Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012.0823.TCOM.Minutesz:\council packets\2012\r9-20-12\120823retreatm.docx Page 1 of 7 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL/STAFF RETREAT AUGUST 23, 2012 Town Manager Ken Buchanan convened the meeting at 8:10 a.m., which was held in the Fountain Hills Town Hall Council Chambers. Members Present: Mayor Linda M. Kavanagh, Vice Mayor Henry Leger, Councilmember Tait D. Elkie, Councilmember Ginny Dickey, Councilmember Cecil A. Yates, Councilmember Cassie Hansen , and Councilmember Dennis Brown. Staff Present: Town Manager Ken Buchanan, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire, Town Clerk Bevelyn Bender, Deputy Town Manager Julie Ghetti, Community Service Director Mark Mayer, Development Services Director Paul Mood, Human Resource/Risk Manager Joan McIntosh, Fire Chief Scott LaGreca, Municipal Judge Mitchell Eisenberg, MCSO Lt. Dave Munley; and Executive Assistant to the Mayor and Town Council Shaunna Williams were also present. Town Manager Ken Buchanan opened the meeting and discussed the purpose and goal of this retreat as a opportunity for the seated Council to talk about the various issues to see if any should be placed on future work- studies for an further discussion by the Council as well as the priority of those items. Vice Mayor Leger and Councilmembers Elkie and Dickey indicated that they would like to focus on the important items with clear direction to staff of consensus, with the top 6 or so prioritized that would then be placed on a future work-study sessions for further information and/or discussion. Mr. Buchanan acknowledged that this would be a priority session as well and proceeded to review the information contained on the PowerPoint Presentation (available on-line and in the office of the Town Clerk) beginning with a review of organizational item #1 the Mission, Vision and Values statements. No changes were proposed. At the request of the Town Manager Deputy Town Manager Julie Ghetti reviewed the information provided relating to organizational item #2 Financial/Fiscal Projections: the five year financial slides, which included revenue and expenditure projections, the State Shared revenue, local sale tax revenue, assumptions relating to the revenue from fees collected for services provided, which included: i) that revenue projects were determined using a trend analysis formula and flat percentage increase of an estimated 3-4%, ii) no change is State Shared revenues; iii) maintaining the existing level of service; iv) inflation factor of 3% in all departments except public safety contracts with anticipated 4% increase in FY15; v) two revenue estimates – one that includes Elman’s development of the former State Trust Land beginning in FY15-16 and one without the development included, and vi) a moderate increase (3)% in local economic activity; and (vii) a review of outstanding bonds. Discussion ensued regarding that the projections reflected no new programs or staffing (status quo) and conservative projections of 3-4%; the need to get back to funding the Town’s pavement management; that rebuilding Saguaro Boulevard was a separate issue and the suggestion that since the cost of pavement management was a reality that funding it should be in the budget with costs covered by working backwards; the Manager’s comment that the Town needed to get back to one of its main priorities - pavement management (a core service); the point that the cost of pavement management should be shown as a deficit in the budget; the comment that when its reported that the Town has a surplus the citizens don’t see an urgency to make up the deficient; the fact that there is a need to plan and clearly communicate with the citizens; the observation that pavement management needed a two prong approach: maintenance and road reconstruction; the Mayor’s comment that the education portion was already taking place as staff had been visiting groups and holding open discussions as to what needs to be done and her opinion that people were starting to come around; the Vice Mayor’s point that the Town has spent millions on the roads to date and he did not want the wrong message sent (i.e. that nothing has been done); Councilmember Hansen’s comment that there had been different cyclical priorities over the years and the Mayor’s z:\council packets\2012\r9-20-12\120823retreatm.docx Page 2 of 7 statement that they were trying follow the Town’s Development Services Director’s experience with pavement management; the Manager’s suggestion that the Council look at everything inclusively; the fact that there needed to be consistency going forward in the public message; the facts that: 1) they need to figure out how to pay for it, 2) this item had been placed on the ballot twice before, 3) there had not been a group effort pushing support for this ballot measure, 3) the Council can go to groups and present the facts of the bond, and 4) the Council must be