Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012.0802.TCRM.Minutesz:\council packets\2012\r8-16-12\120802m.docx Page 1 of 19 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL AUGUST 2, 2012 * CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Kavanagh called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. in the Town Hall Council Chambers. * INVOCATION – Mayor Kavanagh stated that the Pastor who was scheduled to give the invocation could not make the meeting and asked everyone to observe a moment of silence. * ROLL CALL Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Kavanagh, Councilmember Yates, Councilmember Leger, Councilmember Hansen, Councilmember Brown, Councilmember Elkie, and Councilmember Dickey. Town Manager Ken Buchanan, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire and Town Clerk Bev Bender were also present. * MAYOR'S REPORT i) Recognition of Barry Spiker for his service to the Town of Fountain Hills as Commissioner on the Strategic Planning Advisory Commission. Mayor Kavanagh advised that prior travel arrangements had prevented Mr. Spiker from attending the meeting this evening but he did send an e-mail saying that he thoroughly enjoyed serving with each member of the Commission and asked the Mayor to convey to them and the members of the Council his sincere appre ciation for the opportunity to serve our wonderful community. The Mayor stated that Mr. Spiker has served on the Strategic Planning Advisory Commission (SPAC) for two years and has been passionate about the Town's sustainability both operationally and environmentally. He encouraged investigation into environmental and sustainable development concepts, especially with the Town's last developable property, the State Trust Land. Mayor Kavanagh said that on behalf of the Town Council and citizens in the community, she would like to thank Mr. Spiker for his dedicated services on SPAC. ii.) Recognition of recently elected Town Councilmember Cecil A. Yates for his contributions to the Town of Fountain Hills while serving on the Planning and Zoning Commissioner as a Commissioner and Vice Chair. Mayor Kavanagh stated that recently elected Councilmember Cecil Yates had served as a Planning Commission member from June 21, 2007 to June 7, 2012 and was a very active member who served as Vice Chairman from October 2010 until his resignation due to his appointment on the Town Council. He contributed time and dedication to issues brought before the Commission that required skillful decision making. He saw hundreds of projects and ordinances over the years, including several construction and development projects thro ughout the Town as well as zoning of the Town Center. She noted that the Town Center Commercial District has opened the door to various businesses and projects for the downtown. She highlighted a number of his accomplishments/committees he served on and noted that he has said that it was truly an honor to serve and a great experience. The Mayor said that on behalf of the Town Council and citizens she would ask everyone to help her in recognizing Councilmember Yates for his dedication and service on the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Mayor presented Councilmember Yates with a Certificate of Appreciation. iii.) The Mayor will read a proclamation declaring August 2012 Drowning Impact Awareness Month. z:\council packets\2012\r8-16-12\120802m.docx Page 2 of 19 Mayor Kavanagh stated that Drowning Impact Awareness Month will raise awareness that the number and impact of child drownings in Arizona affects everyone. She said that child drowning can happen to any family regardless of education, race or socio-economic background. Families can take simple steps to protect their children around water to avoid the tragedy of the unnecessary loss of life. Water safety remains a priority for Arizona families, communities and government. Keeping children healthy and safe is the goal of hospitals, fire departments, and other prevention institutions in Arizona. She added that raising awareness will increase understanding and education of effective ways to prevent drownings and proclaimed the month of August 2012 as Drowning Impact Awareness Month in the Town of Fountain Hills. iv.) The Mayor will read a proclamation declaring 2012 through 2015 as the bicentennial years of the war of 1812 in the Town of Fountain Hills. Mayor Kavanagh stated that the War of 1812 tested the mettle of Americans on both land and sea and it is fi tting and proper that they recognize the sacrifices of those who fought in the War of 1812 to preserve the blessing of liberty for future generations of Americans. She added that we remember these brave patriots every time we sing our national anthem, the Star Spangled Banner, and recall the valor of those who bravely defended Fort McHenry. She said that it is our hope that the proud spangled banner which waved over Fort McHenry shall never be forgotten and that it may ever wave over this land of the fre e and home of the brave. The Mayor proclaimed the years 2012 through 2015 as the Bicentennial Years of the War of 1812 in the Town of Fountain Hills. v.) The Mayor will review information provided by Salt River Project (SRP) regarding SRP's planned informational open houses and public comments sessions concerning their proposed 4.8% increase that would take effect with November bills. Mayor Kavanagh advised that information regarding Salt River Project's proposed 4.8% rate increase, effective in November, is available on the Town's website and in the Council's on-line packets. She stated that SRP is going to be holding public hearings about the proposed increase (an Open House in Scottsdale on August 9th from 5:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., a public comment session on Tuesday, August 14th from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the PERA Club in Tempe) and there will also be board meetings and information on-line where citizens will have an opportunity make e-mail comments. She encouraged the residents to take advantage of their opportunities to provide input on this issue. vi.) The Mayor will review recent events attended related to economic development and/or tourism. Mayor Kavanagh said that she has done several speaking engagements in Town and attended many events; she wanted to provide an update on what she has been doing to represent the citizens outside of Town. She stated that she feels it is very important to have representation at as many events as possible where other Mayors are present to talk about their great community and to make contacts and to make sure that Fountain Hills is not left out when it comes to advantages in economic development and tourism. She highlighted a number of the events she has attended on behalf of the Town and provided brief information on each of them. The events included: a VFW convention held at the Radisson-Fort McDowell; the Arizona Chamber of Commerce Annual Awards Luncheon in Phoenix; the Sun Corridor in the 21st Century conference; attended the opening of a solar business in Phoenix; the Maricopa Association of Governments meeting; the Desert Peaks Awards Ceremony; the 12th annual traditional Pakistani Lunch in Phoenix where she thanked the host for being part of a group that voted to move their annual Kite Flying Festival from Tempe to Fountain Park (will take place in March). The Mayor thanked Gary Lvov with the Holiday Inn for their assistance in promoting the Town and helping to persuade them to hold their events here. She further stated that this morning she attended a Rural-Metro press conference at their corporate headquarters in Scottsdale and reported that the Town's entire EMS workforce serves the Town extremely well thanks to these dedicated, highly-trained individuals. She added that her first Mayor's Mobile Town Hall took place on July 4th thanks to the hard work of Councilmember Elkie. The Mayor advised that no z:\council packets\2012\r8-16-12\120802m.docx Page 3 of 19 taxpayer dollars were used for her attendance at any of the events (all costs were paid for by the hosts) and any added expenses were paid by her. * SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS None. * CALL TO THE PUBLIC Town Clerk Bev Bender advised that two citizens wished to speak under this agenda item. Linda Bordow addressed the Council and provided an update on the public survey that she has been doin g some research on. She stated that following the last meeting where this was discussed, Deputy Town Manager/Finance Director Julie Ghetti brought to her attention the fact that the survey she had previously forwarded to her was a 2007 survey and an incorrect one. She said that Ms. Ghetti then forwarded to her the correct survey that was done by the same company in 2005 (about 111 pages long) at a cost of $25,000 and that is what has been budgeted for the survey again. She added that she forwarded the survey that Ms. Ghetti provided her to two companies that conduct this type of work and so far she has received a pretty firm price quote to conduct the survey between $15,000 to $17,000. The purveyors reviewed the previous survey and found redundancies and felt that they could streamline it and still provide the same quality information at a lesser cost. She said she looks forward to the time when they can actually bid on this and noted that both purveyors that she has spoken with are anxious to submit a bid for this survey. Mayor Kavanagh thanked Ms. Bordow for putting so much time into this. Richard Davidson addressed the Council and expressed his opposition to holding gun shows/sales at the Town's Community Center. He said that he has written letters to the Council about this and only received one response from Mayor Kavanagh. He noted that data/statistics show that a lot of illegal activity occurs at gun shows and it is difficult to control. He noted that there are restrictions from the State on the kinds of ordinances that they can pass here as a sub-political group. He added that there are steps that the Town could take to ensure that the current laws are strictly enforced when the events occur in Fountain Hills , including making sure that added security measures are put into place. He requested that the Council take some kind of action and offered his assistance in any way possible. Councilmember Dickey and Vice Mayor Leger stated that they had responded to Mr. Davidson's letter. The Vice Mayor thanked Mr. Davidson for expressing his concerns. * CONSENT AGENDA AGENDA ITEM #1 – CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FROM JUNE 7, 12 AND 21, 2012. AGENDA ITEM #2 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2012-22, ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED AT THE REAR PROPERTY LINE OF PLAT 603A, BLOCK 5, LOT 4 (15470 E. SYCAMORE DRIVE) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 196 OF MAPS, PAGE 28, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. EA 2012-06 (LOS MOCHOS, FH, LLC.) z:\council packets\2012\r8-16-12\120802m.docx Page 4 of 19 AGENDA ITEM#3 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY JEAN LINZER REPRESENTING THE FOUNTAIN HILLS AND LOWER VERDE VALLEY MUSEUM AND HISTORICAL SOCIETY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF A FUNDRAISER TO BE HELD AT 13001 N. LA MONTANA DRIVE, ON SATURDAY, AUGUST 25, 2012, FROM 5:00 PM TO 8:00 PM. AGENDA ITEM #6 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY JEAN LINZER REPRESENTING THE FOUNTAIN HILLS AND LOWER VERDE VALLEY MUSEUM AND HISTORICAL SOCIETY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF A FUNDRAISER TO BE HELD AT 13001 N. LA MONTANA DRIVE, ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2012, FROM 5:00 PM TO 8:00 PM. AGENDA ITEM #7 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY JEAN LINZER REPRESENTING THE FOUNTAIN HILLS AND LOWER VERDE VALLEY MUSEUM AND HISTORICAL SOCIETY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF A FUNDRAISER TO BE HELD AT 13001 N. LA MONTANA DRIVE, ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012, FROM 5:00 PM TO 8:00 PM. AGENDA ITEM #8 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY JEAN LINZER REPRESENTING THE FOUNTAIN HILLS AND LOWER VERDE VALLEY MUSEUM AND HISTORICAL SOCIETY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF A FUNDRAISER TO BE HELD AT 13001 N. LA MONTANA DRIVE, ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2012, FROM 5:00 PM TO 8:00 PM. AGENDA ITEM #9 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE "RELEASE AND ASSIGNMENT" FOR THE CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE BOND FOR THE BALERA AT FIREROCK CONDOMINIUMS SUBDIVISION (ORIGINALLY FIREROCK PARCEL C), INTHE AMOUNT OF $35,607.20, AND AUTHORIZING ITS SIGNATURE BY THE TOWN MANAGER. AGENDA ITEM #10 - CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO SIGN THE SALT RIVER PROJECT MUNICIPAL AESTHETIC PROGRAM FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS SUBSTATION PERIMETER WALL AND GATE. AGENDA ITEM #11 - CONSIDERATION OF A FINAL REPLAY FOR LOT JOIN AT 10444 N. NICKLAUS DRIVE, AKA PLAT 401-B, LOTS 14 AND 15. (APNS: 176-10-129 AND 176-10-130) AGENDA ITEM #12 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING PAYMENT OF $1,836 TO MARICOPA COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS FOR DUES AND ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013. Councilmember Yates MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda as listed and Councilmember Dickey SECONDED the motion. There were no citizens wishing to speak on any of these items. z:\council packets\2012\r8-16-12\120802m.docx Page 5 of 19 A roll call vote was taken with the following results: Councilmember Dickey Aye Councilmember Elkie Aye Vice Mayor Leger Aye Councilmember Hansen Aye Councilmember Yates Aye Councilmember Brown Aye Mayor Kavanagh Aye The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). REGULAR AGENDA AGENDA ITEM #13 - CONSIDERATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN RURAL/METRO CORPORATION AND THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,000, FOR THE COST OF THE C.A.R.E. PROGRAM PART-TIME STAFFING. Town Manager Ken Buchanan addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and stated that the Crisis Activated Response Effort (CARES) has been a volunteer organization that has worked under the umbrella of the Fire Department through dispatching and leadership the past five years. He explained that this is an amendment to the Rural/Metro contract that adds $24,000 in that was budgeted in Fiscal Year 2012-13 (adds the CARES program into the contract). He said that staff recommends approval. Councilmember Yates MOVED to approve the Amendment to the Fire Protection Service Agreement between Rural/Metro and the Town of Fountain Hills in the amount of $24,000, for the cost of the CARES program part- time staffing and Councilmember Brown SECONDED the motion. There were no citizens wishing to speak on this agenda item. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). AGENDA ITEM #14 - CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO SEEK PROPOSALS FOR ONE (1) PUMPER TRUCK REPLACING ENGINE 822, PURSUANT TO THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT POLICY IN THE AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY $450,000, WITH FUNDING FROM THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND. Mr. Buchanan addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and explained that Engine 822 is a 15-year old pumper truck with 115,000 miles on it. He said that it is due for front -line replacement per the vehicle replacement policy. He added that it is then scheduled to go into reserve status (currently the Town has no reserve pumper, which is an Insurance Office Organization (ISO) Standard. He noted that the bid and contract selection/award, along with the build time, takes a minimum of one year to complete and delivery would take place in August/September 2013, which spans two fiscal budget years, with payment in FY 2013-14. He advised that Chief La Greca is present to respond to any questions and added that staff recommends approval. Councilmember Dickey MOVED to approve authorization to bid for one (1) pumper truck to replace Engine 822, with an August 2013 delivery and Councilmember Yates SECONDED the motion. There were no citizens wishing to speak on this agenda item. z:\council packets\2012\r8-16-12\120802m.docx Page 6 of 19 In response to a request from Councilmember Elkie, Chief La Greca explained exactly what a pumper truck does (a multi-use truck). He stressed the importance of replacing this critical piece of equipment, particularly in view of increasing calls for service and the need to keep response times down. He advised that most Fire Departments base their equipment replacement on a ten to twelve-year schedule but based on the high level maintenance the Town's equipment receives they can easily get 15 years front line operation and another five -year reserve use out of it. He stressed the importance of purchasing the right kind of equipment for the Town because they are geographically challenged. He said they will have to take their time in putting the bid document together and including everything that the Town wants, which will probably encompass 60 pages. Councilmember Elkie stated that he appreciates the Fire Department 's efforts to keep the equipment in excellent working order for as long as safely possible. Discussion ensued relative to anticipated improvements in services and response times as a result of purchasing the new truck and having a reserve truck in place; the fact that they did have the old 822 pumper truck for a little while but that is the only time the Town had a reserve truck; the lack of a reserve truck did slightly impact ISO ratings (they lost points); Mayor Kavanagh's comment that in the end this proposal will save the Town money and they will have a backup to enhance safety; the fact that realistically six companies manufacture fire trucks and the Chief's desire to obtain bids from all six manufacturers (they will encourage anyone who can build the type of equipment the Town specifies to submit a bid); the fact that the value of the old truck is probably around a couple of thousand dollars; and Vice Mayor Leger's comment that he appreciates the fact that the Department is pro - active. Vice Mayor Leger stated that when they look at the cost of replacing the truck it certainly has a pretty high price tag. He asked staff to provide information on the value of the dedicated fund for the Vehicle Replacement Program. Deputy Town Manager/Finance Director Julie Ghetti advised that the Vehicle Replacement Fund (separate from the General Fund) is financed through the depreciation of every piece of equipment/vehicle the Town has. She said that every year they take money from the General Fund and set it aside in the Vehicle Replacement Fund for the purpose of replacing vehicles should the need arise. She reported that currently there is approximately $689,000 to $700,000 in that fund. She stated that the cost of replenishing that fund on an annual basis is approximately $150,000 per year. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). AGENDA ITEM #15 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2012-13, LEVYING UPON THE ASSESSED VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, SUBJECT TO TAXATION, A CERTAIN SUM UPON EACH O NE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00) OF VALUATION SUFFICIENT TO RAISE THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE REQUIRED IN THE ANNUAL BUDGET TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR BOND REDEMPTIONS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING INTEREST UPON BONDED INDEBTEDNESS; ALL FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2013. Ms. Ghetti addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and stated that over the last several years, Town voters have approved bonds for specific projects (a road project, the Library/Museum and the Mountain bond). She noted that the debt service payment on those bonds is paid through the ad valorem property tax and each year property owners are assessed an amount of money necessary to make the debt services payment. She reported that the debt services payment this year is a little over $1 million and for each property owner that equates to approximately twenty six cents per $100 of assessed valuation. She added that last year it was twenty three cents z:\council packets\2012\r8-16-12\120802m.docx Page 7 of 19 and for the next two years it will be $1 million in debt service but the following five years it will be about half of that or around $400,000. Vice Mayor Leger MOVED to approve Resolution 2012-13 levying $1,002,913 upon the assessed valuation of the property within the Town of Fountain Hills for the purpose of paying FY 12 -13 principal and interest on bonds and Councilmember Brown SECONDED the motion. There were no citizens wishing to speak on this agenda item. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). AGENDA ITEM #16 - CONSIDERATION WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO AUTHORIZE AN UNBUDGETED EXPENDITURE IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,017.21, TO THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES (ADWR) FOR THE MUNICIPALITY FEE FOR FY 2011/12 AS ESTABLISHED BY ARIZONA LEGISLATURE UNDER A.R.S. §45-118, WHICH WAS TABLED AT THE JUNE 21, 2012 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING. Mr. Buchanan addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and noted that the Council had received a copy of the correspondence that was sent to the Town by the League of Arizona Cities & Towns. He noted that the letter contains a number of points relative to why the Town should pay the fee. He said that his concern is that the Town has 60 days to encumber any of the budgeted items starting from July 1 to the end of August for consideration to pay this. He added that otherwise new Session law could occur in January that could either force the Town to pay the fee or have their State Revenue Sharing amount reduced by that amount. He noted that they would still have to find that money because they were counting on that the current fiscal year. He advised that staff recommends that the Council approve paying the $28,017.21 and added that they are one of three municipalities that have not paid the fee. He indicated his willingness to respond to questions from the Council. Mayor Kavanagh advised that there were approximately 27 municipalities that were in the same situation as Fountain Hills and, as Mr. Buchanan stated, only three including Fountain Hills, have not paid. She read a couple of lines from the letter received from the League (copy available on -line and in the office of the Town Clerk) urging the Town remit payment. She said that she had asked for this to be placed on the agenda and she would like to see the bill paid. Councilmember Hansen stated that she did not appreciate the tone of the letter and said that it felt more like a reprimand and included shades of intimidating comments about what the Legislature might do to the Town should they not pay the fee. She added that it is unfortunate that it has come to this and pointed out that they recognize that there are municipalities that do not provide water service. She said that there is nothing they can really do about it at this point but she finds it very frustrating. Councilmember Dickey commented that the Council may vote to pay this tonight and that is perfectly understandable, if that is what her colleagues want to do, but it is important to know why and how they got here as evidenced with public information, articles, legislative websites, hearing minutes, and such. She explained the Legislative process that occurs noting that it is sometimes hard to follow. Legislators introduce bills with any subject and they can have one or more sponsors; it goes on to a relevant committee in the Senate and if passed through whole committee, it then the goes to the House where the whole process begins again in their relevant committee, and then it goes to the floor. She noted that obviously amendments could be offered throughout the process and if no amendment is offered, then if the House passes it exactly as the Senate and then it’s fine. If there are amendments, then it must go back to the Senate and the Senate decides if they like the amendments. She z:\council packets\2012\r8-16-12\120802m.docx Page 8 of 19 explained the strike everything amendment as it strikes all of the language in a bill so that the only thing left is the bill number and very often the sponsor of the bill will give permission to do so (but not always). For example, a seat belt law could become a child day care center licensing law and there did not have to be any connection with a strike everything. She stated that budget bills are like regular bills and also go through the process and very often the bills are sponsored by the Senate or House Appropriations Chairs who may be the only sponsors. Councilmember Dickey stated that last year’s budget bill was actually for environmental agencies; SB1624 was sponsored by Senator Biggs and also had other sponsors. She discussed the bill and its provision that allowed ADWR to set and collect a fee for cities and towns with populations over 10,000, which was not a permanent fee and that was how it had gone through the Senate process. She said it came out of the Senate and went then to the House where it was assigned to the Appropriations Committee and Chair of the Committee, Representative John Kavanagh, had offered a strike everything amendment to SB1624 that removed the 10,000 population threshold (affecting 47 cities) and made the fees permanent. She reported that that was the bill that the Governor signed (SB1624) and that this year there had been a bill to repeal the fee go ing forward. Councilmember Dickey stated that the bill had wide support (45 sponsors) and somewhere along the way half of the Legislature signed on to sponsor the bill, including Senator Michele Reagan. This bill unanimously passed the Senate and went to the House Appropriations Committee and it passed there also but along the way they decided to take the provisions of that bill and put them in the budget bill much like last year so Representative Kavanagh's appropriation for the environmental agencies did include those provisions for repeal but it was not retroactive. Councilmember Dickey stated that by voting to table and deciding to wait for a possible legislative fix, she believes they were voting to protect the interests of the Town. She noted that there are 28 cities/towns that do not provide water services and law makers did not enact any alternatives like charging the water companies instead or exempting these cities when they mandated this in 2011 or when the repeal was considered in 2012, which would have amounted to $450,000. She pointed out that in a newspaper article the Legislature had acknowledged that it this was regrettable legislation that they wanted to reverse. She said they had been threatened with removal of some state shared revenue and pointed out that the residents have contributed to that as part of a 1972 agreement that was passed by the Arizona voters. Councilmember Dickey said that it was passed before the proposition that passed that said the Legislature could not alter voter approved propositions so indeed the threat exists that it can be altered and was a threat that was exercised pretty much every year. She referred to a statement in the League's letter relative to the fact that not paying the fee could result in reduction in the Town's State Shared Revenues (the revenues have been altered in the past). She said that she does not believe it is clear that they could add this consequence after the fact. Councilmember Dickey added that she thinks leaders could offer to refund fees to the 25 cities/towns, excluding the three who have not yet paid the fee, that do not provide water service or consider reversing the entire bill retroactively and rebate that back to the taxpaying customers. She stated that maybe these options could still be pursued if there are members who desire to do so. She noted that if they decide not to pay, then maybe they could ask at the League conference at the end of the month (through the Resolution Committee), whether the mechanism is available to make other suggestions. She explained that she would rather not take funding from the Wash Maintenance line item quite yet if there is a remote possibility that a new Legislature could be convinced to rescind the fees. She indicated support for postponing this item indefinitely. Mayor Kavanagh advised that she is not in favor of postponing payment of the fee. She reiterated that Fountain Hills is one of three municipalities that have not paid and they are a law abiding government body regardless of how they feel about this it was passed into law. She added that State Representative John Kavanagh was instrumental in getting this bill -- it couldn’t be voted in retroactively for cities and towns that have already paid. She added that basically they have a bill that they have to pay. She stated that they expect the Town's citizens to pay fees that the Council imposes upon them and just because there is not a penalty that doesn't mean they are not governed by the law also and they should be setting an example and abiding by the law. The Mayor said she thinks it looks very bad that the Town hasn't paid and they are resorting to a penalty only because they feel they z:\council packets\2012\r8-16-12\120802m.docx Page 9 of 19 have to force us to pay. She point out that the League is very often on the side of all cities and towns and they are urging us and the other two municipalities to pay the bill and she would like to see it done. Ms. Bender advised that one citizen wished to speak on this agenda item. Mike Archambault, resident for 40 years, addressed the Council and stated that he is not in favor of paying the fee. He said that he finds it extremely insulting that the State Legislature has passed their responsibilities down on them and then have the gall to claim that they have balanced their budget without voodoo economics or raising taxes. He referred to the strike all bill (copies of SB1624 and his statement were provided to the Council) introduced by the Town's resident Representative John Kavanagh and said that in reading that he gets the feeling of being duped. He referred to Page 2 under Section 14-112, paragraph B (Funding Sources) and said that it clearly states that the State's General Fund will only provide $5 million to the Arizona Department of Water Resources yet it is a strike all bill and the authority is given to the Department on the top of Page 4, paragraph B, that they shall collect no more than $7 million in bills to the cities and towns. He said this represents a 40% increase to the Department and it is funded on their backs. He added that this is a bad law that binds the Town to pay over $28,000 (of the State’s bill) and discussed how that money could be better used to pay for things for the citizens of Fountain Hills (repair chiller, remodel Station #1, provide additional programs for the citizens or more outings for the seniors, etc.). He stated the opinion that the Appropriations Committee Chairman John Kavanagh is trying to steal money from their Town to balance his budget all the while knowing that the Town doesn 't own the water company and there is no way they could pass the increase (a tax) on to the citizens. He added that he did reach into their pockets and take services away from them. Mr. Archambault strongly suggested that they send a letter of protest signed by this Council declaring the representation of every last citizen of this Town that the State Legislature is trying to steal money from. He said it’s a tax increase that they should be the mouse that roared because if the Council won't represent the citizens, who will? We all know what taxation without representation means. Councilmember Elkie asked whether they know what the League's position is on whether or not the State Legislature can take State Shared Revenues for this type of fee. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire responded that the League's position over the years has been that the Legislature does not have the authority and in this case specifically he doesn't believe that the League is advocating that position. He added that a deal was cut last year and that is more the message that he believes the League is sending. Councilmember Elkie stated that if he is hearing right, the League has consistently said that the Legislature does not have that authority and the League has stated that a deal has been struck and the Town should go along and pay the fee and Mr. McGuire concurred. Councilmember Elkie advised that he received a mailer recently indicating that the State has recently put $450 million in its Rainy Day Fund and has reallocated $120 or $150 million for education so the State has a surplus. He noted that clearly the State has the money to pay its own bills and what they have asked the cities and towns to do is to help pay its bill and all but three municipalities to date have done so. He pointed out that in this particular situation they have Legislators who, after the fact, have stated that this is a bad bill and it shouldn't have gone forward. He said that he read somewhere that Senate President Pierce has said that it was wrong to put this on the backs of cities and towns but we should pay it anyway because it is law and he certainly respects the Mayor's comments being a lawyer himself. z:\council packets\2012\r8-16-12\120802m.docx Page 10 of 19 Councilmember Elkie added that he agrees with Councilmember Hansen's comments and takes exception to the language used in the letter from the League and said that their role is to represent and support the various cities and towns. He stated that they (the League) have cut a deal with the Legislature to do this and then after the fact all the Legislators who voted to repeal it quietly acknowledged that it was a bad law and repealed the statute altogether say this was a one-time thing so still pay it anyway. He said that he would be interested in finding out the League's position with respect to whether or not the Legislature can take State Shared Revenues away from the Town and, if the Legislature did take the funds, he would like to know if the League wou ld defend them. He stated that he hoped they would defend the Town and that their fellow cities and towns would stand with the Town in defending such an act. He added that he would also like to see whether the Senate and House of Representatives or even the Governor's Office would be willing to take up this issue in one of two ways knowing that they now have a surplus and they funded their Rainy Day Fund (2) Present a bill to refund the amount paid by all the cities and towns that participated, or (2) Present a bill that would exempt those municipalities that do not have their own water company. He noted that this is essentially a tax and monies that the government has received -- you can call it anything you want but it is a tax. He stated that he would like to see if their State Representatives would like to revisit this and he certainly would like to see the League's position on whether or not the State can take the Town's State Shared Revenues. He added that he heard they have 60 days to encumber the funds and would like to know whether that is 60 days from today and how is that calculated. Mr. Buchanan replied from July 1st to August 30th. Councilmember Elkie asked if there is an action this Council can take to encumber without sending those funds so that they are within that 60-day period and don't affect their future budget -- is that possible? Mr. Buchanan responded that he doesn't know -- perhaps Ms. Ghetti can respond but he doesn't see an answer for that because they have already set their budget for July 1 and this was not part of it so they would have to include it in somehow (they would have to make an adjustment). Ms. Ghetti stated that since that was an expenditure from the last fiscal year that ended on June 30th, any expenditures that are attributed to the last fiscal year have to either be paid or gone by the 60 days and that is according to State statute. She added that there is no way that they could actually carry it forward and the monies would remain as part of the Town's fund balance but they can't carry it forward as a charge against last year. Councilmember Elkie advised that he is certainly not advocating that they break the law or anything that would incur legal costs that would exceed the amount they are talking about becaus e that would be irresponsible on their parts. He said that he is not directing staff not to pay the amount but he certainly would like to get more information from the League and have an opportunity to seek discussion from the Town's own Representatives and perhaps the State Senate President to see if something could be done about this because he believes it is the right thing to do. Councilmember Yates stated that in practical terms this is bad legislation -- he agrees with that -- and he is not an attorney he is a businessman who likes to think of himself as a realist and the fact that they are spending this much time, including staff time, could rack up a lot more time and costs. He added that this is the law and they didn't put in the attachment, maybe on purpose, that the municipalities involved had to be running their own water system. He said that he agrees with his fellow Councilmembers about the tone of the letter received from the League and he will continue to have these discussions anytime someone forces a tax or a fee on any of them because he feels they are carrying out their responsibility to the citizens by questioning this. He added, however, that at some point they do need to look at this because it is a law -- a bad law -- and there is probably another way around it but the staff time they are putting towards this is probably using up more money than they are talking about and other than tabling it one more time to answer some of the questions that have been raised, this a z:\council packets\2012\r8-16-12\120802m.docx Page 11 of 19 scenario where they can fight and spend $30,000 but at the end of the day they have lost taxpayers' money and it is the law and he thinks they should move on other than taking time to get some additional answers. He stated that otherwise they are going to rack up some fees and encumber time real quick. Mayor Kavanagh said that she would like to speak to what Councilmember Elkie stated and noted that the letter from the League is pretty clear. She pointed out that they understand that it was a bad law with unintended consequences for cities and towns that do not have their own municipal water companies -- they were caught in this Catch 22 and forced to pay it. She added, however, that she believes the letter is saying that they worked very hard on behalf of the Town to get this repealed and ensure that this will not be a bill that the Town will ever have to pay again. She noted that the League has always supported the Town and all the cities and towns in Arizona and they have made it very clear that the Legislature is going to do something to make them pay the bill and possibly there will be a penalty for not paying it. She added that they state that there is going to be a bill that will break the State Shared Revenue formula to deduct the amount that cities or towns o we and they emphasized that this action could be a slippery slope that opens the door for all kinds of future legislation to withhold shared revenue for any number of purposes. She further read from the letter that as one of the core principles of the League is to protect the formula-driven distribution of shared revenue, this action could have ramifications for years to come. She stated that they are asking the Town not to do this and to pay the bill like all of the other cities and towns. She reiterated that it was repealed but it was not retroactive and there were 27 cities involved and only three are left who didn't pay. The Mayor reiterated that the League has always advocated for all of the cities and towns and their letter is quite clear on where they stand. She said that perhaps some do not like the tone of the letter but they are asking that the Town to pay the bill. She noted that they worked hard on the Town's behalf to get this repealed and 45 Legislators, including State Representative John Kavanagh who proposed that the bill be repealed, worked hard and agreed and put in a lot of effort to get this repealed. She stated that the fact that it could not be done retroactive means all the cities lose whatever money they put into it but as Councilmember Yates said, this is a legitimate fee imposed by the State which has a right to do it no matter how much they disagr ee with it. She stressed that this is the law and they have to set an example to follow the law just like they expect their residents to do. She noted that the League is asking the Town to just put this behind them and pay the bill. Councilmember Dickey commented that she does not believe that the consequences were unintended because it was specifically pointed out that there were cities that did not have the ability to pass it on. She referenced a December Arizona Republic newspaper article, which indicated their opinion that Fountain Hills should not have to pay this fee, that the Fountain Hills Town Council was angry and that it should be, as the State hit the Town with a bill to cover budget cuts at the ADWR. She quoted from the article, “The department’s work benefits cities and towns so they should pay some of the costs. When times were good very generous legislators and governors grossly assumed more responsibility from cities and towns”, said House Appropriations Chair John Kavanagh, former town councilmember. We’re just restoring the prior natural traditional relationship.” The newspaper article had also pointed out that the town does not have a water department and that residents are served by a private water company, which she noted is not required to pay any surcharge to the State. The article commented that this was neither fair nor equitable and called for the Legislature to revisit this matter and exempt communities that do not have a water department. Councilmember Dickey said she had wanted the discussion to be fact based on how we got here; however, when the League talked about making this deal in their letter and said they received assurances from the Governor that they would protect the formula driven Shared Revenue during the year, which the Governor did, it seemed like that was an accomplishment. She pointed out that State Shared Revenues were voted in by the people of Arizona and it is not their (the State’s) money; it was an agreed way to distribute this money and that the State has no more z:\council packets\2012\r8-16-12\120802m.docx Page 12 of 19 right to keep the money than a store owner does to keep collected sales tax. Councilmember Dickey commented that the State has been collecting that money and people in Fountain Hills and the entire State have been contributing this money for years and it's always been at 15% although the State has tampered with it in the past , but it is a contract. She noted that we get threatened that it will be removed every year. She expressed the opinion that it appeared they (cities and towns) were supposed to be satisfied that they were able to not have it messed around with this year because some people decided it was okay to go along with this idea to pay a State agency. Councilmember Dickey stated that even if the Town had a water company, she does not believe the Council would want to do anything that creates a hardship on its citizens. She noted that everyone is admitting that this is a bad bill so they should be asked to fix it and that the Town should not perpetuate it by paying something unfair. Councilmember Hansen referred to an article she had read in the newspaper quoting Ken Strobeck who said lawmakers were upset about the bill and she noted that they (the Council) were as upset that the Legislature had passed such a short-sighted bill and paid little attention to the unintended consequences. She stated that Councilmembers Dickey and Elkie had offered suggestions on how the Town could at least approach the Legislators to ask if there is a way this could be addressed and whether there was a compromise that could be reached to fix it. She noted that Senate President Pierce was quoted to say “lawmakers won’t stand by and let some municipalities get away with not paying the fee. It has to be for everybody, nobody’s going to get away with not paying it.” She said that with an attitude like that it does not appear very positive that there is going to be any opportunity to remedy this any other than by paying it. Mayor Kavanagh commented that if there had been any way to remedy it she believes that the League would have found it. She noted that they negotiated and were able to get the bill repealed and if there were another way the League would have notified them and provided advice on the way to move forward. She added that the bottom line is that they are advised to pay the bill. Councilmember Hansen reiterated that they are being threatened to pay the bill. Mayor Kavanagh pointed out that when they impose fees in their Town and people don't pay those fees then the Town goes after them and imposes some kind of a penalty. She used the example of signs and said if someone leaves their A-frame sign out, there is a fee; she noted that the Planning and Zoning has been having discussions about upping the fine if someone violates a sign ordinance. She said that for any type of fee there are consequences for non-payment. They (the State) are treating the Town no differently than we treat the residents when we impose fees. If there was any other way that we could approach this that the League would have been the group that would have come forward with that advise. She noted that very often cities and town take their advice knowing that they are looking out for all cities and towns. Councilmember Hansen remarked that there is a difference with local fees in that residents have an opportunity to come in and provide public input and comment; with this it just happens. The frustration comes from when it just happens to us, we are required to do it, and we don’t have the ability to say anything about it. Mayor Kavanagh said she disagrees with the statement and noted that there are opportunities for public comment at the Legislature; people can either go down there to make their comments on anything or they can comment on- line. The State takes comment just as the Town does. Councilmember Brown advised that he agrees with Councilmembers Dickey and Elkie as far as feeling that this has been run down their throats. He stated that he would be the last one in the world to say they need to break a law but there are a few things that he sees here. He said that he sees the wash maintenance monies being attacked z:\council packets\2012\r8-16-12\120802m.docx Page 13 of 19 and the washes are a mess so he is not going to stand and say "let's take that wash maintenance money out and send it to the State." He added that if they do agree that they do have to pay it, which although he is not an advocate for doing that but still he does not want to break a law, he thinks they need to step bac k and look at where they are going to find the $28,000 to pay it if that is what they agree to do. He expressed the opinion that the wash maintenance money needs to stay where it is at and discussed possible safety hazards associated with not having the washes maintained should an incident occur (fire, etc.). He reiterated that he will not stand here and say he loves what the State is doing to the citizens, and he doesn't like the bill, but they need to make a decision. Councilmember Elkie agreed that there are opportunities for comment and noted that at one of the discussions at the House Appropriations Committee a Mr. Baran made a comment during the discussion before the bill was passed about it being okay to pay a fee for a service, but what service are they talking about. He said that Councilmember Hansen also said that we charge residents in Town a fee but they receive a particular type of service for paying that fee. He noted that in this case they are being asked to pay the fee to pay for the State's budget. He stated that with respect to the threat of a penalty, when the Legislators passed the bill that was subsequently repealed, there wasn't an enforcement mechanism in the bill -- there wasn't a penalty mechanism in the bill that would allow the State to penalize those who didn't pay. He asked Mr. McGuire for his input on this. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire replied that the bill simply provided the Director of the Department the ability to assess it and there was nothing in the language of the bill relating to assessing penalties. Councilmember Elkie commented that the penalty they are talking about is the $28,000 they want the Town to pay. He added that with respect to the League they certainly represent the interests of the various cities and towns and they do a good job. He noted that for small towns like Fountain Hills, Bisbee and South Tucson, it is a great help to have an entity like that to keep them abreast of what is going on, offer suggestions, etc. He said that is critical but the League's position is the League's position. He added that he takes very seriously his oath to the citizens of this Town who they answer to, he pointed out that they don't answer to the League. He stated that he understands the League's concerns and the "slippery slope" that they referred to in the letter and perhaps that is a path other cities and towns don't want to go down (and he doesn't want Fountain Hills to be the poster child for the State being able to tap into State Shared Revenues at will). He advised that he would like to inquire further into that and reiterated that he is not advocating that they break the law and in his opinion they have not broken the law thus far by tabling this issue to obtain additional clarification and information. Vice Mayor Leger said that he has listened to all of the dialogue and a lot of good points have been made. He added that tonight he has a different perspective than the last time they had this discussion an d noted that this is a bigger issue than the $28,000. He stated that it is really about municipalities taking a hit over and over again and not necessarily being represented. He commented that this whole thing appeared like magic and there was not significant opportunity to provide input. He added that frankly he is surprised that they are having this discussion (wasn't it just 30 days ago that their vote was 6 to 1 and then 7 to 1 to table this item?). He stated that he has heard the word "precedent" and said that not at any time has the Council broken a law -- they have at times been a little obstinate and pushed back a little to explore other options -- and this evening he is hearing a number of Councilmembers suggesting that they continue to explore their options. He noted that they do have a new Legislature coming into Session and maybe they will think differently but at the end of the day it is about principle. He further stated that he understands the challenges that the State Legislature has had but he finds it very interesting that they are getting direction and being urged to do things through the media and he hasn't heard from any of the individuals. He said that he often hears at the State level that an awful amount of time is spent talking about the over-reach of the Federal government. He referred to the last Legislative session and noted there were a lot of items that impacted them but this is a bigger issue for him and it goes way beyond the $28,000. z:\council packets\2012\r8-16-12\120802m.docx Page 14 of 19 Vice Mayor Leger pointed out that the election consolidation legislation was strongly opposed not only by Fountain Hills but many other municipalities as well. He said that if citizens had the opportunity to vote on this they would support having elections in their own Town as they have do ne for years. He added that he has heard at previous discussions and tonight at this meeting in the form of a "lecturette" that they as the Council are setting a bad precedent and his question is who is setting a bad precedent -- the Town Council of Fountain Hills or someone else? Councilmember Dickey advised that she wanted to speak to some of the comments that have been made and said that she understands the use of staff time spent on this and Councilmember Leger's comment about this being about more than the money. She added that this concept would be a lot easier to swallow if they (cities and towns) hadn't experienced the loss of so many monies over the last several years because of the State -- hundreds of thousands of dollars, commenting that the Town had balanced their budget year after year. She noted that she would be more likely in support of helping out the State if they didn't sell the buildings and then decide then wanted to buy them back at a loss of $24 million without counting the leases paid on that. She said that to have the League say we have to pitch in doesn't really hold water with her right now. She further stated that as far as the slippery slope statement, it is like that every year; they threaten us and that’s why it’s a resolution every year; there is nothing different here. Councilmember Dickey advised that her past ten year experience with working at the Legislature has been that input at the Legislature is nothing close to the kind of input citizens have at the Town level -- and with the State you can think it is one thing and then it turns into something else (through a striker amendment) and nobody knows about it unless you are down there, are a lobbyists there, or are watching your computer all the time and the idea that these can be under the radar is very real; she expressed that this did not go through the process. Councilmember Dickey commented that maybe they wanted consolidated elections and political signs in town, maybe they don’t want sprinklers in new homes, and maybe they like firecrackers; but she stated that whether they liked them or not they were robbed of the opportunity to know that was happening and to have input. She agreed with Vice Mayor Leger that it is a bigger issue than the $28,000 and stated she holds no acrimony against anyone on the Council who wants to get this over with but reiterated that it is a bigger issue and it doesn't go away if they pay (next year they will be right back telling us to do something or else). Mayor Kavanagh disagreed with Councilmember Dickey's comment about not being represented and pointed out that the Town has two Representatives, one who lives right in Town and the other in Scottsdale. She added that they also have a Senator who is also accessible and at any time they can pick up the phone and talk to them about the different bills. She further stated that the newspaper continuously publishes articles about information that is coming up and the League keeps them informed about new bills that are going to be introduced that we should be aware of. She said that if we don't take the initiative to contact those representatives or e-mail or go down to the State capitol, just as we ask people to come into this room or contact us if they have a problem, then that is not their fault -- the initiative must be taken to keep up on everything that is going on. Mayor Kavanagh commented that she doesn't know at what point we’ll be breaking the law but from reading the letter from the League and discussing this with their representatives and others she doesn't think they are going to change their minds; the Town is in a no-win situation. She added that she understands everyone's feelings and knows that they disagree with this but if they protest this they are not going to win and all they are going to do is go down a slippery slope and make it more difficult for other cities and towns in the future. She reiterated that this is a legitimate fee imposed by the State and she certa inly is glad that it was repealed once they realized that the cities and towns that did not have their own municipal water were going to be unfairly charged. She pointed out that 45 Legislators heard the protestors that fought this and did repeal it but the fact remains that eventually if z:\council packets\2012\r8-16-12\120802m.docx Page 15 of 19 they do not pay they will be breaking the law. She said that the State did not initially impose a penalty because they thought if it was law the municipalities would abide by it. The Mayor said they have a choice -- to pay this, put it behind them and make sure that in the future they pay very close attention to everything that goes on that might affect Fountain Hills. She said the resolutions that will be coming up from the League will be recapped and everyone has to thi nk about any unintended consequences that the Town might suffer as a result of the passage of any of the resolutions. She noted that there are 19 possible bills that they can look at and decide if they think that those are going to hurt the Town but they have to take the initiative -- read everything to become aware and if there are questions contact the representatives and have them explain the possible ramifications and let them know whether you agree or disagree with the bills. She added that she would like the Council to vote either way on this; she stated she is not in favor of tabling this because she doesn't believe they are going to get anywhere by doing that and requested a motion to pay this bill. Councilmember Yates MOVED to approve the unbudgeted expenditure of $28,017.21 to the Arizona Department of Water Resources for the annual Municipality Fee for FY 2011 -12 and Mayor Kavanagh SECONDED the motion. There were no citizens wishing to speak on this agenda item. Vice Mayor Leger MOVED to postpone indefinitely and Councilmember Elkie SECONDED the motion. Mr. McGuire advised that the motion to postpone indefinitely takes precedence but it is debatable as to the motive of the underlying motion as well -- it is a little different than tabling -- but still takes precedence over the main motion. Councilmember Elkie stated the opinion that he doesn't think there is any harm in asking the League for an official position on whether or not State Shared Revenues can be used/taken away as threatened. He reiterated that the current law (the one that was repealed) does not contain a penalty and so he is not sure what penalties the Town could potentially face or if it was legal. He said that would be an important piece of information to find out and perhaps legal could conduct further research on this issue and report the findings to the Council. He stressed the importance of being fully informed before making any decision. He added that he is hopeful that through all of the discussion that has taken place that the State Representatives has gotten the message (and all cities and towns) that this should be revisited and they should either refund the monies to everyone who paid the fee or exempt those who do not have water companies and not require them to pay the fee (they are talking about approximately $450,000). He stated that at a minimum that should be revisited and he would ask that staff be directed to inquire and investigate and get clarifying responses in writing to that they can be fully informed and be able to inform their residents as well. The Mayor called for a vote (on the motion to postpone indefinitely). A roll call vote was taken with the following results: Councilmember Hansen Aye Councilmember Dickey Aye Councilmember Yates Nay Councilmember Brown Aye Councilmember Elkie Aye Vice Mayor Leger Aye Mayor Kavanagh Nay The motion CARRIED by majority vote (5-2) with Councilmember Yates and Mayor Kavanagh voting Nay. Mr. McGuire advised that they no longer need to address the main motion; the motion to postpone indefinitely has been approved. AGENDA ITEM #17 - CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING A BUDGET TRANSFER FOR FY 2011/12 IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,017.21 FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, BUILDING z:\council packets\2012\r8-16-12\120802m.docx Page 16 of 19 SAFETY DIVISION SALARIES LINE ITEM AND THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, ENGINEERING WASH MAINTENANCE LINE ITEM TO THE AZDWR FEES LINE ITEM. Mayor Kavanagh stated that she assumes that this agenda item will be postponed due to the motion on Agenda Item #16 and Mr. McGuire concurred. Councilmember Yates asked if they still had to table this item or do they just skip over it. Mr. McGuire replied that they can just skip over it and come back to it at a later date (no action is required). AGENDA ITEM #18 - DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING THE LEAGUE OF ARIZONA CITIES AND TOWNS PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS FOR THE 2013 LEGISLATIVE SESSION, WHICH ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE ON AUGUST 28, 2012, DURING THE ARIZONA LEAGUE OF CITIES AND TOWNS 2012 CONFERENCE. Mr. Buchanan advised that staff wanted to provide an opportunity for the Council to review the 19 proposed resolutions that are being considered on August 28th during the League Conference. He added that they wanted to provide an opportunity for the Council to determine which ones, if any, are a priority for the Town of Fountain Hills. He noted that the Mayor is the designated representative on the League's Resolutions Committee and so they can provide direction if they so desire to have their voice heard on any of the resolutions. He requested direction from the Council as to the upcoming League resolutions and said that one, they could obviously do nothing and wait for the legislative agenda to be created from these and then review those and determine whether the Council wants to become involved like they did with two of them last year or two, if any members of the Council are passionate about one of more of the proposed resolutions they can discuss the topic and then vote up or down on which ones they would like the Mayor to voice their opinions on. Mayor Kavanagh stated that the resolutions before them have not been accepted by the League -- they have been submitted by various cities and towns and they can wait to see which ones actually come to f ruition or they can discuss any that members of the Council are passionate about making a statement on. Mr. Buchanan noted that the subcommittee has already recommended that a number of them be merged together because they are basically saying the same thing. He added that there were also some recommendations for adoption by the sub-committee itself. He said that staff does not have any recommendations on any of the proposed resolutions at this time. Councilmember Dickey referred to Resolution #1, which has to do with consolidated election dates, and said that she didn't see anything about the mail-in ballot and it seems there is time to find out what that law is going to do to them over time. She asked if they need to specifically mention that as their issue. Mr. Buchanan replied that he is not sure what they are actually recommending because they are not sure of what the full impacts are so he doesn't know how they are going to fix it by supporting what everyone thin ks are the unintended consequences of it. Councilmember Dickey asked if there was a way to ensure that that is part of the discussion -- the mail-in ballots. Mayor Kavanagh advised that she could certainly bring that up at the Resolutions Committee. z:\council packets\2012\r8-16-12\120802m.docx Page 17 of 19 Councilmember Dickey referred to the Public Records resolution and asked if the Town Council wanted to encourage them to do more than they are already planning to do. She said that this one seems worthy of pursuing since there have been some over the years that have cost the Town quite a bit of money because some of the requests require a lot of legal work and sometimes they are pretty costly. She added that she is certainly not against public records but thinks that this is something they should look at (Resolution #6). The Mayor asked if anyone wanted to comment on Resolution #6. Vice Mayor Leger stated that in reviewing all of what has been presented to them and the chart at the end that recommends which ones they will move forward, he would like to re-emphasize that those representing the Town should take a closer look at them and the associated costs. He said that public records requests are very necessary but there are some abuses in the system and they should be looked at. He said that if they were to look at what it costs their municipality for reasonable public information requests sometimes they are low but sometimes they are considerable so he thinks it would be well worth taking another shot and looking at this. He added that he is comfortable with how they all came out in the final chart and with the recommendations but the only exception he would have is that he would like to see this have a little more dialogue at the League Conference. Mayor Kavanagh advised that the only problem she would have with Resolution #6 is that public records are public records and she understands that Yuma is having a problem with one particular person who is asking for a lot of documents. She stated that when they talk about limitations it is so broad and it may be to avoid the transparency that the Town really wants to have with their residents. She said she doesn't know what Yuma is doing about charging but if someone is asking for thousands of documents and they have to pay sixteen cents a copy she would think that would discourage people from asking for information just for the sake of asking. She noted that she has read and made notes on all of the resolutions and some of them are just so vague and it appears that one town is having a particular problem and so they want to change the law for everybody and it just might not be a fit for Fountain Hills because they seem to be able to manage very well in this area. She questioned whether they wanted to limit access to public records for the citizens and said she doesn't think she would want to do that. Vice Mayor Leger commented that he read the same resolutions and he would agree that in most cases they are pretty broad in general because they are at a starting point. He stated that obviously when there is an opportunity to participate in the discussion those are the types of things that can be vetted out. He noted that historically in a number of municipalities there have been many extraordinary cases and he isn't one who would do anything to prevent a public information request, however, some criteria might be very helpful and that is all he is asking be explored. He advised that when someone puts in a request for some public information he would like a copy of every e-mail and every piece of correspondence that has occurred between staff and all Councilmembers regarding the planting of mesquite trees in washes for example. He noted that some requests can become very expensive on the legal side because the Town charges minimal fees but reiterated that there are some extraordinary cases and he would like those in a position to do so to take a closer look at this. Councilmember Dickey stated that the Mayor can determine if this is worth pursuing and added that she doesn't know if this would be the right time to put in a request to ask the Legislature to consider refunding the cities and towns that don't have water companies. She pointed out that they missed the opportunity to put in their own proposals and she doesn't know if they take things from the floor or not. She also referre d to Resolution #19, which is really Resolution #17, (SB 1442) and said that that was the bill that was followed and supported by the cities and towns and the League and then they totally switched the funding source that took it out of State Shared Revenues. z:\council packets\2012\r8-16-12\120802m.docx Page 18 of 19 The Mayor advised that she has quite a few notes on Resolution #17 herself and she was thinking about advocating for that one because she believes they were shortchanged. Councilmember Elkie referred to Resolution #1 and stressed the importance of encouraging the State Legislature to discontinue the sweep of HURF funds and said this is especially important for their Town in view of the need to improve their roads. Mayor Kavanagh agreed and said that she would pursue this. Vice Mayor Leger said that he would strongly advocate that the League hold strong to its position (League Staff Resolution #3) and read a portion of the resolution for the benefit of the citizens. (Copy available on-line and in the office of the Town Clerk). He noted that it calls upon the Arizona Legislature to respect the authority of the cities and towns to govern their communities free from legislative interference. Mayor Kavanagh pointed out that it talks about a charter city and she was hoping that the discussion would also be opened up to cities and towns that do not have a charter. She added that if they passed this as is, it would not apply to towns. She indicated her intention to find out whether it would apply beyond chartered cities. Vice Mayor Leger agreed and said he had found it confusing as there were some sections that stated “charter” and others did not. He expressed his appreciation for the Mayor’s observation and noted that it sounded that this items was worthy of discussion and he supported that. Councilmember Dickey commented on the consolidated elections and some of the other things that went to the Superior Court about that and said that when it came back it appeared to be very specific that charter cities have the right to conduct their elections when they want but again it seemed to leave General Law cities out in the cold. She read a section from the opinion regarding “the purpose of the home rule charter provision of the Constitution was to render cities adopting such a charter provision as nearly as independent of State legislation as possible,” but then it says “the key portion of the ruling that applies to all cities and towns states that nineteenth century law and legal commentary generally viewed cities and towns as entirely subordinate and dependent upon the State Legislature any governmental authority but the framers of the Arizona’s Constitution rejected that idea valuing local autonomy.” She suggested that as they go forward, even about this consolidated election, they refer to that paragraph, which refers to us (General Law cities and towns) a little bit. Mayor Kavanagh asked if anyone else had comments to make and said that she will take all of their comments with her and she will be watching out for Fountain Hills. She stressed the importance of following any pieces of legislation that are put through the Legislature to make sure they are aware of how they will be implemented and impact the Town. Councilmember Yates MOVED to approve this agenda item and Vice Mayor Leger SECONDED the motion. Ms. Bender advised that there were no speaker cards but requested clarification on the motion. Councilmember Elkie MOVED to amend the motion and that the Mayor incorporate the comments and remarks that were made this evening and to represent the Town in accordance with the discussion that has taken place and Vice Mayor Leger SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). AGENDA ITEM #19 - QUARTERLY UPDATE ON THE PROGRESS OF IMPLEMENTING COUNCIL'S GOALS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011/12. z:\council packets\2012\r8-16-12\120802m.docx Page 19 of 19 Mr. Buchanan indicated his willingness to respond to any questions from the Council. Vice Mayor Leger thanked Mr. Buchanan for putting his report together and said that he and staff have done a good job on their progress towards achieving the goals. Mayor Kavanagh commented that she too was impressed by staff's report on the Council's goals and how staff has actively worked to fulfill them. She encouraged the residents to read the report which is available in the Council's packet on-line and copies are available in the office of the Town Clerk as well. AGENDA ITEM #20 – COUNCIL DISCUSSION/DIRECTION TO THE TOWN MANAGER KEN BUCHANAN. ITEMS LISTED BELOW ARE RELATED ONLY TO THE PROPRIETY OF (i) PLACING SUCH ITEMS ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION OR (ii) DIRECTING STAFF TO CONDUCT FURTHER RESEARCH AND REPORT BACK TO THE COUNCIL: A. NONE. AGENDA ITEM #21 – SUMMARY OF COUNCIL REQUESTS AND REPORT ON RECENT ACTIVITIES BY TOWN MANAGER KEN BUCHANAN. None. Councilmember Dickey stated that they went over to Fort McDowell for the Happy Together event and the lead singer of the Grass Roots said in front of everyone "There ain't no partying like partying in Fountain Hill's Arizona." AGENDA ITEM #22 – ADJOURNMENT. Councilmember Brown MOVED that the Council adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. and Councilmember Yates SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS By_____________________________ Linda M. Kavanagh Mayor ATTEST AND PREPARED BY: __________________________________ Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Session held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills in the Town Hall Council Chambers on the 2nd day of August, 2012. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. Dated this 16th day of August, 2012. _____________________________ Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk