Whims and Jim Walter, from Fun 2B Fit, meet him at
the front of the podium. The Mayor advised that this year they dedicated the performance pad in the park with
40W some concerts that were financed by Wood Whims and Fun2B Fit and awarded Certificates of Appreciation to
ZACouncil Packets\2006\R1-19-06\Minutes 01-05-06.doc Page 1 of 26
ZM
the two special event sponsors and, on behalf of the rest of the Council and the citizens of Fountain Hills,
thanked them for their community service to the Town.
CALL TO THE PUBLIC
None.
CONSENT AGENDA
AGENDA ITEM #1 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 17, DECEMBER 1, AND DECEMBER 13, 2005.
AGENDA ITEM #2 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION
FOR AMY NATIONS (CAROLINE'S) LOCATED AT 16872 E. AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS.
THIS REQUEST IS FOR A SERIES 12 RESTAURANT LICENSE.
AGENDA ITEM #3 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2006-01, ABANDONNG WHATEVER
RIGHT TITLE OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN THE CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY AND
DRAINAGE EASEMENTS LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE
OF PLAT 506C BLOCK 1, LOT 47 (16383 N. DRYAD PLACE) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 159 OF
MAPS, PAGE 31, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. EA05-23 (BOSSERMAN)
AGENDA ITEM #4 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT
FOR THE "MILO CONDOMINIUM, A CONDOMINIUM." LOCATED AT 15910 SUNFLOWER
DRIVE, AKA PLAT 601, BLOCK 1. LOT 14. CASE #S2005-22.
AGENDA ITEM # 5 — CONSIDERATION OF RELEASING FUNDS TO BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF
f_RFATFR QC0TTgDA1.F. — FOUR PF.AKC RRANfH_ AS APPROPRIATED IN THE FY2005-06
OPERATIONAL SUPPORT BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $160.000 ($75.000 FOR ON -GOING
AND THE
AGENDA ITEM #6 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLA
FOUNTAIN HILLS BOULEVARD, AKA PLAT 110, PART OF BLOCK 3. LOT 1.—CASE #S2005-23.
AGENDA ITEM #7 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE'S
REQUEST TO EXTEND THE MURAL ON THE PUMP HOUSE WALL AT FOUNTAIN PARK.
AGENDA ITEM #8 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A PARTIAL SETTLEMENT WITH
REGARD TO THE NATIONAL CENTURY FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LITIGATION.
Councilman Archambault MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda as read and Councilman McMahan
SECONDED the motion.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
Mayor Nichols
Aye
Counncilman Kavanagh
Aye
Vice Mayor Schlum
Aye
Councilman Kehe
Aye
Councilman McMahan
Aye
Councilman Archambault
Aye
The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0).
ZACouncil Packets\2006TI-19-06Winutes 01-05-06.doc Page 2 of 26
ACTION AGENDA
AGENDA ITEM #9 — CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTING THREE CITIZENS TO FILL
VACANCIES ON THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMISSION.
Mayor Nichols recommended that Bill Muehlhauser, Jackie Miles, and Mark McDermott be appointed to fill the
vacancies on the Community Center Advisory Commission.
Vice Mayor Schlum MOVED to approve the Mayor's recommendations and Councilman McMahan
SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0).
AGENDA ITEM #10 — CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTING THREE ADULTS AND ONE YOUTH
TO FILL VACANCIES ON THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION.
Mayor Nichols recommended that Ernest Cofrances, Sharon Dennis and Tom Barberic be appointed to fill the
three adult vacancies and Kira Putterman be appointed to fill the youth position on the Parks and Recreation
Commission.
Councilman Kehe MOVED to approve the Mayor's recommendations and Vice Mayor Schlum SECONDED
the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0).
AGENDA ITEM #11 — CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTING ONE CITIZEN TO FILL A VACANCY
ON THE PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMISSION.
Mayor Nichols MOVED to appoint Robert Hoffman to fill the vacancy on the Public Safety Advisory
Commission and Councilman Archambault SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-
0).
AGENDA ITEM #12 — CONSIDERATION OF JOINING THE NORTHEAST VALLEY COALITION
AGAINST METHAMPHETAMINE WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF.
Town Manager Tim Pickering advised that the City of Scottsdale invited the Town of Fountain Hills, along with
the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, Fort McDowell, Carefree, Cave Creek, and Paradise Valley to
form a Northeast Valley Coalition Against Methamphetamine, the fastest growing drug threat in America. He
said that the purpose was to educate and provide a needs assessment to identify the associated problems. He
spoke in support of working with the Town's neighboring communities to combat this serious situation. He
noted that if the Council decided to join the Coalition, staff would bring forth an ordinance in the near future
dealing with limiting the number of sales of the various substances that were used to make the drug.
Councilman Kehe asked what the fiscal impact would be on the Town and Mr. Pickering responded that "time"
would be the only impact. He explained that members of staff and the Council would have to get together with
the other members of the Coalition to discuss the problem. He added that long-term impacts might include legal
fees associated with drawing up ordinances, etc., but said that he did not believe there would be any major
impacts.
Councilman Kehe MOVED to approve the City of Scottsdale's request that the Town of Fountain Hills join the
Northeast Valley Coalition Against Methamphetamine and Councilman McMahan SECONDED the motion,
which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0).
AGENDA ITEM #13 — PRESENTATION AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE FIRST
AMENDMENT TO THE RURAL METRO CONTRACT REGARDING AMBULANCE SERVICE AND
FIRE ENGINE STAFFING FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS.
ZACouncil Packets\2006\R1-19-06\Minutes 01-05-06.doc Page 3 of 26
Mr. Pickering advised that Fire Chief LaGreca would provide an overview of the minor changes that staff was
recommending to the Rural Metro contract. He pointed out that the City of Scottsdale made changes in their fire
operations as well as their ambulance service and said that the changes had caused the Town to make some
minor adjustments.
Chief LaGreca thanked Mr. Pickering for his help in facilitating the process and developing the proposed plan.
He commented that the proposed plan was dynamic and brought a whole new excitement level to the members
of the Fire Department.
Chief LaGreca outlined the proposed changes and said that Rural Metro and Southwest Ambulance wanted to
ensure that the Town of Fountain Hills continued to receive high quality fire and emergency medical services
(EMS). He said that to that end, they were proposing that the following be implemented effective February 18,
2006.
Presently, Rural Metro staffs three firefighters on each engine and ladder company and two firefighters on its
rescue at the Fire Station within Town. The proposed plan would add an additional firefighter to each one of the
engine and ladder companies, creating four -man crews. Those two people would come from the ambulance
(rescue) service that was currently here and Southwest employees would be put on the ambulance, which would
increase the daily staffing from eight (8) on duty to ten (10). This plan would increase the number of
firefighters on each engine ladder reaching the NFPA standards, while providing the Town with the highest
level of EMS and fire response. Additionally, this plan would increase the number of ambulance resources in
the Town at no additional cost.
Chief LaGreca emphasized that this would keep all eight (8) personnel in Town when the ambulance transported
and/or responded to other Rural Metro service areas such as the Beeline or Rio Verde. He explained that in the
past, when their rescue went out, only six (6) people were left behind until they could get some kind of "move -
up" and this proposal would ensure that staffing remained at eight (8) all the time except in that rare instance
when an extra paramedic must ride along to the hospital to ensure that citizens were obtaining the proper care.
Chief LaGreca discussed changes to the three amendments and said that under Appendix E, Manpower, the
yJ
existing contract called for one Fire Chief and one Assistant Fire Chief. He noted that this would be changed to
one Fire Chief who was now the Emergency Management Coordinator, which would save one position for the
Town (Chief La Greca). He added that there would be one Assistant Chief/Fire Marshal, which was put back
into the budget after several years. He said they were also able to demobilize one vehicle that was no longer
needed and explained that it was now being used by the Public Works Department. He stated that one benefit
associated with hiring Chief Eric Kriwer was that he was not only an Assistant Chief and Fire Marshal, he was
also a Certified Paramedic and this would be extremely helpful should things get "stretched" at times.
Chief LaGreca further stated that as before, they have on duty per day two (2) Fire Captains, four (4) firefighter
paramedics and two (2) firefighter (EMTs) and those people would be on the equipment. He explained that this
would give them the ability, during peak periods of time when they had back-to-back calls, to allow the Captains
to make a decision to split those companies into four (4). He said that they had already been attempting to do
that in some fashion with their ladder truck in the south end of Town, running a ladder tender, and said this had
worked out well; the smaller truck could get to Eagle Mountain faster and it was saving approximately 100
gallons a month of diesel fuel. He also discussed the ambulance (rescue) personnel and said that there would no
longer be firefighter/paramedics on board, they would have paramedics and EMTs who would be Southwest
employees living in Town 24/7, 365 days a year.
Chief LaGreca commented on Rural/Metro 9-1-1 (12 hour) ambulance personnel and said that they might have
seen an AMP ambulance driving around Town that looked like a big Arizona flag and explained that it was
stationed at 122°d Street and Shea and had a paramedic and EMT on board. He said that they researched peak
periods of time in the Town and determined that they were between 8:00 a.m. in the morning until 8:00 p.m. at
night. During that peak period of time, that ambulance would move into Station 2 on the south end of Town and
act as backup coverage during those peak periods of time. Afterwards, they would return to their quarters but
ZACouncil Packets\2006\R1-19-06Uvlinutes 01-05-06.doe Page 4 of 26
would still be available to return to Fountain Hills should the need arise. He noted that on duty per day there
would be two Chiefs, with a minimum of one Chief on call 24/7 (both live in Town and were always on call).
Engine (Utility) 822, on Palisades, would have one (1) Captain and three (3) firefighters; the Ladder (Tender)
823 on the south side, would have one (1) Captain and three (3) firefighters and the 9-1-1 Ambulance (24 and
12) would have one (1) paramedic and one EMT per unit. Each engine and ladder would be staffed daily with a
minimum of two (2) fire paramedics. He noted that five (5) of the six (6) Fire Captains were paramedics.