united in this effort; the suggestion to plug the pavement management number in the budget to make it a priority; and the importance of having a Plan B in place should the bond not pass and the need for courage to act. Mr. Buchanan indicated this would be scheduled for a work-study session for further discussion. Mr. Buchanan discussed organizational item #3, Core Services and the organizational chart. Councilmember Dickey questioned if the Town Attorney took the lead in government relations (i.e. lobbyist) as it did not appear in the organizational chart and Mr. McGuire indicated that role would come from the Town Manager and the Town Attorney’s office. The discussion continued regarding the Administration Department: tourism (under partnerships), town clerk (agenda preparation included in duties as assigned), customer service representatives (under finance), Town Council (duties found in Town Code), and volunteer program (proposed to move under the Town Manager). Mr. Buchanan continued with the organization item #4, Town Attorney/Town Prosecutor. Councilmember Elkie expressed his opinion that the Town was not getting a good return on money spent in the area of Town Prosecutor, and that they could pay less, receive more services, and make the court more efficient. Discussion ensued regarding information contained in a 2002 report prepared by the Town prosecutor that showed Payson, with an in- house attorney, pays more for these services that what is currently paid by the Town; references to two past Council meetings where this topic was discussed and the fact that at that time the Council did not want to move forward with a change; the suggestion that Judge Eisenberg have an opportunity to weigh in on the scope of prosecutor services; concerns with regard to the prosecutor’s accessibility; letters received from two outside attorneys that indicated their services would be in the area of $60-65K annually; the question whether or not there should be a formal RFP issued for prosecutorial services; the point that if there is a hardship relating to prosecutor accessibility, it should be addressed; the list of various areas that could be addressed if there were an on-staff prosecutor (i.e. education of sheriff’s deputies, youth, work with the Fountain Hills Coalition , etc.); the question as to who was qualified to prepare the scope of work for the RFP; the Paradise Valley and Marana prosecutor service models and the fact that neither Paradise Valley or Marana continue this practice of a full-time prosecutor as they discovered a different skill set was needed (corporate role vs. prosecutor role); and the observation that there were still many questions and the Council needed more information. Mr. Buchanan stated that this topic would be scheduled for a future work-study session. Mr. Buchanan questioned if the Council wanted to review organizational item #5, the Town’s 4/10’s work schedule. Mayor Kavanagh stated she did not want a misunderstanding of why this topic was on the agenda for discussion. She explained that a staff survey had been conducted as she felt the decision should be based on the facts of how the staff and residents felt about the current work schedule. She indicated that the majority of the staff is happy with the current work schedule (4/10’s) and that there hadn’t really been any resident complaints. No changes were indicated. Mr. Buchannan suggested a break at 9:05 AM. The meeting reconvened at 9:22 AM. Mr. Buchannan requested feedback on item #6, Strategic Plan, and #7, Emergency Operations Plan. He stated that the Strategic Plan was a successful community program, which was a living document. He noted that the Fire Chief and the Assistant Fire Chief were working on the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) with Maricopa County, which would include holding an emergency exercise (tabletop) in the future. He stated that an EOP was a recognized priority and nothing more was needed here. z:\council packets\2012\r9-20-12\120823retreatm.docx Page 3 of 7 Mr. Buchanan discussed item #8 Volunteer Program noting that the Council had previously indicated their desire to enhance the program. Discussion ensued regarding Councilmember Hansen’s suggestion that this was an opportunity to use volunteers to extend the invitation to the community to provide ideas that would be beneficial for the Town; the fact that the Town has an estimated 700 volunteers now (some seasonal) who are asking what can they do for the Town; Human Resource Manager Joan McIntosh’s request for Council direction moving forward related to enhancing the volunteer program for social programs as additional volunteers for internal tasks and the suggestion that this position would be a better fit under the Town Manager; Mr. Buchanan’s comment that this program could come under the supervision of the Town Manager and he would look into expanding the program with the help of Community Services Director Mark Mayer and Human Resource Manager Joan McIntosh; the question of overlap of the program, reference to Section 8 - page 2 of the Strategic Plan document, and the possibility of developing a time trading/time bank program (i.e. Bartering System or Gray Market on-line); the on- going need for the “Make a Difference Day” project and the necessity to balance need vs. allocation of available resources and staff time; the suggestion that local groups should be the point organization; the fact that additional questions remain unanswered regarding a time trading/time bank relating to taxation on services, Town liability concerns, possible business taken from local store front businesses, and concerns relating to the Town’s overall involvement and participation in a “bartering type” program; the Town Attorney’s comment that time trading programs cause a risk management issue and the better approach would be to send the volunteers to the group and have the Town would work with the group; and the request to have the current volunteer coordinator provide information directly to the Council; and possibly move this position under the Town Manager’s supervision. Mr. Buchanan stated that he and Ms. McIntosh would talk with the volunteer coordinator and that this item would come back to the Council at a future work-study for further discussion. Mr. Buchanan continued the review of issues and began the discussion of #9, Public Safety Funding strategies. He noted that Paradise Valley had indicated that they wanted to readdress with the Legislature this session to possibly change the law to allow municipal public safety districts. Councilmember Elkie commented that it was worth looking into as it would help the general fund and in his opinion, residents were more comfortable with that concept. Town Attorney McGuire commented that there were two options being floated at this time: 1) amend the fire district statutes to allow municipalities to form, and 2) create authority for a community facilities district (CFD) based public safety district. He went on to discuss the California Orange County model and how it worked. Discussion ensued regarding the fact that residents don’t trust government and that this is a high prio rity issue; the unknowns of this type of district (i.e. who would govern, etc) and the concern that if municipalities go down this path with the Legislature, it may be another slippery slope as it may cause the Legislature to look at this as an opportunity to cut State Shared Revenue; concerns of doing this at the same time as a road bond; the opinion that this matter would take a huge investment of staff resources and remove focus on the roads, and such legislation could have unintended consequences; the opinion that public perception would be that they were spending money; and a possible conflict with the residents that would put the road bond in jeopardy. Vice Mayor Leger suggested that the Council look at the whole picture and where the Town’s resources are placed. He suggested that the Town follow Paradise Valley’s progress (and not partner) to see what the unintended consequences are. Councilmember Hansen questioned that if the Town could mandate a trash hauler, why not fire service. Mr. McGuire explained that a fire fee was for cost of service; however, if the charge is unrelated then the fee becomes a tax. He indicated that the problem then becomes how to collect if a resident doesn’t pay. Discussion continued regarding collection issues in Cave Creek and Paradise Valley; the opinion that roads should be the Town’s #1 priority; Councilmember Elkie’s comment that the big picture is the Town’s long term funding of pavement management; concerns for a bond getting the roads fixed without a plan to maintain the roads; the question of what can the Town stop doing in order to fund roads and concern that State Shared Revenue might be eliminated if this option is pursued; and the Vice Mayor’s suggestion that on-going funding is a different discussion and could include a combination of General Fund, CIP and bond monies. Mr. Buchanan indicated that this issue would be watched. z:\council packets\2012\r9-20-12\120823retreatm.docx Page 4 of 7 Mr. Buchanan moved on to the discussion of issue #10, the Jail. Discussion ensued regarding if the Town could no longer use Scottsdale’s jail and Mr. Buchanan’s response that the Sheriff’s tents would be used as Scottsdale was shutting down their operation and it was unknown at this time if Mesa’s jail could be used; Councilmember Elkie’s explanation of the possible efficiencies that could be realized; the facts referenced from a report that stated it would take 144 nightly stays to recoup the facilities remodeling costs; liability concerns and the fact that the Town did not have to think about that now as that liability was with the MCSO. Mr. Buchanan recapped that he did not hear support for this issue at this time. Mr. Buchanan addressed the issue of #11, Intergovernmental Relationships and asked for the Council’s feedback. Discussion ensued regarding those areas that needed to be added such as Legislature relationships and resume holding regular breakfast/lunch meetings with the various entities; Mr. Buchanan said he was hearing there needed to be an increase in activity. Vice Mayor Leger suggested that they follow the same model that had been created last year in which the League’s legislative bulletin was agendized and discussed by the Council, which provided the Council opportunities to weigh in on legislation as needed so there was Town representation. Mayor Kavanagh suggested State Representatives be invited to come to a meeting to answer their questions. Discussion continued with Councilmember Elkie’s suggestion of holding another summit (members of different councils invited) with invitations extended to State Representatives to speak at in informal setting (i.e. Senator Steve Pierce, Michele Reagan, etc); the comment that Town Manager Buchanan was the Town’s lobbyist; Councilmember Dickey’s comments that the League’s bulletin had been a standing agenda item, the Town did not have money for an active lobbyist, the Town Manager did attend MAG meetings, and her support for having the various entities come to a meeting; and the Mayor’s comments that she liked the idea of Mr. Buchanan as the Town’s liaison as the League looked at issues based on all cities and towns, and she proposed to add two entities to the list: 1) the Charter School and 2) New Business Alliance. Mr. Buchanan went on to issue #12, the Budget Process and proposed that there be no executive budget committee and that the budget discussions would take place at work-study sessions and meetings. He asked for the Council’s input on the process. The Mayor commented that she agreed with Mr. Buchanan outline. Mr. Buchanan stated that the budget calendar would be created and distributed, with the process starting in January. Mr. Buchannan suggested a break at 10:36 AM. The meeting reconvened at 10:52 AM. Mr. Buchanan continued with the issue of #13, Franchises noting that this was not a priority at this time and that it was his recommendation that this item not be discussed until the Elman development was on-board. Discussion ensued regarding concerns that the Elman project would cause utility cuts on fresh roads; the point that staff will work with all Utilities to coordinate the timing any future projects as best they can. Mr. Buchanan moved on to issues #14, Capital Improvement Plan, and #15 Impact Fees Update. He stated that the capital improvement plan contained an outdated projects list that needed to be revisited and cleaned up. Discussion ensued regarding the need to talk about real things that can be done and realistic growth related items; the Town Attorney’s comment that the Town may be at a point where the Town doesn’t need a development fee program; the remark that the approach may be different this time, and therefore, the cost of the required fee study might be less; how this would impact the Elman development agreement; Mr. Buchanan’s pointed out that the study modification would be presented to the Council in the near future; the observation that this would create realistic capital project planning; and the fact that the strategies on fees already collected would need to be discussed with the Council. Mr. Buchanan continued with the next issue #16, Sign Code. Mr. McGuire stated that the proposed zoning code amendments would be presented to the Council at their September 11th Work Study and after that the amendments would go back to Planning and Zoning for review. Discussion ensued regarding the fact that there would be five seats on the Planning and Zoning Commission coming up with appointments set to take place at the October 4th Council meeting. Mr. McGuire explained that the proposed amendments constituted a large scale overhaul to the zoning ordinance and had been reviewed based on recent court cases, which included revisions due to recent z:\council packets\2012\r9-20-12\120823retreatm.docx Page 5 of 7 legislative changes (i.e. political signs, etc.) from two sessions ago, and that was why it was going back to the Commission after the Council’s review/input. Mr. Buchanan deferred to Development Services Director Paul Mood for the discussion of the next item #17, Pavement Management. Mr. Mood discussed the pavement management program relating to historical streets revenue and road maintenance costs; pavement maintenance zones and practices, and the fact that eventually all roads will need to be replaced and that many were past 20 years in many places. He stated that if they went out for a bond there would still need to be $1.1M in revenues from another source for maintenance. Mr. Mood discussed the asphalt conditions of Zones 1 – 7, arterial roadway reconstruction costs and commented that the road condition was worse than first thought. He discussed the reconstruction projects and estimated costs: $7.1M for Saguaro Boulevard (Shea Blvd. to Fountain Hills Blvd.); $1.6M for Palisades Blvd. (Saguaro Blvd. to Fountain Hills Blvd.); $1.6M for Fountain Hills Blvd. (Palisades Blvd.). He indicated that any work would be coordinated with the Sanitary District, Chaparral City Water, SRP, SW Gas, Cox Communication, Century Link, etc. He indicated that the big unknown was the Elman project and the impact to the roads if they come in after the road reconstruction. Discussion ensued regarding a road bond election; current road conditions; various pavement management funding scenarios; age of the roads; the fact that the projected $1.1M was for preventative maintenance; the hypothetical scenario that if all the roads were new, it would take $2.8M annually to maintain and repair them; Councilmember Elkie’s comment that he didn’t always want to bond for road maintenance; Ms. Gh etti’s response to the Vice Mayor’s question stating that prior bond ($29.5M) was a comprehensive plan for the entire Town that did not require going to the voters again vs. the proposed $10.3M bond, which would require additional voter support for additional funds as needed; the Vice Mayor’s comment that the “phased” point of the prior bond election had been missed and the fact that $10.3M was less; Ms. Ghetti acknowledged that the $10.3M was doing less; the comment that voters had said the Town had asked for too much and the Vice Mayor’s opinion that $10.3M was seen as a more reasonable number; the Vice Mayor’s request that a financial model be created consisting of a combination of HURF, CIP and General Fund monies with the bond as a separate issue; Councilmember Yates’ comment that a bond and $2.8M would get the Town on a 30 year cycle, and with curb it would be a $11M bond plus $1.1 for zones, with a new bond every seven years; Councilmember Hansen’s opinion that this was a community priority and this plan would be seen as the Town and citizens participating together; Councilmember Elkie’s question as to what the bond would cost taxpayers and his stated preference to pay as we go; the suggestion that a survey of other municipalities be done regarding what types and amounts of bonds had passed to which Mr. Mood responded that they were all over the board (types of projects and costs) and he spoke of recent bond elections held in Gilbert and Scottsdale; and Mr. McGuire’s comments relating to Mesa’s road bond elections, which had passed years ago and until just recently they had not done anything with and the point that communities have bonded in many different ways. Councilmember Dickey asked for the timeline for a bond election and Mr. Buchanan responded that the proposed election would take place in November 2013 and that staff would have to back up the timeline, which would be brought forward at a future meeting for further discussion. Mr. Buchannan suggested the Council break for lunch at 12 PM. The meeting reconvened after lunch at 12:45 PM. Mr. Buchanan continued with item #18, the Economic Development Plan. He noted this plan had a three prong approach: Downtown Initiative, Tourism Initiative; and the Business Attraction Initiative. He recommended continuing with the business retention expansion and conducting an economic summit and further discussed the three initiative areas. Mr. Buchanan suggested working with a facilitator to discuss how to get the ball rolling, then talk funding and priorities, to be followed by the implementation discussion as was one of the Town’s highest priorities. Discussion ensued regarding the comment that this was a comprehensive approach that brought the groups together; concerns expressed that they didn’t want to wait another year and would rather do something sooner than later; the question of how will it be organized, implemented, and what were the action steps and priorities; the opinion that Tourism Bureau was a good model; the comment that there had been prior studies done by experts and that now z:\council packets\2012\r9-20-12\120823retreatm.docx Page 6 of 7 they want to put action into place; Mr. Buchanan’s proposal to get credentialed people in the room to identify where we need to start (the action plan); the fact that many things are interconnected (such as the medians) and the fact that they did not want to leave the citizens out; the suggestion that the stakeholders be brought in to help implement the identified actions; Councilmember Yates’ comment that he was looking to the private sector to drive development and opinion that there was low hanging fruit that the Town could do; Councilmember Elkie’s comments that they need to keep an eye on the final project while the repairs are being made, reference to residents’ perception that the Town is not acting but always waiting for more input, and observation that they have listened a lot and now they want to put something in place; Councilmember Hansen statement that they need to look for the resources to do it (implement the actions) and reference to the Greening Committee as an example of those who had ran with it (the plan); Vice Mayor Leger’s comment that the draft ED plan had action steps listed and his proposal that the Council flush the document out, which he opined would then lead to the next direction; concerns expressed that until there were investors they were spinning their wheels; the questions of who do they use to market and sell the plan to developers and what can we do to make it more attractive for businesses; the Vice Mayor’s comment that an ad hoc committee was needed; the Mayor’s comment that they need to find out who can do what and her suggestion that Councilmember Yates may have contacts that work in this area; the fact that they need to maximize their resources and identify the doers; Councilmember Brown’s opinion that they need to spend the money to do the center median as it was a start and would dress up the downtown; Councilmember Dickey’s suggestions for Avenue of the Fountains improvements and the need to retain an economic development person; the Vice Mayor’s comment that the Town could identify the action steps and resources but they still needed to look for someone to work on developers and employers to come to town; Councilmember Yates’ statement that he had written up a plan and he proposed that they bring in brokers as they could be the Town’s voice (without salary overhead) with the various clubs providing support; the Mayor’s comment that they were talking with Cox and GPEC to see what they could do; Councilmember Elkie expressed support for doing things in the median and comment that the road bond on Saguaro Boulevard was tied to the median at the intersection; and Councilmember Dickey suggestions of other areas of interest such as GPEC, technology, energy, solar, dark sky, and the museum. Councilmember Yates left the meeting at 1:25 PM. Mr. Mood stated that an open house was planned for September 5th and then there would be a Work-Study Session on this held September 11th. Discussion continued regarding that this was a complex subject that would need coordinated efforts with action steps prioritized; that observation that this was Priority #2; and the fact that the Strategic Planning Advisory Commission should be utilized more for the leg work. Mr. Buchanan stated that this item would come back at a future Work-Study Session for further discussion. Mr. Buchanan continued with the discussion with issue #19, Fountain Lake. He noted that staff had a draft intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the Town and Fountain Hills Sanitary District under review and that a meeting had been scheduled for Monday to discuss the document. He explained that once that assessment was done, the document would come forward to the Sanitary Board and the Town Council for review. Mr. Buchanan continued with the discussion of issue #20, Fire Station #2 Relocation Project. He said they had the location and asked if the Council wanted to continue the current plan, or did they want to consider other sites; once answered the question then becomes how they want to fund the project. Discussion ensued regarding the project design and proposed sites that had been discussed at previous various meetings; possible land swap options and right-of-way concerns; the statement that more information was needed from fire personnel; the comment that they were talking about assets of the Town and the Council, as protector of the Town, had a responsibility to get the most for their citizens; the suggestion that the discussion should be how to fund the project; the question of what to do with the Station #2; and Fire Chief LaGreca’s comments regarding the need to decrease response time and challenges of the various sites. Mr. Buchanan indicated that this item would be placed on a future Work-Study Session for further discussion. z:\council packets\2012\r9-20-12\120823retreatm.docx Page 7 of 7 Mr. Buchanan continued with the last item, #21, Community Partnership Funding Policy. He stated that a Work- Study Session would be scheduled in the future as to the process of “how” to fund. Mr. Buchanan recapped the items he had heard support for holding Work-Study Sessions on. He then asked the Council to prioritize the top items. The result was as follows: 1. Pavement Management 2. Economic Development 3. Fountain Lake 4. Community Partnerships Funding Policy 5. Fire Station 6. Town Prosecutor 7. Volunteer Program 8. CIP The meeting adjourned at 2:10 PM. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS By_____________________________ Mayor Linda M. Kavanagh 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 Council/Staff Retreat held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills in the Town Hall Council Chambers on the 23rd day of August 2012. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. Dated this 20th day of September 2012. _____________________________ Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk