Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012.1211.TCWSM.Minutesz:\council packets\2013\r130103\121211wsm.docx Page 1 of 16 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE WORK STUDY SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL DECEMBER 11, 2012 * CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Mayor Kavanagh called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m.in the Town Hall Council Chambers. Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Kavanagh, Councilmember Yates, Vice Mayor Leger, Councilmember Brown, Councilmember Dickey and Councilmember Elkie. Town Manager Ken Buchanan, Town Attorney Chris Schmaltz, Deputy Town Manager/Finance Director Julie Ghetti and Town Clerk Bevelyn J. Bender were also present. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire joined the meeting at 6 p.m. and Councilmember Hansen joined the meeting at 6:07 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #1 - PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION RELATING TO A PROPOSED POLICY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SENATE BILL 1598 (REGULATORY BILL OF RIGHTS). Town Manager Ken Buchanan advised that Deputy Town Manager/Finance Director Julie Ghetti would highlight a presentation on the Regulatory Bill of Rights that was adopted back in 2011 and is required to be put into effect by the end of this year. Ms. Ghetti addressed the Council and said that in 2011, the Legislature adopted Senate Bill 1598, the Regulatory Bill of Rights. She noted that the statutes were codified and applies to all municipalities and counties in Arizona. She advised that there are two portions to the Bill, the first being Inspections and the second Permits and Licensing. Ms. Ghetti highlighted a brief PowerPoint presentation (a copy is available on line and in the office of the Town Clerk). She said that the Bill is quite comprehensive and staff worked with a legal team and all of the departments in an effort to come up with a good process survey in order to comply with the Bill and benefit the taxpayers. She stated that the goal of the legislation is to provide taxpayers more information and let them know what their fees will be and what they can expect from the process. Ms. Ghetti informed the Council that this law grants to regulated private parties a series of rights in their dealings with cities, counties and flood control districts and notably changes municipal procedures regarding applications for permits and licenses, as defined by the statute, as well as the conduct of compliance inspections. She discussed the Inspections portion of the Bill and highlighted just a few of the rights and what the taxpayers can expect as far as Inspections. She noted that the packet that was distributed contains the complete long list of items and briefly commented on the fact that taxpayers have the right to know the purpose of the inspection and the legal authority for the purpose of conducting the inspection. She added that they also have the right to know what any fees a re going to be and it specifies that the Act (the Bill of Rights) does not authorize an inspection or any other act that is not otherwise permitted by law but only applies to inspections necessary for the issuance of a license to determine compliance with licensure requirements. She reiterated that there are many other items listed in the packet. Ms. Ghetti went on to discuss the second portion of the Bill, Permits and Licenses and said that this is probably the one that is going to have the most impact on the business environment. She noted that it requires that the Town have in place an overall timeframe during which the Town will either grant or deny license applications (building permits, business licenses and any kind of permit or license that the Town issues). She added that it also provides for flexibility in structuring the license process for certain types of "licensing" and said that the timeframe requirements for application review on applicable procedures are as follows: * Existing applicable license application review provisions shall comply with this policy by December 31, 2012; * Any new applicable license application shall comply with this policy; * This policy also provides the option for applicants to select the Town's Flexible Review Process, as provided in a Waiver of Claim to A.R.S. z:\council packets\2013\r130103\121211wsm.docx Page 2 of 16 Ms. Ghetti referred to a list of the applications including building permits and other permits and what the timeframes are. She stated that there are two timeframes that the Town has to specify and the first is the Administrative Completeness (there are a certain number of days when the applicant comes in and brings in either a business application or a building/encroachment permit and the Town has 90 days for that process). She explained that staff will review the application and make sure that everything is complete. She said that staff anticipates that they will continue their long-standing process of making that process go as quickly as possible and pointed out that it rarely takes staff 90 days to process a business license application and in most cases they are done in seven (7) days but there are occasions when there is missing information and staff has to wait on the applicant in order to proceed with the processing. She stated that if staff cannot get the application completed within the 90-day timeframe, they have to either approve it or deny it. She said that obviously they don't want to have to do that and want to make sure that there is enough time. Mayor Kavanagh said that each city and town sets their own timeframes and Ms. Ghetti agreed with that statement. The Mayor asked if it gets to the point with there is a stumbling block and both the applicant and the Town agrees can they can extend it and Ms. Ghetti replied yes, the applicant always has the option to sign off and say "We won't come back against the Town -- we agree that we need more time." Ms. Ghetti further stated that the proposed timeframes look like pretty long timeframes but there is no intention to use those specific timeframes -- staff just wanted to make sure that they would not have to deny a bunch of applications. In response to a question from Councilmember Dickey, Ms. Ghetti confirmed that the propose d timeframes were not prescribed by the legislation. She added that all of the divisions got together (licensing, permitting, etc.) because the Bill applies to everything and they figured out what a reasonable timeframe would be in order to avoid having t o deny applications. Ms. Ghetti informed the Council that the next review period is 180 days and that is for the Substantive Review. She said that this is not so much for business licenses as it is for building permits. That is the point at which staff determines that the application is complete and they have all of the information and then it goes on into the next stage where they have reviews by the Engineering and Water Departments and the Sanitary District. She stated that staff allowed 180 days because there are outside agencies involved that staff cannot control. She added that at the end of that process the application is either approved or denied. She noted that through this process the Town has one opportunity to go back to the applicant and ask for information. She said that overall they are talking about 270 working days at the most being what an applicant can expect but reiterated that staff does not anticipate that the process will go that long. She stated that each one, depending on the category, has a different timeframe. Ms. Ghetti discussed the the public hearing and Town Council approval process (the clock will stop when the applications are going through this process) and said that there are 90 working days for these permits. Once staff is done with an application and it goes to Planning & Zoning the time stops and it picks back up after the approval process. Ms. Ghetti discussed the variance appeal (270 days) and this covers sign permits, dog permits, etc., which are pretty much done over-the-counter but staff put in some extra time in case there was an issue with a rabies vaccination. She commented on Temporary Use Permits and said those are administrative use permits and again staff allowed enough time to make sure that there is enough time to request additional information if needed. She added that for a business license staff put in 20 days but those are usually done within seven (7) days with few exceptions when more information is required. She referred to the Waiver of Claim and again this allows the applicant to say, "Okay, my project is going to take a lot longer than this and I don't want to have my application denied so I will agree to do this and not come back on the Town because you didn't meet those timelines." She also discussed the Flexible Application and noted that at the beginning of a process the applicant can sign on for this and say, "We will go to a different calendar of days" and this is driven by the developer or the applicant. Ms. Ghetti indicated her willingness to respond to any questions from the Council and stated that staff worked with the Town's legal team. She noted that Town Attorney Chris Schmaltz, from Gust-Rosenfeld, is present in the audience and he is working with other cities and towns to get them through the process and has helped the Town immensely. Ms. Ghetti expressed appreciation to Mr. Schmaltz for his assistance. z:\council packets\2013\r130103\121211wsm.docx Page 3 of 16 Mayor Kavanagh said she knows the Town only has one major subdivision, Ellman, and asked how that fits into this . She stated that Ellman could take a lot of time if it has to be re-platted or if Adero Canyon, for example, gets sold and has to be redone -- how would situations like those fit in. Ms. Ghetti replied that she would imagine that they would fit into one of these categories -- they bring in their site plan, Design Review, whatever that process is and each one has 90 days/180 days, for a total of 270 days. She asked if she had answered the question posed by the