Chief LaGreca informed the Council that the implementation of the proposed plan would allow for more
dynamic response to adapt to and meet the community's needs and the plan would allow Rural Metro to respond
to simultaneous calls. He referred to a chart that outlined what the actual incident response would be and
reported that in 2005, the Department responded to 1,286 calls for service and the average response time was 3
minutes and 33 seconds. He also commented on the Department's ability to transport by air (8 minute ETA
from Falcon Field Airport) should that type of necessity arise. He discussed the locations of the various
equipment/staffing and noted the Department's ability to use every resource available to ensure the safety and
well being of the Town's residents.
Mayor Nichols thanked Chief LaGreca for his comprehensive presentation.
Councilman Kavanagh stated that he had requested that this item be removed from the Consent Agenda because
he felt it was important, at this critical juncture, to reassure the public that not only did the Town not lose any
coverage, it had picked up extra coverage. He added that the citizens should also be made aware of the fact that
they could all sleep well at night because Chief LaGreca would still be involved in the Town's fire and
ambulance service. He expressed his appreciation to the Chief for his dedication to Fountain Hills.
Chief LaGreca thanked everyone involved in the Fire District, the Council, the citizens and all of the staff
involved in this critical process.
In response to a request from Councilman Archambault, Chief LaGreca explained that ALS stands for Advance
Life Support, which means that units not only have paramedics on board, they also carry defibrillation
equipment and advanced drugs, mainly cardiac drugs, necessary to sustain life until they reach the hospitals. He
agreed with Councilman Archambault's understanding of the different tiers and said that during the current
heavy flu period, the Department has had 9 to 12 transports a day. He emphasized that the system was dynamic
and the Captains have to be thinking ahead in communicating with the units, the alarm room, and the Town's
partners in surrounding communities.
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED to approve the First Amendment to the Rural Metro contract regarding
ambulance service and fire engine staffing for the Town of Fountain Hills. Councilman McMahan
SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0).
AGENDA ITEM #14 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2006-04, REGARDING THE
AMENDED AND RESTATED ALTERNATIVE HILLSIDE PRESERVATION AGREEMENT WITH
FIREROCK COMMERCE PARK, LLC, FOR "FIREROCK COMMERCE PARK," A PROPOSED
ONE -LOT INDUSTRIAL PLAT LOCATED ON LOTS 68 AND 69, BUSINESS PARK, FINAL PLAT
414 LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TECHNOLOGY DRIVE AND SAGUARO
BOULEVARD. CASE #52005-25.
Mr. Pickering advised that Planning & Zoning Administrator Richard Turner would provide the Council an
overview of this project and explain why a change was being requested.
Mr. Turner stated that this item as well as the next (#15 — a Final Plat), involved a 5.4-acre parcel at the
northwest corner of Technology Drive and Saguaro Boulevard. The final plat was a replat and a lot join of two
lots (68 and 69) in the Business Park subdivision. He discussed the surrounding zoning and noted that the
updated Alternative Hillside Preservation Agreement provided for an easement that preserved desert landscape
at the east end of the site. He referred to the Concept Plan recently approved for this project by the Planning and
ZACouncil Packets\2006\R1-19-06\Minutes 01-05-06.doc Page 5 of 26
Zoning Commission and noted that the area to be preserved appears on the proposed plan in the same area. He
discussed slides displayed in the Chambers and commented on the drainage channel, buildings in the adjacent
area and the area that would be preserved in accordance with the Hillside Protection Agreement.
Mr. Turner explained that there would be a reduction in the amount of the total area to be preserved by about
10,000 square feet but added that staff believed there were reasons why the revised agreement should be
approved. He noted that the existing agreement provided for the preservation of land through the dedication of a
tract to the Town and the revised agreement provides for the dedication of an easement. He said that the
easement was preferable to the transfer of ownership in that the Town would not be responsible or liable for
issues that arise concerning property ownership. The existing agreement requires that the Town maintain a
boundary wall and the proposed agreement requires that the owner maintain that wall. Another benefit to the
Town under the new agreement would be the commitment by the present owner to cover and re -vegetate the
ends of the drainage channel along the north side of the site.
Mr. Turner advised that staff believed that this additional landscaping, together with the change from a
dedication of land to an easement, more than compensated for the reduction in area to be preserved. He pointed
out that the new agreement still proposed 1400 square feet more than what would ordinarily be required by the
Town's regulations. He added that staff recommended approval of the revised agreement and the final plat for
Firerock Commerce Park.
Councilman McMahan MOVED to approve Resolution 2006-04 and Vice Mayor Schlum SECONDED the
motion.
Councilman Kehe commented that in the survey that was conducted, the Town's residents indicated that they
wanted strict enforcement of codes and ordinances. He said that the original agreement, the tract of land
previously referred to, would be turned over to the Town and the amended agreement was simply an easement.
He added that under the original agreement 35,284 square feet of land would be preserved and under the
proposed amendment approximately 23,907 square feet of land would be preserved, a difference of
approximately 10,000 square feet. He said that he had to be convinced that this was the right way to go because
he was very cautious about altering Hillside Preservation. He added that he was not convinced at this point that
they should proceed in this manner and asked staff for more information. He expressed concern regarding the
fact that easements rather than dedications could apply to other areas of Town and emphasized that he did not
want to "mess" with the Town's codes and ordinances.
Mr. Turner responded that he did not believe that they would be amending any existing codes or ordinances with
this proposal. He explained that the approved and existing agreement proposed this very irregular boundary,
which referred to the agreement that exists today and what had occurred was a change of property ownership
and the new owners were proposing a development plan for the property that was substantially different from
what was previously proposed. Because of the new plan with the buildings at their locations, the irregular shape
was not going to function. He added that the way that the Hillside ordinances were calculated, both in the
original analysis and in the revised analysis, was identical and no variation was being proposed. Amended and
restated was language that the Town Attorney preferred whenever an adjustment needed to be made in an
agreement such as this. He said that it was a matter of opinion as to whether the Town was better off accepting
an easement as opposed to a tract and added that with tracts, the Town was responsible for maintenance, clean
up, and in the existing Agreement, the Town was also responsible for maintaining the three-foot high wall. He
stated that the proposed agreement lessened the Town's financial obligation and reiterated that the owner was
committed to improving both ends of the drainage channel and the appearance in general.
Councilman Kehe said that they were still talking about 10,000 square feet less of preserved land and an
easement rather than a dedication of a tract of land. He added that every day they came across examples of
where the Town had abandoned easements and stated that he was very uncomfortable with the proposal.
Councilman Archambault asked why the tract was never dedicated to the Town and Mr. Turner stated the
opinion that it was never dedicated because the plat was never pursued to fruition, never recorded and/or
ZACouncil Packets\2006\R1-19-06\Minutes 01-05-06.doc Page 6 of 26
processed completely. The dedication of the original tract was part of the proposed subdivision of the property
and never pursued.
Councilman Archambault commented that nothing said in the agreement that certain things "trigger" the transfer
of the tract; it simply said that the developer "shall" by a separate instrument transfer that tract to the Town. He
again questioned the "trigger point" and added that at that time MCO had no intention of developing the land;
they were going to sell it off to someone else, so he assumed that the way the language was written, they were
talking about MCO and it was their responsibility to put the trees there and dedicate that tract of land over to the
Town.
Town Attorney Andrew McGuire responded that when they go through these agreements, the only time they
really accept a dedication of any right-of-way or tracts or easements is at the time of plat. He added that he
knew this agreement was in place for that purpose but was never pursued beyond the agreement. He stated that
he did not know whether the Town pursued, in the interim period of time, getting this tract of land in prior to the
improvements being done. He advised that one of the things the Town did when it takes in real property that
needed improvements, such as the one under discussion, was not to accept the dedication until the improvements
had been completed. Until the trees were planted and the wall was built and everything else was done, the Town
would not have accepted the dedication. The developer did not move forward and therefore this was never
pursued. The Hillside Preservation Easements, as they existed all over Town, were all non -ownership to the
Town and it was staff's choice in this case to ask the Council to step away from ownership of this tract and
accept an easement so that the owners retained the responsibility rather than the Town.
Councilman Archambault commented on the fact that there were tracts all over that the Town had to maintain
and said that an HPE existed behind Checker. Mr. McGuire responded that HPE stands for Hillside Protection
Easement and clarified that it was an easement interest in the property, not a fee interest. The Town did not own
the dirt, it just had the right to ensure that no one did anything with the dirt.
Councilman Archambault stated the opinion that someone should have been monitoring this and telling MCO to
plant the trees and get the tract dedicated over to the Town. He added that in this case, the "buck was passed
over to somebody else."
Mr. McGuire commented that as with most development agreements, they rarely obligated the property owner
to do what they were entitled to do in accordance with the agreement. They merely said that if they wanted to
develop their property, this was the way in which they could do so. Almost all of the Town's development
agreements were voluntary on the developer's part — they had to take action in order to take advantage of the
agreement and if they did not take action, they gained no benefit under the agreement and it simply sat until
someone did something about it.
Councilman Kavanagh stated that the Town's Hillside Protection Ordinances were passed because the citizens
wanted to protect and preserve the Town's mountains, views and lots in residential areas, particularly the hilly
ones. He expressed the opinion that this did not apply in this case and noted that the parcel was a tiny little
piece of land surrounded by a fire station, a police station, some industrial lots and the back of Target; not
pristine desert. He added that when there was a large expanse of undeveloped desert land, from a distance it
looked beautiful but when there was a tiny chunk of desert land in the middle of an industrial zone that was not
preserved, it looked like a vacant lot that no one was taking care of. He said that the applicants intended to take
this little chunk of vacant land that was labeled "hillside" because of a geographical development quirk, and turn
it into something nice and landscaped so when the residents in that area drove out to the main road, they would
see something nice and not scrub brush. He expressed the opinion that they should applaud the people who
were proposing to do this and he added that he supported the plan 100%.
Councilman Kehe pointed out that across the street (Saguaro) from this property homes existed (R-3).
Councilman Kavanagh responded that those were the homes that would have a cared for landscaped strip with
lots of nice vegetation as opposed to native scrub brush and non -indigenous grass growing wild and uncared for.
He said he believed that the people would much rather have something that was consistent with their own front
ZACouncil Packets\2006\R1-19-06\Minutes 01-05-06.doc Page 7 of 26
yards, which were right there. He added that they were not talking about distant mountains, they were talking
about something right across the street from somebody.
Councilman Kehe expressed the opinion that the Town would be obligated by the dedication of the tract to do
something other than have scrub brush at the site. Councilman Kavanagh replied "not if they want to preserve it
as pristine desert."
Vice Mayor Schlum said from what he could tell the 10,000 square feet that would not be dedicated as Hillside
Preservation under the current plan, at least compared to the one boundary along Saguaro Boulevard,
approximately 400 some odd feet, could gain the Town another two and a half feet of Hillside Preservation
Easement if the Town asked them to maintain the 10,000 square feet that they would allow them to remove in
return for taking some responsibility away from the Town as far as maintenance of the wall and some other
improvements. He stated that he could understand the sensitivity expressed by Councilman Kehe because when
you read something like that it was a bit disconcerting, but in practicality, on an industrial piece of property such
as this he believed they had to face reality and the fact that they would gain perhaps two and a half to three more
feet of buffer along Saguaro Boulevard. He noted that they were still in keeping with the laws, expressed the
opinion that the proposal was fair trade and said that he concurred with staff s recommendation.
Councilman McMahan agreed with the Vice Mayor's comments and stated the opinion that the proposal
represented an advantage to the Town.
There were no citizens present wishing to speak on this item.
The motion CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE (5-1) with Councilman Kehe voting Nay.
AGENDA ITEM #15 — CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL REPLAT FOR "FIREROCK PARK," A
REPLAT AND JOINTING OF LOTS 68 AND 69, BUSINESS PARK, FINAL PLAT 414, LOCATED AT
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TECHNOLOGY DRIVE AND SAGUARO BOULEVARD. CASE
#S2005-25.
Mr. Pickering advised that the discussion outlined in Agenda Item #14 above covered this agenda item as well.
Vice Mayor Schlum MOVED to approve the Final Replat for "Firerock Commerce Park" and Councilman
McMahan SECONDED the motion.
There being no one wishing to speak on this item, the Mayor called for the vote.
The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0).
AGENDA ITEM #16 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE
EAGLES NEST RESERVOIR — CHAPARRAL CITY WATER CORPORATION COMMUNICATION
ANTENNA A 50-FOOT HIGH COMMUNICATION ANTENNA LOCATED OFF COYOTE WAY IN
THE MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN PRESERVE WATER TANK SITE. CASE #S2005-08.
Senior Planner Bob Rodgers addressed the Council regarding this agenda item and advised that the Chaparral
City Water Company was requesting a Special Use Permit to construct a communication antenna on the Eagles
Nest Reservoir site. The proposed antenna was 50-feet tall and was specifically for water company use. The
site was located approximately 1,000 feet off of the Desert Springs Drive cul-de-sac. Desert Springs Drive was
currently under construction. The nearest house would be approximately 1,000 feet away from the site. He
referred to photos that depicted the view from the Desert Springs Drive cul-de-sac looking up towards the tank
and the actual tank and looking back down from the proposed site to the cul-de-sac. He discussed the proposed
tank design and pointed out that staff's report outlined the criteria to be followed regarding the issuance of
Special Use Permits and added that representatives from the Chaparral City Water Company and MCO were
present to respond to any questions from the Council.
ZACouncil Packets\2006U21-19-06Mnutes 01-05-06.doc Page 8 of 26
Vice Mayor Schlum MOVED to approve the request for discussion purposes and Councilman McMahan
SECONDED the motion.
Vice Mayor Schlum asked what the alternatives would be and questioned the necessity of the tower. Mr.
Rodgers replied that he had some initial discussions with the applicant about using some sort of stealth
technology and said that they could speak to this issue better than he could regarding alternatives. He stated that
his understanding was that they preferred to get a quick tower up so they could use it strictly for their
maintenance purposes.
Vice Mayor Schlum pointed out that this was going to be adjacent to a lot that would eventually have a home on
it with other services available to transmit data and asked whether the tower would be temporary and able to be
removed at some point in time. He said he believed there might be some alternatives available to placing a
tower in an area that could not be considered remote. He added that he could understand needing some
elevation for a tower but said that he believed there were other means available for communicating.
Mr. Rodgers responded that they were proposing that the structure be permanent and stated that they would have
to discuss any alternatives that might exist.
Vice Mayor Schlum commented that the base of the 50-foot tower would not be visible but the tower itself,
located above the crest, certainly would be and reiterated that they were not talking about a remote area.
Robert Hanford, District Manager for Chaparral City Water Company, advised that the company operated by
utilizing a particular system that was chosen historically to preserve the integrity of the data transmission and for
security measures. He stated that there was no alternative available in a regular communication system to be
able to control the tank levels at this site. He added that it was difficult to tell from a diagram, but even the tank
itself was only visible from the end of Coyote Drive and added that the antenna height, that might be part of the
concern, was not an arbitrary decision on their part, but rather the result of a physical radio analysis. He pointed
out that the higher the antenna, the more costly it was to maintain and 50 feet was the minimum height required
to be able to communicate with the rest of the system.
The Vice Mayor asked whether the company had any other radio tanks against other water storage facilities in
Town and Mr. Hanford replied that they did; typically in Fountain Hills at all of the tank sites there had been
radio towers since the water system was built. Some of them had been mounted to the water tanks themselves
but on the company's improvement projects, they prefer to make them self -standing facilities for ease of
maintenance. Mr. Rodgers noted that the company had antenna designs (pole) that seemed to blend in because it
is a single vertical element and not quite as obtrusive to the eye.
Councilman Archambault asked whether the applicant had looked into disguising it perhaps in the form of a
saguaro or running a phone line up there since there would be phone service on Eagle Mountain. Mr. Hanford
replied that the company did not run its system on phone lines because they did not believe they were secure and
they wanted to have the control and capability to manage their own system and not depend on some else's phone
line. Councilman Archambault asked whether the placement of a small dish would help serve that purpose
instead of the tower and Mr. Hanford advised that the antenna position itself was fairly insignificant in the entire
structure. He added that he was not sure how well they could disguise the tower because a 50-foot saguaro
would look out of scale. Councilman Archambault noted that there was a 40-foot saguaro down at Eagle
Mountain for the cell tower.
Councilman Kehe commented that it would be helpful if they had a map that would show the relationship
beyond what was on the page they were being shown and Mr. Hanford noted that the entire area was McDowell
Mountain Preserve. Councilman Kehe asked whether there was water in the tank at this time and Mr. Hanford
responded that there was not. Councilman Kehe said that if the Council denied the request he would like to
know how they would determine the level of water in the tank. Mr. Hanford commented that it would not be
possible to operate the tank. He noted that the tank site was the end result of a long history of discussions
between the Town and MCO and was something that was previously determined. He said he would like to be
ZACouncil Packets\2006TI-19-06Winutes 01-05-06.doc Page 9 of 26
able to take them up to the site and show the Council just how remote the area was and how unobtrusive the tank
is.
Councilman Kavanagh asked whether the other tank was operational and Mr. Hanford said it would be
operational shortly. He said that the other tank did have water in it but it was not live connected to the system.
Because the tank was not live, the water had to be tested before it could be brought live onto the system and they
just manually filled it during normal working hours.
Mayor Nichols asked how high the top of the tank was and Mr. Hanford referred to diagrams displayed and
responded to his question. He noted that the existing hillside background helped the structure to blend in. A
representative from MCO advised that the color of the antenna would be the same color as the tank, sage, in
order to blend in as best as possible with the background.
Councilman Kavanagh commented that no one was questioning the location of the tanks previously approved or
the need for the tanks themselves but added that his problems were (1) he had no idea what the impact of the
antennas were and normally when they did over -height buildings, the Council was provided site elevations and
knew what the view corridors were but in this situation, they had no way to determine the actual impact; and (2)
while he understood that they preferred a 50-foot pole, the Council's preference was the least obtrusive visible
antenna and he was not convinced that alternatives did not exist.
Mr. Hanford commented that there were two technologies involved, one was satellite technology, which they
did not use, and noted that they operated a 900 megahertz band and that was why the pole and the antenna
design was required. He explained that the signal would go to the Golden Eagle tank and from there to another
tank that was a hub in the network that went all the way back to the treatment plant. He said that a small dish
would not allow them to operate because they were talking about two different technologies. Councilman
Kavanagh asked if they could run a cable up that hill and have a tiny little antenna between the two bushes that
would have a direct view to the other tower. Mr. Hanford stated that he was not the regular frequency
consultant but he believed that there would be limited signal strength and said any time they increased the cable
length, they increased the continuation of the signal and made the process more difficult. He said that if they did
put it on the hillside that was the Town's property, and questioned whether they would be able to obtain a
Hillside Disturbance easement to run the antenna up.
Councilman Kehe asked how often, at a minimum, the tanks needed to be inspected and Mr. Hanford advised
that they were inspected on a daily basis. He clarified that they did not inspect them as far as water levels, they
inspected them for disinfection levels and to ensure that tampering had not occurred. He noted that there was a
fairly steep access road at the end of the cul-de-sac from which the tank was accessed.
Mayor Nichols requested that Roy Kinsey come forward at this time.
Councilman Kehe asked, from the standpoint of the users of the Preserve, the proximity to trails and visual
aspect from existing trails, what the impact would be of a 50-foot antenna. Mr. Kinsey said that the trail used to
get to this site was very awkward and difficult to travel. He stated that it was definitely invisible to 98% of the
public and even on the Dixie Mine Trail it could not be seen. He added that in terms of the antenna issue he
would not expect this particular location to cause any disturbance to the residents of Eagle's Nest; it would
never be seen from Town or any of the public roads like Golden Eagle. He added that the other tank, which was
adjacent to platted lots (the old existing tank site), was far more likely to be visible but not to anyone located in
the Preserve.
Councilman Kehe stated that his concern had to do with users of the Preserve and possible impacts on them.
Mr. Kinsey responded that the impact would be the tank itself and not the antenna. He said that they were
planning the north trail with the idea of skirting around the tank by about 200 to 300 feet higher in elevation to
the west rather than get anywhere near it. He added that unless you knew where it was from the down side, it
would be invisible but from up above it was going to be seen but added that that was a "done deed".
ZACouncil Packets\2006TI-19-06Winutes 01-05-06.doc Page 10 of 26
Councilman Kavanagh commented on the second tank and asked whether Mr. Kinsey viewed the second
antenna as an aesthetic problem. Mr. Kinsey replied that he did not know whether the signal would affect
people's wireless equipment, etc. but as far as visibility, it had been there and he believed that it would be seen
more than the one in the Preserve.
There were no citizens present wishing to speak on this item.
Vice Mayor Schlum asked whether MCO had any concerns regarding the placement of the antenna that was not
initially planned or considered. Mr. Bodhan Himiak, representing MCO, stated the opinion that the proposed
antenna/tank would be even less obtrusive than the other one and would be painted the same color. He stated
the opinion that the project would blend in and said MCO did not have any concerns.
Councilman Kavanagh commented that Mr. Kinsey had allayed his concerns about the visibility of the first one
and he no longer had a problem with it.
Mayor Nichols called the question.
The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0).
AGENDA ITEM #17 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE
GOLDEN EAGLE RESERVOIR — CHAPARRAL CITY WATER CORPORATION
COMMUNICATION ANTENNA, A 40-FOOT HIGH COMMUNICATION ANTENNA LOCATED ON
THE GOLDEN EAGLE RESERVOIR SITE ON MOURNING DOVE DRIVE IN THE EAGLE NEST,
PARCEL 8 SUBDIVISION. CASE #SU2005-09.
Mr. Rodgers referred to photographs of the Golden Eagle reservoir site, located off of the Mourning Dove Drive
cul-de-sac that was currently under construction, and noted that the proposed color was a dark bronze. He stated
that the proposed antenna was 40 feet tall and would be specifically used by the Water Company. He discussed
the design of the request and said that staff and representatives of the proposal were present to respond to any
questions.
Councilman Archambault asked whether High Nob acres was located just to the east of the site and questioned
the impact on those residents. Mr. Rodgers said that he was not sure of the impact on that area and pointed out
the homes that would have the most visibility of the tower. Councilman Archambault stated that he was
concerned that homes would be developed up in High Nob acres that would interfere with the direction of the
antenna and the antenna would have to be raised.
Mr. Hanford, representing the Chaparral City Water Company, advised that the antenna would actually have two
elements; one would be pointing up the Canyon towards the Eagles Nest tank and the other would be pointing in
a more southerly direction to get over the top of a hillside towards the company's other tank. He noted that the
elements were approximately four to five feet long and one to two and a half feet tall.
In response to a question from Councilman Kavanagh, Mr. Hanford stated that the elements were vertical, and
the diameter would be similar to a flagpole. He said that right now the screening would be accomplished
through the block wall that would be constructed and referred to a previous slide that showed that the tank was
actually cut back to the hillside. He noted that historically there had been a tank at that location since the early
80's and it was a fairly ugly tank but it got the job done. He added that the tank was a little bit smaller but badly
in need of improvement and it was demolished. The new tank was constructed to replace the older one, which
was approximately 30-feet tall and had a 10 to 12-foot mast welded to the top of the tank.
Mayor Nichols asked how high the ladder was and Mr. Hanford explained that the ladder goes up and then there
was a guardrail that was approximately 40 to 44 inches high (required for security and safety) and when you got
to the top of the ladder there was a platform to stand on. He said it was approximately 36 feet high (four feet
above the highest point of the existing tank). He confirmed that it would be a separate entity and not attached to
ZACouncil Packets\2006TI-19-06\Minutes 01-05-06.doc Page 11 of 26
the tank. Mr. Hanford noted that the site was rather large but as far as the existing cut slope, they needed about
10 feet to build a drive around the tank and eventually recoat it in the future and then there was a block wall and
the slope, so 12 to 14 feet from the base of the tank to the existing slope of the hillside area.
Councilman Kehe asked whether it was possible to make use of the adjacent hill and Mr. Hanford expressed the
opinion that more damage would be done to the hill by trenching conduit and laying/installing antenna cable to
make up the difference in height. He stated that the parcel of land they actually owned was fairly substantial
and they believed the most effective way to accomplish their goal was to install the free-standing antenna.
Councilman Kavanagh asked why they could not put the antenna on top of the tank and Mr. Hanford said that
they did not like to do that because it was not their standard; the company did not allow cellular antennas or
even their own antennas to be attached to the tank. He added that they wanted the tank to be independent and not
have any extra loads imposed on it for any reason.
There were no citizens wishing to speak on this issue.
Mayor Nichols called for a vote on this item.
Councilman McMahan MOVED to approve the Special Use Permit for the Eagles Nest Reservoir and Vice
Mayor Schlum SECONDED the motion.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
Councilman Archambault Aye
Vice Mayor Schlum
Aye
Councilman Kehe
Aye
Councilman Kavanagh
Aye
Councilman McMahan
Aye
Mayor Nichols
Aye
The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0).
AGENDA ITEM #18 — CONSIDERATION OF A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR "DESERT VISTA
MARKET ARTS & CRAFTS FAIR," LOCATED AT 11645 N. SAGUARO BOULEVARD, AKA PLAT
302, LOT 7A. CASE #TU2005-18.
Bob Rodgers addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and explained that Desert Vista Market Arts &
Crafts Fair (K.D. Spring, Inc.) was requesting a temporary Use Permit to allow them to operate an arts and crafts
fair at 11645 N. Saguaro Boulevard. The proposed fair would operate on Thursdays beginning Thursday,
January 12`'' and running through April 30`". He displayed slides showing the proposed location of the site near
Desert Vista Road and Desert Vista Park. He noted that the location was flanked by vacant lots on the east and
west; the Zoning is C-1 in the area and R-3 across Saguaro Boulevard. He referred to additional photos and the
site plan and noted that 60 vendor stations were being proposed and they were going to utilize 10' by 10' tents.
Parking was proposed to be on -site for approximately 25 to 30 cars and overflow parking was proposed to be
provided along the Saguaro Boulevard Service Road as well as Desert Vista Drive. One portable toilet was
being proposed and trash receptacles would be located down the center aisle. Signage was shown for
informational purposes only on the plan and any signage that would be separately permitted would have to meet
the Zoning requirements.
Mr. Rodgers noted that the proposed hours of operation were from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Thursdays. The
staff report outlined a number of criteria that would have to be met in order to evaluate the issuance of a
temporary Use Permit and a number of staff's concerns regarding parking and potential dust problems were also
included. He stated that staff had not recommended approval but had provided a list of recommended
ZACouncil Packets\2006\R1-19-06\Minutes 01-05-06.doc Page 12 of 26
stipulations should Council decide to grant the request. He said that the applicants were present to respond to
questions.
Mr. Pickering clarified that the cover sheet that indicated staff's approval was incorrect and added that their
correct recommendation for denial was contained further on in the staff report.
Councilman Kehe stated that he was opposed to the issuance of the temporary Use Permit and stated that the
proposed operation would compete unfairly with several of the Town's existing businesses at the height of the
business season.
Councilman McMahan also stated opposition to the proposal.
Vice Mayor Schlum said that he was trying to envision the canopied tents at this location and even though it was
for a short period of time on a Thursday for three to four months, it was across from the residential area (across
Saguaro); adjacent to a park; in an area of undeveloped lots and, to him, did not appear to be the appropriate
location for this type of operation. He added the opinion that he did not believe a majority of the community
would support this request. He stated that he was not comfortable voting to grant the request at this point but
would like to hear more from the applicant.
Ms. Robinson stated that three citizens wished to speak on this item and the Mayor asked the speakers to come
forward as their names were called.
Jim Heasley, 14842 Mayflower, a business owner with a substantial investment in the Town, stated opposition
to this request. He said that he understood the importance of the image of the Town and the events they did
have but believed that on a weekly basis this proposal would diminish the ambiance that they strived to create in
the Town. He commented on the restrictions placed on storefront buildings and said that something of this
nature (temporary tents) during the prime time of the season, would negatively impact the other businesses. He
noted that the tents would not be blocking existing businesses during the slow summer months when it was
extremely difficult. He added that he was all for free enterprise but he believed that having this during prime
season on a weekly basis was too frequent. He said that they had a small market and prime locations were
difficult to come by and the proposal was simply "too much" for the market they have at this time.
Frank Ferrara, Chief Executive Officer of the Fountain Hills Chamber of Commerce, representing
approximately 550 business, said that a good number of those businesses have storefronts year round, 365 days
a year and have a very difficult time during the summer months. He stated that now they had an operation that
wanted to come in on a temporary basis from January until April, not June until August. He noted that they
wanted to operate during the high season. He emphasized that the Chamber of Commerce believed in free
enterprise and competition but they also believed in a level playing field. He added that the Chamber did not
believe that this represented a level playing field. It was an organization that wanted to come in with 60 vendors
and tents and set up the arts and crafts tents (most of goods could be bought at existing local retail stores) and
then when it got hot, they were gone. He stated that he did not see any economic benefit to the Town nor to the
business community and he requested that the Council deny the request.
Alice Blackerby said that she was present to speak on a totally different matter but while she was there she
thought she would comment on this item. She concurred with the Vice Mayor's remarks and stated that the
proposal was probably not the best place to do this. She added that she also believed in several of the owners of
businesses at that location and noted that her studio was located at the Fountain Hills Design Center, where they
had 3,000 square feet. She indicated her intention to give the applicant her card and said that if they wanted to
get together and do something at the studio, she would be more than happy to talk to them. She added the
opinion that anything they did in the Town to generate people coming downtown and creating a little bit of
walking was a good thing because they might not see the businesses that day but they would see them eventually
and come back. She likened it to when the fairs come to Town and the tents were in the front of the downtown
businesses and no one from the fair could get to the storefronts because the tents block them so she could not
understand why they could not just embrace people who wanted to do business in the Town.
ZACouncil Packets\2006\R1-19-06\Minutes 01-05-06.doc Page 13 of 26
Mayor Nichols thanked the speakers for their comments.
Councilman Archambault stated that they conducted special events in the Town that create an ambiance and
promote the Town in a positive manner. He expressed concerns regarding the parking issue and especially the
fact that a lot of people would park on the service road instead of using the back parking lot. He concurred with
Mr. Heasley's remarks and said he questioned whether the citizens of the Town actually attended the events that
already took place or fled the area instead. He added that in some cases those events do showcase the Town,
attract people and generate good reports about the Town. He expressed the opinion that allowing a crafts fair
such as this to operate would diminish the Town's reputation in this area, particularly during the peak season,
and stressed the importance of promoting the types of businesses the citizens wanted to frequent. He said that
he was opposed to the request at this time.
Mayor Nichols also discussed the importance of protecting the businesses that had made an investment in a
physical building and said they had taken risks by paying rent and trying to make their businesses succeed. He
said in this instance they would be allowing 60 businesses to sell their wares without making any investment as
far as renting a building. He added that this made it easier for them because they could be more competitive and
sell their goods at lower prices without overhead costs. He stated that he did not believe that this would be fair
competition for the existing businesses in Town and he would not vote to support the request.
Mayor Nichols asked whether any member of the Council wanted to make a motion to approve the temporary
Use Permit and their being none, the item FAILED for lack of a motion.
AGENDA ITEM #19 — CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 06-02, AMENDING THE TOWN CODE,
CHAPTER 7, BUILDING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 7-10, DEVELOPMENT FEES.
Mr. Pickering addressed the Council regarding this agenda item and said that as the Council was aware, they had
been discussing development fees and updating the fees. He noted that development fees had been in place
since the year 2000 and the Council had asked that staff hire a facilitator to review the fees and determine
whether they were in line with the Town's neighbors as well as the Town's needs. He reported that the study
had been completed and two addendums had been added and a Work Study Session as well as the first public
hearing had been held. He stated that this was the final public hearing on this issue. He added that Rick
Giardina, from the Red Rock Consulting group that performed the study was present, and said that at the last
Council meeting there was a question about whether there were State Trust capital improvement items in the
plan and whether or not they should be "separated out" in case the Town did annex the land. He advised that
there was one item in the study and staff went back and made the adjustment to make sure that the number of
people calculated included those in the State Trust land if there were going to be capital items in there. He noted
that each time they had met to discuss the fees, a decrease resulted and reported that it dropped from
approximately $9,000 to approximately $5,000.
Mr. Rick Giardina, Vice President of Red Oak Consulting, briefly reviewed the latest addendum that was
prepared as a result of Council direction starting with changes necessitated by the Strategic Planning Session
that Council went through and the changes in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). He reported that the CIP
changes that occurred since the September report were primarily driven by the Strategic Planning Process and
said he would cover the projects that would be removed. He explained that they highlighted the Development in
Community Park and State Trust Land because under a scenario without State Trust land, that $6 million dollars
to develop the park would not be spent. He added that the last project should also be highlighted, the Widening
of McDowell Mountain Road, and stated that without the State Trust land that project would not be undertaken.
Mr. Giardina referred to slides that depicted resulting fees for both scenarios (with/without State Trust land)
relating to the current residential fees. He reported that fees to date were approximately $3,500 and with the
State Trust land (including the project to widen McDowell Mountain Road) the fees would be approximately
$5,100 and without State Trust land they would be slightly less than $5,100 — not a huge difference between the
two fees. He said that in the scenarios where they included the State Trust land, there was very little in the way
of incremental capital improvements that were made and because of that they were essentially dividing the same
ZACouncil Packets\2006\R1-19-06\Minutes 01-05-06.doc Page 14 of 26
costs by a greater number of units. He added that that was why, for example, the General Government Fee
without State Trust land was $1,000; that fee went down because they were adding significantly more units and
not adding any capital costs associated with general government. The reversal of that was very apparent with
regard to streets where under a scenario that included the State Trust land they now had a street project, the
widening of McDowell Mountain Road, and that increase in capital costs outweighed the positive impact by
adding more units so that fee went up from $988 to $1291 under the scenario where they added State Trust land.
Mr. Giardina also discussed non-residential development fees and pointed out the significant increase in the
street fees. The current fees were 19 cents per square foot and in 2000, when the study was completed, the street
fees recommended and brought before Council were for $1.93 for commercial and 56 cents per square foot for
industrial. Council at that time made a conscious decision to adopt fees that were lower than those indicated in
the study. Since that time, the street program had been under -funded in terms of the contribution that should
have been made from these types of fees. That was also the reason why there was such a substantial increase
now. The cost that was calculated in 2000 for the street fee was $1.93 and they adopted 19 cents, approximately
one -tenth of that fee. Comparing the $1.93 that was calculated to the current proposal of $4.48 for commercial
is a significant increase but certainly not as significant as going from 19 cents to $4.48.
Mr. Giardina commented that the Council had an ordinance before them regarding the development fees and
noted that the ordinance reflected two sets of fees as discussed this evening; a set of fees indicative of moving
ahead without the inclusion of State Trust land and then in the event that the State Trust land was to be annexed
into the community, fees had been included in the ordinance that could be adopted to reflect that circumstance.
He stated that they had also presented to the Council each time they had met a survey of fees in order to
compare the Town to other communities. He added that the fees were comprehensive in the sense that they
included every development fee that was charged in each of the communities. He pointed out that they included
the cost of sanitation in with the Town's fees and currently the sum total of those fees was approximately $9,195
when you figured in the fees that the Town assessed as well as the sanitation fee. He reported that the average
of the group was approximately $9,000, with the median being approximately $9,300.
Mr. Giardina advised that with the proposal before Council, both with and without State Trust land, the fee
would increase from about $9,200 to $10,785 or up to $10,800, still below two of the surveyed communities and
approximately $1700 to $1800 above the average of the group. He said that similar information was also
compiled for non-residential development, which could literally be "all over the map" from restaurants to photo
processing to retail, etc. In order to make the survey meaningful, they selected a restaurant and determined what
the fees would be if they developed a restaurant within the Town or in Paradise Valley, or Cave Creek. He said
that they made assumptions regarding water meter sizes and square footage and referred to a chart that showed
Fountain Hills at the lowest end of the group. He reported that with the proposed fees, the Town would be
above the median and slightly below the average without State Trust land and above the average with the land.
Mr. Giardina indicated his willingness to respond to questions from the Council.
Councilman Kavanagh requested that they "split and segregate" the commercial fees from the other fees.
In response to a request for information from the Mayor, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire stated that in this
case, it was probably a divisible question and suggested that they proceed by making individual motions rather
than amendments to the main motion.
Councilman Kehe asked that the Council consider the commercial development fees first because they might
impact residential.
Councilman MOVED to approve the commercial development fees and Councilman Kehe SECONDED the
motion.
Councilman Archambault advised that he wanted to revisit the streets and the commercial fees that were being
charged. He asked whether they knew how much commercial space was assessed back in 2000. He noted that
ZACouncil Packets\2006U21-19-06\Minutes 01-05-06.doc Page 15 of 26
the report reflected that there was 758,268 square feet of commercial space to be developed but said that he
would like to know what it was prior to that.
Mr. Giardina replied that unfortunately he did not have the 2000 study with him. Councilman Archambault
asked whether it would be safe to say that the commercial space had been diminishing over the five-year period
and Mr. Giardina deferred to Mr. Pickering. Councilman Archambault went on to say that it appeared to him
that commercial might be suffering from the sins of previous Councils' own wants and needs. Five years ago
the Council was presented with a $1.95 per square foot fee, which was justified and should have been levied at
the time but instead the Council decided to take an interest -only loan. It was now five years down the road and
Councilman Archambault believed that the principle was now due and that was probably a good reason as to
why they were seeing such an increase in the commercial area. He stated that he would not want to diminish
that fee later on because based on what it had compounded to over the last five years, they could not allow that
to occur again over the next five years. He added that it would be unfair to put that burden on the citizens and
businesses currently in Town
Councilman Kavanagh stated the opinion that raising the commercial development fees would be like "killing
the goose that laid the golden egg," and added that the Town was over -reliant on its sales tax revenue and they
definitely needed the revenue that commercial businesses generated. He noted that the Target Center essentially
saved the Town during the last fiscal crisis. Businesses were money generators for the Town and beyond that,
they provided needed services and create employment opportunities. He said he believed that it would be a real
mistake to put these commercial fees in effect; development would stop; and any hopes they had of a vibrant
downtown with a movie theatre would come crashing down. He commented that right now the project was
borderline and if they threw $1 million worth of fees at a project like that it would be finished. He added that it
made no sense to burden the money generating people and pointed out that everyone throughout the State was
lowering commercial rates and taxes and trying to generate money and jobs for their cities and towns. He
stressed the importance of keeping the Town's businesses rolling and said that in the long term it would make
more money and they would be better off.
"fly
Councilman McMahan concurred with Councilman Kavanagh's comments and said that the fee would in
the face" of everything they were trying to do as far as developing the downtown area and other commercial
areas. He added that it would inhibit development and was not needed at this time.
Councilman Kehe referred to a statement by Councilman Kavanagh and asked for specific examples of
communities lowering commercial rates and taxes throughout the State. Councilman Kavanagh replied that he
was speaking about taxes in general, lowering the overall tax package, and added that a business did not care if
its "pockets were being picked" for development fees or corporate taxes or a host of other clever ways people
would like to use to take money out of the pockets of productive people. The bottom line was what it costs them
to do business here and if it was higher to do it here, they would go elsewhere. Most of Arizona had wised up
and were continuously lowering taxes, offering incentives, and bringing in productive businesses.
In response to a question from Vice Mayor Schlum, Mr. Pickering advised that fees for both residential and
commercial development had decreased. He noted that when they started out, the fee for commercial was about
$7.00. He added that the reason behind any of the fees dropping was they had taken projects out. The Vice
Mayor added that service comes into play as well as far as the fees because they were talking about services that
actually had to be paid for, such as streets. He stressed the importance of balancing this with fairness and
concurred with Councilman Kavanagh regarding the need to maintain the businesses within the Town because
they were so dependent upon sales tax. He pointed out that unlike some other communities, the Town did not
own the water or the sewer district so that fees were not part of the Town's fee structure. He added that they
were talking about an approximate 800% increase and reiterated the importance of balancing this with fairness
and retaining current businesses. He stated that perhaps the fee was a bit lower than what is should be but he
thought that what they had in the report is definitely out of line.
Councilman Archambault noted that the Town had to come up with over a million dollars if they reduced the
street fee and said that that was prorated over the 458,000 square feet of commercial space. He commented that
ZACouncil Packets\2006TI-19-06Winutes 01-05-06.doc Page 16 of 26
he went through a time when the Council took a 20% cut and both he and another Councilmember tried to argue
with the rest of the Council about the real impact of what they were cutting. He said he wanted to know, before
they voted on this, where they were going to take the $75,000 away from -- the Boys' Club or charge Little
League more or not have Parks & Recreation programs or from the Fountain Hills Chamber of Commerce for
tourism purposes or the Senior citizens. He emphasized that the money had to come from somewhere and he
was not willing to put it on the sales tax backs of the businesses that were already in Town. He pointed out that
the commercial fee did not impact the businesses that were already in Town, collecting sales taxes and
contributing to the revenue fund; it was only an impact to pay for the streets and the impact they had on the
streets. He said that if they ignored this, they would go back to repeating the same sins of previous Councils and
that was what he wanted to avoid. He stated that if they were going to vote this down, he wanted to know where
they were going to get the necessary money from.
Councilman Kehe commented that the whole philosophy behind development fees was to allow growth to pay
for growth and if that did not happen, they know who would wind up paying for the infrastructure needs as they
arose — it would be community wide and questioned whether that was fair. He stated that he did not believe it
was and urged the Council to abide by the program used in over 80 other municipalities in the State to have
growth pay for the costs associated with new infrastructure. He noted that they had the opportunity to do that
and if they voted no on this, the real message they were giving is "let the whole community pay for it" and he
believed that was a bad message.
Councilman Kavanagh stated that not one penny of the money that they lusted after was currently in the General
Fund budget so it was not like they would be cutting programs next year if they did not pass this. He added that
the Legislature did not cut anything; the State of Arizona was heading for a $750 billion to $1 trillion surplus
this year because taxes had been cut and industry was attracted that was generating unbelievable revenue in jobs
for the State. He said that if they made this Town as business friendly fee wise as it was now (he was not
suggesting that they cut fees, just that they did not increase them) growth would continue and probably increase.
Revenues would come from the businesses. The revenue they generated was a major source and every piece of
commercial property was assessed at 250% the value of a residential piece (two and a half times). He added that
if they started cutting business growth, the citizens of the Town would pay on tax day.
Councilman Archambault said that Councilman Kavanagh just told him that they were going to collect the
money from sales tax revenue generated by the businesses that were already in Town to pay for the fee. He
added that he also talked about the property tax that was paid in the Town and none of it goes to the Town.
Councilman Kavanagh stated that a very small portion of the property tax goes to the Town but said they should
look at the tax bill and how much was paid to the schools. He noted that even when they had their tax it was a
minimum amount but they had to support schools and libraries and that was where a major part of their tax
dollars went. He said that if they lost that revenue, they would be paying more property tax. He stated that
cutting taxes generated jobs and gave revenue to the Town. He added that if cutting taxes was bad, he would
like to know why everyone who had done that was experiencing phenomenal growth in this country while
businesses were fleeing from those who did not.
Councilman Archambault asked why they then had a national deficit.
Councilman Kehe emphasized that this was not a tax; it was a one-time fee that allowed growth to pay for
growth.
Mr. Pickering commented that they had had some discussions about economic development through these fees
and the Town's chances of locating businesses. He said that he had dealt with a lot of businesses and negotiated
property tax cuts, sales tax rebates and permit waivers and many different things and basically what it always
came down to was the business itself. If there was going to be a very large economic benefit to a Town, such as
landing a large car dealership, then they might look at waiving some of the fees because they could add up on
one hand what they were going to get. He added that this was not done for every single business across the
ZACouncil Packets\2006\R 1 - 19-06\Minutes 01-05-06.doc Page 17 of 26
board, they looked at what the economic benefit was going to be. He said that if it was going to stop them from
attracting a certain business, they could always waive it.
Vice Mayor Schlum noted that the increases were huge in the commercial area and he did not think this was
right. He added that with the number of businesses that would be coming to Town (and streets being a large
component of the picture) most of the streets that the businesses would be operating on were already here.
There would be maintenance and other things that needed to be done but onsite improvements, parking, etc.
would be paid for by the businesses already here. He suggested that they speak to the large street figure a little
more.
Mr. Giardina referenced the September report and said they had a 20-year CIP for streets that totaled $53
million (what was going to be built in the future). Of that, approximately 20% or $10 million was considered
growth related. Based on the planned development of the community about 20% of that total would be allocated
towards growth and the balance was for renewal and rehabilitation/replacement of existing roads. He noted that
it was not at all unusual for communities to do what Mr. Pickering had indicated and said that many businesses
generated sales tax dollars over and above the cost of providing the service while others did not. He added that
another option was to phase in the fees over a period of time.
Vice Mayor Schlum agreed with Councilman Archambault's comment regarding the fact that they were making
up for what they did not implement in the past and that was why the large figures.
Mayor Nichols stated the opinion that the current fee was unrealistically low and non-competitive. He said that
he did not see any commercial businesses flocking to the Town because of the low rate. He pointed out that
business expenses could be amortized over a ten-year period and he did not believe that it represented a major
impediment for the Town in attracting new businesses. He emphasized that the fee should not be 19 cents that
was unrealistic and would ultimately place a burden on the residents who would have to make up the shortfall in
some other way. He added that sales taxes were paid by the residents, not the businesses, and they did not pay
for fire or police protection because sales tax monies pay for that. He stated the opinion that commercial
development needed to pay more of their fair share.
Councilman Kavanagh said that he did not understand the logic — if a low rate had not attracted businesses to the
Town, was it the practical to raise it to see if that would bring them. He stated that the reason businesses did not
pay sales taxes, they just collected them, should not be minimized because they might not be paying it but they
were generating it, they draw outsiders and residents in Town to buy things and generate sales tax.
In response to a question from Councilman Kavanagh as to the current status of the Town's sales tax situation,
Finance Administrator Julie Ghetti advised that like the State, the Town of Fountain Hills was enjoying a good
sales tax return and was exactly where they projected they would be for six months. They were not over budget
and this was primarily due to construction. The Town budgeted about $9 million total in local sales tax for the
whole year.
Councilman Kehe commented that they should keep in mind that a major portion of that was derived from
construction and the Town was approaching build -out so they could not continue to depend on that.
Councilman Archambault stated that the construction tax would go away in eight years and in the Strategic Plan
the citizens said that they wanted the Council to address that issue now rather than later. He added that to
erroneously imply that they were just going to get the money "out of the sky" was ridiculous. He said that they
got to where they were today because they had strong backs, stood their ground and said, "This is what it costs".
Councilman Kavanagh commented that sales taxes collected by businesses that were established and growing in
the Town were not one-time expenses, development fees were one-time expenses.
Vice Mayor Schlum said that he did not agree 100% with Councilman Archambault and there was validity to the
economic argument that Councilman Kavanagh made, which he leaned toward. He added that they did not want
ZACouncil Packets\2006\R1-19-06\Minutes 01-05-06.doc Page 18 of 26
to restrain business because it paved the way for the community to afford the other amenities and services that
would be needed and enjoyed. He stressed the importance of being fair and agreed with what the Mayor said
about the fee probably being unreasonably low at this point is true. He stated that they did want the businesses
�Ww to pay their fair share for public safety probably, what was being paid on a one-time basis when a new business
came to Town. He added that this matter would require some "give and take" on both sides to reach an
acceptable conclusion.
Mayor Nichols asked whether the Vice Mayor was suggesting that this be given further study in an effort to
come up with an alternative number that might be acceptable to everyone.
Councilman McMahan said that he would support that proposal.
Vice Mayor Schlum expressed the opinion that they had come a long way by addressing the residential piece
and they really did not address the commercial piece until this evening. He said he did not know where they
would wind up but he would rely on the Mayor's wisdom as to what to do next.
Mayor Nichols commented that he could make a motion to table the discussion of the commercial fees to allow
time for additional study in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution. He added that the current figure
was meaningless and had no basis and they could come up with another number that was also not based on
anything but would be more fitting for the Town.
Mayor Nichols MOVED that the rate for the commercial development fees be tabled and Vice Mayor Schlum
SECONDED the motion.
Ms. Robinson advised that several speakers were present who wished to speak on this issue.
Councilman Kavanagh asked whether the Council had to withdraw the motion and second to table in order to
allow public comment.
Mr. McGuire said that the main body of the issue was still open for discussion so they could either remove the
current motion so that they could take public input and then redo the motion and second and vote to table.
Mayor Nichols withdrew his motion to table and Vice Mayor Schlum removed his second.
Bruce Tominello, 16208 N. Sunridge Drive, addressed the Council and said that the issue of an 890% increase
in the development fees for commercial properties was of grave concern. He questioned how they could say
that they were a business friendly Town with this kind of a proposal. He said that he previously raised the issue
about perception being reality and stated that this went far beyond the realm of perception to a mind -boggling
reality. He added that the proposal said that the Town was not business friendly and it did not make sense. He
said that if they added this new commercial development fee to the 8.9% sales tax, which was among the highest
in the Valley, they could not help but ask who would wanted to develop a business in Fountain Hills. He asked
what developer would want to build in a Town that raised development fees 890% overnight. On a 100,000
square foot development, the development fees would increase from $51,000 to $453,900 and expressed the
opinion that if these fees were in place when the Target Center was being planned, that tract would still be
empty today. He questioned how developers would amortize the fees and said he would suspect in high rents.
He added that if they wanted to create local businesses for local residents and keep the big stores out, how
would they be able to afford to rent when the fees were factored into the rent equation. He said that adopting the
commercial development fees as well as the residential and industrial had the potential to shut down
development in Fountain Hills and dramatically increase the risk of a financial crisis sooner than later.
Mr. Tominello stated that the underlying issue here was that they would do everything they could to stall the
eventuality of some kind of a primary property tax, which 66% of the residents at the Town Hall supported, and
for the present they would do that on the backs of new home construction, commercial and industrial
development because these people could not vote no and residents could. He added that it was time that the
ZACouncil Packets\2006\R1-19-06\Minutes 01-05-06.doc Page 19 of 26
citizens of the Town were fully educated about all of the facts concerning finances and that a fully informed
public would do the right thing for the long-term _future prosperity of the Town if given all of the facts and
opportunity to do so.
Gene Slechta, 15220 N. Blackbird Drive, stated that he conducted some research on where the Town stands as
far as fees compared to surrounding communities and when he did a spot check of 11 communities in the Valley
to date, there was only one other community that was lower so Fountain Hills remained lower than the bulk of
other municipalities. He commented on the complexity of this issue and said that perhaps they needed to go
back and look at the process and the criteria they were using. He added that they should look at how the other
communities were coming up with their fees because they were a lot higher.
John McNeill, 14508 N. Creosote Court, addressed the Council relative to the commercial fees. He said that he
was a member of the Council in 2000 when they adopted the first set of impact fees, including a 90% reduction
in the commercial fees (from $1.90 to .19) and said that he believed they made a big mistake back then. At the
time they were told that they needed to keep the commercial fees very low; they were working on their
downtown development and were looking at a plan that included a walkway with a clear view of the Fountain
from the Community Center, shops on either side, tree -lined avenues and none of that came to pass. He stated
that the only reason they were talking about an 890% increase is because of that mistake since the figure was
artificially low to begin with. He expressed the opinion that they really shouldn't be looking at the percentage
but rather the impact of the fee compared to the cost of construction. He added that he did not believe it was
unusual today for a commercial building to be spending $200 a square foot or more and a $4 to $5 one-time fee
represents only about 2%.
Mr. McNeill pointed out that one item was removed from the list because it was not in the Strategic Plan, the
widening of Fountain Hills Boulevard. He stated the opinion that it would be a big mistake to take that project
out of the calculation because that amount would be paid for 100% by impact fees, but only if the Town
included the $5 million for Fountain Hills Boulevard in the impact fee calculation. He said that if it was
removed, that would force other commercial entities in Town to pay for it and added that if the residents were
asked whether they would rather have growth pay for the project or whether they want to pay more taxes for it,
the answer was easy to determine.
Frank Ferrara, President of the Fountain Hills Chamber of Commerce, said that he would be remiss as President
if he said, "let's raise taxes to the hilt." He stated that he was also on that side of the podium in 2000 when they
had the same argument, same study, and what came out of that was relatively peaceful from the standpoint of
the commercial industry. He discussed the flurry of permits the day it was announced that there would be a 51-
cent total impact fee on commercial development and they were just starting to fill up those buildings now. He
stated the opinion that the Target Center or anything else up that way would not be here today if they had had
this kind of a fee. He added that the method of computation needed to be looked at.
Beverly Belury, 14824 N. Calle del Prado, advised that she was financially involved in developing a commercial
building in Town and was astounded that the Council would even think of raising the impact fee by over 800%
in such a short period of time. She concurred with Councilman Kavanagh's comment that this sent the wrong
message and she believed there were other ways of doing it. She added that Councilman Archambault also had
a point — where were they going to get the money from? She said that one thing they needed to do was put
together an economic plan outlining how the Town was going to attract the economic businesses that were going
to pay for what needed to happen and then get behind it with some muscle. She further stated that "taking easy
route" was not the way they should proceed solely and she knew that impact fees were going to be increased to
some degree but asked the Council to balance that out with a proactive, aggressive, well -orchestrated plan of
what they were going to do to get the people here. She said that people were not coming because they did not
know about the Town and recommended that they take that on as a project.
Alice Blackerby, representing the Fountain Hills Association of Licensed Contractors, spoke in support of the
Town Manager's recommendation relative to increasing the development fees. She noted that Councilman
ZACouncil Packets\2006\R1-19-06\Minutes 01-05-06.doc Page 20 of 26
Archambault expressed their concerns about the drastic increase and hope that they would be able to come to
some agreement regarding a more acceptable increase.
In response to a question from Councilman Kavanagh, Ms. Blackerby advised that the Association had
approximately 76 contractor members. She added that approximately 40 of the members were present at the
meeting where this was discussed and all of them voted in support of an increase.
Ginny Dickey, 14649 N. Fairlynn Drive, a 22-year resident of the Town, stated that she did not think of a
development fee as a tax, she thought of it as a one-time responsibility to pay for the stress on the infrastructure,
particularly on roads and public safety. She added that it was a business decision and if rents were raised too
high, the market would decide what happened. She agreed that the Town had an over -reliance on sales tax but
said that something was going to have to give and until they had a property tax, this would continue. She
pointed out that sales tax was constant while the development fee was a finite one-time deal and she did not
believe that the one-time fee would turn developers away. She also agreed that it would be entirely appropriate
to re-examine the numbers, which she did not believe were baseless.
Mayor Nichols thanked the speakers for their comments.
Councilman Kavanagh said that since the focus seemed to have fallen upon the streets, he had always been a
little confused about the rationale behind commercial street development fees. He stated that if the Town did
not have any commercial stores and if he wanted to buy food or purchase a suit, instead of for example driving
to buy milk a half a mile from his home at Safeway, he would have to drive about six miles to get to the Town
border, drive to Scottsdale and get it and then drive six miles back to his house. He said that the fact that there
was a commercial building in Town meant that he was only driving a mile round trip instead of twelve miles on
Town roads. He questioned how the commercial property then costs the Town road money?
Mr. Giardina responded that the notion behind a commercial street fee was to arrive at a fair apportionment of
the cost of streets and the Council could certainly make a policy decision that residential customers should pay
100% of the road costs. He noted that any community he was aware of had not adopted this approach. He said
that if there was commercial development within a community, the trips generated by those are different. They
were shorter than driving to another community, but they nevertheless existed and that trip generation data
provided the basis for saying that a percentage of the costs should be allocated to commercial.
Councilman Kavanagh emphasized that the presence of the stores in Town greatly reduced the amount of travel
people had to do and questioned whether they should be rewarding rather than penalizing them.
Mr. Giardina stated that if there was no commercial development and everyone in Town had to drive to shop
and work, he did not know whether that would increase the need for roadways above what it was now. He
reiterated that businesses created trip generation.
Councilman Kavanagh said that perhaps they should not have any commercial street fees and Mr. Giardina
replied that that was an option.
Mayor Nichols stated that there was a motion on the floor to accept the commercial fees as presented.
Councilman Archambault indicated his intent to amend that motion.
Councilman Archambault MOVED to amend the motion to phase -in the commercial fees in a three-year
structure. Councilman Kehe SECONDED the motion for the purpose of additional discussion.
Councilman Archambault said that the Council heard the consultant discuss the option of phasing in the fees and
stated that this was not something that he had thought about before. He added that this might be acceptable to
everyone and said he was talking without the State Trust land. He suggested that they start at a reasonable
figure of perhaps half or two thirds of the amount and gradually escalate the fee over a three-year period of time
ZACouncil Packets\2006\RI-19-06\Minutes 01-05-06.doc Page 21 of 26
on each anniversary date. He reiterated that commercial was now feeling the entire brunt of the interest only
loan from 2001 and now it was "time to pay the piper". He added that he believed that this would be a good
compromise.
Mayor Nichols expressed the opinion that it would be difficult to make this type of decision this evening without
having further discussions take place. He said that finding a compromise was a good idea but the issue required
further study in order to arrive at an amount that would be acceptable to all of the members.
Councilman Kehe concurred with Mayor Nichols and withdrew his second to the motion and the motion died.
Mayor Nichols advised that the motion on the floor is to accept the commercial fees as presented unless they
wanted to table it so that further discussion could take place.
Mayor Nichols MOVED to table discussion on the commercial development fees to allow additional discussion
and study to occur. Vice Mayor Schlum SECONDED the motion.
Councilman Kehe said that he had a problem with the alternative, passing the cost of growth over to existing
citizens. He stated that there were two alternatives — either they did not do the projects and drop staff or they
required everyone to pay and he had a real concern about who was going to pay for the costs. He added that the
only real answer was that the community as a whole had to pay for it and he said he could not buy into that.
Councilman Kavanagh agreed that businesses should pay their fair share and stated that he wanted businesses to
pay more than their fair share and they would do that if the Town did not have a development fee and they were
allowed to come in and start generating tax revenues. He pointed out that there were a lot of benefits, not all
economic, to developing business. He added that the bulk of the commercial development fee was in streets and
he believed his conversation with the consultant raised serious questions about whether they really were
pounding the streets the way the fees suggested.
Mayor Nichols called for the vote on the motion to table and the motion CARRIED by majority vote (4-2) with
Councilmen Kavanagh and Kehe voting Nay.
Councilman Kavanagh stated that he would like the Council to then provide direction to staff. He said that
rather than compare an atypical commercial business (a restaurant) he would like to see a table comparing a
typical commercial business, such as a retail store and an office. He added that he was especially interested in
seeing how the Town stacked up against its neighbors, namely Scottsdale, Phoenix, Mesa (the bordering
communities) and others if they so desired. He stated that if he wanted to open up a gift shop in Scottsdale or
another community versus Fountain Hills, he would like to see a development fee comparison.
Councilman McMahan suggested that they also receive input from the leaders in the business community, such
as the Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Business Association.
In response to a question from Councilman Kehe, Mr. Giardina provided brief background information on his
extensive 27 years of experience in this field, including his background in finance, economics and accounting.
He advised that the methodologies that they were employing in this situation were generally the same as those
used in other communities. He confirmed that they used a generally accepted methodology. He also gave
examples of other communities (both locally and nation-wide) where his firm had conducted similar studies.
Councilman Kehe referred to the figures brought forth by Mr. Giardina and said he believed they were not
recommendations but simply their accountant's opinion on what the Town legally could do.
Mr. Giardina concurred with Councilman Kehe's statement.
Mr. Giardina advised that the figures contained in the report were the highest fees he could support for the
Town. He noted that similar fees implemented in other communities had been upheld in the court system.
ZACouncil Packets\2006\R1-19-06\Minutes 01-05-06.doc Page 22 of 26
Councilman Kehe noted that the Town engaged the services of Mr. Giardina to provide his expert opinion and
having done that, Councilman Kehe would be "hard pressed" to say now they should get together and figure it
out.
Mr. Giardina advised that it was not unusual for communities to adopt fees lower than those recommended by
the consultant for a variety of reasons. He emphasized that there was no evidence to support that the fees had
any impact on development when they were reasonable and said that "reasonable" was in the eye of the
beholder.
Councilman Archambault requested that the direction to staff be clarified and Mr. Giardina stated that they
would compare impact fees associated with the development of a retail store and office building in Fountain
Hills compared to surrounding (and perhaps additional) communities and prepare a report for the Council. He
added that the report would include every development fee assessed by each of the communities.
Councilman Kehe noted that a commercial building would have more square footage than an antique shop and
Mr. Giardina said not necessarily because you could have a small, storefront commercial building that might be
smaller than a gift or card shop in absolute size. Typically, when the fees varied by the categories he mentioned,
they varied only for the street fees because there was trip generation data that provided that distinction. A
professional office would typically generate far fewer trips than a retail store (supermarket, etc.).
Mayor Nichols said that at this time he would like to entertain a motion for residential development fees.
Mayor Nichols MOVED to approve Ordinance 06-02 relating only to the residential development fees as
recommended and Councilman Archambault SECONDED the motion.
Councilman Kavanagh noted that he originally opposed the residential fees because they were ridiculously high.
However, after the removal of the State Trust land section and the items that were rejected by the citizens in the
Strategic Plan and the survey, he believed they were now down to a reasonable level that he could support.
Mr. McGuire advised that they needed to clarify whether the industrial development fees were included in the
motion as well.
Mayor Nichols advised that his motion included approval for the industrial development fees as well and
Councilman Archambault, who seconded the motion, agreed.
Councilman Kehe expressed concern that not withstanding the results of the survey, issues might arise that
would require expenditures and they had not provided for them. He added that they really did not know what
the impact of the State Trust land was going to be on Fountain Hills Boulevard and sooner or later they might
need to do something about that. He questioned how they could anticipate and provide for future needs in terms
of development fees. He asked whether it would be better to include those items now in anticipation of the
needs rather than wait until they occur.
Councilman Kehe requested that the Council consider adding development fees appropriate for the possible
increase in necessary space for seniors and the possible widening of Fountain Hills Boulevard, should it become
a main thoroughfare into the State Trust land. He added that an alternative to that would be to have an
automatic yearly increase in development fees based upon the cost of construction materials and, in addition,
instead of a five-year review they should consider reviewing the fees every two or three years. He said that it
was easier to have the money beforehand and return it rather than face the need and "scramble" around to come
to the conclusion that everyone had to pay for it. He indicated his intention to make two motions, one at a time.
Councilman Kehe MOVED to restore the development fees for the Senior Center and the widening of Fountain
Hills Boulevard. The motion FAILED for lack of a second.
ZACouncil Packets\2006\R1-19-06\Minutes 01-05-06.doc Page 23 of 26
Councilman Kehe MOVED to have a yearly increase in development fees based upon increased costs for
construction materials and to reduce the review period from five to three years. The motion FAILED for lack
of a second.
The Council clarified that the entire commercial component has been tabled. Mr. McGuire recommended that
industrial remain on the table with commercial to simplify the process.
Councilman Archambault AMENDED THE MOTION to pertain strictly to residential and excluding non-
residential development fees and Vice Mayor Schlum SECONDED the amendment.
Mr. McNeil readdressed the Council and said that he was opposed to removing various items solely because
they were in the Strategic Plan. He stated that he was a strong supporter of the Strategic Planning process and
what had come out as a result of that. He spoke in support of continuing with it and updating it on a regular
basis. He discussed problems associated with taking the consultant's expert recommendations for a 20-year CIP
and then pulling items out solely because a 5-year a survey of some of the citizens said that there was a lack of
support for certain spending items, such as the widening of Fountain Hills Boulevard. He cautioned that if they
removed everything from a 20-year spending plan simply because a 5-year Strategic Plan was saying "we don't
want to spend the money right now", he would like to know when they would be able to collect the money. He
urged the Council to set the fees right and not repeat the previous mistake.
Councilman Kavanagh commented on the "shelf life" of the plans, which was whenever the existing Council
ends. He said he was concerned that for some people the "shelf life" of this Strategic Plan would not even live
through the Council that authorized it. He emphasized the only items that the Council requested be removed
from the development fees were the items that were "no go's" with the people. He said that he would like at
least one of the items to be resurrected and he would try to convince the people over the next year or two that it
was a mistake and should be revisited and re -voted. The people had to be convinced first and their will must be
respected.
Councilman Kehe advised that Councilman Kavanagh was mischaracterizing his remarks and emphasized that
he had said on at least three occasions that he respected the results of the Strategic Plan and the survey and had
never said that he knew better. He added that he did say that situations change and what people have said was
not that they did not want Items A, B, C or D, they said at this time they were not willing to pay for those items
but that might change in the future. He clarified that what he was saying and has said was that he worried about
being back in the corner and not amply prepared for that by collecting funds through the development fee
structure.
Councilman Kavanagh stated that they could not legally collect development fees for things that they were not
going to build and until they had a mandate from the people to build it, they could not start collecting. He said
he would work to change minds and urged everyone else to do the same.
Mayor Nichols called the question and asked for a vote to approve the residential development fees.
The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0).
AGENDA ITEM #20 — QUARTERLY UPDATE BY THE TOWN MANAGER ON PROGRESS OF
IMPLEMENTING THE COUNCIL'S GOALS.
Mr. Pickering advised that the Council previously laid out six goals at the last retreat and said that this
represented the second quarter progress report regarding those goals. He referred to slides displayed in the
Chambers and noted that staff was doing quite well. He said that they had been moving forward on the State
Trust land and hoped to have some movement on that and begin some work with the public within the next
month or so. He added that the public information/grant writing program had begun with the hiring of their
Assistant Town Manager and that was true as well for the intergovernmental relations program. He advised that
the Strategic Plan was complete and had been adopted ahead of schedule. He added that staff had been
ZACouncil Packets\2006\R1-19-06\Minutes 01-05-06.doc Page 24 of 26
exploring additional parks with the schools, specifically, but said this should not result in a large impact. He
commented on the business relations and retention goal and advised that staff had been working very closely
with the businesses, offering seminars, and at the next meeting the Council would review the downtown plan
that looked at improvements to that area.
Mr. McNeill readdressed the Council relative to the State Trust land and said he was pleased to see from the
report that more meetings were going on. He suggested that more information be disseminated to the public
regarding this issue and the efforts that were being made to coordinate with the State Land Department. He
expressed concern regarding the fact that the report talked about a possible General Plan Amendment on
associated land use and density issues. He noted that the citizens had spoken and they wanted to see the General
Plan and development ordinances fully enforced. He emphasized that any potential changes should be brought
to the attention of the citizens and up-to-date information should be provided to them as well.
Mr. Pickering clarified that there were no changes to the ordinances that were proposed, only changes to the
land use map because the General Plan said "open space" and that had to change. He said that staff meets
frequently with the State and hopefully within the next month or so they would be able to disseminate a lot of
information on this subject and move forward with it.
AGENDA ITEM #21 - 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 COUNCILMAN KAVANAGH — PLACING THE ITEM OF DISCUSSING
OUTDOOR SALES IN THE DOWNTOWN SHOPPING OVERLAY DISTRICT ON A FUTURE
AGENDA.
Councilman Kavanagh withdrew this agenda item due to time constraints.
AGENDA ITEM #21— SUMMARY OF COUNCIL REQUESTS BY TOWN MANAGER.
Mr. Pickering advised that an additional survey will be conducted for a store and office and staff will compare
fees assessed by the Town's bordering communities.
AGENDA ITEM #12 — ADJOURNMENT
Vice Mayor Schlum MOVED that the Council adjourn and Councilman Archambault SECONDED the
motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The meeting adjourned at 9:54 p.m.
ZACouncil Packets\2006\R1-19-06\Minutes 01-05-06.doc Page 25 of 26
T(
:M
ATTEST AND
PREPARED BY:
7 e Rob' - 0
anvFs nwR'ecording Secretary
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 5th day of January 2006. I further certify that the meeting was
duly called and that a quorum was present. g
DATED this 19'h day of January, 2006.
Jane E. Ro inson, Recording Secretary
ZACouncil Packets\2006\R1-19-06\Minutes 01-05-06.doc
Page 26 of,
Ic