Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008.0909.TCSWSEM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE,SPECIAL,WORK SESSIONS OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 9,2008 EXECUTIVE SESSION CALL TO ORDER—Mayor Schlum called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #1 - VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION: (I) PURSUANT TO §38- 431.03(A)(1), FOR DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION OF EMPLOYMENT, ASSIGNMENT, APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, DEMOTION, DISMISSAL, SALARIES, DISCIPLINING OR RESIGNATION OF A PUBLIC OFFICER, APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE OF ANY PUBLIC BODY~ EXCEPT THAT,WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SALARY DISCUSSIONS,AN OFFICER,APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE 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, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERVIEWING ONE APPLICANT FOR POSSIBLE SERVICE ON THE MUNICIPAL PROPERTY CORPORATION); AND (II) PURSUANT TO §38-431.03(A)(4), FOR DISCUSSION OR CONSULTATIONS 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, PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION OR SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS CONDUCTED IN ORDER TO AVOID OR RESOLVE LITIGATION (SPECIFICALLY, REGARDING INTERVENTION IN AN ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION MATTER, RELATING TO CHAPARRAL CITY WATER COMPANY, INC., DOCKET NUMBER W-02113A-07-0551). ROLL CALL — present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Schlum, Councilmember Contino, Councilmember McMahan, Vice Mayor Leger, Councilmember Hansen, Councilmember Archambault, Councilmember Dickey. Town Manager Rick Davis, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire, and Town Clerk Bev Bender were also present. Assistant to the Town Manager, Kate Zanon entered the meeting at 5:15 p.m. Councilmember Archambault MOVED to convene the Executive Session and Councilmember Contino SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7—0). AGENDA ITEM#2-ADJOURNMENT Mayor Schlum adjourned Executive Session at 5:52 p.m. SPECIAL SESSION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Mayor Schlum called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. ROLL CALL — Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Schlum, Councilmember Dickey, Councilmember Contino, Councilmember Archambault, Vice Mayor Leger, Councilmember McMahan, and Councilmember Hansen. Town Manager Rick Davis, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire,and Town Clerk Bev Bender were also present. z:\council packets\2008\r10-1-08\9-9-08 executive special and work study session minutes.doc Page 1 of 9 AGENDA ITEM # 2 - DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO THE TOWN MANAGERS THE TOWN CLERK, AND THE TOWN ATTORNEY TO PREPARE ALL MATERIALS AND TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW REGARDING SUBMISSION OF MOTION TO INTERVENE IN THE PROPOSED RATE INCREASE OF CHAPARRAL CITY WATER COMPANY,INC.,DOCKET NUMBER W-02113A-07-0551. Town Manger Rick Davis stated he believed the proposal was to gather more information and cooperate with the current intervener in this process, RUCO,before establishing a formal position. Mayor Schlum asked Town Attorney Andrew McGuire to provide information on background, timelines, and options in this matter. Mr. McGuire stated although the rate increase notices were recently mailed to Town residents, the rate increase was filed by Chaparral City Water Company last September. He explained that there were two options. One option was a direct intervention in the case. The Town would hire legal counsel that had expertise in this area and move it forward as if it were a quasi law suit. The Town would present testimonies, evidence and have their own witnesses. He pointed out that the deadline to submit a motion to intervene was September 15, which was an extremely short time frame to have someone on board and that the deadline to submit testimonies and all the exhibits was September 30t. Mr. McGuire discussed the procedural matter that would take place between now and the hearing date of December 8t. Mr. McGuire stated that with the short time frame and the amount of expertise necessary it would be a fairly intensive and somewhat expensive proposition for the Town to fully intervene and become a party in this case. Option two would be to participate much the same way an individual citizen would through the Residential Utility Consumer Office (RUCO). RUCO, as a state agency was charged with representing and intervening on behalf of the individual customer. In this case, in November of last year, RUCO,represented and intervened formally on behalf of all residential users in this service area. Because of RUCO's position and intervention in this case, arguments for the Town and residents would be made. Mr. McGuire recommended that the Town not formally intervene but to supplement RUCO's position. He L." suggested that staff gather more information, review the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) staff report and provide the Town Council with an update between now and the December 8 hearing. The Town Council could then make a decision on what formal action should be taken. Mayor Schlum stated this was a good presentation and pointed out that the Town did not run the Water Company. He commented that although the Town needed a water company that was healthy, rates needed to be kept affordable and sensitive to the Town's residents, some of who may be on a fixed income. Mayor Schlum MOVED to direct the Town Attorney and staff to continue to gather information, to work jointly with RUCO as one of the