HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022.0822.TCSM.MinutesTOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
AUGUST 22, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Dickey called the Special Meeting of the Fountain Hills Town Council held on
August 22, 2022, to order at 5:32 p.m. and led the Council and audience in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
2. MOMENT OF SILENCE
A moment of silence was held.
3. ROLL CALL
Members Present Mayor Ginny Dickey: Vice Mayor Gerry Friedel; Councilmember
David Spelich; Councilmember Sharron Grzybowski; Councilmember Alan Magazine;
Councilmember Peggy McMahon; Councilmember Mike Scharnow
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Town Manager Grady E. Miller; Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson; Town
Clerk Linda Mendenhall
Audience: Twenty-seven members of the public were present.
4. REPORTS BY MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND TOWN MANAGER
A. A REPORT FROM STAFF REGARDING 5G AND SMALL CELL WIRELESS
Aaron Arnson, Town Attorney provided a brief overview of the memorandum he
prepared in response to residents' concerns regarding 5G and small cell wireless.
5. SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS
A. PRESENTATION: 2022 Legislative Session Update: Presented by: Jack
Lunsford
Jack Lunsford with The Lunsford Group provided an update and answered questions
regarding the 2022 Legislative Session.
6. CALL TO THE PUBLIC
Pursuant to AR.S. §38-431 Ot(H), public comment is permitted (not required) on matters NOT listed on the agenda Any such comment (q
must be within the jurisdiction of the Council. and (i) is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The Council will not
discuss or lake legal action on matters raised during Call to the Public unless the matters are properly noticed for discussion and legal
action. At the conclusion of the Call to the Public. Individual councilmembers may Ofrespond to criticism, (i) ask staff to review a matter or
(Mask that the matter be placed on a future Council agenda.
Lori Troller, a Fountain Hills resident, addressed the council concerning 5G and small
cell wireless voicing her appreciation to staff for the upcoming discussions on this topic.
April McCormick a Fountain Hills resident, addressed the council concerning 5G and
small cell wireless voicing her appreciation to staff for the upcoming discussions on this
topic.
7. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
All items listed on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine, noncontroversial matters and will be enacted by one
motion of the Council. All motions and subsequent approvals of consent items will include all recommended staff
stipulations unless otherwise stated There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a councilmember of
member of the public so requests. If a councilmember or member of the public wishes to discuss an item on the Consent
Agenda. he/she may request so prior to the motion to accept the Consent Agenda or with notification to the Town
Manager or Mayor prior to the date of the meeting for which the item was scheduled. The items will be removed from the
Consent Agenda and considered In its normal sequence on the agenda.
MOVED BY Councilmember Alan Magazine to approve the Consent Agenda,
SECONDED BY Councilmember Sharron Grzybowski.
Vote: 7 — 0 passed — Unanimously
Councilmember Grzybowski Aye
Councilmember Magazine Aye
Councilmember McMahon Aye
Councilmember Scharnow Aye
Councilmember Spelich Aye
Vice Mayor Friedel Aye
Mayor Dickey Aye
A. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of the minutes of the
Regular Meeting of June 21, 2022; Approval of the minutes for the Joint Meeting
with the Fountain Hills Schools District Board of June 21, 2022.
8. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Resolution 2022-28 adopting the
Community Services Code of Conduct.
C. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Resolution 2022-34, abandoning
the 20' Public Utility and Drainage Easement along the south side of 17039 E.
Nicklaus Drive (Application A22-000005).
D. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Resolution 2022-35, approving the
designation of Chief Fiscal Officer of the Town of Fountain Hills for FY23.
E. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Resolution 2022-36, approving an
Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Glendale relating to the
cooperation use of the Glendale hosted and developed Glendale Tax Application.
8. REGULAR AGENDA
A. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Resolution 2022-38 declaring and
adopting the results of the Primary Election held on August 2, 2022.
MOVED BY Vice Mayor Gerry Friedel to approve Resolution 2022-38 as
presented, SECONDED BY Councilmember Sharron Grzybowski.
Vote: 7 — 0 Passed — unanimously
Councilmember Grzybowski Aye
Councilmember Magazine Aye
Councilmember McMahon Aye
Councilmember Scharnow Aye
Councilmember Spelich Aye
Vice Mayor Friedel Aye
Mayor Dickey Aye
B. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: A request for a Special Use Permit
to allow up to five dwelling units in the C-C (Common Commercial) zoning district
on an 8,000 square -foot lot located at the northwest corner of El Pueblo
Boulevard and Ivory Drive (Case# SUP22-000001).
John Wesley, Director, Development Services presented on the special use
permit for the 8,000 square -foot lot located at the northwest corner of El Pueblo
Boulevard and Ivory Drive.
John Gurczak, a Fountain Hills resident and the builder and developer for the
property provided additional input on the project.
Mayor Dickey opened the item for public comment; the following residents
addressed Town Council:
Larry Meyers a Fountain Hills resident, addressed the council voicing his
opposition to this project and inquiring if there were any other uses considered
for this property.
Crustal Cavanaugh a Fountain Hills resident, addressed the council voicing her
opposition to this project suggesting more outreach from the Town's Economic
Development department to find other uses for this property.
Ed Stizza a Fountain Hills resident, addressed the council voicing his concerns
regarding the aesthetics of the recent developments in the Town.
Janet "Faith" Fayleen a Fountain Hills resident, addressed the council inquiring if
ADA requirements were reviewed for this project.
Clerk's Note: during the public comment portion for this item,
Councilmember Magazine stepped away from the Dias from 6:42 p.m. to
6:45 p.m.
MOVED BY Councilmember Alan Magazine to postpone approval of Special Use
Permit to September 20, 2022, Town Council Meeting, SECONDED BY Vice
Mayor Gerry Friedel.
Vote: 7 — 0 Passed — unanimously
Councilmember Grzybowski Aye
Councilmember Magazine Aye
Councilmember McMahon Aye
Councilmember Scharnow Aye
Councilmember Spelich Aye
Vice Mayor Friedel Aye
Mayor Dickey Aye
C. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: A request to apply and take
receipt of grant funding from the Arizona Office of Tourism.
Amanda Jacobs, Director, Economic Development, presented the grant
opportunities from the Arizona Office of Tourism and answered council's
questions.
Mayor Dickey opened the item for public comment; the following resident
addressed Town Council:
Ed Stizza a Fountain Hills resident, addressed the council regarding the design
of the shade structure.
MOVED BY Councilmember Sharron Grzybowski to approve staff to apply and
take receipt of AOT VAI grant funding from the Arizona Office of Tourism to
support the Town's economic development and tourism efforts, SECONDED BY
Councilmember David Spelich.
Vote: 7 — 0 Passed — unanimously
Councilmember Grzybowski Aye
Councilmember Magazine Aye
Councilmember McMahon Aye
Councilmember Scharnow Aye
Councilmember Spelich Aye
Vice Mayor Friedel Aye
Mayor Dickey Aye
D. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of Shade 'n Net Contract
2022.091.1 Amendment for park shade installation and repairs.
MOVED BY Vice Mayor Gerry Friedel to approve Shade 'n Net Contract
2022.091.1 Amendment for park shade installation and repairs, SECONDED BY
Councilmember Peggy McMahon.
Vote: 7 — 0 Passed — unanimously
Councilmember Grzybowski Aye
Councilmember Magazine Aye
Councilmember McMahon Aye
Councilmember Scharnow Aye
Councilmember Spelich Aye
Vice Mayor Friedel Aye
Mayor Dickey Aye
9. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/DIRECTION to the TOWN MANAGER
Item(s) listed below are related only to the propriety of (ii) placing such item(s) on a future agenda for action, or (iii)
directing staff to conduct further research and repot back to the Council.
Vice Mayor Gerry Friedel asked that staff look into the water -related issues at the
Fountain Hills Community Center that he observed. Grady Miller, Town Manager,
indicated that staff is currently working on this issue and will be presenting on this topic
at a council meeting in September.
10. ADJOURNMENT
MOVED BY Councilmember David Spelich to adjourn, SECONDED BY Councilmember
Sharron Grzybowski.
Vote: 7 — 0 Passed — Unanimously
The Special Meeting of the Fountain Hills Town Council held on August 22, 2022,
adjourned at 7:33 p.m.
ATTEST AND PREPARED BY:
Lkhda G. Mendenhall, Town Clerk
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
94441 r Ginn Dickeyayor
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of
the Regular Meeting held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills in the Town Hall Council
Chambers on the 22nd day of August 2022. I further certify that the meeting was duly
called and that a quorum was present.
DATrrQ this 18th Day of October
inda G.-Kilendenhall, Town Clerk
Post -Production File
Town of Fountain Hills
August 22, 2022 Town Council Meeting
Special Meeting
Transcription Provided By:
eScribers, LLC
* * * * *
Transcription is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a
totally verbatim record of the proceedings.
MAYOR DICKEY: Good evening, everyone. Welcome. Please stand for the pledge and
remain standing.
ALL: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic, for
which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, for liberty and justice for all.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. Please stand for a moment of silence. Thank you very much.
Roll call, please.
MENDENHALL: Thank you, Mayor. Mayor Dickey.
MAYOR DICKEY: Here.
MENDENHALL: Vice -Mayor Friedel.
FRIEDEL- Present
MENDENI IALL: Councilmember McMahon.
MCMAHON: Present.
MENDENHALL: Councilmember Scharnow.
SCHARNOW: Here.
MENDENHALL: Councilmember Magazine.
MAGAZINE: Here.
MENDENHALL: Councilmember Spelich.
SPEI.ICH: Present.
MENDFNHAI_I.: Councilmember Grzybowski.
GRZYBOWSKI: Present.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. Welcome back after the summer. Good to see you. We, as
always, start with our reports from town manager and mayor. Grady?
MILLER: Thank you, Mayor. So we do have an item on the agenda, actually, pertaining to
small cell wireless and 5G, and our attorney - we had heard from residents Lori Troller at a
previous meeting back in both May and June. And our attorney, I asked him to look into this
because there were concerns about if the town could in fact prohibit 5G and small cell wireless
from coming into town. So I'm going to turn it over to our town attorney, who actually did the
report that's actually in the staff - excuse me, in the council packet. And he's going to want to
give you a little bit of an update on this topic.
ARNSON: Sure, Mayor and council. I'll keep this update rather brief. But we did evaluate
some of the requests and concerns from these residents, and as weve discussed and provided, in
fact, a copy of that memorandum to the residents, I mean, there is no ability for us to prohibit 5G
and the deployment of 5G within town. Indeed, it's not just us that are preempted from doing
that. It's all municipalities nationally that are prohibited from doing that. That said, the residents
provided a few ideas that we may he able to work around the edges with providing some more
limited regulation around aesthetics and safety. And so we actually do have a meeting
scheduled, I believe, for a couple Tuesdays -
MILLER: September 6th.
ARNSON: - September 6th with Ms. Troller and those residents to address some of those
concerns and see if we can't clean up our ordinance a little bit to get there. So we're hopeful that
well be able to do a little bit to be able to resolve those issues to the extent that were able. And
we just unfortunately are limited in what we can do. That's all I have at this time.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. Any questions about that? No? Grady, do you have any other
report?
MILLER: I do not. Thank you, Mayor.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. Yes, Peggy.
MCMAHON: Good evening. I hope everybody had a good summer. 1 did. 1 went to Tanzania
on safari. It was awesome. But also the last couple of weeks, I've been joining Amanda Jacobs,
our finance director, and meeting with a couple of the business owners in town. And it's been
very, very productive. It's nice for them to see that we're all alive here in town and were
available, and dispel some myths that the town is not business -friendly. So it's good to get the
message out that we are business -friendly and that we're here for them. So that's been really
good. We have also been - have Dementia Friendly meetings that have been going on, and we're
looking at becoming a certified Dementia Friendly town, which will be really, really good for the
town and for our citizens, as well as were doing some work on the biophilic and moving forward
with that. And then later on in next week a couple of us are going to be attending the bowling
league. No, the Arizona Cities and Towns League Conference. So I'm looking forward to that.
Thank you.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. Go ahead.
FRIEDEL: Thanks, Mayor. Welcome back, everyone. 1, too, attended the joint sessions with
the Chamber of Commerce, and I have to tell you we learned a lot from the four businesses that I
did visit. And we actually contacted the town about ironing out some rough patches we had
between the town and the Sanitary District for a couple of our restaurants in town. So it's really
a well worthwhile attempt by the town and Amanda and the economic development area of the
town to get out, visit our businesses, find out what's going on, how we can help them. And as
Councilwoman McMahon said, we are business -friendly and we are open for business. So 1
think that will go a long way toward showing people that. I also had the privilege of attending
the Purple Heart Memorial Day here in town and giving the opening remarks and welcoming
everybody to that. And Mayor, I have to present to you a certificate from that day, a certificate
of appreciation for all your work in helping the town become a Purple Heart Community. So I'll
pass this down to you.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you.
FRIEDEL: And then one last item on my list. I'm wondering if anybody in this room has been
flocked. Yes. Okay. So somebody does know what that means. So we fully support our high
school in town and the PTO. If you're interested in being part of that support, contact the PTO,
and they'll come out they'll flock you. What they'll do is they'll put a sign up saying you support,
and they do a little canon that goes oft So we had our first football game last Friday night, and
although we didn't win, we were close. But we have a good team this year, so get out there and
support them on Friday nights now. They won't be here for the next couple weeks, but that next
home game it'd be important to get a good crowd out there. So thank you.
MAYOR DICKEY: Nice. Mike.
SCHARNOW: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think the only think I wanted to add is with the
Drug Prevention Coalition, we've been keeping active during the summer and gearing up for the
new school year, which Gerry has mentioned did start. So we have several things lined up this
coming semester, and those efforts will continue.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thanks.
MAGAZINE: Cynthia and I had a wonderful vacation. We rented a house in Flagstaff to get out
of the heat, and it was almost as hot up there as it is here. And we came back a week and a half
early.
MAYOR DICKEY: Wow.
[LAUGHTER]
MAGAZINE: It's only money.
MAYOR DICKEY: Yes.
SPELICH: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I tried to avoid politics at all cost, so I didn't do many
political things. I did attend the Purple Heart ceremony. I was really surprised and in awe of --
there was two full rows of Purple Heart recipients that were all Fountain Hills residents, and
many of them also have silver and bronze stars. So we were definitely --the councilmen and I
were definitely in the - or the Vice Mayor and I were definitely in the room full of true American
heroes. So also on top of the Mayor getting a nice honor, Justin Weldy got an honor from Phil
Yin. And for those of you that don't know, Justin came up with an emblem that is going - or that
is now currently being displayed on parking spaces for Purple Heart veterans. And they liked it
so much that they nationally adopted his design. So it will be across the country that any town
that's a Purple Heart town will have Justin's design in their parking spaces. So that's quite an
honor. And so they were very thankful. And like I said, I was in awe of all the heroes that were
in that room. Thank you.
GRZYBOWSKI: Okay. Obviously, I didn't do anything near as exciting as these folks over the
summer, but I do feel like it's first day back at school and were doing our what we did over the
summer project. I attended, virtually, two National League of Cities meetings. One of them was
the State of the Cities and the other was First Tier Suburbs Council, which sounds way more
complicated than it actually was. We got to hear from an organization that - I actually sent this
to Grady and Rachael, I think - that they have open source ways to help you kind of try things in
town before you do something permanent. And were talking more along the lines of parks kind
of stuff. So don't get too excited in your little - on your streets. There's one particular town in
Mesa that they used orange cones to block off to see how welcoming the bike lane access would
be, that kind of stuff. So it's temporary ways before you spend hardcore money to get a project
done. Like I said, it's open source. So if there's a picnic table that needs to be built or pergolas
that need to go up, they can help you with that kind of thing. It was very interesting. And
hopefully it's something we can do with our next project. That's all.
MAYOR DICKEY: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate you going. Appreciate everybody, what you
were doing. 1 didn't have anything to do this summer. But no, just kidding. I actually was
happy to have the greeting on the independence Day festivities. I met virtually with the Mayor
of Pietrasanta, Italy, Alberto Giovannetti, to talk about our potential sister city partnership. I also
met in person with the former Mayor of Killarney, Sean Caunihan, who is the chair of their
Town Twinning Association, which is like the sister cities. He gave us this tour of Killarney,
and there are a lot of similarities, believe it or not, which I think that municipalities face.
Two MAG meetings. One was ajoint meeting with the Transportation Policy Committee, trying
to make sense of the owners' veto of the Prop 400 extension that had passed the legislature with
bipartisan support and with unanimous support from the Regional Transportation Council and
from regional council. So I'm sure Jack will be bringing that up in his report. Well be meeting
again this Wednesday, and there'll be an update on the regional homelessness efforts, which is a -
which is a homelessness prevention effort that we are joining in our capacity as a town of our
size.
So Grady and I met with Honorable Consul Glenn Williamson, who is - who started the
Canadian Arizona Business Council, which is kind of like GPEC, but we've been having a lot of
activity with them. Also, he is on the board of EPCOR, and I wanted to mention that well be
hearing from EPCOR and talking about water issues at our September 20th meeting.
And then, last - it was a long time ago, but we had Liz's (ph.) retirement party. And again, we
welcome Linda here as our clerk. That's it for that.
Our next item, of course, is our appearance. We already did the report on the 5G, so now we're
going to do an appearance by Jack Lunsford, who's going to talk about the legislative session,
what happened and what's coming. And welcome to you, Jack.
LUNSFORD: Thank you, Mayor and council and Manager Miller too. It's good to see you all
back here. I still need - this almost looks like a new one. Is it? Am I looking at the right one
here?
POCK: Here.
LUNSFORD: Aha. I need an expert here.
POCK: I saw it here earlier.
LUNSFORD: Yeah, okay. All right. It's over there. Okay. My fault.
POCK: Oh, wait. That's not it.
LUNSFORD: No, that's not Inc. Nope, that's not me either. Is that me, the PowerPoint?
POCK: Yeah, those are the two that -
LUNSFORD: There you go. Right there. There we go. All right. Excellent. Thank you.
Because somehow these -- you know, wherever you go, it's like a different setup every time. I
have had the chance to be involved in -
POCK: Excuse me, Jack. I think if you just do the down button on the keyboard, it will do it.
LUNSFORD: Yeah, that's what I think I'm going to have to do. That one wasn't - there we go.
So very quickly I want to give you a legislative session update. And this has to do with
something that is tied for the sixth largest legislative session in state history. And I don't know
what it says about me, but I've been here for at least 12 of the longest. There were 1,747 bills
introduced. 388 of those were signed into law. The Governor vetoed four of them, one which is
critical significance to all of us interested in transportation. Legislature adjourned sine die. So
the effective date of legislation is September 24th, unless otherwise specified in the bill. So that
could be with an emergency clause, meaning it's effective upon the Governor's signature, or it
could have a delayed effective date.
I want to remind you quickly - and 1 will do this fairly often so it's in your mind and my mind,
you know, what are our priorities and our principles and so on. And you all know these probably
in your sleep in terms of what the strategic priorities of the town are. They are guiding principles
for me as to what I do when I'm not visiting with you one-on-one. I won't recite them because
you know them, but I just want you to know that 1 pay attention to those. Two core legislative
principles that were adopted by the council were to preserve local funding and, in so doing,
protect state shared revenues and to do everything we can to oppose preemption of local
authority. Legislature likes to preempt local authority from municipal government. And so one
of my key jobs is to work both with the League and other coalition folks and other municipalities
to protect our local authority.
The League had four resolutions this past year, not in any order: regulate fireworks, the
permissibility of those; solutions on affordable housing and homeless; allowing cities to amend
their budgets after the initial adoption; and dissolving water and wastewater districts, if it's called
for. The other thing we had, and I won't dwell on the first one initially, but support the extension
of the half -cent sales tax. And then protect the continued liability of the highway user revenue
fund for cities and towns. And we did the second one, and we worked really hard on the first
one. And I'll allude to that in a second.
Just to recap the League -- and you all have received in your packets the new laws report, but the
League did either track or work 550-plus bills. I was in touch with them on many, many of
those, and supported the town wherever - or excuse me, the League, wherever possible. And 1
have two municipal clients. So that makes it easy for me to do in terms of supporting the
League. I actively worked on behalf of the Town of Fountain Hills more than 30 bills. And I'm
proud to say that I was a key negotiator and lobbyist on both the Prop 400 extension and the
short-term rentals group.
So in terms of the Prop 400 extension, as we all know, the Governor did veto that. I will tell you
that I've had conversations in the interim with legislators, including Representative Carroll, who
was the prime sponsor in the House. The next day he said his phone was blowing up. He had no
idea that the Governor was going to veto the bill. That's pretty much across the board. And I
don't know if that was a missed opportunity with strategy with all of us that were working on it.
Did we take the Govemor for granted? I can't say that we did. I believe that members of our
lobbyist contingency had conversation with him.
And let me digress for one second. There's the MAG Intergovs, which as a contract Intergov for
the Town of Fountain Hills, I'm not allowed to participate with them directly. The Mayor and
others have allowed me to be involved in the Monday morning - excuse me - meetings. But then
there was a very comprehensive lobbyist group with business ties and et cetera that I was a part
of too. We actively also worked this. There were things, Mayor - 1 did attend the joint session,
although I was in the Atlanta airport and I was listening as I was walking and driving and so on.
I appreciated all the comments from the mayors and so on. I believe that there probably should
have been an executive session to discuss that because there were a lot of things that either could
not have been said or people weren't privy to know of that some of us on the outside have.
So what's going on next? There are not only what the mayor has indicated for the meeting next
week. There are other activities, myself included. I've had multiple meetings already with key
legislators to find out what they anticipate for the coming session, and I'll be sharing that with
you.
We were all concerned about by right zoning, and because of the massive pressure that was put
on the legislature by the league and the individual municipalities, that did not pass. What
happened instead was there was an amendment to create a Housing Supply Study Committee.
I've already attended two of those meetings. There's another one tomorrow. They'll be meeting
probably all the way up until the holidays at the end of the year, and I'm not sure they know
where they're going. Because of the - and I don't have time to dwell on it, but the types of
presentations that they're receiving. I have a couple of ideas of my own from when I was on
Mayor Stanton's staff. And I'll probably be working with the chair on them to see if we can help
at least the homeless side for the housing issue.
Short-term rentals, it was probably the second or third - it's in the top ten most amended bills that
were worked among the negotiators that I've been involved with in almost 40 years. There was
more wordsmithing than you can imagine. There was agreement, disagreement. There were
holdouts, et cetera. But at the end of the day, we came forward with a bill that wasn't what
everybody wanted, but it was a great step forward for municipal government in terms of their
ability to permit and to regulate short-term rentals. Will there be something coming forward
again? I do believe so. Although, I've seen recently that one particular short-term rental
company has already announced actively in the last week the activities that they're going to do
for preventing party houses and things. I will tell you that the cynic in me is - that that's a
preemptive strike. But at least they're going to do it. Lastly on this one, we prevailed in
protecting both the preemption issue as well as our own revenues. Boy, I lost the word. We
prevailed in helping that bill to prohibit municipalities from levying residential lease taxes, and it
failed. And that's a positive thing.
Fireworks, you already know about that one, but I will tell you that I had an amendment after it
was approaching passage in the House, and the amendment was to put teeth into the bill. Right
now, it essentially says you can't do this on Fourth of July and Christmas and New Year's. You
can only have the fireworks in more hours than is currently allowed by law. It's like you telling
your children you can't do this. I can't see a law enforcement officer showing up on a complaint
and so on. And so I'm looking at - and I'll meet with a sponsor to see if he's open to having some
teeth in it, which would allow for fines and so on. And we haven't worked out how the
distribution of those fines are, but that'll be important. So were working on that.
The condominium termination wasn't a lead issue for the Town of Fountain Hills itself, but it
was certainly significant for Rio Verde and some other communities across the state.
Representative Weninger did his best to require a 100 percent vote before you could terminate
one. And as things happen, there was a compromise. They reverted back to 80 percent for
existing condominiums. Going forward, it's 95 percent, and any new condominium project has
to be at 95 percent. So I don't know if anything will come back because Mr. Weninger has left
the legislature and he was the prime sponsor.
MAGAZINE: Mayor, Jack, I'm sorry. I didn't follow that one. What is that bill? What would it
do?
LUNSFORD: So Mayor and Councilmember Magazine, right now a company can come in and
buy a percentage of the shares or the ownership of the condominiums and force the others to sell
or to terminate. And they would terminate the condominium situation. Again, Representative
Weninger attempted to make that 100 percent so that no institutional investor or anybody else
could come in and make those modifications, and he wasn't able to get that through. But
prospectively, it will.
MAGAZINE. Okay.
MAYOR DICKEY: In fact, it did affect us, Jack. This came to my attention from it happening
at the Four Peaks condos. And that exactly was happening. And I think the origin of this is
probably more expecting individual homeowners - 80 percent of individual homeowners would
agree that they wanted to terminate the condominium. But what happened is that corporations
were buying them and then getting that majority -
LUNSFORD: Right.
MAYOR DICKEY: - and then forcing the 20 percent to leave. So the 90 percent was a great
victory, but again, it's prospective. So I think I even saw an ad for Four Peaks a couple days ago
having them be apartments. So I don't know how that's actually working out because I know that
they didn't have an HOA board, but I think they do now. So there may be some options there.
But it was definitely something that was going on here.
LUNSFORD: And Mayor, I apologize for not recalling that specific one.
So lastly and very quickly, there were several appropriations bills. One of them in particular is
the capital appropriations bill, and it included two and a half million dollars for Dark Sky
Discovery Center. Early on in the session, there was no anticipation for any additional funding
this year. That was expressed to me directly. What prompted it - and this is what happens in the
process - Senator Rogers wanted 19 and a half million dollars for Lowell Observatory. She
didn't get that much. She got five and a half million. But as a result, then Representative
Kavanagh stepped in and got the additional funds for Dark Sky Discovery Center.
And then in all of those, the legislature has 11 appropriations bills. I won't go into all of them,
but two of them are important to all of us. Anybody going down to Tucson? There's a $400
million widening project for one of the largest expanses of the 1-10 down by the Gila River
Bridge and south. And the other one is, if you're going to LA, there is a $64 million widening of
the 1-10 to the State Route 85, except there's a contingency on whether Prop 400 was extended or
not. So that could be problematic.
So what do we have for the coming year? You know, I've been doing this for 40 years. 1 always
say, hey, I don't know what's going to happen. Well, take a look. I don't have a crystal ball this
big. We're going to have a new governor. The senate will have 13 out of 30 - 43% will be new
members. Eight of those will have previous experience either having been in the legislature
before or moving over from the House. The House will have 35 of 60 new members, 58 percent,
and only four of those with previous experience. So that means there will be new leadership in
both chambers. 1 believe that in the Senate, there are two people who have been Speaker of the
House vying for the presidency. I think at least that will give some stability, hopefully, and
probably the majority leader in the House will step up a little bit.
Right now the margins are one -vote margins, which gave leverage in the budget this year and all
sorts of things. 16-14 for the republicans in the Senate, and 31-29 for the republicans in the
House. 1 can't predict what they're going to be. We could have the same. There could be, as you
see in my last bullet point - with voter turnout, is there a blue wave? Is there a red wave? Is
there no wave? It's just hard to predict. 1 look forward to coming back to you in November and
telling you what this looks like. And Mayor and council, I'll be happy to stand for any questions.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. Questions, anyone? Yes, Councilman.
MAGAZINE: First - and this is aimed at Grady, I guess, or staff - short-term rentals. 1 hope we
can look at our ordinance and look at the new legislation and see if there's anything we can do to
change our ordinance.
MILLER: You know, were actually in the process of doing that. Aaron's actually on a work
group of other city attorneys that are working very much with the leg on a model ordinance
based on the bill that was referenced earlier that passed. We're also looking at incorporating
some of the provisions that were in the short-term rental ordinance that Paradise Valley had that
was able to withstand the scrutiny of the Attorney General when it was challenged under a 1487
challenge. So 1 think you'll be seeing something. This hill comes into effect around September
24th, was it?
LUNSFORD: Correct.
MILLER: So you'll probably be seeing something, I believe, Aaron, in October or so that will
incorporate these.
ARNSON: Yes, Mayor and council. I think the work group's - my work group's goal is to have
something by that time frame that every city and town could either adopt as is or make just minor
modifications so at least we can get some of that consistency too.
LUNSFORD: And Mr. Town Manager, if I may, I'll offer my assistance to the council any way I
can.
MAGAZINE: Council has heard me, more than once, rail against legislature in terms of
preemption. And in fact, I wrote an op-ed for the Fountain Hills Times about it. At times, I
think the legislature thinks they want to take over the town, or all towns. You mentioned that
there were 30 bills that impact the town. Are there any that passed that come to mind that would
seriously preempt our abilities to do anything?
LUNSFORD: Mayor and Councilmember Magazine, first of all, I mentioned that I had done 30.
There was probably more than that, and 1 was in concert with the League. Off the top of my
head - and maybe someone knows that there was a preemption -- 1 can't see one this year. I
thought we were really strong collectively. There may be one and I may have missed it. And if
so, I apologize and I'll find out.
MAGAZINE: Well, this is probably the first time in my eight years, and I'm happy to hear it.
MAYOR DICKEY: (Indiscernible). Aaron?
ARNSON: Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Mayor and council and Councilmember Magazine, this is
one of the better years for preemption, or lack of preemption, as far as I can see and recall. The
biggest one by far I think that we were concerned about was zoning by right. And the league
worked pretty swiftly and in concert with each other to get that - can't say defeated but, you
know, transformed into something that was a lot less adversely impactful. So were pretty
satisfied, I think, on the whole, with how this legislative session turned out by way of lack of
preemption.
MAYOR DICKEY: That bill that turned into the study committee, and what you just said about
not sure where they're going, I'm really concerned with that bill. I think it's disguised as a
housing inventory solution somehow, but I think we need to be really wary of it. This by right
stuff, you know, it's interesting because we've had so many conversations about group homes,
and we talk about the small cell towers and short-term rentals. And as that bill was presented, if
something like that passed, those discussions would be moot. I mean, we had no, literally,
zoning real power in this town. So if you take the discussions that we had about the group
homes or the cell phones, the cell towers, and just look at that and put that into your - well, this
can't be single-family home anymore. This can't be single-family zoning or acre lots or
whatever. And I think we just have to be really careful because it could be looked at as it's trying
to solve this housing inventory issue. And I have a very cynical view of it right now, to tell you
the truth, because I think it's - the same by right stuff is going to come back. So we just have to
really watch out for that.
LUNSFORD: Mayor, if I may, first of all, my cynicism antennae are up, but also one of the
original sponsors of the bill, Representative Chavez, was defeated in the primary. So all of the
sudden, maybe there's one less advocate -
MAYOR DICKEY: Yeah.
LUNSFORD: - in that particular instance. Second of all, the composition of that study
committee lends itself to people discussing homelessness to affordable housing and all things in
between. And I think this week - yeah, tomorrow, they're going to have Warren Tenney from
AMWUA in speaking about water issues as it relates. So it's a long way from soup yet.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. I also want to mention that Mayor Bien-Willner from Paradise
Valley, Mayor of Sedona, Flagstaff, these other cities that were - Scottsdale - with us side by side
on the short-term rental and that - I think maybe more will be coming forth, but I look forward to
the combination of this bill that just passed and incorporating Paradise Valley's ordinances into
ours. I think that's going to he a very helpful thing in addition to Airbnb coming out and kind of
putting the hammer down on some stuff. The municipal rent tax, if that had gone through, it
would've cost, right - Fountain Hills would've been -
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 500,000.
MAYOR DICKEY: - $500,000 a year. And their kind of fix was it wasn't going to start for a
couple of years, but that's a lot for us. So hopefully we won't see anything like that coming back.
And last, just I think you all got the copy of the resolutions committee. So when were at the
bowling league next week, I have to go to this meeting, which is where we discuss the agenda
that the League wants. And it seemed pretty innocuous. I have a couple issues with some of the
things, but just wanted to make sure, since the council had a chance to look at it, if anybody had
any objections or anything that you want to say before I go, because that'll be Tuesday. And
then we have - then the full League gets to vote on Thursday. So if you didn't have anything on
that, then we're good to go.
LUNSFORD: Mayor, I look forward to seeing you at the resolutions committee, and all of you
at the League meeting next week.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. And thank you so much for heating back some of the stuff we
didn't want and getting through some of the stuff that is really going to help our community.
Thank you.
LUNSFORD: All right. Great. Thank you all.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you.
MAYOR DICKEY: Okay. Our next item is call to the public. Do we have any speaker cards?
MENDENHALL- Yes, Mayor, we do.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. Can you do -
MENDENHALL. The first one is -
MAYOR DICKEY: I'm sorry. 1 always forget to say when you come up to -- please, you know,
not your address, but whether you live in Fountain Hills or not.
MENDENHALL: Correct. Lod Troller.
MAYOR DICKEY: Okay.
TROLLER: Good evening, Mayor, council, town manager, attorney. I'm Lori Troller, resident.
Topic's 5G. Since everything that was said, all you guys were on vacation, and we had some
emails, the town manager and I, going back and forth in April, and Ijust wanted to say thank
you. Thank you for taking on - because this 5G thing, it's a big deal. There's so much
technicality to it. And just wanted to say thank you. 1 had some more comments, but we're
going to meet and we'll talk after, but this is awesome. I think this is great, and 1 know you're
kind of excited about this too. You have to be. I wanted to say thank you because our town
needs this. There's a lot we can do. So this is awesome. Thank you.
MENDENHALL: Okay. We do have more, and it's April McCormack.
MCCORMICK: Hi. I should just say ditto, but I did want to personally thank you. I don't know
how it got on the agenda. Where I moved here from, it usually took the mayor or two council
people. I don't know how it happened. I just wanted to say thank you humbly. And thank you
to Aaron and Grady for their man hours thus far, and we look forward to meeting on September
6th. Thank you, thank you.
MENDENHALL• That's it for public comment. We do have other speakers for an item, though.
MAYOR DICKEY: Oh, okay.
MAYOR DICKEY: Great, thank you. Our next item is our consent agenda, unless anybody has
anything they'd like to remove. Can 1 get a motion?
MAGAZINE- Move approval.
GRZYBOWSKI: Second.
MAYOR DICKEY: All in favor, please say aye.
ALL: Ayc.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you so much. We'll start our first regular agenda item, which is the
adoption of the primary election held on August 2nd, 2022. Grady?
MILLER: I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to our town clerk, who is going to just go ahead
and provide the council the canvas of the election results. And then you'll be able to go ahead
and take action on that.
MENDENHALL: We had a very good year with participation at 60 percent. So I'm very happy
and pleased with that. We do have - we are here to canvas and make this official. Our Mayor
has won the election for the mayoral race. We have three council members who are now elected,
and there's Allen Ski llicom, Brenda Kalivianakis, and Hannah Toth.
MAGAZINE: Mayor.
MAYOR DICKEY: Go ahead, sir.
MAGAZINE: I just want to thank Linda. She really kept us up to speed on the vote count even
well into the evening. So she must've been in bed propped up with pillows and a cup of coffee.
But I just wanted to publicly thank her because that was very helpful.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. Sony. Do we have any speaker cards?
MENDENHALL: Not for this item.
MAYOR DICKEY: Okay, thank you. Sorry l didn't get to it here. There we go. So do we do
a - I'm sorry. I actually don't have it up yet. Resolution -
ARNSON: Mayor, I think it's page 145 is the suggested motion.
MAYOR DICKEY: Yeah, I was looking at my paper instead of the -
FRIEDEL: You want me to do it, Mayor?
MAYOR DICKEY: Yeah. Anybody can please do the motion.
FRIEDEL: Move approval of Resolution 2022-38 declaring and adopting the results of the
Primary Election held on August 2nd, 2022.
GRZYBOWSKI: Second.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. All in favor, please say aye.
ALL• Aye.
MAYOR DICKEY: Any opposed? Thanks very much. And yes, thank you, Linda, very much
for all of your professional help. I think we needed professional help. Our next item is a special
use permit that were going to be talking about on Ivory and El Pueblo. Grady?
MILLER: Yes, thank you. Our Development Services director is going to be providing the
council with the staff report on this. With that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Wesley.
WESLEY: Give me just a second, here. Get this one out and this one up. There we go. Okay.
Good evening, Mayor and council. As stated, this is request for a special use permit for
residential use in a commercial zone at 15006 North Ivory. When we establish a zoning
ordinance, we list uses permitted in a different zoning district. As we do so, we know there's
some uses that may fit sometimes and may not fit in other cases. And so that's why we have this
special use permit process, so we can consider those uses and specific situations and determine if
they're appropriate and if there may or may not be any conditions that should go along with that.
So that's what were doing here this evening.
The zoning ordinance specifically allows for commercial in residential districts, but only
through approval through the special use permit.
So the property that we have here at the north end of town, Fountain Hills Boulevard and El
Pueblo, that's plat 106. It is zoned CC common commercial, and again, the request is for the
special use permit. The lot that that development that's being requested is in a very southeast
corner there at El Pueblo and Ivory. It's about an 8,000 square foot lot. I mentioned in the staff
report that the area was in need of some improvement, that the paving wasn't in the best shape
and overgrown a little bit. We knew through our discussions with the applicant and the overall
HOA that they were working on some improvements, and they've done those. So I wanted to
update that from what was in my report. They did that about the same time I finished my report
and learned about it just after. So here's some images of the site today. And you see the parking
lot is freshly sealed, coated, and striped, and a lot of the landscaping's been cleaned up.
So with this request, again, were looking at that southeast corner of the property, or the
northwest corner of El Pueblo and Ivory Drive, again about an 8,000 square foot lot. The
applicant in this case is proposing ground floor commercial office, basically, uses. One office
would be for the applicant, and the other would be a lease space, and then some indoor parking
areas and storage space. The amount of commercial space and number of units being requested
at 5 results in a need for a total of 20 parking spaces. And so on site - let's see if I've got the right
button. Where's this going? Have I got the red dot any place that you can see? I guess not. The
parking is on the back side of the building inside the building, and then the commercial spaces
front the street, but it results in a need for 20 stalls total with 6 of those being inside. And then
the 14 outside will provide that 20 spaces that's needed. Here's a little closer look, then, at the
site plan for the two floors. Again, that ground floor, offices and parking. Upper floor shows
five residential units. And again, at this point in the process, this is a conceptual site plan. The
applicant, if this gets approved, would then take this to the next level of a full site plan review
through staff and provide more of the details that were not seeing here. But this is - we hope it's
sufficient for the council to be able to make a decision on whether or not the special use permit
should be approved and the max number of uses that would go with that.
So as we look at this, first, we took a took at the general plan and how this fit in with the general
plan designation for the area. General plan calls for variety of housing types in the city and
around various parts of the town, establishes various character areas. The specific character area
in this location is what we termed a mixed neighborhood, which has a variety of smaller lots, a
variety of densities with some non-residential uses mixed in. And so continuing that type of
development on this particular corner seems to be consistent with the general plan. Section 2.02
D.5 of the zoning ordinance lays out some of the criteria that should be considered by the
commission and the council with a special use permit, main things being that it's not detrimental
to the health, safety, and welfare, peace and comfort of persons, and not detrimental and
injurious to property improvements in the area or generally the town.
So as we look at that, we had a few questions, then, that we asked and had answered as part of
this review. Will allowing residential use be detrimental to the desired commercial activity?
This is zoned commercial, and so we'd like to see that commercial development happen if it
could. That would be a benefit to the town. As we look at this particular plat 106 area, there's
been no new building in this area since about 2004. In general, we feel that the commercial is
probably a little bit overbuilt. We've got a number of other commercial lots that are still vacant
here, and so there doesn't seem to be a strong need for a lot of commercial. Adding residential
units here could, then, add more population close to the existing businesses and help support
those existing businesses. New development on this lot could help overall clean it up and make
it interesting for other development to occur. And additional residents on this lot don't seem like
they would particularly impede or be detrimental to the surrounding residents in the area.
Will allowing residential use be detrimental to the surrounding residential neighborhood? This
zoning district allows for buildings of 25 feet in height. The commercial allows 30 adjacent to it.
Residential uses on a second floor versus non-residential uses on a second floor seem to be
equally impactful, or possibly less impactful as those non-residential uses would be. The
proposed unit sizes of these apartments are very similar to the unit sizes of the houses in the
neighborhood. So they're fairly similar there. We've had a little bit of a concern about the
conceptual architecture proposed. It seems a little modern and out of character for the
neighborhood. So we have noted that and talked to the applicant about it. In the site plan
review, we want to look at some modifications to the architecture to better fit the neighborhood.
Will residential use create a desirable living environment? So would residents living here find it
a desirable place to live and would it be sustainable as a residential development? It's right
adjacent to residential across the street. It's at the edge and transition from a residential to a
commercial area. So we feel like it would fit in that way. It's not completely surrounded by
parking. It's just on the two sides. It has direct access to shopping, schools, churches, parks, and
other things. So we do feel like it would be a viable location for a residential use. So we feel
like in all those cases it meets the criteria outlined in the special use permit for consideration and
approval.
One of the issues that's come with this particular location, as it has in a couple others where you
have the CC common commercial zoning district, the unique district that establishes a common
parking field. You can see that in the middle here, and then the individual lots can be built out
entirely and don't have to provide any parking on their own site, which is a nice way to develop.
Gives you that a little bit more urban form, compact type development. But the challenge we're
having coming back so many years later with these is the amount of development that
theoretically can occur on each lot really exceeds the amount of parking that's available in the
parking lot. So somehow we have to allocate, then, how much development occurs on a given
lot to make sure that the other lots that haven't been built yet still have some room. So as we
look at this particular location and the proposal for this development and the parking
requirement - excuse me - the combination of the interior parking that's being provided and the
required immediately adjacent parking spaces, they meet the requirements for the development
that's being proposed. And we feel like that's pretty reasonable for this overall development and
does not negatively impact the ability of the other lots in the center to develop. It's an issue we'll
continue to refine as we work through that site plan process and engaging the property owners
association make sure they're comfortable too. So far we believe they are with this combination.
We want to make sure they feel like - and try to work with them to get a better handle, then, on
how parking in the future will be allocated to future lots in the site. Right now this looks like it
works pretty well.
One of the other things we considered is - we discussed this with the Planning and Zoning
Commission. The zoning ordinance as stated allows residential use in the commercial district
with approval of a special use permit, but it doesn't really tell us at what density or what
standard, what level it should be allowed. So that's kind of open. As we look at this site to try to
determine what might be appropriate, they're proposing five apartments, which look fairly
reasonable on the site and in the building being proposed. But we considered and compared it to
the multi -family zoning districts that we do have in town, and you see the list here from R-2 to
R-5, R-5 being our most dense. R5 allows one dwelling unit per 1,740 square feet of lot size.
And given this lot size, even at the R-5 density, only four dwelling units would be allowed. So if
we allow five, we're allowing something a little bit in excess of what the R-5 zoning district
would allow. Is that too much for this area, too much of an impact for the neighborhood? Either
the R-4 or 5 both end up at four units.
One of the requirements the council put in place back almost a year ago maybe - or when did we
do that, first of the year maybe - was the citizen participation plan process, where any time we
have a special use permit or rezoning, the applicants have to reach out to neighbors in advance of
coming to the P&Z Commission and engage them in the process, give them the opportunity to
provide some input. So this is our first case to have used that process. They did provide that
plan. They did mail notice to the property owners. They did not receive any direct comments
back. We did have one of the neighbors come in and talk to us as staff prior to the P&Z meeting.
We did have several that attended the P&Z hearing.
So the planning commission met on this twice, first at their May 19th meeting. There were
several issues and concerns that came up with regard to the density and the parking and some of
the restrictions that might be in the association. So that was continued, then, to their June
meeting. The issues were largely addressed and revisions were made to the site plan to reduce
the amount of commercial space, add that interior parking space. And so with that, staff and
planning commission have recommended approval. The commission has recommended four
dwelling units versus the five, based on those general density requirements, dedicated parking
for the building, and that that interior parking be designated for the tenants and property owner
so that they do have that interior parking. So with that, I'll see if you have any questions of me at
this time.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. Councilmember?
MCMAHON: Can you please tell me why the Planning and Zoning wants four versus five?
And if that becomes the case, is the builder still interested in building?
WESLEY: Mayor, Councilmember, it was a - it wasn't maybe a strong thing with the
commission, but as they looked at the parking and trying to balance out those parking needs and
that density comparison to the neighborhood, they were just a little concerned that five might be
too dense -
MCMAHON: Um -hum.
WESLEY: - compared to the R-2 densities that were adjacent.
MCMAHON: Um -hum.
WESLEY: And so they came down the side of the four, you know, that was more appropriate.
At the meeting, the applicant said he was willing to go to the four. I think he would still prefer
the five. It's more cost-effective, but he is here and will speak in a little bit if the council would
like to ask him directly.
MCMAHON: Okay. Also the parking, when you were explaining it - sorry, you guys - it was a
little bit confusing. So I just wanted to make sure, given this development, whether it be four or
five, that there is sufficient designated parking for the tenants, et cetera, and also for the
commercial, because this is in a - more of a residential area, and I think that would be an
infringement in that area if we didn't provide adequate parking --
WESLEY: Yes.
MCMAHON: -- especially for the tenants who are there who are going to rent.
WESLEY: Yes. So Mayor, Councilmember, so the drawings that you saw are based on the five
units, and so that required the 20. If we drop it by a unit, that will reduce it by two parking
spaces that would be required. So it provides even greater excess there. The tenants, with the
six parking spaces in the building, and if you have four units, certainly at least they each get at
least one interior parking space. And that's, again, by the stipulations that P&Z has
recommended they get first choice of those interior spaces.
MCMAHON: Thank you.
MAYOR DICKEY: Councilman?
MAGAZINE: I'll wait. I'm sorry.
MAYOR DICKEY: Councilman?
SPELICH: John, I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around this project. First and
foremost, Ijust don't understand how you can rent a place and it doesn't have a kitchen. These
are not going to have kitchens.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Indiscernible).
SPELICH: No? Initially when we were first talked to, I believe that he said that there was not
going to be individual kitchens in all the units.
GURCZAK: No, it's all individual apartments.
SPELICH: Then something's changed from the first time we talked.
GURCZAK: No, it's always been like that. I think someone was thinking that we were going to
do the group home, but that's not true at all.
SPELICH: Okay. And then -
GURCZAK: Just because, you know, this is just conceptual. (Indiscernible).
MAYOR DICKEY: Would you like to come up?
SPELICH Okay. Well, on top of that and the parking concerns, I personally - and I'm not
speaking for any other council members. I personally do not believe that I have enough
information as far as drawing -wise, you know, the drawings and everything, to wrap my mind
around it to make a good vote. I think these are very basic. I mean, these are things that you can
do, you know, on a basic drawing, and I just don't - I can't conceptualize it. I just can't. 1 think
that I would want to see more. And once again, I'm speaking totally for myself. I want to see
more because if it was put to a vote tonight with just the information given, I would be a no,
because I just don't have enough to go on.
MAYOR DICKEY: Okay.
FRIEDEL- I have some of the same concerns, but my biggest concern is that commercial area is
really designed to support that whole north side of town. We give away a SUP, what are we
saying there? That will never go back, and we'll never have another opportunity for commercial
in that area to support the growth on the north side of town. And at some point if the state trust
land gets sold, that's going to be very important, I think, to the town. We've got two others that
we've given SUPs to, on Saguaro and Kingstree and Saguaro and Monterey. And nothing has
happened on those yet as well. So once again, here we are changing our zoning for investments
that haven't panned out yet. So that concerns me. I agree with Councilman Spelich. I need
some more detail on these plans. That tenant storage down below, that's something new to me. I
don't understand that. Why wouldn't that be garages? And also I'm really concerned with what
Councilmen McMahon brought up, the parking. That proposed project, they have access to that
common parking in that area without any issues at all. You have confirmed that? You said you
thought it would be okay. I want to make sure that we don't have a parking issue with a project
going in there and that they're going to be infringing on parking in other areas and then the town
is going to be looked at. Those are my - those are my concerns.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. Councilwoman?
GRZYBOWSKI: I think the confusion with the kitchen conversation - l listened to both
meetings today. This is my second time listening to the May whatever it was meeting, and my
first time for the June meeting. I think it was the May meeting, somebody called it a kitchenette,
and a concern over no kitchen or a kitchenette or something like that. Then it was made clear at
some point. So yes, it was a little confusing at the beginning, but I'm pretty sure it was at the end
of the conversation in May - maybe it was June, but it was made perfectly clear that there is a
kitchen. So were good there.
As for the storage question, I got to tell you, I think it's a brilliant idea because there's very little
storage in condos or apartments kind of thing. So condos and apartments now are going to
storage facilities down in the parking area. Scott and I were just in San Diego looking at condos
for a secondary residence, and I was surprised how many didn't have this little extra storage
down here like this. So I'm actually glad to see it. Thanks for putting it in there because for
somebody like me that has way too much crap, you need that.
MAYOR DICKEY: Councilman?
MAGAZINE: Apparently, there are some questions that some council members would like to
have answered, and I'm not going to make a motion, but I think it might be wise to postpone a
decision on this and let John get together with the developer and see if we can get some answers
to some of these questions.
SCHARNOW: Thank you, Mayor. While this is a conceptual site plan, you said it's coming
back at some point in time, right?
WESLEY: Mayor, Councilmember, typically it would just come back to staff This is a formal
site plan review.
SCHARNOW: Okay. Uh-huh.
WESLEY: Although if council wanted it to come back here, you could stipulate it as such.
SCHARNOW: And we previously approved another project basically across the parking lot
where there was residential on that, correct?
WESLEY: Correct.
SCHARNOW: And there didn't seem to be any issues brought up at that time as far as parking
or future concems. So I'm not quite sure why all of the sudden they're bringing up now. You
know, and as far as commercial space, I mean, that whole area is chopped up, small lots, been
there 50 years, and there's been so much turnover already in the existing commercial spaces. So
I just - you know, there's not opportunity there to combine large lots and create some synergy for
a commercial project to serve north Fountain Hills. I mean, it's just been sketchy, you know, as
far as what's happened there commercially the last 50 years. So to me, adding some residential,
you know, we've been doing that all over town. So I'm not quite sure why all of the sudden this
ones different. And, you know - so I support P&Z. They took it down from five to four. So,
you know, they were concerned. And so to me, this seems to be a trend that we've been
approving before. So I agree with P&Z.
WESLEY: Mayor, if 1 may address one comment that was made just in terms of the parking? If
this were just a ground floor, all commercial retail building, 8,000 square feet, it would require
32 parking spaces because it would all be out in that parking lot and that would be a very big
impact on that adjacent development, very hard for other lots in there to be developed. By doing
what's been proposed, we've now got a small portion of the ground floor in a commercial space,
and the residential on the second floor, which could all be a commercial space, too, and double
that parking if it were 16,000 square feet of commercial space. That would all be reviewed at a
staff level. We wouldn't be here at all. You'd really impact that parking on site. And so this
does help mitigate the parking by the design that's proposed. It'd become any worse if any of it
was restaurant space because that would raise it to even more.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. That's what 1 wanted to say, because you're saying it's this
shared use. Well, why don't they have just as much right to it as who were protecting? I didn't
quite get that part of it. I mean, don't they have just as much right to use it as the fact of anybody
else who may potentially come?
WE: Yes.
MAYOR DICKEY: Okay. Would you like to come up and make any presentation? Thank you.
And then well see if we have any speaker cards.
GURCZAK: Good evening. My name is John Gurczak. Fountain Hills resident and builder,
developer in Fountain Hills. So, you know, I think the project is, you know, really well suited
for that lot. You know, the R-4, R-5 zoning, you know, it's 2,000 square feet or 1,740 square
feet. But, you know, it's 8,000 square feet is the actual lot. You know, in that calculation, you
could also argue that you could count the shared parking as part of that because any development
just on a regular lot would require that kind of parking and have to be larger. So the old office,
it's going to be something that's going to be personally occupied, the whole space, by us. And
then the rest are just going to be, you know, rental units that were going to keep long term. And,
you know, the apartments, they're pretty similar to the ones that were just built on El Lago.
MAYOR DICKEY: Anybody have any questions?
FRIEDEL. I do.
MAYOR DICKEY: Yes, sir.
FRIEDEL. How many other projects have you done in town?
GURCZAK: We have about six or seven under construction right now.
FRIEDEL• In this town right now?
GURCZAK: Yeah, 1 mean, couple in Firerock, you know. We have a couple in Eagles Nest and
all around town too. We do -
FRIEDEL: Are those -
GURCZAK: - primarily specs and some built to suits.
FRIEDEL. Okay. So are those primarily residential or -
GURCZAK: Yeah. Yeah, like high -end custom houses, typically.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. Any other questions? Do we have any speaker cards on this
item?
MENDENHALL: Yes, Mayor, we do. The first is Larry Meyers.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you, sir.
MEYERS: Mayor, council, thanks for the opportunity to speak. 1 don't really have a position on
this, but I do have some concerns about the process because the process predates probably most
of you on this council. And I don't know that it's particularly good. I tend to agree with
Councilman Magazine already in that there's less - don't be surprised now.
[LAUGHTER]
MAGAZINE: I'm very surprised.
MEYERS: There's generally not enough information to make a decision of this magnitude. And
the magnitude I speak of is in that little handout I gave you, because there's emails that basically
talk about buying up other parcels within this zone. Now, this is a CC zone, and what's
uncovered in the handout, the most distressing is that town management actually coaches the
developers, and this isn't the first or will be the last, on how to circumvent our ordinances rather
than how to comply with them. So that bothers me. I don't know that this particular project
benefits the residents, which is what CC's supposed to do, the surrounding residents. But it does
show the precedent that's always used. Well, you did it at Kingstree, so let me do it too. And
then if you look at all the other parcels that are mentioned in that one email, pretty soon, most of
the CC land tract is gone. You add that to Wilson Ejam (ph.), who's also been to the POA out
there, who wants his SUP as well, and you have virtually no commercial zone on that tract of
land whatsoever at the end of all of this, all done through precedent. You gave me an SUP; you
gave him and SUP; you'll give me an SUP. I find that to be disturbing, and it's not the first time.
It won't be the last time.
But I go back to - and I disagree with Councilman Schamow. 1 don't care what's going on on
that tract now. That tract has history, and the McCulloch Oil company, the master planners of
this community, said someday that will serve this community. Someday might not be 50 years,
someday might be 70 years, someday might be 100 years, but they had an intent. And I don't
think we should throw that land away and throw that intent away, because when you do that,
once the land has gone to apartments, you can't get it back. What if we settled for C-2 nursing
home at Saguaro and Trevino? We wouldn't have a C-1, as intended, medical center. What if
we blew the top off the mountain at daybreak? We would've lost the future opportunity for a
resort. What if wed held out for what is actually an entertainment and overlay district
somewhere in the future and not had Park Place on the land? What if someday this tract serves
the end of town, develops state trust land, or maybe even Rio Verde? So I'd ask you all to take a
step back, consider the long view, like the Chinese do, hundreds of years, a hundred years, not
immediate gratification. Thank you.
MAYOR DICKEY: We actually received another one. So now we have two. Crystal
Cavanaugh
CAVANAUGH: Good evening. Fountain Hills resident. Larry may have touched on a lot of
things I too had concems with. And I'm not against development, obviously, but sometimes it
seems like we're always being reactionary versus maybe recruiting the types of projects we need
and that would be a benefit for the community. And then we wouldn't find ourselves always
with these special use zoning change requests. In my opinion, if someone wants to build a
certain project, such as these so-called luxury apartments - and these were called luxury when I
first heard it in Planning and Zoning - it's logical that they should be required to bring all the
completed plans for the project in their entirety before the permits are provided. It's like we're
trying to provide permits for something that's so vague and conceptual that we don't even see
kitchens in there. And when I was at those past meetings, it was a concern that there weren't
kitchens. And Councilwoman was trying to clear that up, and then talked about kitchenettes, but
there was no kitchen or covered parking at one of the meetings I was at.
And when I requested the correspondence between the town and this developer Realtor through a
FOIA, it seemed that Development Services was indeed trying to coach them, to use the right
verbiage, in order to help them achieve a special use permit. And this was with regards to the
future tenant space on the ground floor. So they were coached to say that might be future tenant
space for whatever reason. I don't know what they were planning. But is it John's job to assist
an applicant in getting this pushed through the town or is it the developer who should have to
demonstrate his vision and the town can then decide if a zoning change is warranted and if it's
beneficial to the town? Just like the multiple lots that were already purchased this last year by
Wilson Ejam, that was touched on by Larry, it's up near Sylvester's Wine Bistro. And when I
spoke to Mr. Ejam previously after this happened, he indicated that if there were zoning changes
approved by the town, he was planning to develop group homes. Point blank told me group
homes. So if this SUP for the luxury apartments is allowed, there's no way to deny the next
request for the SUP for the group homes, right? Or at least not without risk of a lawsuit. And
what really is the end result and vision for that end of town? Perhaps it should be saved as the
commercial zone it is for further commercial development. And now that we have a new
economic development director; perhaps she can start promoting this as an area to bring in
business from both ends, from Fountain Hills and Rio Verde. That's all. Those are just my
thoughts, and I just feel like there's not enough information to make any decisions.
MAYOR DICKEY: Okay.
MENDENHALL: Ed Sitza. Stizza? Okay, Ed Stizza.
STIZZA. Welcome back, everyone. Mayor, town council, staff, I hope things arc well. Ijust
have a concern on the aesthetic. This is probably a great time to bring up an aesthetic ordinance,
which we do not have. So we can see what's happened over at some of the developments here.
Somehow or another, the black, white, and gray is becoming prevalent here on churches, on
these type of developments. And I don't know when it's going to stop. So I've also been
involved with a couple projects where designers are also going down that path. So at what point
are we going to stop the aesthetic of this? And I'm almost positive at the last meeting the
applicant had said that there was no way possible he's going to change the design. And John
Wesley just stated that he's going to work on the design. So how can you vote on something
that's not locked down? I still don't understand that. And much to what Larry and Crystal just
said, you know, with the SUP, we've seen they hand off the SUPs very easily, and then we make
the decisions. And I think that precedent needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. I don't know
how else to say that, but, you know, tell me how you're going to, you know, start to control some
of this look. We're losing the blend of the town, you know. So it's really starting - most of these
buildings are going way over to the left side, and it's just too - the designs should be a lot more
copacetic with what we have here. And it's just not happening. So I don't know what you guys
can do about that, and hopefully you can. But that's it. So thank you.
MENDENHALL: It looks like we have one more. Janet "Faith" Fayleen.
MAYOR DICKEY: Okay.
FAYLEEN: Thank you, Mayor and council. I'm glad to be here. I'm glad to listen. Thank you
for all your work. The thing I wanted to bring up about this project is nothing has been
mentioned about handicap accessibility and whether or not it complies with ADA. So as long as
you are looking at things, that may be something to look at and talk about.
MAGAZINE Mayor?
MAYOR DICKEY: Yes, Councilman?
MAGAZINE- Don't we have to consider that by law'?
MAYOR DICKEY: John, do you want to maybe address that, please?
WESLEY: Let's go back to - I don't know if you can see it on this plan, but just on the west side
of the building in about the middle there, you'll see the stripes where the handicapped parking
space is. And so then you'll have the ramps, and yes, that has to be part of the building permits
to make sure they're handicap accessible.
MAYOR DICKEY: The residential part too? Just the commercial part?
WESLEY: I think just the commercial part with such a small one, but that gets into a segment of
the building code that I don't remember quite as well.
MAYOR DICKEY: Okay.
WESLEY: But if it is required, then we certainly would have to do it.
MAYOR DICKEY: Okay. Any further questions or discussion? Councilman?
SCHARNOW: Thank you, Mayor. I just want to - excuse me - address a couple of the
comments. I mean, 1 know Mr. Myers is aware when McColluch developed this property
originally and zoned it and master planned it, it was designed for 70 to 75,000 people. And there
was commercial all over the place. Arid so this is what we have to deal with today. And a lot of
the design and development standards have changed the last 50 years. And so I think developers
are just trying to keep up with trends and trying to make their projects viable and trying to make
them fit in as best they can with our ordinances and such. So architecture is kind of like art, you
know. A lot of it is in the eye of the beholder. And if you drive around Firerock or a lot of the
other upscale residential areas in Fountain Hills, there is a mix of territorial, you know, Tuscany,
and modem. So there's just a variety of architecture out there. So I just don't see us passing
some kind of ordinance saying, oh, you have to have territorial architecture and that's it. I just
don't see that happening.
And, you know, as far as the - like I said, there have been a lot of zoning changes in the last 30
years plus, because what was originally master planned just wasn't viable, and it just wasn't
realistic in terms of how things are today. So I just don't see the trend that is being portrayed as
so evil as being detrimental to this town, because, you know, there was a small commercial area
at Golden Eagle and Marathon at one time, and the thought was, well, all those people living up
there need a little, you know, Circle K and whatnot, a little strip mall up there so they don't have
to drive all the way to downtown area. And so, you know, these development concepts just don't
hold up anymore. And the way Plateau A was put together with the parking behind, you know,
the buildings and stuff, that just isn't really done today. So, you know, we're trying to improve
things that were done 50 years ago and make projects viable. So Ijust - I think it's been
generally accepted, John, that we have an overabundance of commercial zoning here already.
And you know, there have been several proposals for the Target center and such, and, you know,
I just think that that's just the trend. And I, you know, just don't see that changing in teens of
making projects viable, because we want more residents here to make our businesses successful.
So, you know, he's provided the parking, you know, as part of his project. And so that helps.
And I just don't see these major obstacles that are being portrayed out there.
MAYOR DICKEY: Yes, Alan?
MAGAZINE- Mayor, since there arc some council members who have some questions that need
answering, I'm going to move to postpone a decision on this and let John Wesley get together
with the developer so they can come back with answers to some of the questions. That's a
motion.
FRIEDEL. Second.
MAYOR DICKEY: (Indiscernible).
FRIEDEL: Can I ask that you verify the parking situation with the —
GURZZAK- The POA?
FRIEDEL- Yeah, the POA.
GURCZAK: I thought that was verified already.
MAYOR DICKEY: That was a part of the June meeting, was the confirmation of that.
SCHARNOW: Pm just wondering. I don't know if it's an errant question or - I mean, can we
just postpone stuff, or do we need a date certain to bring it back, or - 1 mean, I think we need
some certainty here in terms of the timing.
ARNSON: So we can move to postpone, Mayor and Councilman. We can move to postpone
indefinitely, which it sounds like that's what Councilman Magazine just did. Or we can move to
continue to a date certain, which may be preferred. And I don't know if Director Wesley has any
input as to what that certain date might be.
MAGAZINE: I don't have any problem amending the motion to include a date certain if
somebody can suggest what that date is.
WESLEY: So I'm sure the applicant would rather do it in two weeks, but generally if we're
going to do something substantive and be able to prepare something back at council, it probably
ought to be at least a month. And so the second meeting in September would probably be the
earliest date it should be.
MAGAZINE: I'll amend my motion to include that.
MAYOR DICKEY: Two weeks?
MAGAZINE: Second meeting in September.
MAYOR DICKEY: So second meeting. Grady, you have something to say?
MILLER: I was just going to suggest the 20th because actually, technically, our staff reports for
the 6th are due tomorrow. So this gives Mr. Wesley enough time to work with that.
MAGAZINE' I'm not changing my motion.
MCMAHON: Although I have a comment.
MAGAZINE: I'll amend it.
MAYOR DICKEY: Councilwoman.
MCMAHON: This is just - this is just the concept plan, right?
WESLEY: Yes.
MCMAHON: I mean, it has to be a lot more detailed by the end of the day before you can
coerce them into doing their permits and applying through the town, correct?
WESLEY: Correct.
MCMAHON: Thank you.
MAYOR DICKEY: Yes, Councilwoman.
GRZYBOWSKI: What exactly are we asking of the developer'? I feel like were not being
specific enough to help the developer out as to what it is that the motion people are looking to
see to come back, because I feel comfortable actually having a conversation about the issue at
hand right now, not necessarily needing to postpone it.
MAYOR DICKEY: I agree with that. That was going to be my question. What more
information or what other sort of staff report do we need? These special use permits that we've
been giving to other projects are irrelevant to this, in my opinion. We have other builders who
asked to put residential on commercial mixed use, which has been on our books forever as a
goal. They're different developers, so they have different reasons why there's been delays or not
delays. I don't really know why. This is a separate project. Again, we have shortages in
inventory. We just talked about that. And this project does the two stories. That's the way it
could be. The way that whole lot - the way that whole area is right now is not going to be
conducive to serving - I mean, you could put a two-story whatever here that was just
commercial. So there's no master plan here that's part of that. I also want to mention, if it's
commercial, then detox center, if that ends up being something on our agenda, is going to be on
commercial. So if you're trying to avert something there and using this particular thing as a - I
don't want to say scapegoat, but sounds like it, then I don't agree with that. And so I'm prepared
to also not postpone this and go ahead with it. I don't want to have a hardship for someone just
because - I don't know specifically what we're really asking for. He wants to change it to partial
residential. He's got everything else in order. So this is really the only question. And 1 don't
understand why there's such an issue.
MAGAZINE: Mayor.
MAYOR DICKEY: Councilman.
MAGAZINE: I would like to hear from Councilmen Friedel and Spelich as to what their
concerns are and see if they can be resolved. If they can he resolved, I'll withdraw my motion.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. Councilman?
SPELICH: So John, would you please go hack to the other drawing where the applicant has the
layout? So that's five units. Planning and Zoning approved four. So are we saying it's four or
are we saying it's five?
WESLEY: Mayor, Councilmember- excuse me - that would depend upon whether the council
supports the P&Z motion of four or if they want to go ahead and leave it at five, as requested by
the council. But what the P&Z would say is to a maximum of whichever number you decide
upon.
SPELICH: So correct me if I'm wrong. Am 1 looking at a plan that has five?
WESLEY: You are looking at a plan for five.
SPELICH: Do you have a drawing that conceptualizes four?
WESLEY: No.
SPELICH: Okay. That's number one. Number two, I am concerned about the parking, even
though they said that the parking is covered. I'm concerned about the parking. That parking lot
shares a new restaurant that just came into Fountain Hills. I shouldn't say a new restaurant. A
new owner and a new concept, a tie-in restaurant. I'm concerned about that. I'm concerned
about - could you please go back to the conceptual outside drawing? No, the elevation, sorry.
WESLEY: I don't know which way that is in here.
SPELICH: I don't know either. Are we 100 percent set on this is what it's going to look like?
WESLEY: No. That's been a comment all the way along, and the applicant knows that we are
going to look for architecture that better blends with the neighborhood when he makes his formal
submittal.
SPELICH: Okay. So would it be asking too much for him to submit to us, by September, what
it's really going to look like? Because here's why I'm a no vote. 1 don't like the way it looks. I
don't have a four -apartment diagram or whatever, conceptual drawing, of what it's going to look
like. So I don't have that, what that's going to look like. I definitely do not like the exterior look
of this. And for the life of me, I have no idea why - why are we in such a hurry to do this? What
is the big deal delaying this 30 days? What's going to change? If anything, in 30 days, lumber
prices and everything are starting to come down. I know that. I'm building a home. So it's not
going to hurt the applicant for us to have a real, legitimate look at what it's going to look like and
what - the residents should see what they're going to live next to if they live in that area. And
then secondly, I want to look at what the four thing is going to look like. 1 don't think it's asking
too much. I'm not putting anything else into this. And if Councilman Schamow and the Mayor
think that, then they're wrong. I want to vote on what's in front of me, and what's in front of me
is not correct. So why would we vote on something that's not correct?
MAYOR DICKEY: Councilwoman?
GRZYBOWSKI: I feel like when these things come to us in this raw form, for lack of a better
word, part of it is brought to us this way because of the expenses behind doing the actual
drawings, what needs to be done. So 1 think that if we approve something and say stipulation is
four units, stipulation is whatever, the color scheme, whatever the stipulation is for the outside,
and generally speaking, these things wouldn't come back to us, but we can say, you're approved
if you bring it back and it meets these requirements: the four units and the dedicated parking
space and the designation of the parking inside the building for owner and tenants that the P&Z
folks said. I'm not in a hurry to approve it. I just don't know why we are asking him to go to an
additional expense for something he doesn't - he's not going to leave with a positive feeling today
when he leaves. So that's my actual question -
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you.
GRZYBOWSKI: - which obviously nobody here approves of.
MAGAZINE. Well, it's kind of a tough one, but I got to say that I don't think the objections I've
heard really are unreasonable. We're talking about 30 days. It's not going to - it can't make that
much difference. And so I'm not going to withdraw my motion.
SPELICH: Call the question. Call the question.
MAYOR DICKEY: I'm sorry, but Member, you were asking about what the - did you have
something to say to respond to Councilman Magazine?
FRIEDEL: I'm going to - I'm going to address your question now. I agree with Councilman
Spelich. I don't think we have enough detail or it's not complete enough for my liking right now
too. So I support his request for 30 days.
GRZYBOWSKI: So were looking for -
MAYOR DICKEY: Okay.
GRZYBOWSKI: Sony. We're looking for the drawing of the upstairs, the confirmation of the
exterior. I know at the June meeting, he said he was going to do away with some of the windows
on the commercial section. I do know he was talking about that as well in the June meeting.
What else are we looking for for a delay?
FRIEDEL: And what you have up there right now, is that a garage door I see down at the
bottom?
WESLEY: Yes. That's what faces Ivory.
FRIEDEL So there is garage space -
WESLEY: Yes.
FRIEDEL: - undemeath?
WESLEY: Yes.
FRIEDEL: In addition to storage? Okay.
MAYOR DICKEY: Okay. All right. Okay, well, he called for the question. So 1 guess I should
stop this. All in favor of postponing until September 20th, say aye, please.
ALL: Aye.
MAYOR DICKEY: Any opposed? Thank you. We'll take it back up then. Thanks. All right.
Our next item is a request to apply and take receipt of grants from the AOT. Grady?
MILLER: Yes, Mayor and council, before you is an item for permission to apply for grants that
are being administered. They're ARPA grants that are being administered by the Arizona Office
of Tourism. Our economic development director, Amanda Jacobs, is going to give you a brief
report on this. I'll turn it over to Ms. Jacobs.
JACOBS: Good evening, Mayor, members of council. Typically with our grants, we place them
on consent, hut because there are three grants wrapped into one and there are matching
requirements, we just wanted to be a little bit transparent on this subject, and also just good for
our residents to see what were applying for. So as Mr. Miller mentioned, last year, Governor
Ducey designated Visit Arizona Initiative, so VAI - it's a mouthful. And so it's three different
grants in order to accelerate tourism recovery, generate job creation and economic development.
So there are three. I'll briefly go through. It's the marketing partnership and outdoor
revitalization.
All right. So marketing grant, last year we did apply and receive $10,000, which was designated
to our community center to do a video promotion, as well as to do an enhancement on our
experience website, which is the tourism arm. And this year we're requesting $230,000, and
there is a 20 percent match. Those matches can be in kind, cash, or through a third party. And
so what we're doing is were working with our community relations, our community services
department, to really put together a robust marketing strategy this next year. Of the 230, we're
also planning to designate $55,000 towards event sponsorship. So there's different requirements
in order to apply, and some of that we're going to, hopefully, again, with your permission - and if
we do receive it, it will go to the International Dark Sky Association for the Dark Sky Festival to
again try to generate visitors to our wonderful community, and then also the two fine art festivals
are put on by the Fountain Hills Chamber of Commerce. That gets hundreds of thousands of
people. So again, how do we recover from those two years, where basically we were at a
standstill, there was no events, no people coming in? How can we continue to put ourselves on
the map?
Next, a partnership grant. This is for a new or expanded event. You heard me during my third
quarter report. We did receive partnership grants, $9,000 specifically through this program for
our music fest. We cannot do that again. Again, it needs to be new or expanded. And so again,
our team internally is looking to expand our Irish Fest to a two-day event. The request is
$56,000 and, again, a match of 20 percent, and really to increase visitation and overnight stays
and work hand in hand with our hotels. So we can't go quite specific to, for instance, March
17th, but going back to March 2019, that month, in bed tax and sales tax was nearly almost
$170,000. In 2020, it went down to over 70. And in '21, 56,000. So we really did get hit hard.
We're starting to see that recovery, but again, we have a built-in audience. Let's attract more
people and help, again, the tourism industry that was hit hard and support our hotels, our
shopping, and our dining.
And then last, but not least, outdoor revitalization. And so what this is seeking is for either
marketing, sustainability efforts, and/or infrastructure improvements to accelerate industry
recovery. And so what we're requesting - so momentarily ago I said we received some money
for our community center. What we're wanting to do is not just look at the community center
and the lovely activities, but to also start promoting a conference center, right? We've got new
ballrooms, meeting rooms. Those people expect to pay. And so we're wanting to bring some of
those event and meeting organizers again to town. Now, one thing through the pandemic is some
folks feel a bit safer being outdoors. And so we think - you know, we've talked about the
Centennial Pavilion, that that would be a nice extension to the community center and conference
center. And then also, it's nearby the planned Dark Sky Discovery Center, our library, that it just
makes sense. And the request here is a max of $250,000 - or excuse me, the request - and the
match is 20 percent. And so with that, Madam Mayor, council, I'll be happy to answer any
questions. And really, the request by staff tonight is for you to allow staff to apply and accept
monies if we do receive them. Thank you.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. Questions? Councilman.
MAGAZINE: Amanda, how do these - how does the shade structure relate to the one that was in
the CIP for outside the community center?
JACOBS: So what this - so this is our outdoor revitalization. So how it applies is tying into our
community center/conference center.
MAGAZINE: Okay.
JACOBS: So it would be an extension.
MAGAZINE. Is this the same thing with a different -
JACOBS: Oh, sorry.
MAGAZINE: Same thing with a different name?
MILLER: Yes, it is, absolutely.
JACOBS: Sony.
MAGAZINE: You know, I kind of object, frankly, to sliding this in. We had a question as part
of the CIP, did we not?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes.
MAGAZINE: And now were seeing it in this form? What am I missing here?
MILLER: So this is why it's on the regular - I think the very beginning comments that the
economic development director said is that typically these are on consent. We put this purposely
on the regular agenda so that we could get this out and have this discussion.
MAGAZINE: I just don't think this is right. I just don't think this is the right way to handle it.
We have number of comments about the shade structure previously. Every time it comes up, it
seems to have a different name. It's almost like trying to slide something in here that some of us
have opposed. And frankly, I resent the way this is being handled.
GRZYBOWSKI: I think we've known all along that they were going to apply for a grant for it.
That was part of the conversation at some point. I don't remember first time we talked about it or
fifth time we talked about it, but you're right, we've talked about at least five or six times. But I
know we discussed a grant because I remember for a number of grants, we've had the
conversation that if it's not in the budget or if the drawings aren't done, they won't even consider
us for whatever the grant is. So that's one of the reasons why I remember that this particular one,
a grant was discussed.
MAYOR DICKEY: And literally all of these items, particularly the three that we were having,
you know, discussions about, that's what we were told. We will bring them back. That's what
we're doing because we were only going to bring them back as they came up to be relevant. So
this one at this point is relevant, so we're bringing it back, and that's why we're going to vote on
it.
MAGAZINE: Mayor?
MAYOR DICKEY: Yes.
MAGAZINE: Would it be any less relevant if it came up as part of the CIP?
MAYOR DICKEY: So we approved the CIP as it stood with the understanding that as different
projects came forward, we would vote on them individually. That's what were doing here.
MAGAZINE: Well, my understanding is different, and it may be wrong, but I thought we were
going to be looking at all the CIP projects and making decisions on them. Is that not correct?
MAYOR DICKEY: Well, let me - we will look at them as they come up. Otherwise, if we don't
go forward with them or they don't end up being something that we're going to move forward
with, we're not going to spend money of RFPs or such, then that's how we make the decisions on
all of our capital projects, when they come back to us to, you know, to take whatever that next
step is. So this next step - and we literally, about these three items, said if the grant - if we end
up with an ability to apply for a grant, that's when we'll talk about it. And that's what this is.
MAGAZINE: Well, and as I'm looking at it, it says marketing, sustainability efforts, and/or
infrastructure improvements. But the wording's a lot different from what we've dealt with in the
past.
MILLER: So let me just explain this. So they're trying to work with the language that's in the
actual grant application. So as you heard earlier, we've never referred to the community center
as a conference center. So the conference center - in order to get - for this particular aspect of
the grant, there needs to be some significant improvements. We just went through a big
remodeling project, so that wouldn't qualify. But we were thinking creatively that possibly this
pavilion - again, we know that it needed to be debated. And we know that that was going to
happen tonight. So there was no way that we were trying to slide this through. That's why this
was on the regular agenda. We also understood that the council could possibly have supported
this if they know that the lion's share of this is being paid through other sources, so if it's a grant
or other way of paying for thins. So that's what the staff did is they came up with a creative way.
If the council has a concern with this, they can approve what is before you tonight and you can
actually take that item off of this. So if you have a concern about the pavilion, you can certainly
go ahead and remove this from the motion when you go ahead and approve the submittal for the
other two. This is a total of three separate grants that we would be applying through the Arizona
Office of Tourism.
MAGAZINE: And what's the maximum amount we would have to pay?
MAYOR DICKEY: 115,000.
MILLER: The total that I've got for all three -
MAGAZINE. Okay.
MILLER: - because there's three grants, would be 107,000, but just for this particular one, it
would be 50,000, I believe.
MAYOR DICKEY: 20 percent.
MILLER: So for 50,000, we would be basically getting a $300,000 pavilion.
MAYOR DICKEY: Director.
JACOBS: And Madam Mayor, I did include it in my report but failed to mention it here, I have
to apply on behalf of the town by August 3l st, which was an extension. Originally it was the
l7th.
FRIEDEL: Mayor.
MAYOR DICKEY: Friedel.
FRIEDEL- So Alan, I'm against it, as you know, but if we can get this done for 50 grand, I'm for
it.
MAYOR DICKEY: I think that - you just nailed it right there, on the head. So that's the
decision to make, whether you want to risk, or if you want to do the match. If you don't even
want to do the match, then we won't apply for it.
SPELICH: I, too, was opposed to this, and 1 concur with Alan. I think I even said at the meeting
it was probably the first time in four years him and I agreed on anything. But I think we kind of
gave - correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we kind of gave the marching orders to Rachael that if
she could find money somewhere else, as long as it wasn't coming out of the CIP budget, to go
ahead and try to do it. So what I think is - 1 can understand you thinking we're getting back-
doored, but I think in this particular instance, I think that we kind of gave her the marching
orders, or at least I remember speaking about this and saying, if you can find the money that we
wouldn't be on the hook for the whole amount, I would be for it. So knowing that we're only
going to be - up to 50,000 would be our liability? - up to 50,000, she did what we requested. She
went out on her own and found the money - or with the hopes of finding the money. So
originally I was against it because it was all on us, but now that it's going to be a $50,000 hit, I
would approve it.
MAGAZINE. Mayor.
MAYOR DICKEY: Yes, Councilman.
MAGAZINE: Originally - I may be wrong - I thought it was 350. Now I'm seeing 250. If we
can get it for S50,000, I will support it.
MAYOR DICKEY: Do we have any speaker cards?
MENDENHALL: Mayor, no, not for this item. 8(D)? Are you wanting to speak on this one or
8(D)?
STIZZA: This one.
MENDENHALL: Oh, it's for this one. Okay. We do.
MAYOR DICKEY: Okay.
MENDENHAL: Ed Sitzza? Sitzza?
STIZZA- It's okay.
MENDENHALL: I'll get it.
MILLER: Mayor, while Ed's coming up, may i make just one quick comment? If we receive
the grant, we'll let you know, and well be bringing any kind of award of contract back to this
council. So you'll be fully aware as to what the cost would be. So there's more steps than this
tonight.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. Ed?
STIZZA: Thank you. So thank you, Grady, for explaining why this is being done. There are
certain people in this audience here tonight - and this is probably part of the problem,
transparency. This typifies it perfectly. So as far as bringing this out right now, the public had
no idea of this. We're only here because we thought it could possibly be for - I'd love to have
that picture back up there because I'm going to talk about the design of it, okay. And so anyway,
thank you very much for explaining that because that makes total sense in timeline, amount of
money. And it sounds like the grant only gets 50,000 towards the 250; am I not understanding
that? You're saying it's going to get bought or built for 50, but that's not true.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No.
STIZZA Okay. That's what it sounded like back there. I'm sorry.
MAYOR DICKEY: Our match would be 50 if it's - would be 20 percent of whatever it ends up
being.
STIZZA Okay. So the total outlay to the town is -
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 50.
STIZZA All right. So let me talk about this design. I've had a problem with the circus tent
since I've seen it. The Centennial Circle is an open space. No offense to Rachael or anybody
else in Parks and Rec, but part of the beauty of Fountain Hills is open space. We are
continuously condensing that right now. Putting that structure over the Centennial Circle - are
you going to move the statue? What's the plan there? Where are you going to put that beautiful
statue that's in the Centennial Circle that represents the Centennial Circle? So there are some
designs that I have that are circular in motion that will much better represent that area, still do the
same thing, without it looking like a circus tent. So that thing is - you cannot tell me that
aesthetically that's going to look good. It's just not. We got to stop. I mean, you guys, come on.
So the observatory's not even built yet. Once the observatory's built, maybe take a look at
something like this. What's the cost - well, the cost is - it's not high. So as far as you getting the
actual return on investment, it's not even really that, right? But as far as the look of the thing,
you're not going to be able to change this thing. I mean, how much more are we going to - you
going to put one of these down in the middle of Fountain Park over the fountain? Come on,
guys. I mean, at some point this has got to stop. The aesthetic of what this town is and where
it's going is a big problem. I agree with what you said 100 percent as far as development, but
there is a blend. There is a blend. I don't care if it's a Tuscan next to a contemporary; there's still
a blend architecturally, and we are blowing that. We are blowing that completely in this town.
We've done it. I mean, so let's take a stronger look at it. Thank you.
MAYOR DICKEY: (Indiscernible).
MAGAZINE: Yeah, just a clarification from staff. Would this go over the statue in Centennial
Park?
GOODWIN: Thank you. Sony. 1 figured it'd be better to do it at the mike. For clarification,
the answer is yes. The statue would be moved, and that is at the request of both the public labor
committee and the Dark Skies Group. Both groups have actually requested a relocation of that
piece regardless of this project. The idea here - and I appreciate the public comment from Ed. I
know he's very involved in what we've been doing. Conceptually, the idea is to add shade.
Regardless of the design, the idea is to add shade to the space to make it more usable. The art
would then be more visible, ideally, because more people would use the space. But yes, the
piece would be relocated on property, not out - probably either closer to the community center or
future Dark Skies space.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. Yes, sir. Oh, Rachael.
FRIEDEL. Rachael, is it too late to look at Ed's design? I've never seen it, but is it too late to
look at that? Is that something - we want to see what he's got?
GOODWIN: We can certainly do that. I think what we have based it on is a design -- the space
itself is about 80 feet diameter, which is not small, and we were pretty prudent in the concept of
keeping a center post out of it. Ideally, this will be used for performances and other fine arts and
things like that. So we didn't want to have a visual obstruction in the middle. So finding
something that was architecturally viable to support that does limit some of our choices. And I
don't disagree with the concept - when you look at the renderings, they're not flattering, i.e. they
do have a layered effect that kind of comes off circus -tent -like. But the actual installations that
we've seen - again, they're just sort of layered. So there's space between the two to allow
movement, to allow air, to allow cooling and things like that. So they have come out very nice.
And we do anticipate them fitting the aesthetics with our color schemes, with the tans and the
dark browns and things like that.
MILLER: They could actually be that - the wind sails that you see sometimes that are a little bit
more vertical, and they are triangular in shape. We have to be very cognizant of wind loads
because even not having a center post, were trying to make sure we don't have an issue where
the wind takes those or causes some damage to the structure.
GOODWIN: With all that in mind, I'd be happy to talk to Ed about his other ideas or concepts of
how we might still achieve that. Thank you.
MAYOR DICKEY: Anything else? Someone please make a motion, 165.
MCMAHON: Move to approve stair to apply and take receipt of AOT, VAI grant funding from
the Arizona Office of Tourism to support the town's economic development and tourism efforts.
SCHARNOW: Second.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. All in favor, please say aye.
ALL: Aye.
MAYOR DICKEY: Any opposed? Thank you so much. Our next item is - speaking of shade,
it's Shade 'n Net contract. Grady?
MILLER: I'll just explain it simply and Rachael can fill in the details on it. So basically we
have a particular contractor, which is Shade 'n Net, and for it's for a contract amount of about
50,000, which is my authority. We are anticipating a number of these sunscreens or sunshades
that we'll be doing with this particular vendor. We've had very good luck with this vendor. We
had another one that didn't work out so well. And so we're trying to increase the amount from
50,000 by another 450,000 in anticipation of additional sunshades that we'll be doing,
particularly, I believe, at Golden Eagle Park. With that, I'll turn it over to Ms. Goodwin, who
will provide a little bit more background.
GOODWIN: Thank you. And yes, he kind of hit the highlights here. This is a standard vendor
that we use for all of our shade needs. This is not associated with the project we just talked
about. It has nothing to do with that. Our parks have a lot of shade structures in them, whether
they're over our ramadas, our picnic areas, our playgrounds, different areas like that. So having a
multi -year contract available so that we can move forward with the additional shade structures at
our ball fields, as well as have contract availability for us to actively respond to any damage,
whether that's monsoons, ripping, wear and tear, vandalism, those kinds of things, having that
contract and availability so we can proactively and quickly address those issues, should they
come up. With that, I didn't prepare any visuals. Everybody knows we've got a lot of shade
structures in our park, and I think there's actually more than, you know, you anticipate
sometimes. Like Grady said, we have those different types of sails, especially over our
playgrounds. We have a number of them at all of our different sport courts and things like that.
So just being able to address those and keep those in good working order.
MAYOR DICKEY: Councilman.
SPELICH: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Rachael, did I hear 450,000?
GOODWIN: It's a multi -year contract, so it's over the life of five years.
SPELICH: Oh, so it would be five years spread over, and you would spend up to 450,000 in that
five years?
GOODWIN: Correct.
SPELICH: You don't plan on blowing 450,000 next year, right?
GOODWIN: I don't have 450,000. Yes, correct.
SPELICH: I just want to make sure. You love your shade.
GOODWIN: It's hot out there. Yes, no, it is, again, for the life of the contract over multiple
years.
SPELICH: Okay.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Indiscernible) calling her shady.
MAYOR DICKEY: I know. There's a lot of jokes. Do we have any speaker cards?
MENDENHALL: Not for this item, we don't.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. Any further discussion or a motion, please?
FRIEDEL: Move to approve Shade 'n Net contract 2022.091.1, amendment for park shade
installation and repairs.
MCMAHON: Second.
MAYOR DICKEY: Second, please.
MCMAHON: Second.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you. All in favor, please say aye.
ALL Aye.
GOODWIN: Thank you.
MAYOR DICKEY: Any opposed? Thank you. Next we have our discussion, direction of town
manager. And if there isn't anything, we can take a motion to adjourn this meeting, and then
we'll take a little break before we start the work study.
FRIEDEL: Mayor, I have something.
MAYOR DICKEY: Oh, go ahead, sir.
FRIEDEL: Excuse how irritated I'm going to be about this, but the last week and a half, I had
three opportunities to visit the community center, and all I'm going to say is probably three, four
months ago, Councilman Spelich almost had a heart attack up here discussing the water issues in
that community center. And I'm just going to tell you how embarrassed I was, because the odor
in that building, the mildew smell, was unbelievable. On a Thursday night I was there and
people actually walked out because it was so bad. There's stains in the carpeting, sandbags still
at the doors. If we can't get this under control - we spent $800,000 on that building, and we still
have this water or moisture issue that was never fixed or addressed. We'll never get that smell
out of the carpeting, number one. Number two, I'm just wondering what health risks we have
for, A, our employees working in that building all day, and secondly, that's a hub for our seniors
in this town. It's distressing to me and embarrassing to sit with that building in that condition. If
that was here, there's no doubt in my mind that would've been already addressed. So I think we
need to get to the bottom of it and make these corrections. Whatever we need to do, we need to
streamline that to get it done. We're also charging people -
MAYOR DICKEY: To use the space.
FRIEDEL: - for that environment. And 1 find that just distasteful.
SPELICH: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Gerry - or I'm sorry, Vice -Mayor Friedel is 100 percent
right. Five or six months ago 1 did literally have a heart attack on this stage, or on this dais,
because I had known that we had spent $800,000 of our taxpayers' money on this building. And
at the time, I had said it's absolutely imperative that any water mitigation that needed to be done,
needed to be done, because I think I said -- if you go back and look at the video, I think I told
everybody up here that the first major event, there was going to be issues. And I specifically
said, when the residents of this town find out that the $800,000 of their money that we spent, a
significant portion of the carpeting and everything - I didn't go to the community center. I'll be
quite honest with you. The Vice -Mayor called me and told me about it. 1 didn't go because I
didn't want to be upset. So I told everybody up here. I said that we needed to make it a priority,
and I believe, before we spend any more money on any more studies on anything - I don't care
what it is. Before we spend any money on anything on our wish list, please - I'm going to
reiterate this again. Please, let's get to the bottom of what the problem is concerning the water
problem at the community center and spend whatever money we have to mitigate it and get it
fixed once and for all.
MAYOR DICKEY: Grady.
MILLER: Mayor, if I may. So if you recall, council, at that time, 1 told you this was a high
priority and we were going to work on it immediately. I will talk to you at the break and let you
know what we've done to date. In fact, we are supposed to be bringing some architectural
concepts or their plans on what they think we need to do. So that's been worked on since we had
this discussion previously. So that's all I have to say at this point, and you'll probably be hearing
about this - Justin, what part of September?
WELDY: The latter.
MILLER: The latter part.
MAYOR DICKEY: All right, Aaron. I don't know how far were going on this, how much were
allowed to discuss stuff So just let me know.
ARNSON: It sounds as though the discussion direction of town manager is pretty clear.
MILLER: (Indiscernible).
ARNSON: Yeah.
FRIEDEL: Can I just add one thing? 1 get we need to do something around those doors. 1
walked down a hallway on the other side of the building that was at risk. So I don't know how
far-reaching this is, but we've got issues.
MAYOR DICKEY: Okay. All set? Motion to adjourn, please.
SPELICH: So moved.
SPELICH: So moved.
GRZYBOWSKI: Second.
MAYOR DICKEY: All in favor, aye?
ALL: Aye.
MAYOR DICKEY: Thank you.