Town Council - Regular Meeting

Good

afternoon, everybody. Thanks for joining us. The meeting is now called to order and would the clerk please call the roll.

Mayor Stanton? Here. Vice mayor Labelle. Council member Andy Keller? Here. Council member Liepman?

Here.

Council member Moore? Here. Council member Pace? Council member Thomason?

Here.

We have a quorum. Thank you. As a reminder, this meeting is being streamed live on the Internet and will be archived in the town's website for future viewing. The first item on the agenda is study session. These items are scheduled for discussion amongst the council staff and their designees. Votes will not be taken on any of these matters at this time but may be scheduled for final action later in the meeting or at a future meeting. Members of the public are asked to hold their comments until call to the public scheduled to begin shortly after six p. M. Comments, public comments will also be invited when the agenda topic is placed on a future agenda for action. We have a full agenda today so without any hesitation there are four items on the study session tonight.

The first is a discussion for zoning code update and it will be presented by the community development director Chad Weaver and scheduled for sixty minutes. Hello, mister Weaver. Afternoon, mayor, council members.

Join the meeting.

We do have an update for you today on our continuing efforts to clean up the zoning code. We're going to go through all the things that we have done, remind you of what we've been up to, get you up to date with the changes we've made up until now, and where we're at going forward. Most of that, in the way of, just reminder is is not code changes, but moving the thing around to, look better, read better, match the town code better, work better on municode, fix any any errors, any inconsistency any inconsistencies, any lack of clarity, adjust for any state law changes that we may have missed over time. We do have two items we are direction on tonight and things that you have asked us to bring back, one being pickleball courts and one being construction signs. So we'll have some options for you later on, and then we'll go through next next steps to, to to bring this project to a close through the summer and into the fall.

So with that, I will introduce Robbie Aaron, our consultant for Michael Baker, who will give you the presentation.

Thank you, Chad. Like Chad said, my name is Robbie Aaron. I am a project manager at Michael Baker International. Thank you for having us here today to present this topic. As Chad said, we've been working with staff and you guys as well over the course of the past about nine to ten months now to provide this update. We're just gonna kinda go through what we've done and also seek some direction from you. As I stated, we've been at this for about ten months. So this is just a quick timeline. Our contract was awarded last June. Staff came before you at a council study session on 09/11/2025.

That focus was on sport courts or pickleball courts, construction signs, and then there was some discussion about on street parking as well at that study session. And we were back before you with staff and us, Michael Big International, on December 11. We gave you an update on our progress to date and we generally went over the reorganization of the code, other things that we were looking at at the time, some of the state laws we were focusing on, and those types of things. Now we're going to jump in to recap what our goals were and also what we've done to date. As Chad stated, the goals of this were to identify existing inconsistencies, conflicts, any duplications, and clean those up.

Address any development trends that would impact the town. Make the code more user friendly, so that came really with the reorganization of the code. And then also ensure compliance with ARS and any federal law updates that have come down the pipeline over the course of many years as the ARS is constantly changing as we know. The biggest update that we did was the format and organization. So we did restructure the document for an improved usability.

We grouped related sections together. We moved specific sections and created some new sections that maybe weren't there before as part of the way we did things. And then we also incorporated a more comprehensive Nuance numbering system system that is much more similar to the way the town code is numbered. And this will also help when the new version gets put on to mini code with all the links and nice things. And then overall, we'll just read a lot better and be a lot easier for a developer or anybody who's new coming to town.

We'll be able to follow it more simply. Staff will be able to get guide people through it more simply. So that was the overall goal with the reformat and reorganization. Legal updates. We updated outdated or legally noncompliant sections.

And we also ensured co language complies with recently enacted legislation. So you'll see some things in there such as there's a new section about keeping of animals. And while some of those things were allowed before, there is a new section regarding because that is something that the state mandated. And so that's one of the key updates in that area. Last, you'll see a lot of, like, little red lines here and there that have to do with grammar, punctuation, abbreviation updates to ensure consistency throughout the ordinance.

So some of these were simply like we said 30 feet or somewhere it might have said 30 feet. Somewhere it might have said 30 feet. So just trying to go through and make sure that it either says 30 feet and then has that in parentheses or says 30 parentheses the number 30 and then feet. Those types of things throughout the code because it was kind of a little bit going on everywhere. It wasn't necessarily all the same.

So we really went through and tried to make that more consistent throughout. We codified some of the zoning interpretations related to some the council direction points such as games courts and construction signs. So there was an interpretation regarding game courts and setbacks. So you'll now see that in the update under game courts and tennis courts. Tennis courts are treated separate.

There's a whole section that's just for game courts and tennis courts, then they're broken out there. So you'll see that table that was in the interpretation is now in in the ordinance so people find it easily. And then we also are working on going through and updating certain graphics and tables to assist improving the clarity. And this really some of the graphics when it comes to Unicode, when they get uploaded because they're a little bit older, they're a little grainy. So you you click it and maybe it's not as clear.

So we've we've gone through and kinda redrawn some of those. Maybe not change them, but at least redrawn to give a better image to up upload to municode. So that'll be helpful for people. And then we are working with staff to make sure that anything that needed updated gets updated. And then there's some new various tables throughout that really help make things more clear.

Now, we are going to be seeking council direction, on a couple things. The first will be, pickleball courts on private single family lots, and then the second will be construction signage. I'm just gonna jump right in with pickleball courts. So when we went to do this, we did some research and one of the first things we wanted to see is what are other communities doing and what are the best practices regarding pickleball courts. I will just say that there's not a whole lot out there because this is such a new topic.

Not everybody has jumped in feet first to figure out how to address this situation. A lot of this stuff that pops up if you just do a simple Google search is actually from people who don't like pickleball courts and think they should be banned. So they're just kind of taking that side and then finding the side of people that, you know, actually do want pickleball courts and what are they doing and how are we kind of meeting in the middle to allow pickleball courts to happen. So first, what are others doing? So some communities are regulating how many private courts can be on a privately owned single family lot.

Some don't regulate this at all. Some say there can only be one. So that's something that we looked at. Some communities such as Sedona regulate when pickleball can be played all together. So Sedona regulates it to between the hours of eight a. M. And eight p. M. That's when pickleball can be played. And others simply regulate other conditions such as noise, lighting, and set setbacks, which is pretty general across the board.

Most communities have a noise ordinance. Most communities have some sort of lighting ordinance. And then obviously, you can use setbacks on a property to at least get the pickleball court set back a little bit more so maybe the noise doesn't travel into somebody else's backyard loudly. Then we looked at best practices. So practices that really are out there are increasing the setbacks to help mitigate the noise traveling to other properties.

When I was reading about this, it was interesting I found that the decibel limit, the decibel amount that a pickleball produces when it hits the paddle is like just right in this range to where it really pierces the the human ear, which is why I think a lot of people find it kind of annoying. And so how do you help maybe decrease that when it gets if I'm playing football on my property, when

it gets to your property?

And part of that is maybe some barriers and landscape buffers to help mitigate the noise. Although, as we know, it's not gonna go away completely, but maybe it is diminished just a little bit. So our recommendation and where we're seeking a direction, our recommendation would just allow one pickleball court per lot in the sport court section. And we could either leave that and this would be differentiated from other game courts like basketball courts, other types of things. So we would call out a pickleball court specifically and say there's only one allowed per single family law.

And the second would be to maintain other regulations in sport courts for pickleball courts such as lighting, setbacks, etcetera. We're also here to seek your direction and get any guidance that you might have of some other ideas you might have to that you want us to look into. So with that, I'll pause and get you guys feedback.

Well, thank you. That's a good beginning of the presentation. A lot of information you've been working on, you and your team. Let's open it up if there's any questions or comments at this point regarding pickleball courts.

Councilmember Leitman. Thank you, Mayor. Sorry, getting organized here. I have two questions on the presentation before we get to pickleballs, if that's okay.

Sure.

And the first is on slide four where it says right there on number two focus on sports courts which we're doing construction signs and on street parking. Am I missing I did I miss any changes to recommendations regarding on street parking?

Mayor, council member, it's true. We did not make any. What we've been doing and we mentioned at that time and we've been doing this since that time, but we're happy to take direction. It's not really a zoning code issue per se. So there's kind of three aspects. Kill yours for a second there. There are kind of three aspects we could do. Shar has taken requests for adding no parking signs in certain areas, and we evaluate those based on engineering standards. And I think we have added one series of them maybe in the last year. It's often not not something that's quite necessary.

We're using the police cooperating police for enforcement, and from the through the building division, for folks with permits, we're a little more active on trying to encourage those folks to stay on their site when possible. It's not always possible, but that is one of the issues that has come up is to maintain a lot of work room for themselves. They've kicked some of the trucks out onto the street. So we Oh, yeah. Kicked them back onto their site when we can. So it's more operational. There's not really a zoning code thing that we see that we can implement that will change, but those are kind of the three operational aspects that we've been working on in the last year.

Wonderful. Thank you. I appreciate that. But I do note that the STR regulations, are part of the zoning code, specifically say that all parking must be on-site. So I'm wondering why it's different for STRs than it is for everybody else.

And maybe that's not a discussion for today, but I was really looking forward to getting into On Street Park to Indy because I know there are issues there. So I will move on. My second question, which was somewhat addressed, is that there were a bunch of zoning interpretations. And you provided us this nice chart that I printed out showing where the zoning interpretations are codified in, I guess, the old zoning code because the numbers match up with the new draft. Was trying to anyway.

Is there anything in here going I did not see anything that says that this terminates all of the zoning code interpretations. And going forward, is anybody allowed to make them? Because it seems to me we we had, and I'd love to get rid of this separate set of regulations or interpretations. So that's just a general comment. And I think now is the time to make it.

Specifically with respect so sorry. I'll wait for an answer on that.

Mayor counsel, so, Robbie, correct me. There may be a couple of things that impact a couple of those. And if they are, I'll let you speak to them. For the most part, no. The effort here was not to make all the interpretations go away. Frankly, if we wanna get into the interpretations and either delete them or codify them, there's probably a lot of separate discussions that are necessary there. We didn't elect when looking at all that to try and fold that into there because there's a lot of probably a lot of council input that needs to be done that would stretch this out quite a bit. So I would say we would take that off in more bite sized pieces if we wanted to get into that.

That was something else I was looking forward to getting into. So I'm sad to hear that that wasn't done because it is confusing. And in working with the zoning code, people don't realize that there's these hidden interpretations. And I thought the purpose of this was clean it up. So I would respectfully ask that we take the time now that we're doing this to go through.

And it seems to me that the consultants have already begun because they've listed the code sections and where it is and whether it's integrated or not. So if we want a really good easy to understand codified zone code, I would go through this and I don't think it would be that difficult and I know I'm saying that when others are going to do it but I wrote statutes for a living for over thirty years so I'm happy to help anyway so now specifically with respect to game courts, I noticed that right now what is written does not limit have any numerical limitations for tennis courts and pickleball courts. And in fact, one definition of game courts even excludes pickleball courts. I think that's a knit or I don't know. But I would recommend that we really look hard at limiting pickleball because we hear the number of pickleball courts because they are different from other courts.

And I would also suggest, maybe moving the setbacks or requiring soundproofing. I think education does cut it here and at some point I would also like to look at the noise ordinance in connection with this. So that's all I have to say for now and thank you.

Alright other comments or questions at this point in presentation?

Councilmember Andy McKellar. Thank you mayor and thank you for your presentation

as it pertains to the pickleball courts I think it would be good to separate them from the rest of the sport courts. At least that's my opinion. Also, I've noticed on some houses in my mom's neighborhood, the netting that goes around that is kind of not very pretty. So it's like a pole, a humongous pole with netting. And it's not very nice to look at. So something around the netting and all that kind of stuff. And I do think that we need some setbacks and noise abatement.

You dive a little deeper into those types of things especially the netting situation but also look to see what other communities are doing to maybe increase setbacks and then I think using landscaping to help with some of that noise mitigation, we can look into that

too. Okay.

So I'll add one specific nugget. So we've heard two suggest further setbacks. We have greater setbacks for tennis courts. We can use that same number for pickleball courts. I think it's 32 instead of 20. So push the next 12 feet back. The only reason we didn't necessarily recommend that here, it's not to say that we can't work through it. It's gonna create a tremendous amount of nonconformity around town, but going forward, we'll we'll get that setback. So certainly, you know, have that in mind. I've I've heard from two.

If we hear from enough that that's the setback we want, we could be very specific and say, we're just gonna match those pickleball courts as opposed to a sport court. We're gonna match them to to a tennis court, and they and they get 32 feet to the 20. So that's a that's a pretty clean option without regard to the nonconformities, of course.

Do do we have a lot of applications for

to put in pickleball courts

currently? Yeah.

Fair amount. Yes.

Fair amount. Okay.

I didn't find it very fun, but yeah. I'll yield from there. Thank you.

Thank you. Other comments? Councilmember Pace.

Thank you, mayor. Thanks for the presentation. You're gonna have a lot of comments I'm sure throughout, and I do agree with councilmember Liepman. The idea was to do everything. It's to fix it once and for all so that all of our building development and everybody can look up something and we don't have hidden interpretations over here. And also keeping it from the public and from council. We've seen that in our last term. We had Lisa doing it a lot. We didn't like it. And then pretty soon it wasn't even provided to council.