interveners to ensure the Town and Community's interests were best understood, and options were to be brought back to the Town Council for further discussion. Councilmember Archambault SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7-0). AGENDA ITEM#3- ADJOURNMENT Councilmember McMahan MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 6:10 p.m. and Councilmember Contino SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). WORK STUDY SESSION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Mayor Schlum called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. Loy. ROLL CALL — Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Councilmember Contino, Councilmember Dickey, Mayor Schlum, Councilmember McMahan, Vice Mayor z:\council packets\2008\r10-1-08\9-9-08 executive special and work study session minutes.doc Page 2 of 9 Leger, Councilmember Hansen, and Councilmember Archambault. Town Manager Rick Davis, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire, and Town Clerk Bev Bender were also present. r AGENDA ITEM#1—PRESENTATION OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS' PURCHASING AND BIDDING PROCESS. Finance Director Julie Ghetti reviewed the Town's purchasing and bidding process. Ms. Ghetti referred to the Town Code as the staff's guide to ensure that purchases were legally, ethically, efficiently processed while securing the best price for the benefit of the Fountain Hills' taxpayers. She pointed out that any purchases over twenty- thousand dollars required approval by the Town Council. Ms. Ghetti then reviewed the purchasing procedures detailed in Article 3-3 Sections 5, 10, 13, and 14, which provided for local bidder's preference. Ms. Ghetti advised that Town staff was very sensitive to the local business community and encouraged them to respond for price quotes. She said of those cities and towns polled, most did not have a local bidder preference provision. Ms. Ghetti concluded the presentation by stating that competition benefited tax payers and that she would be happy to answer questions. Councilmember Dickey asked if there were any towns that gave local preferences. Ms. Ghetti responded she had received only four responses and most of them did not use local bidder's preferences. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire stated the issue of local bidding preferences was heavily litigated at the interstate and that he was not comfortable that the Town would be able to enforce a provision for any significant amount. Councilmember Archambault asked if outside vendors were required to pay the Town's sales tax. Ms. Ghetti responded that would depend if the vendor provided a service or if goods were purchased. Vendors would be required to pay sales tax for any type of contracting or service work. Le Mayor Schlum asked Ms. Ghetti to explain the businesses licenses process. Ms. Ghetti replied all businesses prior to starting any work were required to obtain a Fountain Hills business license. She noted that confirmation of a valid Fountain Hills business license takes place before any purchase order was issued. Mayor Schlum stated the Town would like to see more local businesses successful when bidding for a Town contract and asked how local businesses were made aware of biding opportunities. Ms. Ghetti responded that if a service was over$2,000,bid solicitations were posted in the local papers and local businesses were notified of the bid opportunity. Ms. Ghetti also stated that many times staff hears frustration from local businesses because they were not able to beat the bid because of higher operating cost and then the local businesses discontinue submitting bids. However, staff continually notified local businesses of bid opportunities. Councilmember McMahan commented that he had heard that staff contacted local businesses and provided them with the opportunity to bid. Mayor Schlum asked if it was possible to take a lower bid after the state contract bid was approved. Ms. Ghetti responded yes, there had been times when the state contract was not the best price as well as occasions when local prices were better than the state contract. Vice Mayor Leger asked how vendors were included in the bidding process. Ms. Ghetti replied the current process was informal. Vendors contact staff and ask to be included on the vendor bidders list. The contact information was then added into a data base with the vendor's information contact information forwarded on to the appropriate department and maintained on a call back list. She explained that this list was referenced when particular projects came up and then the vendors were contacted. She commented that the new software would allow local and non-local vendors to e mail staff and ask to be included on a formal list. Andrew McGuire reviewed the job order contract process (JOC). He noted that this was a new process that the Lov, Council would be considering in the near future. He explained that under state statute regulation the JOC process provided for the ability to approve the maximum amount for that project with subsequent affiliated z:\council packets\2008\r10-1-08\9-9-08 executive special and work study session minutes.doc Page 3 of 9 project agreements issued for specific projects along the way. Mr. McGuire questioned if the Council preferred to use the city or town manager's signing authority ($20,000 limit) or if the contract were $20,000 or more, the contract would be required to go to Council for approval. He stated that the intent was to draft it so the process would line up with the manager's signing authority. Mr.McGuire requested feedback from the Council. In response to Mayor Schlum's request for examples, Mr. McGuire gave an example of what a job order contract could look like. Mr. McGuire asked if the Town Council wanted to continue using the manager's signing authority amounts with Council review and approval of contracts over $20.000 or did they want to see review and approve all contracts, knowing that could be a large number of contracts in a year. Mayor Schlum asked what the benefits were of the job order contract process and did it limit the number of bidders that could be on the subsequent actual contracts. Mr. McGuire responded it eliminated bidding on individual contracts and allowed the Town to have a list of approved contractors who met specific criteria and qualifications providing the opportunity for the best contractor to be chosen. He pointed out that a JOC could last one year with four one year renewals, five years was the total; it had a non-appropriation prevision in the contract; and it provided an out in any year of the contract. Mr. McGuire stated that the Council would see the first JOC next month. It was his intent at this meeting to get Council input, which would be used for preparation of presenting the document to Council in the future. Mayor Schlum commented he would be comfortable keeping it at the limit of the normal procurement process. Councilmember Dickey asked if there was a reason to make a change. Mr. McGuire responded there were two reasons. One reason was due to the great price variability in materials used by contractors in some of our ongoing contracts. The second reason was that staff had a process for annual contracts, for example paving contracts that were better suited for a JOC then the way we currently did it. This process would allow staff to drill down on each specific project. He noted that the current process was not favorable to the Town. He indicated that the goal was to create the strongest contract possible for the Town's protection while recognizing that going forward the price of asphalt might change from day 1 of the contract to day 300 of the contract dramatically such that under our annual contract staff would have to come back and get a contract amendment due to escalating material prices. Whereas under the JOC process each project agreement would come back as that project came forward so the price would be fixed to that particular project at that time, rather than putting the contractor in a position to guess over the course of the year and staff would then come back to the Council to amend that contract at the end of the year. He explained that this JOC process provided flexibility and allowed a qualification based selection, which benefited the Town in terms of which types of contractors wanted to bid. Councilmember Hansen questioned if the Request for Proposal (RFP) controlled the specifics of what materials were to be used for. Mr. McGuire responded that a general set of specifications were required and the material requirements were generally sent out in the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) specifications that were followed. While specifications did not change much, costs of the materials did. Contractors were coming back last year in particular stating they could not live with the contract if held to the contract price. He stated that under the JOC you would never get to that point until the cap was reached for the year as each contract would be based upon the prices that were available at that time. He pointed out that oil, asphalt and steel prices had been all over the board the last two years and had caused Town contracts to get really expensive. He stated the opinion that this would allow the contractors to reasonably propose a project agreement for a specific project according to the prices known at the time; the JOC would not increase the contract base price more than ten percent; the ten percent would apply only to a renewal contract; and if it was decided not to renew, then another JOC would be solicited. Councilmember Hansen asked if companies could be added throughout the year. Mr. McGuire responded it would depend upon the process. If the proposals did not come back from the awarded vendors on the JOC list, staff could reopen the Request for Qualifications (RFP)process to do another qualification based selection. Vice Mayor Leger asked if there were other licenses required when bringing businesses in for other services. Ms. Ghetti responded the Town might require certification or proof of insurance. She stated that there were z:\council packets\2008\r10-1-08\9-9-08 executive special and work study session minutes.doc Page 4 of 9 other opportunities where licenses were required. Mr. McGuire stated that all businesses doing businesses with the Town were required to be licensed with the State of Arizona. Vice Mayor Leger stated the opinion that it appeared that preference was given to local bidders as Article 3.3, Section 14 indicated. He expressed the need to be diligent in developing formal processes and for having a tickler file to involve people proactively, particularly local people, in the process. He commented that it was more of a process vs. a procedural issue. Mayor Schlum asked if there were any areas within Town Code, relating to these items that could be improved upon. Ms. Ghetti replied no. Mayor Schlum stated it was encouraging to hear staff talk about reaching out to the local businesses, he had not been aware that so much effort was done and it was appreciated. He asked if the JOC was a part of the Town Code or was that an administrative process. Mr. McGuire responded it really did not live anywhere in most city codes; it was a function of Title 34 and governed by state statutes as to design and issue; it was generically called an alternative contract delivery and was the most popular way to do big projects. He added that he did not anticipate adding it to the Town's process and that it was a qualification based selection process that met all professional groups requirements concerned about qualification based selections. Mayor Schlum acknowledged that a JOC would be coming forward and he requested that all the benefits of this process be provided at that time. He commented that he could see some administrative benefits, such as greater flexibility and quality controls, but noted there was some sensitivity due to locking in details that they might not have all the choices. He stated that he could envision having a job order contract for a sidewalk with only half the project completed because the money allocated was exhausted. Mr. McGuire reiterated that the biggest benefit was having the ability, through the staff, to break the projects up, as the budget allowed, and as the Council directed and approved throughout the course of the year. He added that there might be a project that was not high on the capital list but if the priority changed as the year progressed, it provided staff and the Council the flexibility to move things around as necessary, taking large projects in smaller bites so the outcome was not half finished projects. Mr. McMahan expressed that he liked the way Section 14 was written now for Fountain Hills, in view of the economic condition, though he did not know if it ought to be permanent. He said giving businesses a break this next year was an excellent idea. In response to a question from Vice Mayor Leger, Ms. Ghetti confirmed that Section 14 already existed in the Town Code. Mayor Schlum commented on those items over $20,000 would be brought forward to the Town Council provided for community awareness and stated his preference not to change that level at this point. Mr. McGuire asked for clarification whether the Council's preference was to treat JOC differently than the current contracting methodology, whereby less than $20,000 was at the Town Manager's signature level with projects $20,000 and above coming back to the Council for approval. He commented that if the direction was to stay the course, he wanted the Council to be aware that the same threshold would be used, although this was a different contracting method. Discussion ensued with regard to if the JOC approval would occur at the budget sessions or when expenditures were brought forward for review; the fact that it could occur as a line item in the budget and after the budget was approved the staff would perform the RFQ process to create the qualified list of people who would be entered in the JOC, with that JOC coming back for Council approval as a global cap not to exceed amount with project agreements with individual projects provided under it; and the fact that currently projects $20,000 and above came to the Council for approval. cay Mr. McGuire explained there would be a fair number of project agreements in the smaller range that would not come before the Council, in the $10,000- $15,000 range, that were done on a regular basis and that the JOC z:\council packets\2008\r10-1-08\9-9-08 executive special and work study session minutes.doc Page 5 of 9 process could cover many different topics depending on what area they fit into. In response to a question from Councilmember Archambault, Mr. McGuire stated that the qualification process gave more variety as who you could have as a qualified bidder. Our earlier discussions were germane to that particular component here. It Nibe gave the Town the opportunity to set the qualifications rather than to have the lowest bid always win. In terms of the quality of product, generally it was a higher level of product because the competition to be on the list was fairly high and people wanted to give the best match for the qualifications requirement rather than trying to trim their bids to get to the lowest number. Councilmember Archambault questioned if there was a risk of the larger providers or general contractors taking a project or a JOC breaking it down in so many small parts that people had the opportunity to pick and chose, thereby taking the cream of the crop and leaving the rest. Mr.McGuire replied this process had been in existence for about 5 years, 6 years; it was a fairly new creation of the state statutes. The concept was to allow bigger contractors to participate in the smaller jobs if they wanted to. He expressed that many municipalities were not large enough to draw the attention of some of the quality contractors. The flip side was some of the more boutique contractors were not able to compete against others. So in order to draw the broadest range of people who might be qualified, the alternative procurement methods came in to being. The ones used the most often were the design build, which was very popular at first but had given away to the construction manager at risk contracts, which has been the process used for Desert Vista Park. Job Order Contracts came on board about the same time and had become more popular now that people were more comfortable with the process. It was not likely that a freeway contractor would come in to do street maintenance. It would put the Town on the radar with more people possibly able to do the work. Councilmember Archambault asked if this process was a little more acceptable or accessible to the local contractors. Mr. McGuire responded that if the price alone was the problem regarding the lack of participation by local or non local contractors, it opened the door to some of those folks to potentially would be available to do certain a job. If it was just qualifications that the local bidder could not meet, it was not going to help that Loy. person. He pointed out that if we have qualified people within or without the community that met all the criteria on the list,they could be selected for a JOC just the same as a larger contractor. Mayor Schlum thanked everyone for their comments and commented there was time for the Council to partner with staff in order to be prepared to see the first JOC in the near future.. He acknowledged that it was a complex subject. Mr. McGuire thanked the Council for their input. Councilmember Hansen requested that since this would be the first time for a JOC to come before Council she would like to see it accompanied by a pro and con list that pointed out what the benefits were. AGENDA #2 - PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROPOSED TOWN CODE REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 7,BUILDING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS. Mr. Davis stated there were several fees embedded in our Town Code,particularly in Chapter 7, which pertained to building fees. The proposal presented by the Town's Chief Building Official Peter Johnson was a discussion regarding revisions that would pull those out. He commented that eventually the fee schedule would be discussed and adopted during the budget process. Peter Johnson, Chief Building Official, stated that during the process of cleaning up the Town Code, Chapter 7, which covered building regulations and fees, he had wanted to simplify the building safety department's fee structure. Mr. Johnson stated the documents still used for operation were the 1994 Building Valuation Tables and 1997 Uniform Administration Code. Mr. Johnson explained how fees were currently calculated and the proposed simplified fee calculation. He noted that in the new calculation all one would have to know was the square foot. It did not matter what type of building it was, that fee would be a flat fee, a set flat rate, whereas in Liv the past, the type of building would determine the cost. He stated that the proposed new flat rate was higher; however the format had not been changed for over 12-15 years. z:\council packets\2008\r10-1-08\9-9-08 executive special and work study session minutes.doc Page 6 of 9 Councilmember Archambault asked if this included livable square foot or everything under roof to which Mr. Johnson replied that the example was livable square foot; however a garage would be included in the fee structure but have its own separate value per square foot. He stated that copies of the new tables were available. The goal was to simplify the process, make it user friendly especially regarding solar and pool building, provide a method for less errors by staff, and to provide for better information being given out to the customer. Mr. Johnson discussed the fact that the redundancy and the changes that had occurred over the years regarding the lighting ordinance and the fire prevention basically were a repeat of what was covered elsewhere or superseded in the new codes and therefore, were not needed in this chapter. Mr. McGuire stated that this was an ongoing effort to remove fees from the Town Code and he referenced moving towards a Town-wide fee schedule, which would adopted by the Council through a resolution. He further explained that should a midyear need arise, a fee could be adopted by resolution. He commented that there should be a fee schedule in the next year's budget. Councilmember Dickey asked what the average amount of time spent on solar was. Mr. Johnson replied it was all based on the type of project. He acknowledged that staff did not do too many, that it was of interest to the community and that staff was working on an over the counter solar checklist, which could be turned around in one day. Councilmember Dickey noted that a bill had almost passed last year and asked what the fee cap might be. Mr. Johnson stated the proposed fee was $140.00 per hour unless there was a re-inspection fee, which was $150.00. He commented that cities, such as Scottsdale, which were very proactive with green building,used the miscellaneous fee to cover solar permits, which was part of the new proposal. Mayor Schlum asked if one fee structure covered all types of construction. Mr. Johnson replied that the proposal would not matter if it was a residential, commercial, educational building; one flat rate would be used. However, there would be different rate levels such as finished, unfinished, tenant improvement, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical. The building code recently republished the tables used at the request of building departments because they were unable to calculate fees. He explained the new calculation method and stated that it would provide for a zero budget. Mayor Schlum commented he had heard from residents who have projects under way that they had been surprised by fees that came up. He expressed that he was in favor of making it simpler but did not want to penalize those because we needed to raise fees to cover residential cost. Mr. Johnson stated the fees were all the same and noted that that Scottsdale had recently raised their fees and now used these rates. Councilmember Archambault asked if the fees covered impact fees. Mr. Johnson responded no, impact fees were given out at the beginning of the process, which included the landscaping and the saguaro. Councilmember Hansen commented that people might pause when they see the fee increase by$3,000. Mayor Schlum thanked Mr.Johnson for his presentation. AGENDA ITEM # 3 PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS' 20-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. Mr. Davis stated the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) was one of the most important planning documents for the Town.He stated that the Finance Director,Julie Ghetti, was going to give an overview of the plan. He asked that the Council look at it holistically in preparation for the budget season so they had an understanding of how it was put together. co., Ms. Ghetti reviewed the CIP and the Infrastructure Improvement Plan (BP) reiterating that it was a planning process that identified capital investments the Town intended to make over time, which served as the basis for z:\council packets\2008\r10-1-08\9-9-08 executive special and work study session minutes.doc Page 7 of 9 the semiannual development fee review process, which would come before the Council in November or December. Ms. Ghetti reviewed the CIP/IIP details explaining why and how CIP/IIP`s were created. She stated Li, that the proposed projects extended over a 20 year period and the proposed projects totaled $197 million. Councilmember Archambault stated the opinion that due to the dollar amount of projects the Council would be pushing some things around and it would be up to the Council to choose those capital projects that would be completed,especially where the projects dealt with quality of life issues. Councilmember Hansen stated she would have some difficultly approving some of these items tonight. Mayor Schlum replied the Council was reviewing and not approving items this evening. Councilmember Hansen commented that approving the CIP was coming forward October 15t. Mayor Schlum acknowledged that the Council would have the opportunity to consider each project and drill down. Mr. Davis asked the Council to consider the CIP as one more tool in our arsenal as staff worked with the Council to determine what the budget was for the next year. He pointed out that this was not an appropriation or declaration that these projects would be done in the coming year. The CIP was to provide a basis to begin working on a budget proposal that would need the Council's scrutiny and approval as we moved forward. He reiterated that this was a starting point. Councilmember Archambault commented that the CIP was the basis for determining what the development fees were. He expressed concern for taking projects out that would generate fees to help pay for infrastructure. Mayor Schlum asked if the development fees needed to be applied or spent in a certain amount of time. Mr. McGuire responded that the only restriction on the timing in the development fee ordinance had been removed. State Statute did not provide a set time of when fees needed to be expended. It had been found that in Fountain Hills that some projects simply could not be done within certain time periods. He commented that in a real world application, particularly in the down economy, projects stall for a while. Mayor Schlum stated that growth needed to pay for growth and that there were projects on the list that might not happen. Councilmember (by McMahan commented that some of the items listed would be Ellman's responsibility. Mayor Schlum asked if additional information would be provided to the Council prior to their October review of the CIP. Ms. Ghetti responded that before a consultant could move forward with a development fee review they needed to have an IIP approved by the Council as this would be the basis for creating the fees. She reiterated that this was a planning document not a commitment for projects. Mayor Schlum noted that items that were bonded would come off the list. Mr. Davis reminded the Council as they went through the process to keep in mind that to eliminate projects would have a direct effect on the fee that was calculated. He stated that the intent of the fee was to collect funding to allow the Town to provide the same level of service for future residents as enjoyed by current residents. Since the future was so unpredictable available funds needed to be confirmed. He pointed out that once projects were eliminated they could not come back and provide the latitude for future fees. Councilmember Archambault asked if impact fees were reviewed annually. Ms. Ghetti responded the ordinance states the fees should be reviewed no less then every 5 years and the Council had requested that the fees be reviewed every 2 years. In response to a question by Councilmember Archambault, Ms. Ghetti confirmed that the CIP was updated annually. Mr. McGuire stated that the CIP could be amended every year. However, if the categories changed dramatically,the fee study would have to be changed and there was an associated cost. In response to Councilmember Archambault, Mr. McGuire stated the fee studies purpose was to determine the cost of the current level of service to ensure the current level of service was maintained for future residents and that new infrastructure was not a burden to current residents. He commented that although the new Le infrastructure might benefit current residents, development fees needed to be adjusted accordingly. He said that z:\council packets\2008\r10-1-08\9-9-08 executive special and work study session minutes.doc Page 8 of 9 companies like Red Oak provided detailed studies of every part of infrastructure in order to justify allocation costs. (1160, AGENDA ITEM#4—ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Contino MOVED to adjourn and Councilmember McMahan SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7-0). The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS By y T. Sc lum,Mayor ATTEST AND PREPARED BY: Bevelyn J. nde own Clerk CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Executive, Special and Work Study Sessions held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills in Town Hall on the 9th day of September 2008. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. cp, DATED this 1st day of October 2008. Bevelyn J. de own Clerk L z:\council packets\2008\r10-1-08\9-9-08 executive special and work study session minutes.doc Page 9 of 9