Mayor and the Mayor responded yes. Mr. Schmaltz addressed the Council and stated that this is going to apply to any new application so if it is a re -plat or a final plat that is related to a broader preliminary plat, once the policy is adopted those timeframes will apply to all of those new submittals. The Mayor said that she was thinking that the major subdivisions may take more time and Mr. Schmaltz advised that that is why they have allowed for a flexible process (to cover unique projects or projects that don't fit within the timeframes that will be established via this policy). He added that the Town and the developer have worked together at the front end to say, "This is the process and how it is going to work" so that they are not locked into the timeframes that are required to be adopted via the statute. Councilmember Brown commented that they are talking about 90 working days, 18 weeks, four a half months to get administrative compliance on a set of drawings. Ms. Ghetti advised that this is the worst case scenario and staff had to make sure that they allowed enough time in case they had to go back to another entity or if they were depending on outside entities. She emphasized that staff has no intention of taking this much time if they do not have to and they will continue to do things the way they have always done them and that is as quickly as possible. She noted that their other option is when they get to the end of the time the Town will have to deny the application. Mr. Schmaltz clarified that if someone fails to meet the Administrative Compliance timeframe it is not a denial, it is a "deemed complete." He said that during the Substantive Review timeframe a threat of denial exists. He added that during the Administrative Review timeframe, if they don't provide for the notice that says, "You are complete" and the timeframe runs out, then the application is deemed complete for purposes of that review. He noted that ultimately they shift into the Substantive Review timeframe, whereby the application is reviewed and if something is missing, including all of the materials that the Town Code requires, then that can ultimately result in a denial because the Town under the statute has the opportunity to ask once for missing information. Councilmember Brown stated that he applied for a permit in another municipality this week and they had an Administrative Checklist that he had to go through and complete to make sure that his plans were administratively ready to submit. He noted that their total time was two (2) months for permitting. He added that that is why he is saying that 270 working days would be over a year and questioned whether these are realistic numbers. He stated that it doesn't make any difference as long as they don't start stretching it out but that is one of the biggest complaints that the Town has heard for a long time (the length of time it takes to submit and actually get the permit). Ms. Ghetti advised said that part of their consideration was also the staffing levels and stated that if someone is out on vacation for two weeks or someone is sick, they don't have anyone else who can pick it up. She reiterated that staff does not intend to take the full 270 days -- they just wanted to make sure that there was enough time to cover all of those contingencies. She emphasized that Fountain Hills, perhaps unlike other municipalities, is dependent upon outside agencies as well. Councilmember Brown said that he would like it to work out so that the outside agencies are also under the same scrutiny that the Town is under. Mr. Buchanan commented that the question is how close to the edge do they want to walk and explained that staff wanted to build some cushion in first because of the Town's situati on and also because there are some heavy penalties that come into play after that date. He agreed with Ms. Ghetti's comments relative to the fact that their intention is not to take the full amount of allowed time but sometimes unforeseen circumstances ar ises and they only have one shot at it. z:\council packets\2013\r130103\121211wsm.docx Page 4 of 16 Councilmember Elkie asked if someone did the flexible plan right from the beginning, would that person be locked into that from start to finish and the same for the hard numbered plan. Mr. Schmaltz advised that the intent is that applicants have to choose one path at the time of the application and pointed out that it would be an administrative nightmare to have applicants switching back and forth. He added that there is an opportunity to be flexible during the policy process in that the applicant and the Town can agree to extend the substantive and the overall timeframe by up to a total of 25% if it is determined that more time is needed but that is the statutory number that was established and the only extension allowed under the statute. Vice Mayor Leger commented that State Representative John Kavanagh is present in the audience and said that he has a question that perhaps Mr. Schmaltz or Representative Kavanagh can answer. He asked what the rationale was for this legislation and stated that it seems somewhat burdensome. State Representative John Kavanagh, District 23, addressed the Council and advised that this legislation was instituted by the building contractors and the rock quarry people. He said that th ey had undergone what they considered to be a lot of frustrating encounters with municipalities in terms of permitting and licensing and so they put this bill together. He noted that he did not go on as a co-sponsor because he had some concerns (one size fits all becomes a little difficult) and having served on the Town Council for six years he understood what was going on. He advised that over the course of that Session, and he was not involved with the bill, but there were a lot of so called stakeholders' meetings where the rock people, the contractors, the sponsor of the bill, Senator Klein, and for the most part people from the League of Cities & Towns, which took the municipalities' position, were in attendance. He stated that they held a lot of meetings and crafted a number of compromises and concessions. He added that he wasn't sure how that was going to go but in the end the League, which opposed it vehemently in the beginning, dropped their opposition. He said that the bill, which was not opposed by the League and which satisfied people who seemed to have reasonable grievances, seemed like a pretty good bill and it passed by a super majority vote. He further stated that there was a follow-up bill this past Session that would make some more changes that he believes were requested by the League. He advised that it was tacked on to another regulatory bill and that died but he was told that there is intention to run that so called "Fix Bill" this coming Session. He said that may make some of this a little bit more bearable for municipalities. Vice Mayor Leger thanked Representative Kavanagh for his explanation. Councilmember Dickey said that to take a step back and see why these regulations exist, she thinks that cities and towns are not there to be obstructionists on purpose and obviously there are going to be occasions when it seems like things are taking too long. She added that they always have to remind themselves to look at the other side, the other taxpayers who need to be protected, and that is why some of these restrictions and regulations regarding licensing timeframes are in there (for equal protection). She stated that that is the balance and that is what she sees in this so she doesn't know what the fix is or what the League had in min d but she thinks that is in their proposal. She urged everyone not to forget that the people who have lived here are taxpayers too and the Council's role is to see that new businesses and new buildings come through in a way that will be beneficial for everybody as a whole. Mayor Kavanagh said getting back to Councilmember Brown's point, if a builder comes to the Town and has some restrictions on time (there are things he has to get done for the person he/she is doing the job for) does the person have any recourse if he/she feels that the Town is not moving fast enough -- any type of a grievance process or anything that is open to that person? Ms. Ghetti responded stated that she doesn't know that they have a formal grievance process but there is always th e option of raising the issue with the Town Manager and/or Town Council if they are not satisfied with the process. Ms. Schmaltz advised that the statute specifically provides that if there is a denial as a result of the process (either the applicant has not provided the information that the Town says is required as related to a certain application) that the Town has to notify the applicant of their appeal rights related to that denial. He said so yes, the re is a process if the denial of the application is the result of this process. Mayor Kavanagh commented that that is only if there is a denial and not if the applicant simply feels that too many days have gone by (no recourse in that situation). z:\council packets\2013\r130103\121211wsm.docx Page 5 of 16 Mr. Schmaltz stated correct unless it already exists in the Code or a direct appeal is made to the Town Council. He noted that the statute itself does not provide for that type of a grievance process. Councilmember Elkie said that he knows that Town staff does the best job they can to get the permits and licensing out as quickly as possible and from what he has heard they don't come close to the timeframes that are being proposed. He added that once this is instituted, what will stop staff from saying that they have 90 days to get this back to them or 180/270 days to get the work done (that becomes how long it can take)? He stated that other projects that may have come in later or before may take precedence and when people come in staff says they have 90 days to get this done or 180 for the Substantive Review -- how do they keep that from happening as far as the culture in the Town? Mr. Buchanan replied that staff will continue to keep going through the stack as best they can. He