There was no feedback and there was interpretations that developers and builders were showing us that had been provided by a staff person on counsel and we're very picky in Paradise Valley not to let things like that happen without feedback and comment. So I think transparency is key. I think as a construction lawyer, I wouldn't like it if things are hidden from you know I don't do work here in BV I hear about it but it's not helpful if they go to the counter and one developer gets information and one applicant gets information the other ones don't even know about it and then I'll have the ones that have worked here a long time who know the rules and are trying to keep the brand up like Rod Colum and Tony Calvis. Then they'll call us and say, hey, two more builders are putting in the house this way and they just didn't know the rules and how do you fix that and go deal with it? And I write it to you guys do it.

So we need like a level playing field that's only fair to everybody. The things that need to be speeded up, we need to speed up like the pickleball courts we should have been dealing with for the last year. We don't need to wait for a big book to be written. If we have agreement on that, we do it immediately so we quit getting more applications that are gonna be nonconforming. Because all you do is put the word out there, then everyone's gonna apply. Right? I mean, that's the way it goes. So, you know, the things that needed a more urgency, we should push ahead it and get them adopted while the rest is being done. I think we need the list of interpretations, which had always been hard to get. I've asked for it, I think, in public records for three years.

I've asked for it before you guys. Believe me, it's not you, Chad, and it's not the. We couldn't get them. So, yeah. So it's kind of a a process we pushed for a while to get some place. So it's not and it's not you all because this is before all you all. Okay? This is like bringing to current. So I would rather see a level playing field. I think it helps us from first of all, I commend our planning director Chad Weaver and the town manager for getting the builder and development group started again. I'm super happy. You know, I attended the first one and now you got 97 at the last one. That makes a huge difference right there. We used to have those years ago. It stopped for about five years.

Now we're back on track this year that you guys are doing that. So that's a plus because we educate and education is key and that prevents the problem, which is what we're really looking for. I can't tell you how many times on our hillside twice now so far someone's painted the house white and they had to go repaint the entire house. And I just find that sad because if they just knew and they could look it up pretty easily and it wasn't that searchable, I know we're getting our website more searchable, that would have stopped it. Right now we're dealing with the homeowner right here on Mockingbird that had that pickleball court put right up to the setback line on the property line on their house.

And they had no permit and never came to the town for a permit. And our best solution was, oh, undo the pickleball lines on the court and you get to keep it there. So all the guys are doing at night is having party. That's really what happened. And that's all they're all putting the party out there and it's a problem every night. That's why we've got the sound issue and the police out there repeatedly. This is a short term rental. That's why I believe we need to be also advocating to notify neighbors on the short term rentals. So it came in. People didn't know about it, and it started advertising. It's still advertising. And now we get in this pickleball court that's right up to their property line. And our answer after 5,000,000 requests and write ups that were all copied on them is take off the pickleball lines, and it's code now. I'm legal. I don't understand that at all, and I don't agree with that.

And I think we need to have consequences that we all need to be talking about. And I think maybe the answer, if the council peers wanna do it, is we do a half day retreat or a full day, and we just knock out all these interpretations and what we wanna see happen and make it better in PB because we're reactive right now. We haven't been proactive on it. And we do need to fix the interpretations. We do need to fix the consequence. And I know some of this involves, I go back to last time, the prosecutor and what that role is to actually deal with it when people because right now people are asking for forgiveness later. And that's what happened to the house next to Jim Poehler. So that's not right. And that should be removed. So, I mean, one of the things in the pickleball, I wanna

know if someone just puts

it up anyway and these out of state people do it and don't know our rules, what is our consequence? So we say one. I'm all for one. I think one is fine. I think the other thing you mentioned we did have in Tucson when I worked with Terry they had the sound studies and I think the town manager Andrew Ching and I probably two years ago started looking into that and trying to see if they should do sound studies. But you guys have looked into it. You're the professionals. But they had said one of the things and I also do it in California, another city I looked at is to reduce the sound of the of the actual paddles, so we can add that to the code because that helps. We were hoping it would evolve naturally and just make it so, but it didn't quite. There's still two types, and one's loud and one's quiet.

So we had to pick the quiet. Maybe we have a limited sound time for loud ones if there's like a competitive thing going on with the group. Maybe that's a middle of the day thing only and not early morning and not late at night, and everything else in between is is a lower sounding paddle. I mean, I'm okay about logical solutions, but I think we need and then the other thing I didn't see mentioned here that Planning Commission has been bringing up for about five years, and I've heard it to me and to others, is that we don't want pickleball cards on top on raised surfaces. We don't want them on the top of garages.

We don't want them on the top of every Rod Collins brought this up to us. Like, when are you guys gonna deal with this? So we need to figure out where do you put that, and if we have enough council support for it, we don't allow that to be on top. So that isn't really better as far as I know, it's not fully addressed, and it and I think this could go a little deeper, but I also think this one needs to speed up and be done sooner than the rest of the code if we're talking about doing interpretation. So, anyway, that's just my comments on that, and I do agree with the aesthetic netting.

The only other thing that when I was trying to help those neighbors before, and I know we all got called and and we're trying to help, but we did ask if they're if it's possible for planning to make some exceptions for recessing the those courts even though we normally want things high. But they had asked if they could do a little amphitheaters around them and lower them for that sound quality not going up over and the lighting. I don't know if that's a drainage issue that will not work, but I had talked to Chad and talked to town manager before. I don't know if that will work. But if it did and someone had a great idea and it lowered the sound, that's why we put, you know, as you all know, we put the freeways down low where we can afford it in the town and ADOT could do that. So anyway, those are my comments. I'll stop there. Thanks.

Thank you, council member. Council member Moore.

Thanks, Mayor. Yeah. Thanks for bringing us forward and and going for the update. Just a couple things and I and I do agree with my colleagues here. I think these are all great points and I know council member Pace and I have have dealt with many of these in the past, and it's and it's nice to finally see us come forward.

John, I mean, it says right in our agenda that what we're looking for today on council direction is pickleball courts and construction signs and nothing else. It was agenda. So, again, it it would be nice if you wanna to bring these other things forward if you're gonna be asking us about them so we can be prepared and have feedback that would be constructive for you guys to get back. Along with that constructive feedback, it helps, as we've mentioned many of us in the past, about having a history of where we're at today with the football courts. I know the former mayor and and, during his time was working on, these situations.

Mister Chang, you and I sat and met with many of these residents, that had concerns about a particular one. And there was many good suggestions that came up at that point. One of them being for noise abatement is is to put a a clear plexiglass wall right up against the pickleball court because as sound as we all know, sound travels, the decibels rise and get larger and and the sound travels travels over over sound sound walls if they're not up close. So these things, you're the professional and it sounds like you've done some research on it. It'd be great to have you do some more detailed research as far as how language has been written by other municipalities so we can look at how they've been received and adopted.

It's it is good to see this coming forward, but it's been way too long. And just to to to glaze over the other documents that are within our packet here, but when it's not agendized and something we can really sit here and discuss because it's not put on here as a as a discussion topic tonight, is is something that, you know, it'd be nice to know when you would like to get together with all of us and have conversations on that. So I'm I'm in favor of I know that when we looked at situations in the past with multiple pickleball courts, it seems to lend itself to leagues and and tournaments and things like that, which create much more noise, not just noise from pickleball, but noise from thirty, forty people in a backyard parking, on street parking, all kinds of situations can occur in those situations. So that came up in the past that I would like to see that in our packets so we can look at what our past experience has been, how we've dealt with those, how we resolved issues with neighbors in the past and then some of the comments that Councilmember Pace.

I agree with everyone that she brought up. I mean, those are things that we should have been already looking at, and it should have been here in front of us. So I'm I'm just if you're looking for feedback, feedback is bring back more and be more detailed in in your ask of of what you want. Write some language out. Give us suggested language.

It's it's easy to be high level here and just give you some feedback, but I'm more interested in what you wanna write in as code and read that code. So that that would help me. Again, back to history, history, history. Let's see it in in these situations. Why did it why is this coming up now and and with with your suggestions, but not the suggestions that we've had in the past. So I'll leave it at that, but thanks.

Council Member Thomason.

Thank you, mayor. I agree with my council colleagues here. I agree with one pickleball court per lot. I also agree with the 32 foot setback pickleball commensurate with other sport courts. I appreciate Councilmember Peso's suggestions about the soft paddles. To me that's a step too far. Monitoring it and ensuring compliance will be very difficult. And I think monitoring sports equipment that people use in their homes is just going to be too difficult. I completely appreciate the spirit, I just think that's a little too much. But otherwise, I'm in favor of the other two. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you. And I would wrap up my comments on this subject by saying I think we're all in uniform space here. One, I do think we need to do a deeper dive on the interpretations. I think that's one of the big challenges because at the outset of this process, we are trying to pull our laces tight, trying to clean up our codes to make sure that they're up to date, make sure that they're accurate. So I think doing a deeper dive on the interpretations, I'm very supportive of that.

I do think that in particular these two items, I do support the idea of one pickleball court per lot. I think that makes absolute sense. I also agree with the setback discussion and some thoughts about matching that to tennis courts. I think that makes sense. Some mitigation, I need to know a little bit more about how that would work and what that means for the property owner, but I think it's well worth our time to look at that and look in comparison to some of these other municipalities that you looked at.

So I do think that we got to move a little quicker. I think this is you've done a good job on bringing this particular space forward. There's no reason why we have to delay moving into some updates on this and getting that done. So I'm in support of my colleagues and I agree. So we have something to add, council member.

Yes. Thank you, mayor. I apologize for I read all this. And so I have a general question. Today, are we only addressing the the signs and the pickleball courts?

That's what's on the agenda for one hour.

The signs of the pickleball court? Yes. So at what point I'm a little concerned about the schedule. At what point do we get to give all our other comments and changes and Mayor,

council member,

if if I may, I think, council member Moore laid it out really nicely in from two directions, you know, what's prepared for a robust discussion versus what you're allowed to discuss. And, you know, my position would be that you're allowed to discuss anything in here.

So if you have comments prepared on other topics, you're certainly allowed to.

I think

staff was trying to tee up a couple that they viewed as being of high interest to all of you for discussion. But if you have other comments, you're not restricted from making them. Of course, as the mayor points out, we have clock

to watch also that we have one hour.

Exactly. Thank you. So so my my my request at this point based on that is we're not gonna fit this full discussion into the hour today before it moves on. So maybe we want to, I don't know, do something else to further dive into some of these areas. And my second question is also a general interpretation of the process.

And that is that in the black line, which I really liked receiving, there's a number of sections that are called new that aren't highlighted throughout as being additional, which is fine because it says right there it's new. But I'm wondering some of those are actual ordinance policy changes and yeah. Me let me just finish my question. Absolutely. And along those lines, the question is, generally, who decided what new stuff was put in as opposed to what new stuff that might have been mentioned over the years wasn't put in?

And I'm just a little concerned that either this is a cleanup or it's a full rewrite. And I'm seeing both. And one example I found was 3.2 conservation easements.

And

yeah, it codifies what we've been doing and telling people and I have no problem with it necessarily, but it is a new ordinance and I'm not sure it should just be introduced without a discussion or direction from the council at a high level before we get into the details. So I do.

Thank you. So obviously with Mr. Gaylord's thoughts I'd open that back up for any more specific questions. Go ahead.

Thank you, mayor, and thanks for everybody's feedback. I think the council is ready and willing to jump in and we have been for like a while. We all have our folders on this if I'm looking around the table. And so maybe a suggestion would be pickleball is something we're already ready to make decisions about and maybe that could come as quick as next two weeks for us to get that one approved and done. And and, you

know, I mean, I know

we have go through our normal public hearing process, but but from our standpoint, I think we're up to speed. We're confident. We know what's out there. We know the communities. We've been looking at it for a while. So if you took maybe a lot of the feedback from tonight and just came back in two weeks with that, I bet you we could probably get that done and then that could go on its way with the normal legal process to wherever it goes. And then we get that done before summer and then we have that rolling. If construction science does the same, then we take another one and do the same because that one's of proliferating. And I think council member Morris brought this up and kind took the lead on it. And it does need to be done and fast. So that's another quick one. I don't think that's a hard one to do. We'll see when we get there with everybody on council. We'll see. Maybe it is.

I don't know. But then there's a lot more here, And I don't think we can be limited in an hour. And I mean not today, but I mean we have to figure out how to get to the things. I want to talk C containers. I mean, you're bringing up another good point that Councilman Leighton's bringing up. I saw other things on my list. So I want to fix the interpretations, but I also want to address these in a sufficient time. And I know everyone's going to have comments on them. So I'm not sure what that means for timing. If that's a half day on a Saturday or a full day, I don't even care. I'd rather jump in and do them all at once. And if we had the packets ahead of time, maybe we'll be faster about it. But it is an important lift. We haven't had to do these for a while in the beginning. I think that's where council memoirs go back to.

We spent a lot of time on these things meeting after meeting and we spent hours and hours. And then it kind of got quiet the last few years. We And really didn't dig in again. And so this one's probably the time we all need to the heavy lift and get it done right. And then it's done right. And then it can be searchable. And we reduce problems and conflicts in our community. We reduce complaints. Because if everybody can look it up, whatever developer someone's using and whatever construction trade and whatever new person moves in town and home manager, they can find it. So anyway, that's my suggestion is we do the two.

I'll leave it up to everyone else and get those out of the way by next meeting and figure out you guys come back to the draft and we'll we'll work it up. We'll all kick the tires on it and then get those rolling and then we schedule the time and we can keep going on other sections every meeting. I don't care if we take five to ten a meeting, but we need to do more than what we're talking about for the two highlighted. That's just my suggestion.

Thank you. I think you're hearing pretty loud and clear the priorities and how we wanna see that move forward. But in the sake of this discussion, I know that construction signs are next on your agenda. So please continue.

Mayor, if I could just to to address council member Leitman's question because I think it's a big one. There's some misunderstanding probably. So when it says new there, that language is all not new. That is a new section that we've created. We've pulled that language from another spot. There's really aside right now from construction signs and pickleball, there's not new policy that we're trying to strike here. We could go through that line by line with you. We're happy to. But yeah, we did that. We definitely did

not put That's a big relief. Thank you so much.

Did not put pages and

pages of new stuff in here. We absolutely

did that.

So Thank you for clarifying that. It was not clear to me. So it was moved essentially. Got it. That's great. I apologize then for

New section, new page, not new code.

Okay. Wonderful. Thank you.

Moved with new section, new page would be a better time. Alright.

Alright. I do appreciate all the feedback on pickleball courts. It's very helpful and we will definitely dive into that deeper to get something moving as this so we can get something on the books. But next up is construction signs, another big topic. So I'm gonna start with the existing sign code just as kind of refresher. The current sign code addresses residential subdivision and non residential which are SUP signs. And this includes residential signs. You get up to six signs. It can be three square feet, three three feet tall, and not illuminated. So that's kind of what exists there today.

The existing sign code excludes public signs like traffic control. It requires all signs beyond private property except for temporary signs. It has lighting provisions for subdivision SUP signs. It prohibits audible signs, has provisions for banner signs and SUPs and then statute and provisions for political signs. So we kind of used this to give an example of what six three square foot signs that are three feet tall would look like on a vacant property if they were all just kind of there, just for illustration purposes.

Again, that aren't allowed, audible signs, signs in the right of way with exceptions for public contemporary signs, signs on construction fencing and screen panels. So if you have a fence that says Phoenix fence, you can't have that. Illuminated signs unless they're a permanent subdivision sign, oversized signs that are larger or greater than in number than what the code allows, and then construction signs on lots without active permits. So if it's just a vacant lot and there's no construction happening, you can't have a sign. Currently, there is a construction sign policy that we wanted to remind everybody of.

So the construction signs are allowed by policy. For the past twenty years, there's been one maximum six foot six square foot sign, which is like a project contact identification sign. So this two by three, it can be six feet tall, and this would be a sign that says, I'm Bob the builder, and here's my number if you have a problem. And then that obviously aids for neighbors to directly contact applicant if there is an issue. Well, there's been a provision for advertising.

So I am the builder and I want everybody to know I'm building this amazing house here in Paradise Valley. So they can put up one maximum one forty square foot sign, six feet tall on the property for everybody to see. And this is kind of an illustration of what that might look like. So now seeking new direction on how to move forward with regulating construction signs. We can follow the existing residential sign provisions of up to six signs at three square feet, three feet tall, which are not illuminated, And or we can consider codifying the policy to allow for one project contact contact identification sign, which is the maximum two by two by three feet and six feet tall on the property.

Or we can look to codify specific regulations for construction signs and bring that language back since these are commercial since these are not currently addressed in the code. And that would be something in effect of, you know, coming up with something very specific for construction and maybe similar to the policy that already exists of allowing one forty square foot sign that is six feet tall. With that, will seek feedback on these. And

Good.

Alright. Thanks for bringing us that update, and I'll start with council member Moore.

Thank you, Matt. Yeah.

I'm just, thanks for bringing this forward. I'm glad this is, being brought forward to the council because this is something that came up. And, again, I think, council member faces and I have, kind of touched on this one in the past is lately, we've noticed a lot of banner signs, which are four by eight signs being placed around town. That's that's something that has been new since we've lost some of our previous staff members who went out and patrolled this area. So I did a little researching on it, and I couldn't find anything outside of our sign ordinance, is passed by ordinance, passed by the seven elected officials here who can legislate.

And then did some further digging and found out there's some handouts that have been going to the construction crews that I talked to mister Chang about and asked him if this these what you're calling construction sign policy has been approved by legislative action from this council through either ordinance or resolution, and nothing could be found on it. So my I'm back to the same thing. These signs are not legally allowed in the town of Paradise Valley. So there's not a current policy in place. And it was something that is an oversight that the department sent out to construction workers.

And I think for the people that live in the town of Paradise Valley, this town's always under construction. It's always under remodel. It's always got somebody building next door across the street or down the street. And the more we can live within that construction zone, that will never go away. Once everybody's done, they'll start all over again.

So what our current policy reads seem like a very logical choice. Now I would be curious to know what the resolution or the ordinance stated, why six, up to six, three by three signs, three feet tall, were allowed on private property. And is that can someone from staff let us know what the history of that is and why that was approved the way was. It's always good to know history to understand why that was six seems like an unusual request or a code. So it'd be nice to understand what that code is and actually have it not just in a in a private email to all of us, but part of our package so all of our residents can see it as well and follow along.

And and it can be more of a transparent process as opposed to just going out to a couple council members or all council members. But I know there is a state statute for real estate signs, 18 by 24 up to three feet tall. On private property, they can have up to a six inch banner on them. You put wood on the side of them, that makes it about a three by three sign three feet tall. So that all makes sense.

I think we all kind of follow that in somewhat similar when we're talking about campaign signs and that's not what we're talking about tonight, but it's consistent. So is there any comments from staff on why do we have six three by three signs? What was written into the ordinance and why was that the case?

Mayor counsel, we probably have to do a lot more research. George thinks that preexisted him. So it's 25 plus existence. So we can certainly try to find that, but I I I can't tell you what what we try to do here today, and and and we can look back. What we try to do here today is basically kind of handle the current issue, which is we have a code and we have a policy and we need to reconcile those. Throw the policy away, live with the code, codify the policy. We could do anything in between or outside of those things if you want and we can certainly try to research that, but I I'm not sure the value of it's 25 plus years old. But, I I I when I first looked at it, I wondered myself why six of these is seems like a lot. But

Well, and it's interesting that it's over twenty five years old, so there must have been it it seems to have worked for twenty five years. And what we've seen recently seems to be something that everybody in in town is noticing because me, who doesn't get a lot of phone calls from residents, gets phone calls on this one. So and and I'm I'm not in favor of a four by eight sign. I mean, we're on residential streets. It's not like we're driving down the freeway, and you have to be able to read it at 65 miles an hour.

I mean, it's it's worked for real estate signs, with three by three or eight 18 by 24, and everybody seems to be able to get the information off of it. So, I don't I don't understand the reason for putting it on the silkscreening it on a screen wall, construction fence screen wall, which is, once again, another thing that's not written into our code, but something we should be discussing right now as part of this because it's out there and our staff has given direction. You wanna add input to that? Or

No. I'm just trying to answer questions. I apologize. Go ahead.

Okay. Alright. You wanna share your conversation or you wanna No.

I just I wanted to make clear that the the silk screen on the fencing is something that staff is already actively taking down. It was never allowed. So that's not package of options or directions. We're not asking for the codification of something that we didn't permit in the first place. It was happening, but it wasn't happening with our permission. That was the point I was going to make. And we are I think we're all in agreement. So I was just trying to find sort of a basis of agreement that if there was a staff driven policy in those elements that we're bringing forward to consider potentially codifying, silk screening was not one of them. So I wanna make sure that was was clear. That's all.

Should we go in executive session and discuss what our what legally staff is allowed to do on policy of larger science for advertising? I mean, my colleagues wanna support that and and go into a legal get legal advice of what staff is administratively allowed to do when it comes to signage because this says it's a policy and it's it's not a an adopted policy by this by this council or previous council.

Is that a motion? It's a motion. So there's a motion on the table to go into executive session. I'd see if there is a second.

I'd like to second it and also amend it because there's another legal issue regarding signs that I would like addressed and that has to do with political signs in the First Amendment, and there were some changes made with respect to that, in this draft that I think we need legal advice on. And, again, if we don't have time today, it's something that we can't just let slide.

So there's a motion on the table

second that motion.

To go into executive. Thank you. I'd ask all those in favor to go into executive.

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? All right. With that, we will ask the room to All right. Well, we're back into the study session now. Thanks for that break.

And Robert, think we're going to go through you've got you're wrapping up the discussion on signage and what the next steps may be for us. I think we were talking about options here that we and there's I I think everyone's had a chance to weigh in if there's any further question on options. Council member Pace?

No. Thank you, mayor. So mister is it mister Aaron? I apologize. I don't know your first name. So so you're asking us today so it really helpful. We gave you, I think, guidance on the pickleball process. We wanna get that expedited. So looking at the construction signs, when you're looking on this page, what is it, '24? So basically, you're asking us either if we're ready to make a decision today or or to give some guidance, I guess it is.

But number one is to follow our existing residential sign provision, which does provide up to six signs of three square feet, three tall, not three feet tall, not illuminated, which has really been, I think, what this is the one that's been here for like twenty five years. I think everyone's saying a long time. George Burton was saying it too. So that's our existing sign code. There's a question of whether to to allow it as something different and then or we wanna do something brand new. My feeling is, you know, as we started, you know, is to go with number one because PV doesn't like a lot change. And that's what it was forever. And it kept it small, and we didn't get into all the screening and then bigger and bigger and bigger. And and council member Moore and I, ten years ago, thought that's where we left it. And and all of a sudden, it exploded a little bit lately.

So with these signs. So I think that covers some of our needs and it covers all the odds and ends of Maricopa County signage requirement for dust violations or if there's an ROC license that's required. I think that's why we always had that in the code was to comply with all these options. So to me, I don't think we have to delay that one. I think that one can go on the fast track. If my peers agree, we'll hear what they all have to say and council member Moore. But I think we stick with number one and take back the other ones out there and and not have one big signage of 40 foot. And I think that doesn't work for me, but I'll let my peers speak.

Thank

you. Thank you. Council member Moore. Thank you, mayor.

Yeah. I'm in favor of cons keeping our existing ordinance in place. And anything outside of that ordinance, we can table and, bring back for future discussions if needed.

Councilmember Randy Keller.

Thank you, mayor. When I ran for council in 2018, I was told by a lot of the old timers that this town hates signs. So, I I would stay consistent with number one. Thank you.

Councilmember Thomason. I support my colleagues. Less is more. Councilmember Liebman.

Thank you. I also agree that number one is the best direction and it would being next door to an active construction site would sure make my life a lot easier. So thank you.

Well I think that's a good all head nods. I completely concur. I think we stay with number one and stay with the one that brought us. So thank you for that. I think that gives you the direction you may need.

Thank you. We'll finish up here. So I will just for clarity sake too, going forward, we'll have lots of time to to mess with the existing code if there's any tweaks there. The multi jurisdictional signage, there's a couple ways to handle that. We'll look at that, bring you back something else. But the the the 40 square foot policy, we can we can handle ASAP. So we appreciate that guidance. So I will turn it back over to Mr. Aaron for next steps.

I just want to say thank you for all the input. First of all, it's really helpful to get you guys' direction and input. So, we do have work to do, but we'll keep working, to make this, really good, useful code for the town. With that, we have a tentative timeline listed here. So the zoning code update draft scheduled to be completed in early summer twenty twenty six.

We would be taking that potentially taking that draft to the planning commission for a work session on June 2. After that, we would have a community meeting, in mid June. This would be kind of a community meeting. I think we talked about last time we were here of, hey. Here's what we're doing.

Looking for feedback. Then we would go back to Planning Commission for a second work session with any updates that they have and then have a second community meeting to go back and do another review. Have a required and then we'd start the required kind of public process in September or the fall. And that's the citizen review and public hearing at planning and zoning commission. And then we'd have council study sessions to bring stuff back to you in the fall as part of that and then the council adoption hearing as well. That's the tentative timeline. Question from one

of the council members here.

Thank you mayor. So I think I was hearing that our council if I heard everyone right wanted to fast track the pickleball by next time and fast track the construction sign on that one point. Going back to what we had but I thought I also heard and if I'm wrong correct me that we wanted to do more and that may mess up your timeline because now we want to make sure we get try to do a better job if it's possible to get all those interpretations and make some council decisions along the way that I know some of them will call policy decisions. But we're ready and willing to do that and dive in. I think all of us, I heard, would roll up our sleeves and do that.

And so that has to be built into this. So I think it's going to mess up your time right now. Because we're taking out the two that are quick ones that really need to be done. And there's going be a little bit more. And I think I would like to see separate that out differently, schedule when we're going to do two half day retreats earlier in the day on a council session. But I think we need what I'd like to see is a packet. So Karen had hers printed, we need to have a packet given to us of what do you want us to decide on, not just all of them. Because when I go through the list, have a bunch of notes too. I've got a ton of notes too. And we need to deal with C containers.

We need to I mean, I have a bunch of questions. I need to deal with what happens with permanent and discipline. There's a bunch of things. So I think we need almost to do a meeting that's kind of on this topic. I don't know what my peers think. Maybe we could pull it off in three hours on early council day if we have other things. But it's going to mess up that timeline, in my opinion. But anyway, that's me. I'll I'll leave it to my peers.

It's not gonna mess it up. We're just gonna adjust it. So, I I think councilor Thomason had her hand up. No? Okay. Council member Omar.

Yeah. And I, I agree with that. And just for clarification, we will see the final completed draft prior to it going to the planning commission. Right? We're gonna schedule that before that planning commission. Just for clarification. Does everybody have several? Yeah.

Yeah. Definitely.

Yeah. Thank you.

Councilmember Andy Keller.

Thank you, mayor. I agree with my colleagues and I think that we need to readjust the timeline so that we can do a deeper dive.

I see a lot of head nods so I think you've got

So I may, Mr. Mayor, looking at the current end of timeline, if we moved the work session of Planning Commission in the community meeting that's currently called number two in August and call those number one. That would slip the timeline out of that time. We'd maybe just eliminate numbers two and three and four and five would become the first sessions and we can schedule second sessions after that in the fall. Would that meet the intent of what council is saying?

Councilmember Levin, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor. I want to make sure that that time frame that you're suggesting includes study sessions or additional council meetings, that somehow we fit that in in place of two and three.

Okay. Thank you.

So then if the direction then is that we would come back in a study session prior to then going to a planning commission work session, then we would need to revise the entire timeline and we would just not use this to go on in part. Okay. That's fair.

And I'd ask the staff to consider that in the process to make it realistic and to make sure that we can cover down on all the bases that we've discussed.

So if I if I could do as well because Andrew's thinking out loud here, but just to put it out in the world. So, yeah, this time line obviously we just created before the meeting started. So we've talked about a lot of things. So this this wasn't really as as likely as when we started. So we will work I will work with Andrew and and others to figure out your schedule. The summer's a little a little wonky. We will add in our interpretations. That's yeah. That'll be interesting. We can get them back to you really quick if you just wanna see what they are and talk about them.

History of those and putting it all out in the format that we generally try to could could take longer. But we'll we'll I'm happy to dip the toe in and start or give us time to research the heck out of all of them. Maybe somewhere in the middle is happy, but we're happy to bring them all back at any rate and try to codify them to the extent we can or clarify them, whichever the council would prefer. The the the signed policy, I can literally change tomorrow. We will we'll stop handing that out. That will affect new sites. I'll consult with our attorneys on where we're gonna go with with folks that we told to do it, and and now they're up. They're transitory to some extent. We'll figure that out. Nonetheless, I can start acting differently tomorrow, so I appreciate that guidance.

Along with all the rest of the stuff, we'll work on the other side things that were discussed. I will try to get you something back for pickleball sooner. I believe I have a relatively limited list here. We're gonna write it up for one one court per lot, an increased setback, and then we'll give you some options on requiring at or below grade noise walls and maybe this netting that shows up. To me, that's all the topics that I heard really about some some coalescence around for pickleball.

Think that's accurate. You you said setbacks? Yes.

Yep. You said setbacks. And I just want to add that and I appreciate the idea that you can turn things around real quick and I respect that, appreciate that one level on another. I want it to be right. I want it to be so there is no hurry up offense on this in terms of as long as it's consistently moving ahead, it doesn't it doesn't have to be an immediate turnaround. I'd rather have a a more thorough evaluation. And you may not have all of the nuts and bolts from twenty five or thirty years ago, or you might. But I encourage you and I think my colleagues indicated that. Let's get it right. That's what this whole purpose is to do is to pull the laces a little tighter make sure we know what we're dealing with, where things came from and what we may do to adjust them or create a new a new ordinance.

Councilmember Leitman. Thank you, mayor. I'm being a pest today. One thing on that list that I think was brought up that that I wanna be sure is on there is the height because when I was on the planning commission people were wanting to put pickleball courts on top of roofs and I didn't. I'm not sure I heard that there.

Yeah I mentioned that or below grade that's I attended to yeah so

like ground grade I mentioned

so I can

we'll have to out the language.

Yeah. There's two things. Below grade is in our yard. The other is not on raised decks on the buildings. Yeah. There are two. Okay.

Feel we got enough direction?

We're I I think we've got a lot, and I I I hope that we, are headed the right one. I appreciate the time. I realize it's a lot of words and a couple of really important issues. So we appreciate your time and your thoughtfulness.

I appreciate the presentation. I look forward to the next steps. Thanks very much. All right. We have a next study session item. It's item 25,119, is discussion of Phoenix Country Day School Intermediate Special Use Permit Amendment set for thirty minutes with our colleague mister George Burton.

Thank you, Duncan. Good afternoon, mayor and council members. So this is actually coming back to council. Statement of direction was issued for planning commission February and, school is looking at renovating the existing baseball field, adding a new wellness center building next to that field and then adding two digital information sign, the two parking lots. So I'll basically go over the background, scope of the request, ordinance, the next steps.

Again, so since it's an intermediate amendment, it's coming back for council review and action and the commission did recommend approval of the improvements subject to the stipulations and the draft ordinance in the packet. So first is the renovated baseball field. On the left hand side is the existing field. On the right hand side is the new proposed. Most most of it's the same.

Primary differences between the existing and the renovated are three things. Right now, there's a dirt fire lane that's gonna have an asphalt top. Also, there's two stands for spectators. They're gonna add a third one behind the home base. And then they're also gonna add two foul ball poles, one on each, corner of the the diamond. It's gonna quickly jump to that. These are 20 foot tall, but they are collapsible. So when the field is not in use they'll be put down. I think this is probably the best picture showing the changes on the bottom is the existing conditions and on top are the photosynth showing the new improvements. Again most of it's pretty much what's there.

The next item is the wellness center building. That's gonna be placed just east of the baseball field, and that's set back over 300 feet away from the nearest property line. It's compliant with all our requirements, 22 feet tall, about an 8,000 square foot building and that lock coverage will increase slightly about 1%. And it will be used to provide a workout facility for students and faculty, and it will have dance classes at physical education programs, the concession stand for the events, and then two lockers for the home team and the visiting team. Again, this is just aerial photo showing the footprint where it'll be on the aerial and then the proposed plan in the packet.

And this is what it's gonna look like. It matches the architecture on campus. We'll have some signage on it, both the the donor's name identifying the concession stand and also the logo on the west side of the building. All the lighting's compliant. It's hooded and shielded and directed downwards. It'll have an output of zero foot candles at the property lines since it's so far away. And the applicant did follow, the statement of direction and added additional landscaping on the north and side of the building. Next is the digital information sign. So they'll have a sign in each of the parking lot. They're set back about 200 feet away from the property lines.

It has a 12 foot tall pediment and then it'll be basically like a TV screen that's going be mounted on there. We'll display static messages and graphics that will switch about every two to five minutes. And this is showing the locations at the corner of each parking lot, and on the bottom are the photos and showing what those signs will look like. And per the statement of direction, the applicant did provide photometric showing it has an output of point zero three foot candles to the property line. Our code allows point seven five, so it's well below the requirements.

And I'm just gonna briefly go over the draft ordinance to summarize it. It's comprised of 19 stipulations, states that all improvements shall be in compliance with submitted plans and documents. The use of the existing portable PA system for the baseball field should not exceed noise requirements. Baseball field shall not be illuminated. All new landscaping must be maintained.

And regarding the digital, display signs, they shall have static images and not be used for advertising. It shall operate from 7AM to 7PM Monday through Friday. And if the town does receive a complaint, they can contact the community development director and you can request that they turn down the brightness or adjust the hours of operation. And then all existing and remaining, stipulation shall remain in effect. We did receive comment from two neighbors East Of 40th Street.

Their concern was about overflow parking into the neighborhoods. Staff and the applicant did speak to them. I think it's more from the existing aquatic center as opposed to these improvements because, you know, a lot of the parents will park on that parking lot instead of going to the north and walking through campus. They 'll go into the neighborhoods. So none of the improvements will affect traffic and parking for this site. And in terms of next steps, staff like to receive any input from council. If there's any requested edits, we'll make those changes and then bring it back at the May 28 meeting for action. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, mister Burton. Open that up for my colleagues. Question. Council member Moore.

Thank you, mayor. I just wanna thank our staff for all the thorough work they did on this one and for the planning commission as well. And and I appreciate the the residents that have spoken out and and the great job that our, attorney and and our applicant has done working with the neighbors. And, once again, another smooth and and, seamless process, and I wish them luck on this project. It looks like it's gonna be great and exciting for all the kids. So thank you.

Other questions or comments? Councilmember?

Yeah. I think that, the applicant did a great job in moving some of the things in the back for the sight lines. They had to restructure their the viewscapes there with some of the neighbors instead of having to pull back and forth with some of the devices for sports. And and I think having those signs interior to the campus has really helped with support for the neighborhood. We do get all the complaints on the aquatic center, but that's different than this. But no, it's been great applicant, great process. And I think it's much appreciated. Those things are thought into and baked into meeting our general plan and trying to fit into the neighborhood, which we hope all of our SUP candidates would do, which they don't. But thank you. But for this one, who does?

Councilmember Leibman. Thank you, mayor. I echo the and agree with the comments of my colleagues, and especially am delighted to see that the lighting for the field has been removed. My one question is regarding the parking in the neighborhoods. Is there something we can do as part of this or something that the school is doing to get that under control, the traffic and the parking concerns? Thank you.

So, yeah, in terms of the parking, unfortunately, for intermediate amendment, it's limited to the scope of work. The streets are public. I know the school does inform all their students and parents to use the parking lot and try to maintain it on both the north and the west excuse me, East Parking Lot, but I don't know much more we can do beyond that. Thank you.

Other questions? Councilmember Thomason. I

appreciate the modification of the lighting and especially the provision that invites comments or calls to town staff and the invitation to reduce lighting if neighbors believe it's too bright. Thank you.

Alright, well I will wrap up my comments by saying I agree completely with my colleagues. I think this is a great case study in in going through the process, and I applaud the neighbors. I applaud staff. The applicant, of course, has always been very reliable and thorough, and we're grateful for that, and congratulations on this this step. So thank you and with that, if there's no other comments, mister Burton? Thank you. Thank you. Alright. We have our next study session item and that's 26 dash one five discussion of the Ascension Lutheran Church fire preservation set for forty five minutes, and it will feature our town attorney, mister Andrew Maguire.

Thank you, mayor and members of the council. Happy that my colleague, you know, is able to be in the chair, but I figured for this particular one, it's that was important for us to have continuity through the whole process. So, the resolution that you have in front of you is the culmination of two different things. One is piggybacking off of the, the concepts from the 2024 resolution. We went back and viewed the the council meeting and to see what was discussed, make sure that we were staying within the parameters of the discussion that night, with what we had included in here.

We had also, in the first couple of recitals in this just paraphrased and or used the exact language from the prior resolution to to tie the two together. So it was kind of a neat, package. This resolution has two purposes. One, that meeting in 2024, it was clear that there was further direction to be had, that there was going to be further discussion. The council will provide, direction at a later date.

And so this resolution accomplishes that. But two, and I think probably just as importantly, if not more importantly, the town hall property has a special use permit on it. You know, it's it's a bit unusual for, communities to impose special use permits or zoning on their own property, but the town has always done so. So the town hall property, most of it at least, has a special use permit that's, currently in place. And that back in 1992, there was an amendment to that special use permit that essentially approved a a master plan that was there at the time and some maps that went along with it.

And provided that the town council would be the determining factor of what was appropriate as a use on the site. And so I believe it was necessary, to include as part of any approval that you would make, some sort of a sign off that said this is an appropriate use for the town hall property. So the resolution serves those two purposes. I have heard comments and questions and had some discussions along the way about a couple of things in it that I think, I'll give you a little highlight of what those discussions were and look for some direction from the law. One was that while on the front end, our historic advisory committee was involved in instigating and bringing this thing to you all, they weren't technically part of the design team because they hadn't really had any public meetings on that issue.

And so the definition that we had used to call them out as this design team was inaccurate, frankly. It was over inclusive. And so we paired that back to try and provide you with, you know, we can pair that package to say that to provide you with something exactly what, their role was. And then the other one was, tied to the prior discussion with, what is the what's the going forward? What's the next thing?

And as part of this resolution, we had included in here a requirement that the committee come back and provide the council with, a presentation and and further follow-up at 30% design to allow the counsel to weigh in at that point. And the version of the resolution in front of you does not have a tie between your approval, which is in Section one of the resolution, and that requirement in section three. So, one of the other things I'd like to get your direction on is whether or not you agree with that position of tying the two together, and I'm recommending that you do, that we amend this resolution tonight to do those two things, to change the definitional composition to more clearly and accurately describe what the roles were and to clearly tie and condition your approval in Section one to the, follow-up at 30% in Section three. And that is the lump sum of the presentation for you all.

All right. And I thank Mr. Jarvisen for being here as well. I don't I'm going to open up to my colleagues to see what questions they may have and if there's something relevant to the committee. But Councilmember Ann Dean Keller.

Thank you mayor. I did want to talk over the resolution as I noted a couple places that it stated. Let's see this is in the third whereas item C it says the Paradise Valley Historical Advisory Committee and the Citizens Group would provide assistance to locate a suitable display location for the Spire. The Historical Advisory Committee was was not part of that. And then secondarily the one, two, three, four fifth whereas Paradise Valley historical advisory committee in conjunction with the save the Spire Citizen Group has completed drawings and design concepts for locating the Spire on the town hall campus.

That did not occur either. So that needs to be removed.

Correct. Think that's exactly what the town

I just wanted

to make

sure that that was stated. So let's see there's another place that says the town or I guess the next one the town council desires to assist the efforts of the Paradise Valley Historical Advisory Committee approving the location for this fire. So I think we need to take historical committee out. Yeah.

Mister mayor, if I can address the the those independently. The third recital is an exact replica of the language from 2004 to the 2024 resolution. Everything in that is exactly as it was. That's historical carryover. That is not, anything new.

The areas we're proposing for the changes to be would come, as the council member mentioned, the first place that the removal happens is in the fifth and then in the, seventh paragraph. Those would be places where we are pairing back the language to address the going forward. You can think of this resolution in two pieces. The one is restating what was done before in 02/2024 and one that is going forward. And so if you want to bifurcate the two, it happens at about that fourth resolution or that fourth recital.

Alright. Council member Lehman, please. Thank you, mayor. And direct, first of all, I agree entirely with what my colleagues have said before. With respect to your two questions about possibly amending the resolution, I agree with and strongly support both of your recommendations.

I love the Spire. I'm very much in favor of it. I was the council liaison to the historic advisory committee last year and I understand that the chair of the historic advisory committee was very involved on an individual basis. So I'm delighted that these clarifications have been made and I appreciate her support to the Save the Spire group. With respect to making the first resolution contingent on which is that we approve the locating the permanent display for the spire on the Town Hall campus.

I very strongly believe that that should be subject to section three which is the save the Spire citizen group provide a follow-up presentation at 30% of the design stage. The reasons for that are twofold. Again, I love the Spire. I do believe and I very much want it to be located where the Save the Spire group in that triangle out in front of the town hall near the police station. I do think further looking and discussion needs to be had on whether to put the spire with a 19 foot plinth base diameter in the base in the bottom of the basin.

Personally I think it would be better to put it closer to the police station that way we could present we could prevent people from climbing it even more perhaps put a camera on it because I think I also would very much like to see the plinth or base reduced. I understand entirely why originally it was eight to 12 feet because that would keep people from climbing on it. But I I the scale to me is just off and I would like some more discussion on ways we could lower that and find other ways to prevent climbing on it. I went out there with a tape measure with one of my fellow council members and looked at these fire and measured things and realized the massive scale of it but I would also like to point out that the top 11 feet of the spire is really like a flagpole. It's only three inches wide.

It's just a little pole and if we continue to repaint it so it's still that nice blue green color it will probably blend in with the sky so I personally am not overly concerned about any height changes. So in short, I totally support both of the amendments you or all of the amendments you have requested and I also support having the council fine tune the location and base of the spire. Thank you.

Thank you, councilmember. And again, we're not really going too much of a deep dive on the actual construction. I know we're

going to

hear from that down

the road.

Let's try to focus on the resolution and if we have anything we want to add or change in the resolution. I think Councilmember Thomason.

Thank you, Mayor. Two things Mr. McGuire. First of all, on the record I support both of your record both of the categories of recommended changes that you have enthusiastically support that. Conceptual design is referenced several times in the resolution. Will the conceptual design be included as an attachment to the resolution and do we have a clear definition of what conceptual design is?

Mr. Mayor, madam council member, I'm looking at the definition the way that we frame it in, and it was the conceptual design presented at the study session on 04/23/2026. So it would encompass what was provided as the presentation from that night. We can certainly noodle how we might tighten that back up if you need us to. But that's the the limit of it at the moment.

So from a drafting standpoint, it doesn't need to be included as an attachment to the resolution. Simply a reference to another document is sufficient.

Mayor, council member, I believe so because like any other decision of this body, you know, if at a later date, a majority of you decide you'd not, agree with the position you even take today, you have the the the policy ability to, change course whenever you want to. So I I think that it's sufficiently defined to what was presented at that meeting, but I'm happy to try and noodle between now and the regular meeting if you want me to tighten it up a little bit.

Alright thank you. I like tight documentation but I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other if a picture or the presentation needs to be included by reference. Will leave that to greater legal minds. Second question, if we talk about the Spire citizen group or the Spire design team, my question is who is responsible for the erection and completion of the project? I know that the town right now owns the spire itself, but I would like to better understand who owns the completion of the project.

And a tangential question is the Spire group presently or are they contemplating forming a non profit and a legal non profit entity so that they would be a legal entity by them themselves or are they just a loose group of citizens?

Mayor, council member, I think I'm gonna have to direct the last half of that to a representative from the group. The first half of it, I think, is, you know, whatever is constructed on the site and the Spire itself because you did via the the bill of sale that we did back in 2024, you did take possession of that structure. And then whatever is built on the townhome campus would also be a structure owned by the town. I presume, and this is just where I would recommend you go subject to that presumption is that it's going to be a town project. It's gonna be funded by funds raised privately, but it will certainly be a project that is contracted through our normal channels through the town.

But as to five zero one c three for, you know, determination letters and things that the group would do itself, I'm going to leave that in their team.

Thank you. And if I have specific questions about conceptual design, when will be the appropriate time to ask those?

Well, that's a that's a very good point. And tonight, we're talking about the resolution itself. So Understand. Makes some sense. I think if you're gonna go into a a deeper dive on the construction, I'd I'd I'd defer to mister Jarvisen about what because you've got a lot of feedback since the initial presentation to us. If there's something or a process by which council members individually or when you come back to us can give you feedback. If you wouldn't mind addressing that and then letting us know about the status of the organization five zero one c three whatever the configuration will be.

Yes. Mayor and council members, thank you so much and yes we have a five zero one c three in place to be able to accept donations and that could shepherd becoming a liaison from the spire group with the town to make sure that we comply with all construction moving forward. And the second question regarding design input, we had some great input the other day. I think all of it to a great extent there is opportunity to fine tune and to come back with everything we are hearing today and we heard before. I think the essence of the design is easily corrected to make it more compliant with the wishes of the town.

So the only caveat there is we'd have to tread a little bit lightly on height but there are some trade offs between the plinth height and safety and security which we can all talk about and move forward I think in a nice manner. Manner.

I just wanted to confirm the dimensions of the plinth as presented in the conceptual design. I understand the height dimension, again this is conceptual, thank you for that, eight feet going to 10 feet. I just want to confirm that it is a pentagon shape with 12 feet per side resulting in a 19 foot if the Pentagon were to be a circle. Am I correct?

Yes, actually verified that with John Anderson AIA from 180 degrees design build just to make sure I had the numbers correct. Some of those sides are slightly unequal. So our diameter is actually 18 feet which is about the size of a minivan. This is not small but a little bit reduced from that 19 feet as previously proposed and then it's eight feet to 12 feet on each side but it sort of tweaks to make sure the base is secure.

I'm gonna make up a word here. Pentagon ish.

Pentagon ish. It's very good. I like it. Thank you.

Thank you, mayor. Those that's all I have for questions.

Thank you, council member. Other questions or comments regarding the resolution and the presentation? Council member Moore.

Thank you, mayor. Yeah. Just first, thanks mister Jarvisen for all your hard work on this and and for the committee as well and and all of the residents that have expressed support for and against this, proposal. I I think it's certainly when this first came about in the first resolution three years ago, almost three years ago, I was certainly supportive of saving this spire and possibly looking at this location or a different location off-site that would be the most appropriate for it. Looking at that first resolution and presentation, what we were presented with was an exhibit that showed a roughly six foot base with about a thirty six thirty foot 36 foot tower on it, and I think the discussions have gone further.

Now when we look at page three of of the presentation that we had at the previous council meeting and then included in this one, it it shows there's for me, there's I I still have my same concerns, which is the this proposal and the consequences it has with messaging that the town's no longer interested in considerations for heights in the town of Paradise Valley because this is really going to, in my opinion, set it. And I understand my council members, and I respect their opinion on their thoughts and feelings on that. But for me, it's just I I have that concern. But when I look at that original drawing and I try to look at these drawings, it's still difficult for me to tell within the presentation or within the resolution really what we're looking to move forward in this resolution as far as the the the exact size of this thing. I've I've tried to piece together instead of having a dimension exhibit that shows what the size of the base is, the height of the base, the height of the spire, the total height of where it's at, the location within the basin, how the basin and the drainage within that basin is gonna be mitigated.

That's where all of the the town hall off-site drainage goes to right now. And with a 19 foot base, it's going to significantly alter that base and it will most likely alter the way drainage moves through the town parking lot and into that basin. So I'd like to understand that if it's gonna be underground storage. And then are we gonna redirect some of the flows that are historic flows into that basin today? So there's just so many questions.

I mean, I think that when I look at the Spire base on Page three of the presentation that we have, it shows the spire itself to be over 15 feet in width. So it is a very large structure. So whatever concrete base goes on below it has gotta be that size or larger. So I I understand where the 19 feet is coming from, but there is no dimension anywhere in our presentation that says that it's 19 feet. What it does show is is the height.

It says that it's either eight foot on one side, but it says 17 foot on the other side. Yeah. I've heard conversations that it's 12 feet. And then council member Thomason just now said, I believe 11, but I don't know 12. You said 12.

Okay. Alright. So eight to 12, but however in the presentation, it says 17. So to mister McGuire's comment about the resolution and an exhibit, I don't know that we have an accurate exhibit today that really shows the size and the scope of what this project proposal is. So I think it's it's really difficult for me who is in this business of development and engineering work and and to if I if I can't find dimensions anywhere, I'm sure that it's difficult for anybody else to understand the scale of it.

So I'm I'm in favor of and I'm I know think I believe I'm in a minority on this one, but I am in in favor of looking at more discussions with this and and to try to get a more accurate exhibit that shows what is actually being proposed to be built. You say pentagon ish. I didn't see that in our drawing, so I'd like to understand what that is going to look like within the base because I don't see that anywhere. But, as far as the resolution is concerned, I do appreciate, mister McGuire's comments and our and my colleagues' comments as well. I do have another one in in the resolution.

It it talks about, the use of town staff and resources that fall within our town manager authority to approve. His authority currently is $50,000 without council approval. 25 or 50?

25 for most things, 50 in some occasions, but

Up

to 50? Yeah. Okay.

That's I think that's fair. So in

the resolution, it doesn't talk about is that a per incident with council approval, or does it is that language stating that's a onetime provision, or is that that he can approve 25,000 here, 25,000 there, 50 here? And is there a limit to that within the resolution? Is there a consideration to put a cap or a limit on town funds without a check-in with the council at least of the expenditures on that. Is that how is this gonna be handled?

Can you help me with that? Yeah. Mister mayor, council member, the the intent is that the total expenditures wouldn't exceed his authority without coming back to you. So didn't hear you. I'm sorry.

I didn't hear that.

You said that the total expenditures would not exceed 25,000 without going back to you. So it's cumulative, right, Andrew? So it wouldn't be per per like purchase order or per invoice. It would have to be you would stack all of those expenses. And if it got to $25,000 at that point, any further expenses would have to

be approved by counsel. With my counsel support, may we address that in the resolution and change that language as well?

I'm perfectly fine adding cumulative or some term to ensure that it's not to exceed amount all in.

Okay. And then again, if there I know that I appreciate the 30% check-in. That seems a little expensive. Again, we this council has talked in the past, and I don't wanna speak for my colleagues, but I the way I understand it is that we prefer not to I mean, we like to see renderings that before we spend money on civil or construction documents so that we're not wasting people's money and time. So when it's when it comes to the the the drainage and how that retention basin is going to be reworked, that would be something that I would be interested in seeing.

And then what effects that has on the current pavement within the parking lot of town hall and if any of that's going to be torn out or if we're going to have to move any of the shade structures or all of that kind of stuff just to make sure we handle all of the on-site retention that is going to be displaced. That's really all I have right now. I think I'm in the minority when my biggest concern again is setting a precedent on height. And I'm certainly supportive of a design that would be within our SUP limits. And, mister McGuire, think you're right.

Our first SUP went into effect on this on town hall in 1977. So, I mean, there is an SUP in place. And all of our other SUPs that we have discussed and worked with our partners in town here have always been pretty strict on a thirty six foot maximum height. So I'm gonna I'm gonna defer to that as I continue on. But that's all the comments are and the questions I have for now. Thank you.

Thank you. Other comments, questions? Councilwoman Pace.

Thank

you and thanks for everybody's comments. I did a bunch of rewrites on the resolution. I wish I would have had it to do ahead of time. So I'm gonna make a number of suggestions on this resolution. I do wanna confirm Andrew Maguire, if you could go back through on item three on the whereas, are you saying that we're gonna strike? We're gonna leave that one because it was in the original one signed in where it references the Paradise Valley Historical Advisory Committee. We're gonna leave it because it was in the original it is in the original twenty twenty four dash thirteen resolution. Is that why we're leaving that paragraph as is?

Mister mayor, council member, that is correct. Third recital is a combination of two recitals from the prior resolution.

Okay. And then when we go to number five, we would delete on the fifth whereas, we'll delete the words the Paradise Valley Historical Advisory Committee in conjunction with and we'll just start whereas the Save the Citizen Group and so on. Is that correct?

And we'll strike the definition of Spire Design Team because the remaining references in the resolution will just be to the save the spire citizen group because that's

Citizen group. Okay. So I'm crossing that so we can do it correctly. And then on item seven or I numbered the whereas as number seven. Whereas the town council desires to assist the efforts of the and we're deleting Paradise Valley Historical Advisory Community and the word and and just put efforts of the Save Aspire Citizen Group. That'd be correct?

And actually, mister mayor and council member Pace, I'm glad you brought that up because I I'm proposing a little more trim, reuse of that one to actually just say the town council desires to Little Roman 1, prove location of this this fire and Little Roman 2 provide so that it's it just says it's not specific to who their who the council is supporting its you know, supporting everybody.

Okay. So it would be that is it alright. The town council desires to approve the location and take out save the okay. Hang on, let me get all these right because there's more.

I'm gonna provide you all with a red line.

Okay, well I'm getting more to you. Approve the location for the spire. We haven't even got to my concerns yet. But allow and allow for further development of plans and drawings and then provide certainty. Okay, on item two. Then let's see what you have. We'll see if we're sharing. Okay, I still want to stay on that sentence so my colleagues agree where it says provide certainty for fundraising efforts to generate sufficient funding to complete the design process. I wanted to strike and to construct a base to install. I haven't constructed a base to display.

I just want to say complete the design process to install the spire on the Town Hall Town Hall campus. You guys are going do whatever is correct from drainage, technical. I don't want to construct a base. It's whatever the architects and designers do. I don't know why we're saying that sounds too specific to me. Does that make sense? Everybody's Mr. Jarvisom? So

is it just are you recommending to just strike

to construct?

Towards and to construct a base to display instead just put process to install the spire. And then it's whatever they end up coming up with when they bring it back, and they figure it out.

And the way I'm reading that sentence, I I would read it as provide certainty for fundraising efforts to generate sufficient funding to complete the design process and to display the spire on campus.

Okay. And to display is fine. I just wanna take out the constructive base. That's what I have a problem with. Okay. And to display this fire. And then I'll add a comment there before I get to the rest of it. So my concerns and what I think we've heard a lot of, and I know it got driven by the issue. I think we got a little too focused in directing our lovely Citizens Inspire team who's done amazing work on climbability and so we got this massive base that there are other ways to design it. And so I just want to have enough room in here to allow the team to go fix that because I think that's the only concern. We all love the history. We love the space. We're supporting it. But that base is massive. And I think we've all heard about it.

We've all talked about it. I played around with ideas with with town manager Andrew Ching. And I'm like, heck, we can even go to the town hall in Tempe and it's like this. We don't put the big base on the bottom. We we have a little one on the bottom. And so I think it got a little bit overemphasized by security and claimability. And I've already I did talk to the town manager, but I didn't talk to the chief. I don't think we're worried about client ability when it's right in front of the police station. I mean, we have things all over the valley that have things. It's it's because it happens to be right in the review site.

Now if we moved it out, that was why it was a concern legitimately by other people here and everyone It's because we didn't know when it was going to be where it was going be placed initially. Right? So, accountability became a real issue on security, not really in front of fire in front right in front of the police department. So, I think that gives more creativity to our Spire team when they go back and make your drawings to rethink alternatives. I always like to see two or three designs anyway.

We've got down to one massive one and I know there was great intent and I know it was partly because we didn't know where it was going. But I would like to get out anything that says to construct that base that makes it refer to that specific base because I'm hoping that there is more creativity and suggestion if, you know, what we're hearing. And I'm not the I mean, not to ask, but all the residents, everyone kind of thinks that's the one thing they hesitate. This is high, massive space. I mean, they're all such a height. I get that. But that's the big one. So I want to make sure to rewrite this in a way that allows the flexibility and the creativity to do that. If it can meet the engineering, it can hold the weight, which I think it can. So that's why I want to take out the words and to construct a base just to say and to display the spire, whatever that turns out to be.

And then so that's the reason for it. And then what I wanted to add was under the resolved, under section one, that's fine. I wanted to add Oh, at the end of section one. That I even want to add if, again, council agreement, but section one I want to add to that where at the end of the sentence where it says as shown on the conceptual design with the understanding that counsel encourages a different base that is not so massive. Just to be as clear as I can.

If anyone hates that, fine. And if it can't be done, fine. But that way it allows some flexibility. So anyone agrees with that? Because I think if we're stuck with what we're stuck with and that's what has to be there, that's one path, would be nice if it was a little more. So that is what I propose. The other part which is a different concept. Wait, let me go through the one that Councilman Moore raised. On section two right now which will be my new Section three if you agree. But Section two where we get to such cooperation is intended to include staff time and only cumulative minor expenditures up to a maximum of $25,000 which is within the town manager's authority.

I think that's sort of where you're getting to it. Councilman Moore was shaking his head. That needs to be a little reworked and I think it addresses that concern. Or you can use better language. You guys are better writers on these but that's what I put.

Already have it drafted.

Okay. Alright. With a maximum of 25,000. Okay. So I think that's what I heard. But then between section one and section two, I wouldn't mind if people agreed or maybe this is the wrong place, but I at least wanna say it. I put a section two, the town council is open minded to the Spire citizen. What are we calling it? Spire citizen wait. Let me see what they are. Group. Spire citizen group. I kept using I liked team, but okay. Spire citizen group. Save the Spire. Yeah. Okay. Whatever we're doing consistently here. Save the Spire on whatever. Working with town manager regarding incorporation of an amp well, the town manager and council.

Recording incorporation of an amphitheater and landscaping design that could complement the spire and surrounding area. I know it's a separate project from this.

That's different. I think we I think we could look at that down the road, but I don't for the resolution, don't think that would fall into our purview.

Alright. Well, I'd like to see that happen. I know there's discussion and Rod Colm's leading an effort, and I think we have to work cooperatively with the town and the corollary of that project if it's going to work. I just want to allow for that flexibility by the time we see the design stage and I know that's a complicated thing. Then the only other thing on Section three then, well that will be just section three, I won't change it. The spire design shall provide a follow-up presentation by 10/01/2026 to the town council with the updated conceptual design. I mean is that realistic? Is that possible? That means not the 30% cost maybe? I don't know if this makes sense to anyone, but I think it'll be easier to come sooner with whatever this is going to look like.

And the corollary if it happens, that would be nice. But what do you think, Jarvis?

Mr. Mayor and council member Pace let me just address that a little bit. One of the reasons we're hoping to move forward tonight so we can get enough fundraising to finish drawings etcetera etcetera. A lot of this has been and probably will be pro bono by some of the members moving forward. So I think October is actually realistic given the time frame that it will take to just rudimentary engineering and and also to drill down on options to to lessen the scope and scale.

Thank you. So it's unrealistic. Right? Is that what you're saying?

I I believe That's okay.

I'll take it out.

I believe we we we could get we could get it done by October if we move forward quickly. More time is probably prudent but if we were held to a date we could meet the date.

Do you think it is there a more realistic date that's I don't want to put you on a time pressure, November 1?

Twelvethirty one. Well, be fantastic. Can intervene for a

moment and I'd ask our company So about is and I understand, I think everyone's going for the same goal, is to facilitate the design that's going to meet a lot of these expectations. But to put a date in the resolution I think that may be a bridge too far but I'd ask our town attorney about that.

Mister mayor and members of the council, you you all can condition it any way you want to. One of the the reasons why I elected to put 30% design in there was because that is a stage at which you can affect design without enormous cost. You know, at least my hope was that 30% was where we're at to do that. So the the idea was to be earlier in the design finalization rather than a specific date because if if the group is really erstwhile and they give a specific date and they're at 90% plans when they come back, it kinda defeats the purpose.

Okay. So is there a comment Mr. Drawson on would you rather us not have a date or is that a goal that is potentially feasible or I don't want to put undue pressure, but I think we'd like to see the updated if there is some changes we'd like see it before it goes too far.

Well thank you. I believe that the date becomes a bit of a handcuff if we're exploring the options that we want to make sure that it is the right and final 30% review.

That's fine. I'll take it off. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You've heard the comment. So I think then the only thing I would add are the ones we said before. And I would like to ask my peers if they're comfortable with me taking out into constructive base and just put the words and to display the spire. And then I know are we presenting this tonight? I mean, do I what's what's the timeline on this? Is it tonight? Okay. And then on section one, I'd like to add at the end of it that sentence with the understanding that council encourages a different base that is not so massive. I didn't say had to, just put the other. How did council members feel about adding those two points?

I'm not really in favor of that, but I have opened the other members of the council thinking if that's a definition and I again go back to our town attorney for the intent and the focus of the resolution. Is that something that is in your opinion important to require?

No. It's not in say require. It says encourages. It's not a requirement.

To encourage.

Yeah.

Yeah. Mayor design.

The the concern I would have with that specific language is that it is also something that's subject to interpretation that, you know, what is not so massive, you know, what is massive, and we don't don't really have a framework for that. And I

think Yeah. I

think what the group is is hearing loud and clear is that what you all want to see is an alternative to what the current concept is. And I think the resolution does that.

Okay.

I'm not seeing head nods.

Yeah. That's fine. If you think it says that, it may that's fine. We'll just change the and to display. Okay. And then the last thing

yeah. There's one more on there. Oh,

I think it's it's on track. That's good. No, so we already know from our last meeting. Appreciate customer comments and his position too and it's much appreciated too. But I do appreciate all the citizens work as you know. We wanted to push this. We appreciate staff and the committee that we pushed it to this meeting. So thank you. And you've followed that, and and that's great. And we you know, we'll see how it goes tonight on the vote. And, you know, we appreciate the changes on the resolution and the raising the money and doing I just wanna do something bigger and better, not just win on Aspire, but make the whole area beautiful, comprehensive, and

Councilmember Bates,

I think

Councilmember Thompson has something.

Oh, sorry. Sorry.

No. That was just my question. I'm understanding our discussion tonight and the resolution is on the installation of this piece of donated public art. I just wanna be clear that we don't have another discussion going on about redesigning the reflecting garden and that there's plans for an amphitheater or discussions about an amphitheater that have not come forward or have they have. I'm I'm just a little confused and I just want a little clarification.

I think all we're focused on right now is the resolution for the spire itself. I don't hear anything else being brought forward to the council about any other element except for the spire.

That's consistent with my understanding. Just didn't know if somebody's designing an amphitheater that I'm not seeing.

Okay. I'm encouraging it with Rod calling. So hopefully we will see it. That's the encouragement.

Something Pentagon ish.

Yeah. No. No Pentagon. No Pentagon ish.

Just a little bit of funding. No. No. Pentagon

sounds like a

devil. I don't like

that one.

Council member Andy Keller, I I don't know. Do you have anything you wanna add? Well with that unless I think Mr. Town Attorney you've got some really good direction, some specific thoughts. I saw a lot of good head nods.

Clearly this whole project is a labor of love for the Save the Spire group ultimately with the historical advisory community and I think with this council and it's because we love this town so much and we're somewhat protective but we're all on the same team. So I know we're heading for great save the spire opportunity and if there's nothing at this point else that town attorney needs to add, I know mister Jarvis if you you don't mind staying around for the main meeting we might have have you have you answer some questions there if that comes up.

That's great. Thank you all

very much. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, so from this, what I will do is send you a clean and red line version of this, probably just the red line so people don't get confused about it, so that Duncan can print it out in lovely color and put it on the dais for you so that you will all have that as, the amended version as discussed in in the study session. And then when you go about a resolution adoption motion that it could include to include the modifications to the resolution discussed in the study session as presented, then we should have it wrapped up.

Thank you, Mr. Town Attorney. Appreciate there very much. So we know you're going to be going to work. Appreciate that. We've got one more study session item that's before us and that's item 20 six-one 150 discussion of FY 26 community funding services and recommendations set for forty five minutes. Mr. Mayor? The town manager?

If I can just kind of just ask something before we start. We allotted forty five minutes for this presentation as estimate. We have thirty minutes until the regular meeting starts. We also have a scheduled executive session item as well. So perhaps in between now and the meeting, you could, at your election, do that executive session meeting or we can do the study session after the regular meeting or you could reverse that. We could start this, potentially get it done in half an hour and then do executive session after the meeting. It's pure I just wanted to present that as two options.

Do you

it's not

the best session? Budget your time.

Is there you got then we're good with executive session. I'd ask if there's a motion to go into executive session. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. All all in favor? Aye. Aye. I'll take a quick break for as we transition into exec.

I know. Well

All good? All good.

Alright. Now, now we're ready to go. The town council meeting for 05/14/2026 is now called to order. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Mayor Stanton? Here. Vice mayor LaBelle? Here. Council member Andean Keller? Here. Council member Liepman?

Here.

Council member Moore? Here. Council member Pace? Here. Council member Thomason? Here. We have a quorum.

Outstanding. Thank you all for joining us. We're gonna move on to the pledge of allegiance, And I would like to invite our special guest, mister Don Sandoval, to come forward and help lead us in the pledge. All right. Well, we've got a couple of milestone recognitions tonight.

Mister Sandoval will be recognized in a few minutes. You'll go more detail on on his role, valuable role with the town. But to begin, I'd like to invite Katherine Kaufman from the historical advisory committee to come forward and recognize the anniversary of Paradise Valley, 60 five years old.

I had nothing planned for this, but that's good today. The anniversary is 05/24/1961. It's, we are now officially 65 years old. I could go on about the history if you'd like. It started just with Let let me get my thoughts together between Scottsdale and and Phoenix trying to encroach in the area and the people were like, no way, we don't want to go that route.

They wanted to keep their minimal government. They wanted to keep their lot sizes at least one acre. They didn't want lights shining up so they could have dark skies. And I hope we can keep that that up. So having nothing planned here, that's happy anniversary. So thank you.

Happy anniversary. Now I do I do hear some rumors of cupcakes floating around, so make sure you grab one of those to help celebrate the anniversary. Very grateful, Catherine. Thank you. Next up, we have a a celebrating an extraordinary milestone, and that is mister Don Sandoval is retiring after thirty seven years of dedicated service to the town of Paradise Valley.

For nearly four decades, Don has served our town with professionalism, commitment, pride, helping make our town a better place to live. And I'm gonna ask Don and his lovely wife, Sherry, to step forward, and we're going to present a proclamation thanking him for his service. Meet. All right. This is bittersweet moment for us because our town has a legacy of incredible professionals that work with the town and have brought us along for sixty five fun loving years.

And Don, you're a big part of that, and we're grateful for what you have done and continue to do, and you are gonna be missed. So this is a bittersweet. I'm very proud. And yes, you do get your husband back now. But, you know, you always send him back if he gets troublesome.

But we have a proclamation we'd like to give. And so I'll I'll read this to you, and then we'll present it to you. Whereas Don Sandoval began his dedicated service to the town of Paradise Valley on 11/20/1989 as public works department streets technician and later transferred to the community development department where he worked as a building inspector and plan examiner. Whereas throughout his unmatched career of thirty seven years spanning eight town managers, 13 mayors, Don has displayed unwavering commitment, integrity, and professionalism in serving the residents, the development community, and the visitors to our town. And whereas Don spent the first portion of his career toiling in the hot sun with the public works department on projects such as carrying bags of cement and jugs of water on the on his back to the top of Mummy Mountain to con to help construct the concrete pad for the police radio antenna.

He also was critical in helping build the power supply there, filling potholes and helping transform the dusty rights of way into well manicured landscape corridors. Whereas, as a building inspector, and I have the privilege to go out with you, Don demonstrated exceptional service by often doing same day follow-up inspections on projects that failed an inspection in the morning so that the project would not fall behind on schedule. And spending countless hours at the building counter, right behind there, right over the building counter, and in the field patiently explaining code compliance requirements. And whereas Don's extraordinary work ethic, incredibly positive attitude, and friendly disposition have earned him the respect and the admiration from coworkers, contractors, and residents. And whereas, we got a lot to say about you, Don.

And whereas, he has been recognized on not only for his expertise in the field, but also his mentorship of new employees and sharing his knowledge of the town's values and service expectations. Now, therefore, I, the mayor of Paradise Valley, Mark Stanton, do hereby extend sincere appreciation and gratitude to Don Sandoval for his many years of exceptional service, dedication, lasting contributions to make Paradise Valley so special. And we wish him the best in his retirement.

Wow. This is this is thank you. I didn't expect this. I I was gonna say my goodbyes and kinda leave quietly, but this is better. This is way better. And as I mentioned to a few people in this, at home and my family for for many years, and I I'm gonna crack here. It's it's it's hard. It's hard. But I will I went back to visit. You know, I miss everybody here. Yeah. I just I can't even say it enough. I'm gonna crack right now.

We feel the same way and you always have a home here and we're incredibly proud of you. And the way you greet people, just have to tell you, every time I run into you on campus, I just feel better. So, I'd like to invite my colleagues to come forward so we can do a photo opportunity. And, Sherry, come on back up. Well, I'm not too proud.

I got a little teary eyed up there too. So thank you again, Don. Thank you, Sherry. All right. Next up, we have a presentation tonight to recognize a potential historic property. So I would like to welcome Catherine Kaufman back to the podium. If she could give us a description of 6240 North Palo Christi Road.

Thank you, mayor. Thank you, council members. On 02/18/2026, Betsy and William Furneaux presented their home at 6240 North Palo Christi Road to our committee for the consideration under the town's historical property recognition program. The town was originally constructed in 1959 by Alfred Newman Beadle for Beverly and Bob Healy, a West Phoenix track home builder. During construction, Mr.

Healy assumed control of the project, at which point Mr. Beetle walked off the job. Over time, the property became dated and the surrounding landscape became overgrown. The original structure was an 1,800 square foot framed residence featuring three bedrooms, two baths, and a circular driveway, which was an example of high society living. The design emphasized passive solar panels with south facing windows and an eight foot roof overhanging overhang to provide summer shading while allowing winter sunlight to warm the interior.

Prior to purchasing the home, the Furnas asked Mr. Beetle if he would rehabilitate the property. He agreed with the condition that he would exercise full design control, including architectural elements, furnishings, and color selections. His intent was to revisit and complete the modernist vision he began in 1959. In August 1995, the Furnas purchased the home.

Mr. Beetle began his remodel by recladding the home aluminum, stating that the era of wood construction was history. Design access included red and yellow steel railings inspired by the desert landscape and the owner's red Volkswagen Jetta. Interior modifications included the remodel of one bedroom to enlarge another, restoration of a room filled with boxes into a piano room, and enclosure of the breezeway for storage. The original footprint of the home was retained.

The renovation was completed over a two year period and concluded shortly before Mr. Beetle passed away. Strongly influenced by the work of Mies van der Rohe, Mr. Beetle believed restraint in materials and colors to create calm and serene spaces. The project became a meaningful collaboration and friendship between the Furnas and Mr. Beetle, resulting in a residence that exemplifies his modernist principles. On behalf of the town's history historical advisory committee, I would like to recommend the Furnas home located at 6240 North Palo Christie Road to the town council for recognition in the historic recognition program.

Thank you, chair Kaufman. And I'd ask my colleagues all in favor of approving the historical advisory committee's recommendation to recognize 6240 North Palo Christi Road as a historic property in the town of Paradise Alley by unanimous consent by saying aye. Aye. Alright. It's done.

Come on up. We're gonna present you with a plaque and a do a photo. Alright. Next on our agenda this evening is the call to the public. The call to the public is an opportunity for residents to address the council on matters not on the agenda.

In conformance with open meeting laws, the council may not discuss or take action on any matters raised. However, the council may respond to criticism after all public comments have been made, ask staff to review the matter, or ask it to be placed on a future agenda. Speakers are asked if they can state if they're a town resident and also ask they limit their comments to three minutes. If you would like to address the council, please fill out a speaker request form. They're located at the lectern at the entrance to the council chambers. Once you complete that, please present it to our town clerk and he will present it to me, and we can bring you up to the podium. With that, I'd ask mister town clerk, do we have any request to call the public? We do not, mister mayor. Not for this item. Alright.

Okay. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the consent agenda. Items on the consent agenda are considered by the council to be routine and are initially acted in a single usually acted in a single motion. If a member of the council or the public would like to discuss any item, it will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. Would the town manager please summarize tonight's consent agenda?

Thank you, mister mayor. The following items are on the consent agenda tonight. First is, excuse me, item 26 dash one thirty five, which be approval of the minutes town council meeting of 04/23/2026. Item 26 dash one seventeen, discussion and possible action on statement of direction, s u p 26 Dash zero two, Franciscan Renewal Center, major special use permit amendment located at 5802 East Lincoln Drive. Item 26 dash one four three, discussion of possible action to approve the third amendment to the town manager's employment agreement.

Item 26 Dash145, discussion of possible action to approve a contract amendment to bus shelter rehabilitation and maintenance services. 26 Dash one forty six, discussion of possible action to approve an amendment to ratify and extend the intragovernment agreement between the town of Paradise Valley, the Paradise Valley Municipal Court, and Maricopa County Superior Court for jury management services. And that is all the items on today's consent agenda.

Thank you, mister Town Manager. Would any council member like to remove an item from the consent agenda? Council Member Baes?

Thank you, mayor. I'd like to remove 26Dash117 from the consent agenda.

Alright. Would there be approve the consent agenda minus item twenty six one one seven.

So moved. Second. Second.

It's been moved and seconded. I'd ask all those that are in favor, please say aye. Aye. Alright, that passes, and now I would ask Council Member Pace if her thoughts on item 26,117.

Thank you, mayor. I had a couple questions. First, it appears that we didn't have two study sessions on this item, and I wasn't sure that on the statement direction we incorporated some of the comments we made from the only study session we have. Normally, have two study sessions and a public, but I needed to ask Brandon some questions. Brandon McMahon, he did it from staff. I'm sorry Brandon, there you are. Thank you, is it alright here?

Please.

So on the statement of direction, the draft, did you where did you put the part about notification to the residents that lived on the West Side? They're gonna have their viewscapes changed potentially. And if they don't mind, we don't mind probably. But where is that listed when they have to get that notice? Is it gonna come from the town or Franciscan Renewal Center?

Yes, mayor, members of council. So the voluntary notice that was sent out on April 28, had been accomplished. The required noticing that comes with the planning commission recommendation, that 1,500 square foot radius, will be completed, tomorrow on the fifteenth. The additional vegetation that was also suggested is in the statement of direction. Thinking in the I think it's in the first subsection of the the statement of direction. It was also included in the packet material, as well as clarifying some of the other items that were discussed at the work session, including the wall heights.

And so is this the updated statement of direction that we have tonight in the packet? Correct,

the final draft.

Okay. If you don't mind in the future, not for this one, it's always good to give us a red line. It helps us see what actually got changed from the last meeting to now, especially where this one got bypassed a little bit and we usually do two study sessions and then we can figure it out then. But we only have one study session on this. Correct? Correct. And is there some reason we didn't follow the standard practice doing two and then a public meeting?

Mayor, members of council, there's nothing in the code that requires multiple work sessions. It's at the purview of of council. If they wanted an additional study session, that would be up to them.

Okay. So our practice has always been to have two study sessions and an action item. Sometimes we waive the second one and do it the same night. So maybe the town manager, we can talk about if there's gonna be a change in that procedure or else ask us at the end of council meetings is good enough. Sometimes we'll just say, yeah. But that is it it shouldn't be defaulted that we're supposed to be doing that every time. So that was my concern on that. And then the other question I have is we talked about the lighting issue. So and I'd asked you because this is an STP amendment. I went back and checked out the the parking lot and I went and checked out the solar panel system where they're gonna put them and the trees that'll go down and then the big ones that are gonna go up that are about, you said, 20 to 40 feet when we looked it up.

And, that lighting on the west side is dimmed and hooded. Correct? Have you seen it? I don't know if you've

got it

at night.

Yes. Correct.

That's

Okay. But the lighting on the front of the property is hot bright right now, and the light went back up, and I don't know what happened with those parking lot lights. So what happened with those that they're it's now a hot spot in town when you look down at it. So why did those go very bright?

Mayor, members of council, are you referring to the lot the lights on the town on on the town parcel or the

Well, town Fran Francisco Renewal Center is in town of Paradise Valley and they have so when you say that, did you go over the general plan with them when they're making a proposal to the town to make some changes? Did you give them the general plan so they understand dark sky and our lighting requirements? Correct. You did give it to them? Correct. So that's part of your practice?

They they were yes. They are aware of it

as we go through the review. So yeah. So when yeah. The part that I'm talking about is in the parking lot in the front. It's very hot right now. It shows everywhere. So was that discussed?

Yeah. Council member, I would comment that that fair question, but that was also not part of this particular request.

For special use permit?

For that sign that you're talking about.

I'm talking about the light traffic light. The lights. I'm talking about the light poles.

Oh, I thought

The light very

front. They're

hot hot.

No. No. No. That's a different issue. I'm sorry.

Appreciate that.

No. I'm just talking about when you go right now, I did some videos. I know other people have been going out and checking it out. It's a hot spot. So did you guys have a discuss because they may not know because this happened with another stakeholder in town where they didn't realize there's a lighting and a dark sky rule here and we're trying to keep the brand and have you had that discussion with them that that's way exceeding the lumens?

Mayor, members of council, yes. I have been in contact with the applicant.

They're here.

The existing lighting approval was compliant. I don't know if he is available to speak on

Those are the renovations.

Correct. On the

traffic light? I mean, on the the light poles are all compliant with the town's light coat? They're hot. But yeah. Maybe you are. So mister yes. Maybe you can help me understand.

We haven't made any changes to those lights, and and that was permitted when that parking lot was permitted.

Okay. So the west side is is hooded and and dimmer, but the front ones are really bright. Correct? On the lights?

But yeah. And photometrics were submitted to the town when those were before those were installed.

Okay. So those are I'll follow-up. Maybe I thought they're not in in compliance, so that's fine. Thank you. I know the only one that got changed was the signage and that one changed to backlighting just recently and not the light that shined

up. Right.

Okay. And is that one on all night that street sign or that the big light now that's backlit on the signage or is that turned off at a certain point at night?

No. The sign is kept on all night. We have guests from all over the country and even the world that fly in at all hours. Oh. So they need to be able to know where they're going.

Okay. How how many guests do you have now a night staying overnight at the Franciscan at an average?

It varies. We have 86 lodging rooms. We can we can have up to a 146 people in all of those rooms. We're at about 70% occupancy.

Okay. Well, if there was a way I would just ask personally, if there's a way to turn those lights down like our other resorts do, because they have a lot of resort guests coming in and they don't do those lights. So that's one of the things that we're getting the hotspot, I think, is coming with the combination. I think that's the problem.

I I do wanna let you know I am working with company that installed the sign to do some dimming. I'm trying to find a way to meet in the middle on this.

Awesome. You're my hero. Thank you. Then that's all you need. I know you'll do it if you say that. I know you'll do it. Okay. Thank you. Because it's pretty hot. Thank you.

The only other thing I just want to point out with the Franciscan renewal is that we worked on a project years ago for you and you may not know and I don't know how long you were there. But in 2018, the council talked a lot with Franciscan Renewal Center. I was the one that's asked you to voluntarily join the town and you wanted to keep that county property separate, which was fine. Mayor Stanton helped lean on me to let you keep it separate because he loves the Franciscan as well and understands its special place here. But just for the record, we did provide 25,000 in cash from the town for land exchange for the right of way and then the town also went ahead and paid $6.65 feet for the whole front sidewalk in that front beautiful area and that was a real decision by us because you weren't in the town.

That whole section is county and you and you guys chose to stay outside of PV. But we did pay for it. We're about $70,000. It was a $2,500,000 project. So, just all I wanna do is say, we love you, but be a good neighbor and try to help us with the lights sometimes and that's all. So thank you for listening. Thank you for the statement of direction. I know this goes on to planning and we appreciate you in the time. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, council member. And I would ask if there is a motion.

I move to approve oh, wait a minute. Let me get the right one. I can't remember the number now. I move that we move forward to the planning department wait, oh, I'm sorry. Either we approve the statement of direction for Franciscan Renewal Center for the addition of solar panel systems on four new parking lot shade structures, adding approximately 19,200 square foot of floor area in the western, southern, western and southwestern portion of the parking lot.

Mayor, I second.

Been moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right, motion passes. Thank you for the discussion. Thank you. Next up, we have public hearings. We have one public hearing tonight regarding the final budget for fiscal year 2026 and 2027, and it will be presented by our chief financial officer, Leslie Duresh.

Good evening, council mayor. Tonight, our presentation is going to be very familiar as it's the same presentation that we saw for the tentative budget with some minor changes because the tentative budget was adopted with an amendment. And so I'm going to pretty much focus on that. However, I'm going to go through the entire presentation and it may be a little redundant. So tonight is for the action item and public hearing for the final budget adoption.

We're asking council to consider resolution twenty twenty six-six to adopt the fiscal year 'twenty seven final budget. The budget is within our expenditure limitation and follows all compliance requirements. So what we did change, we kept the capital projects total. That has not changed. We kept the 5% merit market increase.

However, we did push the one time salary adjustment of 3% based upon the compensation study to 01/01/2007 instead of '6. And from this table, you can see what the recommended budget was, the tentative budget as adopted with the amendment and the change and how that impacted. And so tonight, the final budget is the same as the tentative budget with the amendment. And that's shown in this table. So you can see the impact of that change was a reduction of the budget of $225,000 For our revenues by source, our biggest revenue by far still remains taxes, not property taxes, sales taxes and other taxes, followed by intergovernmental revenues and charges for services and other revenues.

Our biggest expenditures are in the general funds at 81%. We also have three enterprise funds that make up a small portion, our capital fund. Now, is revenue in the capital fund is actually coming from grant sources. We also do a transfer from the general fund, but that's not considered revenue. It's considered a transfer.

And then our special revenue funds, which are various, like our police fund and our HIRF, our highway user revenue fund. Our expenditures by fund, again, general funds expenditures are by far the greatest expenditures, as you would expect, followed closely by, or not even closely, followed next by capital funds, which is a little bit higher this year than it has been in the past few years. And then for contingencies, we have a very healthy contingency this year, 5.5 in the general fund and each of the other funds have a small amount of required contingency as well. And this is the interfund transfers that I was talking about earlier. We're transferring about 14,500,000 out of general fund to support the HER fund capital projects and the fire services fund.

And so, we're asking you to consider the resolution to adopt the final budget and have the public hearing tonight, but if you have any questions about the presentation or anything else, I'm sorry I missed the last meeting, So I'm glad to be back tonight. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to try and answer them.

Well, we're glad to have you back.

Thank you.

Thank you for all the hard work. I would ask if there are any questions from the council for our chief financial officer. Councilmember Pace?

Alright. I will. Thank you, Leslie, for being here. Thanks for all you do. I know we've had lots of meeting on the budget this year. Thank you for opening up to community budget forums with our town manager, Ching, for the the community as well. So thank you. And having Clear Gov online and updated so people can read it themselves. Then they can dive in as deep as they want. A couple of questions just to clarify. On the revenue, how much is coming from the purchases that people make in our town that are delivered? I don't know what you call it. It's not Amazon, I know,

but I've You're talking like Wayfair or Wayfair

is a good one. Yep.

It's a little bit hard to tell because those revenues are just part of retail sales, and it's really hard for us to distinguish, but we can estimate from that. But it is a significant portion of our revenues. Yes.

Okay. Like, do you know approximately how many? No, that's alright. No, but I'm getting back to you on that one. No, that's okay. We noticed the first year in

COVID because it was a big jump. Like Yeah. Because people Yeah. Double. Switch the spending that

we did. Yes.

So it does help if our residents buy and deliver here. It does help us with the with that part. A couple quick questions. In the in the budget, we had talked about some of these things in previous meetings, so you can just maybe well, I'll ask them just to get it in the record. So the alarm system we talked about may be losing a little bit and we're funding that. Maybe he said 50,000 or something, but the goal is we're gonna talk about that as a council in this site. We don't have to if we we had talked about some of us wanna explore dropping that program, giving plenty of notice to the residents and seeing if we can free up our police officers and people from having to deal with that program. But we talked about, I think, not taking it out tonight in the budget, but doing it as a study session. Is that correct?

Right. And so, when we return in the fall, we're gonna do a deep dive into it. We're gonna go into the history and look at, alternative options for addressing, you know, how it is run.

Perfect. And then that's also true with the discussion of the sale of the Double Bridge property, whether our council does that or not, that's gonna be a study session item not in this budget. Is that correct? Or are we what

are we doing with that?

I'm I'm not party to That's

the town manager. Okay. That's okay. Yeah. So the town manager, is the sale of the the discussion on the sale of the DoubleTree property, is that something that's in this budget or is it going to be reserved separate from a for a study session?

It would be a separate conversation at a separate date.

Okay. And a question about the you're aware, obviously, the expenditure limitation and the capital accumulation fund will be on the ballot in Paradise Valley in November for residents to make a decision? Yes. Correct? And the expenditure limitation, if it's increased by our residents, does not result in any increase in property taxes. Is that correct?

Yeah. We have no property taxes. We will still not have property taxes. It will actually have no impact on taxes whatsoever.

Okay. And do we have in this budget or can you explain what we have in the budget this this cycle for the police training center and shooting range and multipurpose area to help support our police department and also other departments on this in the community?

So this budget is appropriated just for fiscal year twenty seven, and what's in fiscal year twenty seven, I believe, is just the design portion of the training facility, and the construction portion is would be appropriate in the following fiscal year, and I think it's around 1,200,000 for that part. Okay. But that's subject to change depending on what the design comes back to.

Well, yeah, the design. It all depends on the design. Could you or town manager Ching explain what this multi use area would be and why it's needed for the police training and shooting range for the expenditures for this design? And how long it's been in the budget? For how many years? For capital projects?

Right. I mean, I don't remember exactly when it first got introduced as part of the five year CIP. When I say it, originally, it was contemplated for quite a few years as a potential expansion of the existing police department facility and closure of that sort of at the North end of building. What we're looking to then get designed potentially this year would be a standalone facility that would be located sort of between where the courts and the police department are. So it's a different concept, but it would have some of the same functions like potentially a place where it would be like a shooting range would be part of it.

So I don't remember exactly when that first went into the five year CIP. I wanna say 2017. 2017, I think, right around there. 2018, somewhere in there.

Okay. Yep. And and maybe, you know, the chief could maybe comment on it. Like, what's the benefit of I know you wait a long time, and I was here in 02/1718 when we did it. We did it the first round. But, we needed a shooting range, that's why I was interested in it because our people keep going far out to Rio Salado, we do all the shooting. And, every Phoenix precinct Phoenix Police Department has a shooting range underground that no one hears that's behind every single precinct. Can you talk a little bit about what does the training center give you in the shooting range?

And, I would ask council member a quick question, if we can keep it focused on this budget and what we're looking at.

Sure, mayor, council member Pace. The the idea would be a training facility for our officers to have the best capabilities and preparedness for the residents. We currently do our defensive tactics training in our auditorium, which does work, but we've had broken ankles and things like that because it's not made for that. It'd be efficiency thing as far as going all the way to up to Ben Avery, and it would also be a pride thing for our department to have pride in, and we have top notch things like other police departments do. So if you and thank you

for that chief. And then for the physical training where we've had people get hurt trying to practice, what are we talking about? What kind of what's defense training mean?

So defensive tactics is, you know, physical combat when need be, and so we roll out pads and whatnot, but we try our best to be as safe as we can, but we have had those incidents because it's not made for that.

Right. You're using the classroom for that instead of a okay.

You

for I have to ask you. We got a couple other questions.

That's fine. Important budget. Sorry. And one other thing. Is it is our a couple two other things. Expenditure limitation is what is our our our limit right now? Is it 40 48,000,000. 48,000,000. So when people refer to 70,000,000 on a budget, what are they referring to? Why do they say that when we only I

think they're rounding up, as we ask for a 20,000,000 increase in today's dollars. So it would be $68,000,000 Okay. But our

expansion limitation for the town is $48,000,000 We can't exceed that for this budget, correct?

That is correct.

How do the exclusions, what is that extra amount?

So we

actually have, we budget for all types of expenditures, even ones that are not subject to the expenditure limitation. And then from that amount, we take what are called exclusions and that could be our investment income. This year, a large portion of it is grants from the flood control district. And so because those types of expenditures are not subject to the expenditure limitation, it only the 48,000,000 is subject to the expenditure limitation, but we're actually budgeted for more like 60,000,000.

Okay. And as a council, can we

approve bonds and go into debt with no voter approval? We can approve revenue bonds. The council can approve revenue bonds. Yes. Okay. But this council hasn't done that, have they? Not recently. Okay. They have several times.

For a few years. Okay. Do you recommend this budget tonight and do you think it's been thoroughly vetted by you and your team?

I do recommend it. I think it's been thoroughly vetted. We had originally thought we might want to do bond financing because of the size of our capital projects, but we are pleased that we do not have to do bond financing to move forward with it. So yes, I do recommend it.

Good, thank you. All right, I'll close with comments. I think you've done a great job on the budget. I think everybody has. I think people have looked into this. We're adding things in there we've needed to do. We've done a great job as a council. I know we've worked hard. I've been on for ten years and we've really been fiscally conservative and made sure that we paid down the pension funds, that we now have money to do the capital improvement and storm water drainage projects now and we're starting to do those. I see there's more on our agenda tonight for that. I like the fact that we're addressing some of these other items even though some fall out into study sessions. So, I will approve or I will tonight support the budget and hope that our residents realize that we have no property tax. These are good steps. We could always spend money if we wanted to. So if you say if you give money to government, they'll spend it.

That's absolutely not true because I could have done it for ten years and we didn't do it, our whole council could have. So that's sort of a false statement to state that. So we all need to work together and get the things done our our residents want. So thank you for displaying the budget and going through some points. Thank you, mayor.

Thank you. Good questions. Other comments or questions from counsel to our chief financial officer? And I would I'll on council member LaBelle. I know you're remote. Any questions or comments?

Just a quick comment. Just want to say, I know we've had lots of discussion over multiple studies satisfied with the end result.

Thank you. And I think Councilmember Thomason?

Thank you, Mayor. Mine will be brief. Ms. Duresh, thank you for all your work on the budget, and thank you for providing year to date comparison budget to actual for those citizens who appreciate that perspective. I appreciate you doing that extra I also wanted to thank the amendment amended budget relative to staff pay.

This includes a 2% merit budget, a 3% COLA budget, and a third increase of a range adjustment, and we're postponing that for six months. I appreciate that modification. I'm personally disappointed that we still had the administrative staff position a new the town manager's office, but I understand that is that is mister Reyesha, thank you for your work, and I will be voting in favor of the budget. Thank you.