added that that is the concern they had with the size of the community because the smaller communities are going to pay a heavier price with this because they have limits and penalties and lean staff to get the work done. He stated that if they start going back into a higher frequency of building activity it is going to be a bigger burden. He added that when they start looking at the timeframes on these things, they better have a cushion built in because at the end of the timeframe there is a heavy penalty. He said that they don't have all the answers because this is a complex State law but staff will do the best they can and that is why they need a time cushion. In response to a question from Councilmember Elkie relative to what the turnaround time was for plans/permits during the peak of the building period the Town experienced (2004 through 2006), Senior Planner Bob Rogers responded a couple of weeks to a month. He stated that the plan review is usually the longest part of the process and that is the Administrative Review part. Councilmember Elkie stated that if Ellman or some other large project is developed and there is a glut of permits he would like to know what the turnaround time would be. Mr. Rogers advised that Ellman has master plats already so they would see individual parcel plats come in and those would take a little longer than the typical standard lot -- perhaps a couple of months in plan review and the application review would probably take a week or so for everyone to get a good look at it (and that is just to see if everything need ed is there). He advised that some of the long periods they had to put in the proposal were because it is not immediately apparent that they are going to need a traffic or drainage study with some of the projects until they start looking at them. He said and then if they are needed the application would not be complete until those things are received and that could take another couple of months. Mr. Schmaltz clarified that the statute doesn't require that if they miss the overall timeframe that the appli cation be automatically approved and the permit be issued. He noted that they would have to refund the fees and they can't charge them any further fees associated with that application but the application itself continues to be reviewed by the Town. He added that the "hammer" that is associated with the statute is missing the overall deadline timeframe -- if that deadline is missed, all of the fees have to be refunded and the applicant cannot be charged any more for anything associated with that application. He further stated that the Town can continue to review the application and if a determination is made that it does not comply with the Code or otherwise, it can be denied but they will be out the money that was intended to pay for all of that review time. Councilmember Brown indicated his intention to clear up a couple of statements and said that eve r since the Pat Davis and Jeff Valder era, the Fountain Hills' Building Department has turned around the building permits in two to three weeks if the plans were complete and ready to be permitted. He stated that like with any bad set of plans, they get to go back, pick up the red lines and do it again. He stressed that the Town has been quite respectful in this area over the last eight or nine years so he is not concerned about it. He added that he does not think that the Building Department or the Town Manager would allow unnecessary delays to happen and leave plans sitting on the shelf forever. AGENDA ITEM #2 - PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION WITH INVITED GUEST ARIZONA REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KAVANAGH REGARDING THE UPCOMING 2013 LEGISLATIVE SESSION. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ARIZONA LEAGUE OF CITIES & TOWNS MUNICIPAL POLICY STATEMENT FOR THE 2013 LEGISLATIVE SESSION FOR POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF A TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS LEGISLATIVE POLICY STATEMENT. Mr. Buchanan informed the Council that he had asked Representative Kavanagh to appear at the meeting this evening to provide some information on what the upcoming Session is about and assist the Town as far as any of the policy z:\council packets\2013\r130103\121211wsm.docx Page 6 of 16 statements and resolutions that are being discussed. He thanked Representative Kavanagh for being present this evening and helping the Council and staff understand the upcoming 2013 Legislative Session. State Representative Kavanagh addressed the Council and said that as always the major issue during the Session will be the budget and that is kind of tied to revenue. Revenue projections for the State of Arizona are so mewhat anemic and they envision growth but very flat growth (about 6% growth per year for the next few years). Although 6% doesn't sound too bad, when you are doing 6% off of a base that is way low it is not really that great. The really troubling thing is that it is really staying at 6% and they are not getting the usual recession recovery that they have seen in the past because this recession is very different from the other ones (they went down very quickly and the return will be very slow). Representative Kavanagh noted that there are also a number of concerns relative to another downturn in the economy and the most immediate one would be the "Federal Cliff" if the tax deal in the budget isn't dealt with at the Federal level (because early next year they will see automatic cuts and tax increases and both will have an effect on the economy). Arizona will be particularly negatively impacted by the large cuts in the military because we are very reliant on the military, both active and civilian employees. There is the possibility of Arizona going into a recession and that again will cause income to plummet greatly and bring them back into the crisis mode. Beyond that, everyone is looking at Europe, which is in recession and doesn't seem to be getting any better. If they have a real major problem they are going to throw China into a recession and then the whole world kind of gets hit again. He said that they don't think they would go super deep in that case but it would still be a great dampening on the recovery and so they are very reluctant to commit large amounts of money to future spending. Representative Kavanagh advised that the big item in the newspapers is the Medicaid expansion that is tied to Obamacare. The first part of that was the Federal exchange versus a State exchange and had Governor Brewer stated that she wanted the State to run the healthcare exchange he doesn't think it would have gotten out of the Legislature but had it, it would have imposed about a $20 to $30 million cost on the State, which is significant (but that is beyond them and is not going to happen). (Councilmember Hansen joined the meeting at 6:07 p.m.) Representative Kavanagh discussed the matter of Medicaid expansion, which would have cost anywhere from $135 million if they did just the minimal required (bring the adults without children to 100% of the poverty level to provide them coverage); to bring everyone up to 133, it would have been about $430 something million; the Governor explored just bringing adults without children to the 100 level if that was going to cost $135 million but they found out today that Washington is saying that if they don't bring everyone to 133 then they will not provide as favorable a match so that raises the cost of even bringing other people to 100 up to a $435 million two years from now and that is totally undoable and Representative Kavanagh doesn't think that will happen; the fact that if it did happen it would have a major impact on other parts of the budget; some increases in Child Protective Services (CPS), education and some other areas but nothing really big; there are not going to be any kind of fund sweeps or diversion of HURF monies beyond the usual DPS diversion (no more funding of the Department of Motor Vehicles or diversion of the road funds); they will still be doing the DPS but that is something that they were doing prior to the recession; there may be a fix for some of the concerns that the cities have with the Taxpayers Bill of Rights and the fact that beyond that most of the issues are pretty small. Representative Kavanagh advised that most cities and towns will be affected by the pension crisis and reported that there is a major crisis with public pensions because they are grossly underfunded using the ridiculous 8% projected return on investment that the funds use now. If they take it down to 5% or 6%, which Moody's and the State Treasurer say they have to do, then there will be a massive shortfall in State pensions and literally employee and employer contributions will have to double, which would be pretty significant (about an extra 10% of employees' pay). He reported that his predecessors on the Council and he and the members of the Council he served on did not put the Town into the State pension system so that will not affect the Town. Representative Kavanagh stated that he also wanted to discuss the so called Sales Tax Reform and noted that a lot of people are talking about a grandiose reform where they would begin to tax all of the internet transactions (the y will be doing Amazon pretty soon and that should result in some extra money). He said that everyone wants to tax all of the internet and the other big push is for reform in terms of having a uniform sales tax policy that all cities and t owns z:\council packets\2013\r130103\121211wsm.docx Page 7 of 16 would go by -- everyone would tax the same thing. He noted that there is a big push for that and the Town should be extremely concerned about that because frankly if there is a deal and a plan in the bill that all towns make it simple for businesses and only tax the same things then what is going to happen is the Town will not be able to tax the building materials for new construction and that is a big chunk of the assets. He stated that he cannot picture there being enough votes State wide to create everybody now taxing construction building materials so he thinks that will be thrown out. He added that the only way to save it would be to cut out a special exemption from that but he doesn't think that is going to happen either but his experience shows that once an exemption is given for one thing, others will want exemptions as well and before you know it the whole deal falls apart. He said that he doesn't know where the League is at with this but he thinks they have been talking favorably towards it and he thinks t he Town ought to address that issue because that would be a big chunk of money -- at least when construction begins again. Representative Kavanagh advised that most of the other bills do not affect the Town too much and said that he would not get into them unless members of the Council have any questions about any particular bills. Councilmember Dickey commented that they had a presentation the other day about the retail issue and said she thought the presenter said that the League was on top of that (they would make sure that they didn't happen). Mayor Kavanagh confirmed that that is what they were told. Representative Kavanagh stated that they certainly helped with the Taxpayers Bill of Rights so he thinks t hey are in good shape. Councilmember Elkie referred to resolutions that are being presented by the League and said he believes there has been some discussion about repealing House Bill 2826, Consolidated Elections, and asked Representative Kavanagh where he thinks that is going. Councilmember Elkie also asked about amending the statute that relates to fireworks in cities and towns (allowing them to control the sales and regulation of fireworks). Representative Kavanagh replied that he doesn't think that the repeal of the election reform bill will ever happen. Cities and towns are seeing savings in terms of election costs and turnouts are up in cities and towns that have this. He added that the argument that it is a local issue and cities and towns have no control over it will fail in the courts because remember right now the State tells us when we can have elections (can only be held at certain times) so this simply created a more restrictive date. Based on the fact that it is saving money and increasin g turnout he cannot picture there being enough votes in the Legislature to reverse this (at least not until there is a big turnover in the Legislature years down the road and by then it becomes pretty much ingrained). He stated that the only way he can see a reversal is if there was a court ruling but a court ruling would not have any effect on Fountain Hills because the Town is not a charter city. He added that as far as the fireworks he cannot picture that changing and the main reason, if his memory serves him correctly, is the fact that that bill was championed for a number of years by former Representative and now Senator Andy Biggs, who is currently the President of the Senate. Councilmember Elkie stated that perhaps there could be a slight change to allow the cities and towns to have a little bit more control regarding the sale and use of fireworks and Representative Kavanagh advised that right now they can control the use and say they cannot do it in Town and the only other real part of the bill is the sale of fireworks and if you repeal that there is no bill left. He said that politically that would not happen and once a bill is in it becomes that much more difficult to reverse it. Councilmember Dickey advised that regardless of whether they can undo them, both of those bills are examples of how when these bills are put across to all cities and towns they have different effects. She noted that a study was done that showed that Fountain Hills is in one of the most dangerous areas for fires and th at kind of thing and it also lends itself to confusion because people can walk into a store and buy fireworks but they can't use them here so that affects their citizens and their ability to govern in a way because it is a confusing thing. She added that the Election Consolidation legislation obviously changes all of their terms as they will be discussing later and it changed money that they will all get for six extra months. She said that she is not sure how good or bad that is but it certainly is in effect and they had just launched and purposely voted to have all mail in ballots hoping that that would increase the turnout, which it certainly does. She stated that now it is going to be pretty confusing for that first election in August because if you are not into a registered party you are not going to get that so their citizens will now have to decide whether they want to declare a party or otherwise they will not get what they have grown to expect (every registered z:\council packets\2013\r130103\121211wsm.docx Page 8 of 16 voter has gotten a ballot in the mail). She added that it significantly affected the Town and she thinks she understands some of the overall discussions that led to that but she still thinks it was an over -reach and these things have effects on them that maybe not everybody thinks about and that can present hardships for the Town's residents. Representative Kavanagh reported that a survey conducted among cities and towns showed that it was popular with the voters, so beyond the cost savings and increased turnout it seemed to be the will of the people. He added that as both of these bills go forward if problems come up changes can certainly be made but the key is to document the problems (if fires are caused, that is something that could be addressed although most fires are caused by campfires and no one is going to ban them). He stated that if there are problems with the Bill of Rights, let the Legislators know about them and it is important to provide specifics and if you say it is undoable, give some examples of why it is undoable. Mayor Kavanagh said that she is particularly interested in #17 about capturing the sales tax. Representative Kavanagh commented that was an interesting case and what he believes happened is the City of Chandler wanted to give an inducement to Intel or one of the large corporations for further development and they did it by saying, "We want to exempt them from paying sales tax on materials to build some sort of an extension of a sewage treatment plan or a water plant or something like that." He noted that genera lly they don't have a problem if a municipality wants to give an inducement to somebody and pay for it -- Fountain Hills gave something of an inducement indirectly to Target (did some work on the intersection out front that helped them out a little bit). He reported that the bill was going through fine until somebody said, "Wait a minute .... Chandler is not waiving their sales tax on its materials, Chandler is collecting their sales tax and waiving the State sales tax collection" and that just didn't seem right so that is why they made the change in the end and said, "You are not going to waive the State sales tax." He added that he guesses the lesson is if you want to do some kind of an inducement by reducing the cost to some company then by all means do it with your money. Mayor Kavanagh noted that the way it is written right now it has a negative impact on State Shared Revenues and this is going to change it so it comes out of the State's portion so how is it affecting the State Shared Revenues? Representative Kavanagh responded that he is not quite sure and all they knew was that it didn't seem fair for the State to bear the burden and the locality not to. The Mayor asked the Council if there were any other bills the Councilmembers wanted to discuss. Councilmember Dickey asked if the Mayor/staff wanted them to decide which ones they support and whether they want to take a more active role in some of them. Mayor Kavanagh replied that they had discussed talking about ones that they are particul arly interested in that they think will affect Fountain Hills if they went either way and they might want to take a stand on just those that would impact the Town. Mr. Buchanan advised that the Council is looking at the Legislative liaisons and they can be down at the Legislature 40 hours a week depending on what level they want to do. He stated that obviously they don't have the time to do them all so they are looking for what is important to the Council. He added that like they did at the last Session, what they are looking for are the most important ones that the Council would like to look at (maybe pare them down to five important ones and that way staff can key in on those and he would have his parameters and marching orders that those are the ones that the Council wants to emphasize). Councilmember Dickey asked if anyone would be opposed to any of these because they know that the League is going to be covering the ones that they are recommending for adoption. She said if there are any on the list l ike #4, Alternative Delivery Methods, that seems like it might be something really good for them but they do know the League will be down at the Legislature working on that so she guesses they are saying are there any other ones that they want extra attention on. She stated that she looked at it as three separate things -- Is there anything that they don't agree with and there aren't any that she doesn't agree with -- and she is certainly fine with the ones that it looks like staff would like them to follow. She added that she doesn't think they want a whole lot of extra energy spent on them equally because she believes they will be represented but then her other question is do they want to look at #4 as something that might be another one that they may want to emphasize a little bit more. z:\council packets\2013\r130103\121211wsm.docx Page 9 of 16 Mayor Kavanagh advised that as far as the one she just talked about, #17, that's on their list and she would like to get some more information to make sure where the State Shared Revenue fits in on this -- is that in the bill that was passed or how is that going to affect them? She said perhaps they could get more information about that if they are interested in that one in particular. She added that #16 relates to graffiti and increasing the criminal penalties. She stated that she thinks they received communication from Mark Icavino saying that the Town's penalties were already very high and he wasn't recommending additional increases (the Town is already okay with their penalties). She said she doesn't know if this is just bringing them up to the Town's level (it doesn't specifically say how they want to increase it). Councilmember Elkie commented that since they are a Town with li mited resources and the League is there to represent them on a number of resolutions they should pick one or two that would have the most impact as far as the Town is concerned and focus their energies on those instead of spreading it out over a multitude of them, especially if staff is going to be doing it directly. He noted that finances have a big impact on the Town so they should look at anything that is going to be impacting them financially in a negative way and oppose it or throw their support behind something that is going to help them in a positive way. The Mayor concurred and stated that definitely #17 has to be on their list because they have to find out how that is going to affect them if it is going to affect them as far as the State Shared Revenues and if it gets changed how is that going to affect them. She said that she is always worried about big cities like Chandler asking for extra because they get an Intel. She added that maybe that is good for them and good for the State as a whole bu t if they lose a lot of their money that isn't helping them any. She referred to #6 and said that she was a little disappointed to see this (about the public records) because she as the Mayor sat in on the League of Cities' meeting during the conference and she distinctly remembers that there were several Mayors that spoke out against this and Mr. Buchanan reminded her that he remembered Mayor Scruggs saying, "Oh, this got brought up again." She reported that it was clearly voted down and so she sent a note to Ken Strobeck asking him if in the meeting they all unanimously voted not to do this, how is this coming back up. She stated that she would like to read his answer because she is not very satisfied with the way this is being handled. She read the following into the record: "Your recollection is correct about that resolution -- it was not recommended as part of our Legislative Agenda and instead it was moved to the Significant Municipal Issue category where we will try to work on non-legislative ways of resolving the issue." Mayor Kavanagh advised that to her, if they are asking the Mayors who represent the cities and towns to vote on something and they all vote unanimously that they don't want to do this because this is definitely not for the publi c good, she would like to know why it is still there. She noted that at that meeting there was one particular Mayor who said, "Well I know how to solve this -- we will just charge people for staff time when they put in an FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request" and everyone went crazy and said we can't do that. She said that she spoke out against it and said these are public records and everybody should have the right to have access to public records and just because two particular cities are having problems with two particular residents they want to change the rules for everyone to make it difficult for someone to get public records. She stated that she is going to follow up with the League on this one and added that she doesn't like the fact that they voted against it and then they slipped it into another category (it seems a little underhanded to her). Vice Mayor Leger said he is a little curious and would like to defer to the Town Attorney because he knows that over the last couple of years they have had a tremendous amount of public information requests and from his perspective he thinks the parameters were rather wide. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire addressed the Council and reported that the amount of public records requests over the last couple of years has not significantly increased over prior years but the types of requests are different. He said that they are seeing a lot of requests which in an evidentiary proceeding would be termed a "fishing expedition" (you don't know what you are looking for but there certainly is something there so you want to see everything in the world). He stated that staff really does not believe that the people asking for these documents understand the scope of them until after they hear back from us about what they asked for. He added that a typical example would be all the e-mail from the Council for the past six months and noted that that type of request would probably generate seven to eight thousand documents. He reported that in those documents there may be information from a constituent that he/she did not want shared as a public record so staff has to evaluate each one of them to determine if there is a privacy i nterest for someone who has unknowingly over the Town server told the Council member about a medical condition or something else that they really don't want the whole world to know. He further stated that information then has to be redacted and a redaction log created to reflect all the things that were taken out and requests like that are what bro ught z:\council packets\2013\r130103\121211wsm.docx Page 10 of 16 this idea to the forefront. He advised that his comment when asked about this by elected members or staff is, "Some things are just going to be a pain -- some things are part of being the government. You are what you are, the records are open and the fact that e-mail is now here and the fact that electronic telecommunication records of ten different varieties exist now is just something that we have to deal with." He stated that what they try to do instead when they get one of those massive requests is ask the citizen asking for it to focus the request a little bit so they can narrow it down to what they are looking for (by subject matter, more specific timeframes, etc.) and if they won't and they really want six months' and we know that it is going to produce a volume of records that really is unreasonable then they will protest it and go through the process that the statute allows. He said that for the most part they don't do that and they reply to those requests but it can be burdensome and for a really small community it is a challenge (towns half the size of Fountain Hills with four or five employees). He added that this is why the bill came forward and he does not believe anyone can legislate away the right to view documents. Mayor Kavanagh commented that that as she recalls, the two towns that were having problems involved two individuals who they said were out for revenge and were actually doing it on purpose. She stated that they were asking for an enormous amount of documents and then would not even pick them up. She noted that there were a lot of suggestions brought forward such as charging people by the page, etc. She added that they can also use e-mail and other ways to get documents to legitimate residents. Mr. McGuire stated that that is something they are seeing much more of -- when these massive document requests were fulfilled and resulted in thousands of pages, the ten cents a page started to turn into a lot of money for people and then they started requesting them electronically so now what tiny amount of recapture money the cities and towns were getting to do the research in terms of copy costs has gone away. Discussion ensued relative to Vice Mayor Leger's comment that he understands the Mayor's point of view in terms of what was voted on and the fact that they found a loophole to include it; his opinion that he would like to see someone take a shot at this and maybe come up with some possible solutions because it does cost the Town as a small municipality significant legal costs; the fact that he would like to see the League take a shot at it and see where they land with it; Mayor Kavanagh's statement that unfortunately it is just a burden that cities and towns have to put up with because they are public records and people are entitled to the public records; Representative Kavanagh's comment that there is not going to be any legislation come forward that in any way restricts the Freedom of Information Act for two reasons -- they are being criticized because they are not open enough and it is so much easier for staff to gather these documents now because they are almost all digital -- the magic word in government now is transparency); Mr. McGuire's clarification that gathering the documents is easy but culling from the documents the things that cannot be disclosed is difficult and massively time consuming; Councilmember Dickey's comment that they are not recommending it for adoption so it wouldn't be any sort of a legislative effort anyway on their part so however they proceed is probably okay but she agrees with what Mr. McGuire said; the Mayor's remark that sometimes lawyers ask for a lot of material and that is just part of the process, they are public records and they can't put restrictions on them; Councilmember Dickey's reference to 1442 and the fact that the Council has a letter that she believes the League sent to the Governor and it basically says that the League thought it was a win-win proposal for the State, the cities and employers because they would be attracting high-wage skilled workers (kind of like the Intel previously mentioned) and it said at the last step in the process on the very last day of the Session that the League changed their position when the bill emerged from the Conference Committee; Councilmember Dickey further read that the bill was amended to take a portion of the infrastructure funds directly out of the municipal Shared Revenue formula and that the protection of Shared Revenues is an unwavering principle of the League; Councilmember Dickey's comment that it sounds like the revenue that was going to be captured from the construction sales tax was done with the idea that these entiti es coming into this State benefit the State as a whole, including non-municipalities so it likes like the objection is that it switched from taking it just out of the municipalities because it is the State Revenue share of the construction tax that was collected; Representative Kavanagh's remark that to that point that he believes they have a problem with who benefits (the benefit would be almost entirely to that municipality and virtually no benefit to Fountain Hills unless one or two residents wound up working at Intel or something like that) and it basically means they start dispersing money to particular cities/towns and that results in having less money to spend in areas that would benefit everybody; the Mayor's comment that they need some more informat ion on this and how it impacts the Town now and how it would impact the Town if it changes. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire informed the Council that as far as the Intel Bill as it is being referred to, the difference to cities and towns is that the original format of the bill provided that the rebate of the construction sales tax z:\council packets\2013\r130103\121211wsm.docx Page 11 of 16 was taken prior to the calculation of State Shared Revenues so that all of the revenues that were collected would go towards rebating these massive pieces of infrastructure that one community simply couldn't fund, even a city the size of Chandler. He further stated that the change was to have it come out after the State Shared Revenue formula was applied so it would come out as part of that deduction and that was really the big diff erence. He noted that the Intel people said that they would never do this again -- they would not go into this kind of an infrastructure investment without having up front a commitment from the State and cities/towns showing they were all in. Representative Kavanagh noted that this is an ongoing debate at the Legislature -- how much do you give to private entities because they have gotten to the point where private entities that might not need subsidies realize they can extract it from cities and towns by saying, "Then we won't build here." He stated that they are beginning to revolt against this at the Capitol and they drew the line at the motion picture credit issue, which was becoming totally ridiculous and costing money without getting any j obs. He added that this is a very complicated issue and when you do a cost/benefit analysis, you just can't knee jerk say that it's great to have them he re no matter what the price because sometimes the price gets very high and the price isn't just that i ncident -- then everyone else expects the same thing, even people who would come here or expand anyway. Councilmember Dickey stated that as far as whether they want to be part of that bill, she would still want to do that. She talked about the way that it was changed on the last day of the Session and the fact that municipalities are thinking more regionally these days so if there is any way to bring this back up and have some discussion on it (under #17) she would be on board with doing that. Mr. Buchanan pointed out that there are 17 resolutions and three staff resolutions from the League as well five Town priorities from the staff for consideration. He said that there are different levels of advocacy for any of these and staff is looking for basically a legislative agenda from the Council so that staff will have some parameters and marching orders. He added that he is looking for letters or telephone calls or personal advocacy down at the Legislature -- he would like the Council to tell him which ones they would like to look at from a letter standpoint, telephone calls or personal advocacy and which ones are the most important to them so that staff can nail them down. Additional discussion ensued relative to Councilmember Elkie's comment that they have all these resolutions but that doesn't preclude the Council from coming together and advocating for another position that may not be part of this resolution; Mr. Buchanan's statement that they never know when something is going to come along that they didn't see as part of this that becomes part of the Legislative Session (if a new bill is introduced it could have an impact on the Town); Councilmember Elkie's opinion that they need to pay close attention to the construction tax (the changes or discussion that is going on about that) because out of everything they have heard about that would have the biggest fiscal impact on the Town and his comment that he would also like to get information regarding #17 as well (prioritize the financial items); Vice Mayor Leger's comment that Councilmember Elkie referred to something that both Representative Kavanagh and the Town's Auditor referred to the other evening and he thinks there are serious implications and the fact that that is not included in this list and questions as to when that will be addressed; Mr. McGuire's response that it is already underway in terms of what Representative Kavanagh referred to as "Stakeholder Groups" and the fact that those discussions have been ongoing all through the summer and fall and there is likely to be some form of movement on that soon one way or another (either a bill or just stop the efforts); Mr. McGuire's statement that it behooves the Town to be engaged in that discussion as soon as the Legislative Session starts; Mr. McGuire's hope that the one thing that hopefully will not result is an attempt to do strike all amendments because they are difficult to track and catch; Mr. McGuire's intention to keep close watch on this particular item; the Vice Mayor's comment that it is then in process and the best way of addressing that is what was just discussed and his question to Representative Kavanagh as to whether the Town will have his support of this (the Tax Reform Bill, the construction sales tax and retail sales tax); Representative Kavanagh's statement that that he is not sure whether that bill will go through at all and many are extremely concerned that to broaden the base and simultaneously lower the rate to revenue neutral would only be a temporary move against tax increases and that by lowering the sales tax rate it will allow a lot of municipalities and counties to jack up their sales tax rate because right now a lot of people see this invisible 10% glass ceiling that they don't want to touch so if they suddenly drop it too, then they are expecting a lot of tax increases to occur and they are a tax adverse Legislature; and Representative Kavanagh's statement that he shares the Council's concern regarding this (it will only lead to tax increases) and if it does go forward it is not something that he would support unless there were guarantees that they were not facilitating tax increases. z:\council packets\2013\r130103\121211wsm.docx Page 12 of 16 Councilmember Elkie asked what the Town was going to do as far as expressing their opposition to this if it does materialize into a bill -- because if it does materialize into a bill there are going to be some cities and towns behind it (those with the large stores like Home Depot, etc.) who will not be affected like the Town of Fountain Hills would be. He asked if they send a letter of protest from the Council or do they speak out -- what is that going to be because he doesn't want to be the voice in the wind. Mayor Kavanagh responded that she thinks they have to lobby their two State Representatives and their Senator and tell them that this will be detrimental to the Town and to vote against it. Mr. Buchanan stated that there are different levels of advocacy and if the Council wants staff to march to the Capitol Building on this one they will be happy to do so and if they want staff to wri te a letter they will do that too -- they will do them all but he just needs to know which ones the Council wants staff to do that to and to what level. He pointed out that they have to gauge the Legislative agenda by how much they are going to be able to advocate. Councilmember Elkie stated that Representative Kavanagh provided some very good information and it is a shame that they don't invite their representatives to appear more often. He said that they did have Senator Reagan come to Town but he would like to invite all three on a quarterly or annual basis (presuming they are available) to come in and talk to the Council and then the Council will have an opportunity to express the Town's and the residents’ concerns about these very issues and have some data to support their positions as Representative Kavanagh suggested. Representative Kavanagh said that in terms of general advice, in terms of approaching any Legislator or the body as a whole, oppose what you object to rather than oppose an entire bill because that might gain them more support (going for half the pie rather than the whole pie). He further stated that if the Council has objections, just don't say the items are onerous or they violate local control -- provide concrete reasons why something is a problem because then their representatives can either try to eliminate it or tweak it so that the problem goes away. He referred to #11 and said it is a problem. He noted that three cities are asking for this and it basically says, "Seek legislative actions that assist local collaborative groups with resources and funding for planning and proactive actions to improve forest health and reduce wildfire threats. Promote the economic engine of tourism dollars coming into the State driving down the c ost and human toll wildfires take as well as the cost of water shed sustainability." He said that if that is passed and sent to him the first thing he is going to say is what are they talking about? He pointed out that #11 says virtually nothing and it states the goal but does not say how the goal would be reached. He added that it also says to "give money and resources to local collaborative groups" and questioned who and what they are. He stressed that something as general and nebulous as this is not going to compel any policy; it is just something that is going to be read and disregarded. He stated that if they have an issue they should be a little specific -- they don't have to spell out the whole plan but they should say what they want done. Councilmember Dickey commented that rather than directing Mr. Buchanan to write three letters and make trips down to the Legislature on #3 and #4, they have the League and that is why they put that agenda item on last Session -- at every meeting they can see what is happening, what is going on, where it is in the process, is it going to be in a Committee and certainly Mr. McGuire is aware of those things. She stated that as far as she is concerned she does not have a problem with that, she doesn't have a problem with seeing something because there are going to be things they don't know one single thing about (they won't be on this piece of paper). She added that it is kind of as it comes and that is really the only way you can do it and as they know, things can change in two seconds. She reiterated that she has no problem reacting as they see these things come up (she has no problem with not saying they want to do these for sure, in this way, right now tonight because they really don't know what things wil l emerge). Mayor Kavanagh indicated support for Councilmember Dickey's comments and added that they don't even have a lot of information on a lot of them. She noted that the list does not contain everything that the Legislature is going to be doing so they need to keep up with everything else that comes through and they are going to ask their Representatives and Senator to inform the Council when something comes up that will directly affect the Town, especially if something is going to affect the money that comes into the Town. She advised that except for these two issues, the #17 that they just want to get more information and the other one that they want to keep their eye on, she would be willing to go along with Councilmember Dickey's suggestion of seeing how it goes and not making any definite decisions right now to advocate for one or the other -- let's see how the Legislature starts and what comes up. She said that if that is okay with everybody that will be the direction. z:\council packets\2013\r130103\121211wsm.docx Page 13 of 16 Vice Mayor Leger said that he is comfortable with that approach because when this whole conversation started the assumption he made was that they have this brochure from the League and regardless of what they say here if they actualize their strategy they are going to be bringing all of these things up at some particular point in time (or trying to bring them up) and he would agree that they follow that and maybe that is the strategy -- follow where the League is going and keep apprised of these items and then they can more specifi cally drill down as they did in their last Session with a couple of items. Mayor Kavanagh suggested that they also ask Mr. Strobeck or another member of the League to come in periodically and provide some updates as well on what they are pursuing. Councilmember Elkie stated that he thinks they really should get ahead of this as far as the construction tax issue and that is something that perhaps staff can spend a little bit of time on and gather the figures and the numbers as far as what the economic impact is going to be on the Town so that the Council can provide that to their representatives. He said that perhaps there could be a "carve out" for cities and towns that are in a similar situation as Fountain Hills (if a bill does in fact come forward). Mayor Kavanagh thanked Representative Kavanagh for his informative presentation and input this evening. AGENDA ITEM #3 - DISCUSSION RELATING TO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN CODE, CHAPTER 2, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, INCLUDING COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE BILL 2826 (CONSOLIDATED ELECTIONS). Town Clerk Bev Bender addressed the Council and stated that House Bill 2826 was passed by the Arizona Legislature during their 2012 Session and requires that beginning in 2014, a candidate election held for or on behalf of any political subdivision of the State, other than a Special Election to fill a vacancy or a recall election, may only be held on one of the following dates in even-numbered years: The Town's candidate elections would be on the 10th T uesday before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, which translates into the 2014 election being held on August 26th. She added that the General Election would be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, which would be November 4th. She noted that the impact of this legislation is that the Mayor and Council elections that were previously held in the Spring, March and May of even years, have been shifted to the Fall -- August and November of even-numbered years. Ms. Bender informed the Council that it is the Town Attorney's recommendation that the current Mayor and Council terms be extended for the additional time period from June 20, 2014 until the Town's 2014 elections are held in the Fall and all candidates are elected and qualified. She added that the newly-elected members' terms of office would begin with their first Regular Council Meeting in December of 2014 following the date of the General Election. She noted that this extension would also affect the length of the Vice Mayors' terms of office. She said that staff worked with the Town Attorney to complete a comprehensive review of Fountain Hills' Town Code Chapter 2 in order to identify any additional revisions necessary for compliance with State law, housekeeping provisions and proposed procedural changes. She pointed out that the Staff Report (available in the office of the Town Clerk) includes specific revisions which are related to State law. Ms. Bender asked the Council if they would like her to go through each of the revisions and Mayor Kavanagh said that she did not think that was necessary unless anyone has specific questions. Ms. Bender indicated her willingness to respond to questions from the Council. Councilmember Dickey referred to a Primary Election with mail-ins and asked Ms. Bender how she thinks they will be able to handle that (the August all mail-in ballot when they don't have people that are registered with any of the parties). Ms. Bender responded that they would have to get word out to the public to make sure that they are aware of this requirement. She added that she thinks some of the citizens were caught off guard this last election and they thought that because they were listed as an Independent they would receive a ballot. She said that without any communication with the Maricopa County Elections Department, the County would have no idea as to which ballot those citizens would prefer to vote. z:\council packets\2013\r130103\121211wsm.docx Page 14 of 16 Councilmember Dickey asked if somebody wants to maintain their Independent registration how will they vote on August 26th. Ms. Bender replied that if citizens are currently on the Permanent Early Voting List (PEVL), they will receive a mailer that is sent out 60 days prior to the election and on that they can actually designate what party ballot they want to receive. Councilmember Dickey stated that if they are not on the PEVL but they live in Fountain Hills in the past they received a ballot but they will not get one for the 2014 elections and Ms. Bender confirmed that Councilmember Dic key's statement was correct and said that is because the Town is now on the partisan election ballot and the Town is non - partisan. Mr. McGuire informed the Council that if they look through the red -lined document in the packet there are a lot of housekeeping changes that have to be implemented in the Code. He stated that the Code now is written so that the terms of the current Council carry over because quite frankly he does not believe that they can shorten the terms that the voters created. He said that extending the terms is the only way staff believes this can work. He noted that another change that is built in here is that there is an option under State law on how to calculate the number of votes cast in an election and there is an alternate procedure that allows them to use just the Mayor's race as the total votes cast. He explained that in a number of cases this would result in races determined at the Primary Election and it is written with that option in here but staff wanted to have some discussion with the Council on whether or not that is where they want to go. He added that Ms. Bender has compiled some information for the Council on what that would have meant in recent elections so they can see how it actually would be implemented if the Council decides to exercise that option. Mayor Kavanagh requested that Ms. Bender explain this option. Ms. Bender stated that basically they would take all of the votes that were tabulated for the Mayor's race and the n do it the same way they have always done it -- they would still need a majority vote so it would be 50% plus 1. She said that using what results they have from the March Primary, what would have occurred is they would have had the Mayor elected and all three Councilmembers. She added that they probably would have negated the need for a General Election so they would have saved one. She further stated that although the County has said that they can have an all-mail ballot election, they do make the stipulation that if the jurisdiction does not need the General Election, they are still responsible for providing the ballots to the citizens because they will not have made arrangements for polling sites (so they would still have to be able to re-issue ballots if some are lost or spoiled and then they would also have the ballot box at Town Hall where people could deposit them rather than mailing them back to the County). Councilmember Dickey commented that the General Election is going to happen anyway because now it's not in May it's in November so it's not like they get away with saving money because there is going to be a November election in an even year no matter what. She said that any incentive to going to that -- just who voted for the Mayor -- is kind of gone. She added that with the confusion that she thinks will occur in August (because people will think that the ballot will automatically be mailed, etc.) that may not be a very strong indication of voter turnout or desires or however they want to look at it. She stated that she would rather look at the votes cast or ballots cast and continue saying it will be the 50% plus 1 of the actual people who walked in to vote, regardless of whether they have voted in any race or anything like that. She said that to her that is more accurate reflection of the voters' desires. Mr. McGuire advised that the reason staff wanted to bring this up during a Work Study Session was to give the Council some time to actually think about this and see how it would be worked out. He noted that the provision they are talking about is in Section 2-3-B (the new Section B) and that is the provision that has the optional language. He added that if between now and when this comes back before the Council on a future agenda, if anyone wants to call and ask questions, staff would be happy to answer them. He said that it is a very comprehensive sweep through Chapter 2 and that is what they do whenever they have one of these needs -- go through and amend a thing or two on every page. He stated that staff tries to catch all the things that they can so that they don't have to come back and do it again. He pointed out that it has been drafted with that alternative in there and he wanted to make sure Council knew that prior to going to the next Council meeting. Councilmember Hansen stated that she agrees with Councilmember Dickey's comments and she thinks it is a fair representation using the total ballots cast. She added that as they can see in their election, with only one person z:\council packets\2013\r130103\121211wsm.docx Page 15 of 16 running for Mayor that number was greatly reduced because there were a lot more ballots cast than ballots cast for a single person, which would change if there were two people running. She further stated that on the other hand you could have a full list of candidates so she thinks it is almost like trying to compare apples and oranges because they really are two separate types of things. She expressed the opinion that there is just too much disparity between the two different races and what that total count would be so she thinks it should remain all the ballots cast. Ms. Bender advised that under the Non-Partisan Ballot, Section 2-2-3, they talk about the candidate name rotation and the way the County looks at it now is the Town has five precincts so if th ey have any more than five candidates, they (the Town) would have to establish their own rotation. She stated that what she would suggest is what she found other communities doing -- hold a name drawing at the end of the day when the deadline has occurred and candidates need to file their nomination papers and petitions. She noted that they would use that to establish then name rotation. Mayor Kavanagh asked if that means that in all five precincts the names would be exactly the same and Ms. Bender responded that if they only have five candidates the County will take care of the name rotation but if there are more than that then they (the Town) have to figure out what the name rotation is and this seems the fairest way to do it. She pointed out that the State does it too, they draw names by lot, and for the Town maybe it would be a deck of cards or a roll of the dice -- something like that. Mayor Kavanagh said that if there are only five then it would automatically rotate so that in each precinct the names were shuffled and Ms. Bender stated that the Mayor was correct. AGENDA ITEM #4 - DISCUSSION RELATING TO A POSSIBLE BUYER/BROKER REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS. Mr. Buchanan addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and said that they have a do cument before them for consideration. He stated that staff wanted to get this to them because it will be in concert with an Economic Development Draft Plan (ECDP) that was submitted to them as well so that the Council could have some further discussions regarding the particulars of what staff is looking at. He added that this will be in concert with the Work Session that they are looking at holding for the ECDP in January. He noted that in keeping with the ECDP, they are looking at an opportunity to perhaps retain a buyer/broker through a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process. He asked Councilmember Yates to help him out if he misses something along the way because he actually helped to write this and provided Mr. Buchanan with guidance on what needed to be done. He added that within the RFQ is a Professional Services Agreement (behind it) for consideration as well. He noted that should the Council decide to go down this path and select someone, they have the contract in front of them with all of the information. He advised that no fees would be charged -- it would be between the buyer and the seller -- and they would like to have somebody on board. He discussed the scope of the work and reported that they are looking for a licensed real estate broker who will bring 40 new businesses locates to Fountain Hills annually and they are looking to contract with a minimum of three commercial real estate listing services to help promote the Town as a potential spot for business. He added that they are asking that they conduct a monthly open house for all potential businesses and to provide monthly reports on progress and business contacts showing their activity and what they are looking at. Mr. Buchanan informed the Council that everything else is pretty standard and as far as the timeline they are looking at a six-month time frame for the selected person to carry out those responsibilities. He said that he would like to see what kind of activity they can get from a firm that is interested in looking at thi s. He indicated his willingness to respond to questions from the Council. Councilmember Yates commented that there is so much demand in Fountain Hills and about half supply. He reported that the Town is losing forty-three cents out of every retail dollar (it is being spent somewhere else). He said that even if they take out the auto dealers, and he knows they are not going to be opening a big Chevrolet business, but even i f they take that out it is about thirty-five cents of every retail dollar and that equates to $3.6 million in potential tax revenue that they are losing. He stated that to tap into this market is huge. He explained that there are those who have a commercial agent listing their building and then there are these buyer/brokers who represent various companies but there is a gap between them. He noted that no one is out there advocating for Fountain Hills and saying that "Fountain Hills is a great place to land." z:\council packets\2013\r130103\121211wsm.docx Page 16 of 16 Councilmember Yates advised that the beauty of this is that the private sector is already set up to pay for it and as Mr. Buchanan mentioned, they are going to be wearing on their lapel that they are the exclusive agent for Fountain Hills. He added that like any listing agreement, if they are not doing their job and it is not working out, the Town can fire them and go with another team. He further stated that they will be hiring a professional team -- a retail guy, an office person, an industrial manufacturing person -- and they work in unison so that the Town is on that short list of all the tenant reps who represent the companies that our out there. He added that means that ABC Company is out there looking for 10,000 square feet and has 100 jobs and they have a short list that their tenant rep has already done -- and their guy is going to know that that is going on because that is the nature of the business so hopefully they are going to be on that short list and it will create more activity. Councilmember Yates stated that the beauty in this is that the Town is in control like any other listing agreement and reiterated that if they don't perform they can get rid of them and try a different group. He pointed out that there will not be any additional staff time or salaries that they have to take on and this is one of those public/private partnerships that they have all talked about. Councilmember Elkie asked Mr. McGuire whether during his experience with other cities and towns he has ever seen anything like this before and Mr. McGuire responded not typically and mainly because the larger cities and towns have staff whose job is to go out and actively market their cities and towns. He said that for the most part smaller towns do not engage in this type of activity and he thinks it will put the Town in a position that is somewhat unique. Councilmember Elkie commended Councilmember Yates for bringing this fresh, new idea forward. He commented on the fact that this will not cost the Town anything and he thinks it is a great idea, they will see where it goes and there is no risk involved. Mayor Kavanagh stated that Councilmember Yates has been working on this for a long time and the proposal is very professionally put together. She agreed that it is a great idea and the minute he told her it was not going to cost the Town anything she said, "Okay, we've got nothing to lose then and we might as well give it a try." She added that it sounds very interesting and promising and she would like to see them go forward with it. Mr. Buchanan thanked the Council and said that staff has gotten the message and will proceed. AGENDA ITEM #5 – ADJOURNMENT. Councilmember Yates MOVED to adjourn the meeting and Councilmember Brown SECONDED the motion. The Work Study Session adjourned at 7:18 p.m. 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 Work Study Session held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills in the Town Hall Council Chambers on the 11th day of December, 2012. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 3rd day of January, 2013. _____________________________ Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk