Fountain Hills Approves Contentious Five-Year Wireless Ordinance in Narrow 5-2 Vote; Legal Concerns and Procedural Missteps Linger

The City council meeting, Arizona. Proprietary. The City council meeting, Arizona. Proprietary. The City council meeting, Arizona. Proprietary. The City council meeting, Arizona. Proprietary. The City council meeting, Arizona. Proprietary. The City council meeting, Arizona. Proprietary. The City council meeting, Arizona. Proprietary. The City council meeting, Arizona. Proprietary. The City council meeting, Arizona. Proprietary. The City council meeting, Arizona. Proprietary.

The City council meeting Arizona Proprietary I'd like to call this meeting to order. Would you please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And if you choose to remain standing, the invocation tonight will be by Pastor Clayton Wilfer from Joy Church of Fountain Hills. Pastor.

Gracious God and Heavenly Father, we thank you for your great love for us. We thank you that your mercies are made new for us each and every day. I lift up this town council to you, the leaders of this community. I pray that you would pour out your wisdom, give them insight, Give them compassion, grace, and even love as they go about the decisions of the town. Give them wisdom for doing what is right for the whole community. Guide them, bless them, and I pray this in Jesus' name. Amen.

Thank you. Town clerk, can we take a roll call, please? Yes, Mayor. Mayor Fidel. Present. Vice Mayor Earl. Present. Councilmember Kalavianakis. Here. Councilmember Watts. Here. Councilmember Larrabee. Here. Councilmember McMahon. Here. Councilmember Skillicorn. Here. We have a quorum. Thank you. And before we move on to the town manager, I have one announcement I'm going to make tonight. I'm going to give a little extra time for agenda items 9a and 9b.

So instead of three minutes for speakers, we're going to go to four minutes for each speaker. It's a big topic for the town, so we're going to allow a little bit of extra time for that. And now we'll move on to the town manager. Rachel. Thank you, Mayor. This is our first meeting of the month, but it's been a little while since our last one, so I have a number of items to kind of share with the community. Sorry to save the dates, but I have a long list and not a lot of voice, so bear with me.

All right. So first, we recently launched our new short-term rental public portal. It's on the town's website. This is where residents can now review permitted short-term rental properties and access the emergency contact information associated with those properties. The portal can be found under our finance and licensing area, but really this provides residents with a convenient direct resource when questions or concerns arise regarding a short-term rental property.

I know there'll be more discussion about We will be able to see more of them. Tomorrow, residents will notice a fresh look along the avenue of the fountains as the existing banners are replaced with new banners, highlighting art, dining, and shopping in our downtown area. We are also beginning our annual overseeding of Fountain Park and along the avenue of the fountains.

Irrigation will be running more frequently over the next few weeks while the new grass becomes established, which may make some of our walking areas wet or less convenient than usual. Preciate everyone's patience while we get these areas ready for the fall and winter seasons. All right, this Saturday, UWS will be hosting a community open house at the community center from 9 to 1130 AM. A postcard with details about the transition and upcoming meetings has been mailed to all residents.

As a reminder UWS will be our new trash haul service provider Additional information will be available about the meeting on the town websites or if you are looking for more information about this transition Residents who are unable to attend this Saturday will have another opportunity on October 21st These meetings are a chance to learn more about the upcoming solid waste transition ask questions and speak directly with the UWS team Also this weekend Movie in the Park returns at Four Peaks Park from 7 to 9 where we be featuring Toy Story 5 It's a free, family-friendly opportunity to enjoy an evening outside in one of our parks.

Looking ahead, Thursday, October 15th, is the Fountain Hills High School Homecoming Parade along Parkview Avenue. We encourage residents to come out and support our students and enjoy this great community tradition. Also on October 15th, following the parade is the return of our Thursday concert series at the Centennial Pavilion from 6 to 730. The concert is free and open to the public, and we will have bachelor pad barbecue and snowbird ice cream on site with treats available.

And finally, next Saturday is Make a Difference Day. It's from 8 to noon, and it provides another great opportunity for residents to get involved and give back to our community. It is not too late to sign up. So if you're still thinking about it, if you're on the fence, visit our website to learn more and you can register by Monday, October 12th.

So there's a lot happening over the next couple weeks and we encourage residents to take a look at our website or follow our social media channels for more details and updates. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. As you can see, we have a lot going on in the town of Fountain Hills. We're going to move on now to proclamations and I'm going to start it out tonight with community planning month.

Whereas change affects all communities and planning helps guide this change, and whereas planning allows residents and officials to shape the future of their community, whereas October is National Community Planning Month, recognizing the work of planners and volunteers, now therefore I, Jerry Friedel, Mayor of Fountain Hills, proclaim October is Community Planning Month, and I encourage all residents to acknowledge the contributions of our community planners. And I think John Wesley is here.

I'm going to bring this down, John, and present this to you and your staff. Thank you, Mayor, for this proclamation about Community Planning Month.

I want to accept it on behalf of our Planning Zoning Commission and all the citizen planners here in town that work with us to help make Fountain Hills a great town that it is as we look forward to the future and look for the changes that are coming and work to preserve those things that are great and good about the community, help us be a resilient and vibrant community.

We appreciate the opportunity to recognize planning the role it plays and thank the council for your ongoing support for the work that we do. And I'll add that there's so much work behind the scenes that this department handles and planning and zoning the commissioners. So we really appreciate all the efforts that everybody puts in for our town and our community. So thank you again. And next up we have a proclamation that will be done by our vice mayor, Gail Earl. This is for Arbor Day. Gail?

Thank you, Mayor. Arbor Day. Whereas Arbor Day was established in 1872 by J. Sterling Morton to encourage the planting and appreciation of trees and is now recognized throughout the nation and the world.

And whereas trees provide essential environmental benefits, and whereas trees are a renewable resource that provides many products, and whereas trees enhance our community by increasing property values, beautifying our surroundings, and providing opportunity for joy and spiritual renewal, and now therefore, Jerry M. Fridell, mayor of the town of Fountain Hills, Arizona, does hereby proclaim October 17, 2026 as Arbor Day in the town of Fountain Hills.

In witness thereof, he has his hand and caused to be affixed, no, sorry, he has set his hand and caused to be affixed the seal of the town of Fountain Hills, Arizona, this sixth day of October 2026. I think we have Kevin here? Hopefully well anchored.

I just like to say thank you to the town and the council for their support We done a lot over the last few years to help protect our trees and make sure that our vendors do the same We have a lot of trees in the town that have substantial value not only monetarily but to the quality of life that we all live And so thank you for this. We really appreciate it.

It takes a lot of staff and our vendors to take care of the trees and make sure that they're in the shape where they can handle our monsoon. So thank you very much. And I want to thank you for all the new trees I see planted around town. The next proclamation will be October as Breast Cancer Awareness Month and that will be done by Councilwoman Peggy McMahon. Peggy? Peggy McMahon- Thank you very much.

Breast Cancer Breast Cancer Awareness Month is October, and whereas Breast Cancer Awareness Month is observed each October to promote breast cancer awareness, education, research, and the importance of early detection. And whereas breast cancer is the most common form of cancer among women, affecting approximately one in eight women in the United States while also impacting men.

Whereas millions of breast cancer survivors are living in the United States, demonstrating the importance of early detection, regular screenings, and timely treatment in improving outcomes. Whereas Breast Cancer Awareness Month provides an opportunity to remember those lost to breast cancer, support those currently affected, celebrate survivors, and recognize the dedication of healthcare providers and researchers.

Whereas the town of Fountain Hills recognizes October 2026 as Breast Cancer Awareness Month and encourages residents to promote education, early detection, compassionate care, and continued research toward controlling and ultimately curing breast cancer. And fortunate tonight we have Dr. Stephanie Lindar and Dr. Somer Guina here to accept the proclamation from Honor Health. Someone you want to join me, Jerry?

Just wanted to say a quick thank you to the town and thank you for the council members for recognizing this month. Breast cancer is so important. We know early detection saves lives. So anything we can do to promote awareness, promote education is great. And again, I'm Dr. Stephanie Lindauer, medical oncologist with Honor Health Cancer Care. This is one of my colleagues, Dr. Summer Gunia, who's a breast surgeon. Thank you very much. And we have another proclamation.

This is October as domestic violence awareness month and this will be read by Brenda. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I'd also just like to thank you for your appointing me to the Domestic Violence Council for MAG. Your old job. It's been much appreciated. Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Whereas home and family should provide warmth, love, tranquility, and security. And whereas for many Americans, these blessings have tragically been impacted by violence and fear.

Whereas women, men, children, and the elderly are all, can all be victims of domestic violence. And whereas domestic violence contributes significantly to homelessness, particularly among women and children, and can result in lasting physical and emotional harm. Whereas law enforcement, shelters, hotlines, healthcare workers, clergy, volunteers, concerned citizens work to support victims and to end domestic violence.

Whereas it is important to recognize their compassion and dedication while increasing public awareness and understanding of this serious issue. Now therefore, I, Mayor Jerry Freidel, Mayor of Town Fountain Hills, do hereby proclaim October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and encourage all citizens to become informed about domestic violence and support efforts to end it. And tonight we have Kathy Dale from Turnin and Lou Leaf to accept the proclamation. Kathy? One, two, three. Thank you.

Hello. Kathy has 30 years of service. Yes. Thank you all very much. Kathy D'Nelfi, chief program officer at a new leaf. I hope you've heard of us. We've been around a while. I've been around 30 years there at a new leaf. Thank you, mayor and council for this proclamation. Thank you for recognizing domestic violence awareness as a public health concern, as an issue that affects all of us all the time, not just in our family, our neighbors, each other, our friends.

So thank you all for allowing me to be here and accept this proclamation. And I think I'll add that we are going to have the town hall lit up in purple and the fountain as well on Wednesdays for domestic violence. Are we going to do a night for breast cancer awareness as well? We can do that as well as so we'll recognize that further that way. Okay. Thank you. We'll move on now to presentation. Rachel?

Rachel Lundgren- Mayor, I think we can all pause for just a moment to recognize a big milestone in our community, which was the completion of the eastbound third lane of Shea Boulevard between Palisades and Fountain Hills Boulevard. I'm pleased to recognize that major improvement because it represents an important investment in our community. It improves safety, mobility, and the overall experience for our residents, our visitors, our businesses, and anyone who travels through Fountain Hills.

I appreciate the hard work and the partnership that went into bringing this project to completion. In particular, I want to, even though I know it will make him uncomfortable, I'd like to thank Director Weldy for his time and efforts in making this project a priority. It was a priority internally. It was a priority for our community. So I really thank you for what you've done to make it come see it through.

So at this time, I would like to turn it over to Public Works Director Justin Weldy to share a few more details about the project along with a brief video highlighting the improvements. This is a great step forward for Fountain Hills and I look forward to seeing the benefits for many years to come. Director? Mayor and Council, Town Manager, thank you for the kind words and the recognition. You've obviously seen and heard me stand here before and say this.

I am the spokesperson for the people that actually get out there and do all of those. And on behalf of them, thank you for this recognition. I rarely make notes, but I did make a few little notes here that I'll go over while the video plays. This is a video that we made of the project after completion. P P 3-3-5-4-5-4-5-4-4-7-0-0-0-0. 4-3-2-9-0-0. GYNCH, 2-1-0-0. 5-2-0-0. 3-5-0. 4-3-0.

Chae Boulevard has long been Fountain Hills Lifeline to the Greater Phoenix area, Connecting our residents business and visitors in the region Before incorporation Shea served as a county two rural connector For those of you that may or may not have lived in this area prior to incorporation or traveled through here you would note it would be something very similar to what you would encounter on Fountain Hills Boulevard If there was a rainstorm and you came across one of the numerous washes that crossed it, you would simply have to wait it out or turn around and go back.

Following incorporation in December of 1989, the town began assuming responsibility for this vital corridor. A transition that culminated in Maricopa County's formal roadway transfer in 1993. The transition marked more than a change in maintenance responsibilities. It gave Fountain Hills greater control over its transportation future and laid the groundwork for decades of investment and regional partnership. Today's improvements continue that legacy.

With support from the Maricopa Association of Governments and our project partners, we are improving a corridor essential to our community's mobility, safety, and economic vitality. Thank you to the staff, the regional partners, mayor and council, the construction team, and all of our residents for their patience. For those of you that have not had an opportunity, please take a drive down this little section. Let us know what you think of it. Those are the few words I'm going to say.

We have the executive director for MAG here, Audra Kester-Thomas, is going to say a few words. And again, I thank you for the opportunity and the kind words. Well, Mayor and Council, it's a distinct honor and pleasure to be with you here this evening to join in this celebration of the completion of the Shea Boulevard project.

As you know, MAG is the regional planning agency for transportation, environmental and human services work throughout our region, which is over 10,000 square miles and over 5 million people strong. I'm joined this evening by my partner, Ryan Barber, who is our senior analyst at MAG, who has worked closely with your staff on a very important component of this project, reimbursement of funding. We are pleased to be your partners in delivery of this project.

It's an important regional project in addition to serving the community of Fountain Hills. The Shea Boulevard project was an original Proposition 400 project and so with the completion you are delivering on promises made to the voters back in 2004 to deliver this regionally significant project. Of course our partnership doesn't end here.

We have a lot more work ahead as we look We look forward to working with the town in the years ahead on projects, including the reconstruction of Palisades Boulevard. And as I was mentioning to the mayor this evening, phase two of the Shea Boulevard widening here in the years ahead. It's our distinct pleasure to serve this community. Just in the past few years, over six million dollars has been delivered to Fountain Hills through MAG funding.

While a significant portion of that certainly is in reflection of the Shea Boulevard project, funding has also gone to identify and fill sidewalk gaps throughout the city's or the town's core. A few years ago we provided funding to help the town pave a portion of Fountain Hills Boulevard, as well as to fund a Safe Routes to School project connecting our community. We appreciate invitations like these when we get to celebrate a project's completion.

So on behalf of the 32 other towns, cities, counties, and native nations that comprise the MAG community, Congratulations on delivering this regionally significant project and for including Ryan and I in your celebration tonight. Thank you. Thank you again. We'll move on now to our consent agenda. Do I have a motion and a second? Motion to approve consent agenda. Second.

We have a motion and a second Can I get a roll call please Councilmember Larrabee Aye Councilmember McMahon Aye Councilmember Watts Aye Councilmember Skillicorn Yes Councilmember Calvianakis Aye Vice Mayor Earl Aye Mayor Fridell Aye Motion passes unanimous Thank you We move on to our regular agenda item 9A consideration regarding ordinance 26 repealing town code articles Rachel Thank you, Mayor. I will speak for a lot of people and say this is a big item.

This has been an item that has been long discussed with this council as well as previous councils, as well as a number of community groups, our P and Z. It has been a big lift for staff. So it has been a long time coming in terms of this conversation and these updates. I will let John walk us through this, but I will mention I believe our consultants have been a big lift for staff. We can hear us as well. We can have questions or discussion with them as well. Is that right, John?

Yes, that's right. Vanessa and Scott, I believe both are on the line. So most of your questions, I'm sure, will be directed to them. But I'll give the presentation to start with. Sounds great. Thank you. So mayor and council, I'll walk through this. Again, my purpose is to give you an overview of what is in the ordinance and then see what questions you may have as we move forward with this important step by meeting the needs of the town. So again, some background.

Town manager touched on this a little bit, but the council directed P and Z to work on updates to all of our wireless ordinance provisions, both of these for the small cell that we're talking about this evening and what's in chapter 17 of the zoning ordinance for the macro towers. And so I've been working on both since March of 25.

We were fortunate to be able to hire the McCullough law firm to step in and help us with this, because it's a very technical topic area, a little bit beyond the expertise that we had in-house and staff to work on. This draft ordinance that you're looking at this evening was on a PNZ work session back in the end of July. So they took a look at it then, provided some comments on it, and the public was able to see it at that point.

So they've been able to have that time to become familiar with it and be prepared to make comments. Overall goals we've had in this process, preserving local authority to the fullest extent while still following the federal and state laws, preserving the town character, implementing a comprehensive approach to application and review processes, and providing transparency and accountability for decisions that are made. Again, some of the background and the legal framework for doing this.

Federal law does preserve some authority to local jurisdictions with regard to cell towers. It's somewhat limited. But the benefit of having an expert such as McCall law firm step in is they know where those places are where we can step in and provide more local control. And so that's what they've done for us.

But they've been careful to follow those federal guidelines so we don't preempt any particular carriers or discriminate among providers or base anything on RF radiation So there's a law mandates approval of certain types of small cell wireless facilities in the right of way. So we preserve that. But again, it does provide some flexibility. So where that's possible, the ordinance provides for it.

So in review of the ordinances that we have, the way the ordinances have been set up is chapter 17 of the zoning ordinance is handled all wireless towers and antennas except for small cell in the right of way. That's always been a little bit of a confusion or concern about why those things are in different places like that. But moving forward as we look at this and work with consultants, it was determined that it would be best to have all the small cell together in an ordinance.

And so that's what we did. Chapter 16 of the town code deals with streets and sidewalks. And so once we started bringing small cell wire facilities that were on private property, not in the streets anymore, It made sense to move all that to a new chapter of the town code. So all the way along it's been a little bit confusing at this point. We've been talking about changes to chapter 16 of town code. Well now we're talking about chapter 19. So hopefully we don't get lost in that little change.

But so chapter 19 is what we're talking about, a new chapter 19 that will address both the small cell wireless facilities as well as the utility service antennas. Quickly on utility service antennas, those are the antennas that SRP or EPCOR uses to communicate within their system. We have some around town and we're working with them to, for the most part, turn those into a Saguaro Cactus. But there are no changes being made to that other than moving into 19-2, just changing the section.

So we're not going to talk about that anymore this evening, again, because there's no changes there. So you've had attached to your packet a copy of the ordinance itself.

But with that we also provided just a breakdown of chapter section 19 that shows in different font colors the changes that have been made to the ordinance based on the PNZ recommendation Because when PNZ did make the recommendation last month they did have a few things they wanted to see change So we want to make that clear what those changes were compared to what the PNZ looked at And so in case you were wondering we see the different font colors in that purple was things responding to citizens The red was the things that we identified as a consultant staff and green more specifically the items that PNZ said So with that let step into the ordinance itself Section 1911 is a purpose provision And this provides the overall framework for the ordinance and the things that we're trying to accomplish through this.

Describes our desire and intent to balance both the needs of the industry to provide good and effective telecommunication services within the town, while meeting the needs of the town and preserving our character. And so, you know, that's what we're over after there. The section has been substantially increased in terms of providing some of those ideas and details than the current ordinance. It gives us more things that we can hang our hats on as we need to show the purpose and intent.

Compared to what was looked at PNZ and based on the recommendations, we have added a provision in this with regard to the Sonoran Desert Tortoise. But then also recognized compared to chapter 17 of the zoning ordinance, there was an extensive section on applicability that wasn't in chapter 19 or in this section, the 19-1 purpose. So we move that over, comparable to here, so it would have that clear direction for future users of the code about what it applies to. Section 19.1.2 is definitions.

There are more than 80 new definitions provided compared to what we have currently in our code. Very extensive work in both this chapter and 17 to clearly define the different terms and important topics covered by this technical area. Compared to what PNZ looked at and reviewed, based on their direction, we've added a definition for child care facility. Moving on to section 19.1.3, General Requirements.

So this section of the code, again, lists all the basic requirements that you need to know in order to site and plan for a wireless facility. This section includes some things that are a little bit different from the current code, One of which is a 500-foot separation from all residency zoned parcels. That was in the PNZ review. Based on their review and comments there, we've added a couple of provisions. We extended that to also require the separation for child and daycare facilities.

And to state that if it's a guy facility, a tower that has guy wires, that will measure the distance from the outermost guy wire point, not from the base of the tower. So this section also covers information and requirements for co-location, restricted site locations, and the preferential site locations that we are looking first to cite these in industrial or commercial areas if possible, and then moving out with other types of locations if those don't work.

And then there was an item brought up at the P&Z Commission and based on that added provision about separating a tower at minimum distance from the primary doorways into establishments. Can we ask questions as we go along? Let's take questions at the end when he's done. Please. Going on with the general requirements, there are some basic requirements in this section.

One of the things is that if an applicant can see at the beginning that they're going to have a challenge meeting, meeting some of the requirements, particularly the location requirements. They can ask for an exception and make that part of their application so we can process that with their overall review. It addresses the accessory equipment, so anytime you have a tower, you've got some ground equipment, transformers and other things.

And so, the commission asks that we put in a little bit more provision for battery safety with regard to those, which has been done. Prohibits obscuring visibility along the street. In this section, also one of the concerns from the P&Z commission was that those antennas can be placed fairly low and close to pedestrians, so they asked for a minimum height above a walking area, so that was added at their recommendation.

Section 19.1.4, design standards, sets forth the basic design requirements to help achieve as much compatibility with the surrounding location, The design and building of the facility. They must comply with all federal and state requirements as part of the section. The general design standards include things to do with engineering, reducing visual impact, and providing for screening.

It sets specific standards for those that are in the right of way as well as specific standards for those that are on private property. One of the items that was added was if it is a data only facility, otherwise it's not doing voice, That those are required to go underground if at all possible. So that was added per the PNZ Commission direction. Moving on to the next section, 1915, Application Submission Requirements.

So this tells the applicants the things they need to prepare and submit with their application. So this shows you a list of those types of information that are required to be provided to us so that we can review and ensure it's going to meet the requirements of the code. And then in addition, there's some specific requirements based on whether it's in the town right away or on private property. 1916 has the review procedures and timelines.

So it provides review requirements for all small wireless facilities applications, whether in the right away or on private property. Also, this section allows us to hire and use an outside consultant to review the applications. This is something that we're moving forward with and planning for now. We've had an RFQ out to solicit those consultants, so we have those in place when these are approved.

This is a very technical document, excuse me, with very technical standards and will benefit well by having the consultant. The applicants will pay the cost of that consultant review. This also makes clear that the towers are subject to all other town ordinances and requirements. They can request a waiver of the time frames and then set those time frames for a completeness review and allows for an on-site inspection. We require a values impact report.

It requires a town to conduct an environmental review if we think it's necessary. That's something that was added based on discussion at the PNZ commission was a provision for biological resource survey. And it also provides for historic impact review and again standards for small cells in the right of way and tells us how the town shall notify applicant of decisions. Section is coordinated with terms and conditions documents.

So I'll step out of the ordinance for just a minute and this touches a little bit on your next item. But back in 2018 when the state passed its laws were basically requiring towns to allow Small cell wireless in the town right-of-way. The town adopted those types of ordinance provisions, but in addition to that, adopted a number of additional documents to help us implement the ordinance. One of those is a set of terms and conditions for small cell in the right-of-way.

And so we've looked through that ordinance as we have updated this. And one of the things in the terms and conditions is that there's a three-step process that we go through in reviewing a small cell. It starts with a pre-application, and then Then the preliminary plan review and then the construction documents. It's at that preliminary plan review stage that items that would need to come forward to council for review, that's when that would happen. Section 19.1.7, Permit Conditions.

This tells us things we can do, attach with the permit and take care of during that permit process. And so there's a list of things here that we can do to ensure that it is built and implemented the way that the plan has called for and approved. Insurance is one of the new items that's in here. And then a required rating notice, a minimum rating of the insurance provider was added based on input received at the P&Z Commission.

Safety standards is the next item of the ordinance that sets the basic standards of safety and then requires allows the town to shut down a facility if the standards aren't met. Section 19.1.9 operational requirements. So after the tower is complete up and operational, this is for some standards that the town can follow to ensure it continues to operate safely and within the established RF The CRIRF emissions limits. So most of this is in the current code, but we did add a few things.

And one of which that came from discussion, the PNZ was a notice of non-compliance and a cure period for that, if that should happen. And then finally, Section 19.110 exceptions. I mentioned this earlier. The provisions in the ordinance are fairly strict. As mentioned before, it requires minimum separation from residential. It's still at 500 feet and other things. It could become challenging to actually implement or find a location for a tower.

But this exception provision provides the applicant the opportunity to come before council and demonstrate that they've met everything in the code, but to avoid any conflicts with the state or federal law that they need an exception.

And then finally appeals If an application is denied administratively it provides for a review of that through an appeal process Rates and fees they somewhat set through the state but we will based on having a consultant that going to look at these we need to do some updates to those And so we'll be updating the fee schedule to be consistent with the ordinance requirements and the process within the code. So again, PNZ Commission looked at this at a work session.

It's not within their purview to actually make a recommendation since it's not in the zoning ordinance, but they did provide that level of review and some comment for you. Based on that, we did receive comments and we've made the changes consistent with those comments, and so staff is here to not recommend approval of the ordinance as presented. So glad to take questions. And again, Vanessa and Scott are on the phone to help with us.

I'll remind the council members to hit the left button so you get into queue. If you have questions, please. Thank you, John, for the recap. I think I'm going to go a little off script first and foremost and go above and beyond and say thank you for the tenacity of staying engaged with the consultants. It was refreshing to see the puts and the takes. You would push one direction, the consultants would push back and say why or why not, what we could do.

And that was, took a lot of stamina to go through all of that. So, from a personal level, thank you for sticking with it for so many years because it's been a long, hard process. Thank you. On another note, as far as the appeal process goes, I'm a little concerned about the board of adjustment being the person, the entity that is going to do the appeals.

And that would be, my recommendation would be that we have, and I've got three items that apply to the appeal, so I'd like to read those and then I'd like to get feedback from the consultants, Vanessa and Scott. So the appeal and the reconsideration process should remain strictly within the purview of the town council without involving the Board of Adjustments or other external entity. The town council, with the support of staff, is most familiar with the local issues.

Town council should review and reconsider any appeal with the guidance of a qualified third party firm slash expert. The firm must be a nationally recognized for their expertise in state, federal, and local laws and regulations. I think that goes to your point of doing an RFQ for those that would be appropriate to do reviews or even the appeal process. And then secondly, I want to make sure that in the definitions we have a definition describing the qualifications of the firm.

You know, what are we looking for? Have they got the experience, the depth of expertise? I think we get the bandwidth to have. Most firms that have, I'll use an engineering or an architectural firm, for instance, they have a depth that looks at planning and zoning. They look at mechanical, electrical, plumbing. So they have to have the ability to look at the entirety of the application and the whole project.

And then finally, again back to the review and the appeals, I think we have to have whomever we have do the review of the application initially on staff, have some training done by and through that consultant so that we can assure that who does the reviews knows what they're looking for in its totality and just not accepting things. And then I've got a couple of more after that, so maybe we can get those three addressed right now. Okay, thank you.

Mayor, Councilmember, I'll take a little bit of a stab at that, then we can see if Scott or Vanessa have a comment. I believe we use the Board of Adjustment because it's coming from a staff decision, and that's a little bit more typical, but I don't know if there's a reason why the appeals couldn't come to the town council. If that's your preference there to be that involved in those technical decisions like that.

As far as the definition of the consultant, I'm sure that's something we could work on, Not anything we had thought about before trying to define that type of term. But again, let's see what the consultant has to say about that particular idea. And my thought is that with regard to this, once we have the consultant, the minute an application hits our desk, we're forwarding it.

Staff's really not doing much at all with it other than acknowledging that we have had it, because we do see the consultant we hire as really being the one to understand it and be able to know if it's a complete application and work with the applicant to meet all the requirements. So we are relying on a third party to do the review in addition to making sure that when we first get the application, it's pretty much check the box, not for content. Right.

The third party would be doing a review of content. Yes.

Okay good That would satisfy my position on that anyway I don know if the consultants have any additional comment about the Board of Adjustment versus Town Council I think Town Council and staff Board of Adjustments really isn going to have the background but if Council was I mean we've been so intimately involved with this for so many years, and I think the new Council going forward would be privy to that same information by being supported by a third party again. I can make a quick comment.

In many places, including in Arizona, the council has the option of itself being the port of adjustment, either in general or for a specific purpose. You have chosen to have a separate board of adjustment for most purposes, but you could provide either by amendment or the board of adjustment. or change to this ordinance or in the other organizational part of your general ordinances that for appeals of wireless matters, you would sit as the Board of Adjustment.

However, I really do just think the easiest way to do it is to provide that an appeal goes to the council itself. That's quite common. It happens throughout the country, and that would be the simplest and cleanest fix. That would work. Thank you. I've got an easy one. This is a softball. Can we add to child care, can we add elder care to make sure that there's a clarity there?

And I know when I read it, I see that it implies things along the lines of child care, but I want to be comfortable with elder care of some sort, adult care centers. Mayor, Councilmember, I'll start a response and I know Vanessa looked into the child care and the legalities of that and the process for doing that to see how it can be handled. Elder care is, in my first reaction, is a little bit maybe harder to define. I don't even know if we have any in Fountain Hills.

I guess it's different than assisted living. It's a place where an elderly person would go during the day to receive some care, socialization, whatever, while the normal caregiver is not at home. We have assisted living covered now? Yeah, so assisted living, that's a residential home. That's already covered by the residential. If we've got that, and that's an oversight on my part, then I wanted to make sure that we were protecting the elderly who require some level of assisted living as well.

So, yeah, so all residential, whether it's zoned or a use, is covered. Okay. Well, that was easy enough. The noise issue. The noise is not, in this scenario, it's not electrical noise, it's not EMF noise, it's acoustical noise. And the mechanical equipment that goes into some of these installations has levels that are specified by the manufacturer, either enclosed or not. So acoustical enclosures would dampen it if it was wide open at different levels.

I think it's important for the residents to know that we're protecting the noise levels in the area by identifying decibel levels that are acceptable, a range. And off the top of my head, I don't know what those are, but if I said they were 50 to 100 and they submitted 75 and it was supported by the manufacturer's specifications, then we have a point of reference when there was a complaint.

So I'm looking for something more specific than just noise because we've had this issue before, the subjectivity of noise, the MCSO's, I'll call it refusal to get decibel meters when we have the party houses and vacation rentals and that type of stuff. It becomes challenging, but the owners would be on the contractor or the service provider if it didn't meet the specifications of what the manufacturer said in the submitted data. So we wouldn't incur the cost.

The contractor service provider would be responsible for proving that what is installed is consistent with what they put in their application. So I'd like to see some bumpers around decibel levels and how they are validated through the application process. And I think page 26, item 16, we have 500 feet versus 300 feet. I think there's a consistency. Do you have a section number or a packet page number to find which one you're talking about? Page 26.

Since I have the packet pulled up here, that's not going to be a page number that I have. I did I don know if it 1915 That last time I had section numbers and now I got page numbers Okay. I can see. Oh, okay. Okay. Okay, there we go. So Vanessa, I'm not sure if it's on your end or our end, but we can barely hear you. So this is the notice requirement, which is our standard notice requirement for all zoning. Right. It's 300 feet. I knew it was for zoning.

I knew that was what we've got as a standard, but everywhere else throughout this, we've got distances between 500 feet. Should we be consistent with 500 feet, or I'm looking for some input to support the 300 feet? Again, it's because that's our standard notification requirement for any zoning action. That's why we use that number. It could be 500 feet if you want it to be. I'd like to see it be 500 feet if I can get Vanessa to agree with that. I don't see any reason why we couldn't do 500 feet.

I wanted to make it finding notice. That sounds like a yes. I'm trying to kind of, so yeah, I think it will be fine. Okay. And page, here we go, page 29. So let's try three pages down where it says 500 versus 1,000. I'm going to go the other way on this one. We've got 1,000 feet. Have you gone past it yet? Okay, right there. Yeah, there it is right there. Identify all residential properties located within at least 1,000 feet. And again, it's a consistency thing.

We've got 500 feet everywhere else. I'm not so sure why we have 1,000 feet on this particular item. So again, Vanessa can step in in a moment. Yeah, I'll go ahead and... Okay. Can you hear me?

So that item is the...that is the property values impact report, and I think a thousand feet is more reflective of, you know, the entire area because it casts a wider net over the properties and it gives more, you know, the realtor appraiser who's going to appraise the impact of the facility, of the proposed facility, that it will give them a wider range of properties to look at.

So I personally would keep the thousand feet just for that reason, because it really extends the range of how much this facility could potentially affect all the properties within the area. And I do think that residents would want to be included in that analysis to see how much will this proposed facility I think that's fine.

The reason why there's an inconsistency between the 500 feet and the 1,000 feet really has to do with the effective prohibition in the sense that it's kind of, you know, of course we would really prefer all of the facilities to be, well, at least 1,600 feet, but it may become difficult to justify it in light of, you know, the federal, both the federal and the Arizona presents. But the federal preemption as an effective prohibition.

And so the 500 feet was really, I think, the furthest that we could push the wireless facilities to stay away from residential properties and school and daycare facilities without coming as close to the effective prohibition. But on the other hand, 1,000 feet, it's not really an effective prohibition.

It's just basically asking the applicant to, you know, do a wider analysis of the area and see how much it's going to affect the, you know, the entire area, not just the homes that are within the 500 feet. So, I mean, I would argue that we should keep those separate. Okay. No, I understand. It makes more sense now that you've explained it, so thank you for that. And I think that does it for me, so thank you, John. Thank you, Mayor.

I want to back in support with Councilman Watts said about the appeals going back to the council in lieu of Board of Adjustments and then listening to the other things you said. I support your other recommendations as well. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. I've written something out and I'd like to take a moment to go through it because I have some serious concerns about this ordinance. Can I stop you for just a second? This is for questions right now.

General discussion will follow after comment cards if that's okay. Soon. Yeah. So we have We ask questions first, then we ask for comment cards, and then we have council discussion, and you can do it then. Okay. Mr. Mayor, I think you probably answered what my thought was, is if we're done with the technical questions, I was wanting to hear from the residents and then further our own discussion. We're almost there. I think councilman, Councilwoman, colleague Vianakis has a question.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I do have a few questions. I know when we had a previous legal advice on Chapter 16, it was said at the council, quite explicitly, that that was forbidden territory. That was covered by federal and state law. Has that changed between the previous legal advice we had and currently?

Mayor, Councilmember, no, it hasn't changed, but we do have consultants that we've brought on board who has a greater familiarity with the details of the law and the court cases and so forth that could help us find where there was some flexibility so that we can take as much advantage of the local control as we could. It says right in there that we're trying to expand the horizons of an ordinance to go just as far as federal law will let us go. I think that's been the impetus.

I do have any concerns that this has gone too far and that we've taken too many liberties with state and federal law as far as fees, distances. I've got 25 things written out that could possibly go skew. Do you have any concerns about that, Mr. Wesley? Mayor, council member, this certainly has pushed it a lot further than when I was working on it by myself. I felt comfortable with, given my limited understanding of the law and the technicalities involved.

But I've felt very comfortable working with the McCullough law firm and their breadth of knowledge and understanding of the allowances within the ordinances and within the statutes that they have kept us within bounds that can be defensible. So you're relying on their expertise? Yes. Thank you. When this document came to your department, was it reviewed by our town attorney? Yes. It was. Would that be Jen? Yes.

Okay, because when I received a copy of this, I had questions and problems with a great deal of it. And a lot of it was grammatical errors, blank dates, numbering errors, addressing wrong legal citations. Are you telling me that it went to the law firm, through our legal department, through you, with all these errors? Is this draft ready to be approved? Because I found more errors in my research that are there still to this day right now.

And I was trying to stop you along the way because I have specific questions to answer. It would be very difficult for me to go back to ask you the numerous questions I have. This seems to be something that we should have a workshop on so we can ask the correct questions. We can't be here until 3 in the morning, or maybe we can. But I do have a problem with all the errors that have brought it here. Do you have any concerns about that, John?

Mayor, Councilmember, at this point we've been through it again. Find some number of errors in a document this extensive isn't on common, and most of those are what would be considered Scribner's errors that can be easily corrected after the fact if they're found, typos and so forth. Again, I think we continue to get some feedback and review, and I'm comfortable that we've got an ordinance that's ready for approval.

Do you think the changing ARS reference from 9-951 to 9-51 to 9-591, or changing 47 U.S. code reference from 6409 to 1445, Do you think those are just superficial errors or are they consequential errors that are literally citing the wrong code? Are those inconsequential in your opinion? They were important to correct, though, so it is the correct site.

But after the fact, there would have been easy corrections to make if they would have gotten adopted with those because it would be clear what the corrections should be.

It would be like turning into a legal brief with all these citations and then asking to correct them later I just wondering if this document as it been presented to us is ready for our vote It seems to me and again I just asking you a question Do you think that maybe we should take a little more time before this council votes on this so we can ferret out the concerns that I sure myself and some of the other council members have This has been going on for four years and I don't know why we're rushing it.

Do you have an opinion on that? Mayor, council member, I think I'll come back to... I see a point of order. I feel like you're interrogating John. I'm asking him questions. It sounds like you're interrogating him. Whatever. Let's go back to the 500 foot for child care and day care. Where did we arrive 500 feet at? Was that a number that was given to us by an expert?

Mayor, Councilmember, we established 500 feet for separation from residential uses as an appropriate standard to ensure that residential homes are not impacted. And so it just seemed to the Planning and Zoning Commission that the same standards should be applied to another place where young children are located to prevent any harm that might happen there.

It's funny you mention the young children, because when AT&T sent us a letter two years ago saying that they had a problem with what we're going to attempt to do, I've got a copy of the letter right here. They specifically referred to RF emissions and health effects.

Now, we cannot regulate RF emissions for health effects, so when we put it, codify that we have concerns about child care, daycare, and possibly elder care, what other concerns would we have other than the health effects of young brains being exposed to these towers? So again, as I mentioned earlier, our consultants really had all the technical details. Those are probably better questions for Vanessa to address. Okay, fair enough.

Vanessa, could you, you yourself said that you thought we were pushing it on the 500 feet, which I agreed with. I think we're pushing it way too far. Is the 500-foot rule to protect young children's brains and elder care and day care? Why are we doing that? Why are we trying to restrict placement of these based on what I think is, at least I'm trying to figure out why we're doing it for that reason. So that does come close to the restrictions.

However, we think that they can be defensible in terms of there's other provisions in the ordinance that address radio frequency compliance in terms of keeping making sure that they're at least within the FCC limits, and even though those, that's for the town to make sure that those are in compliance. So these are just additional safeguards in terms of making sure that there isn't exposure.

Now that does run a little bit close, but when I reviewed it with Attorney McCullough, we thought that we could see how this would be pushed to the limit of you know, the radio frequency impacts. But that's what I would direct it because even within those limits, those could be justified as there might be other criteria that we could look at to see if there's an adverse impact on those properties. If I can follow up. Yeah.

The case law indicates, and if you look throughout the country, you will see separation and setback requirements in ordinances in many, many locations. They're quite common. And they have been allowed by the courts when they have a purpose other than to directly regulate on the basis of environmental effect.

So there are rational reasons to have separations and setbacks One of them is property value impacts We had a case not too long ago where there was a childcare facility very close to a proposed tower And the evidence was that everybody that was going to that school was going to leave It would put the school out of business. And it would have obviously reduced the value of that enterprise. So that's an allowable reason. Now, could it be justified solely on health effects? No.

But there are other bases upon which to have separation and setback requirements for sensitive locations, whether they be residences or other businesses that have certain special qualities, like schools, like elder care. The courts haven't just uniformly rejected those. One thing I do want to point out as well is that, yes, it is true, we've come pretty close to the line in many of these provisions.

We've taken you as far as can be justified because we consider that was the intent and desire of council, that you want to retain all of the authority that you are allowed to have. That you don't want to give up any authority. One of the things that was important to put in this ordinance was that if any wireless company thinks that any of these provisions go so far as to, in its situation, constitute an effective prohibition, it can tell you that and there is a process for it to obtain a waiver.

So if they think any of these would be a problem in their particular case, they can tell you about it, they can present facts to justify that argument, and you can rule on it. And if you are convinced by their presentation, then you can give them their waiver. That's that safe harbor is pretty likely to solve almost any of the effective prohibition issues that occur. And thank you for that explanation. And I appreciate your candor.

You know, I was hoping that we would have more of a conservative document that wouldn't be something that would have to be litigated. And I know when Vanessa said, you know, we push this as far as we can go, I don't want to have to litigate this through the courts. I don't think that's wise. The FCC's position, which I looked up, was that they argued that under its Build America agenda, that local authorities are tending to slow roll approvals, exact exorbitant fees.

Brenda, do you have a specific question? Yeah, that's what I'm doing right now to the council. It sounds like more of a- Slow roll approval. Could this document be construed as slow rolling and adding a lot of superfluous information? And to it, I'll give you one more example. Section 19-15C includes extensive submission requirements, including fire plans, electrical, acoustic studies, advance notice to neighbors, many of the things that are kind of picky-yoon.

Do you think all these burdens are going to be upheld in litigation? Because I'm not sure they will. Well, what I would like to say is that this is really more of a responsible permitting Because the reality of it is that yes, the FCC has its agenda to build America and to accelerate wireless and broadband deployments. And we do recognize the importance of accelerating those. I mean, we do want to be a technologically advanced society.

We don't want to deny the technology and we do want to allow for technological innovation. But as it stands now, it's very unbalanced and it doesn't consider community interest It doesn't consider the interests of ordinary citizens and homeowners and people who are going to bear the cost of these deployments. And right now it's very one-sided. And it's not to say that, you know, I don't believe that our ordinance effectively prohibits any deployments.

It's just asking the applicants to be responsible and to say, well, if it does this, for instance, this small cell, which can be 50 foot, does it really need to be in front of someone's front yard? I mean, maybe not. Maybe it does, but maybe it doesn't.

but at least make them prove that they have to that that where they have to put it Because why should an ordinary resident bear that and that kind of cost especially when it comes at an impact to their home which is typically the source of wealth for most Americans is their home And so, like, what's happening right now is with these FCC build outs is that they're basically asking ordinary people to foot the bill while the telecoms profit.

Yes, maybe there are some sacrifices that need to be made in terms of getting all of us to the broadband and the wireless communication and connectivity that we need. But what we're asking is for more responsibility and for more transparency in the process. And so I really personally feel very strongly that this is a great ordinance that allows the town to do this.

It was our understanding that the town did want to go as far as it could go to protect the citizens and also to protect its character and its dark sky status. So that's what I would say as a push for the ordinance. Of course, we are happy to work with the town council. And if there are things that we need to walk back that you're not comfortable with, we're happy to do that as well. So I just want to put that out there. And thank you for that.

And all I'd like to say is I wish we would have a chance to have that discussion so the ones that do exceed what I would view local authority, we could pull back on before we take a vote on this. Because when we take a vote on it, it's going to be codified as too late. We'll have to go back to amend an ordinance. I would rather get it right the first time.

The last thing, and I have many other questions, but the last one to you, Vanessa, is again, if the Build America agenda is passed in Washington, will that nullify this ordinance? It will have some impact on the ordinance, and we are working to not have that passed. Okay. Thank you. Or at least to have it more passed in a more responsible way to really carve out some of and not degrade so much local authority.

Because at this point, in the direction that it's headed, it's basically, you know, the federal, the FCC has become a national zoning board. And that just doesn't really seem like a tenable outcome in terms of how different localities are. And, you know, with unique characteristics, a lot of the authority should remain local. Yeah, and I appreciate that.

I do think they're looking for uniformity nationally and not to have to have every telecommunications company subject themselves to local ordinances like the ones we're anticipating passing tonight. So again, thank you for your thoughtful answers. Objection. Leading the witness. John, I just have a couple questions. When was this issue first brought to your desk? I know it was a long time ago, but do you remember? Mayor, Councilmember, 2020, I think.

Since 2020, approximately, you don't have to have an exact number, it's okay if you haven't done a count, but approximately how many meetings have we had regarding 5G? No idea. A lot. A lot, yeah. And during this meeting right now, we're not even in the discussion part, but my notes say that we have three potential amendments still on the table. There were five that were presented for feedback by Councilman Watts. Do I have those notes correct?

I believe that's correct from what I can recall, but I'm sure the council member could. Oh, thank you council member. I appreciate that. Okay, I think that covers my questions. We can keep pushing. When we build a single family home, multi-family home, don't we ask for virtually the same thing?

There are some additional things we ask for here, but we ask for planning and zoning and setbacks and right-of-ways, and we ask for structural, mechanical, electrical engineering, we ask for occupancy, we ask for all of the things that we have included in here. So this isn't something that's new. We've been doing this from a permitting standpoint for an awful long time, and what we've done is fine-tune it to be applicable for small wireless facilities. The statement doesn't need an answer, John.

Thank you. Okay, I think we'll move on for comment cards. Do we have any comment cards? Town clerk? Yes, Mayor. The town received three online comment cards with a position of against, and then we have four here requesting to speak. So we'll begin with Claire Sukman, followed by Crystal Cavanaugh. Thank you. Tonight you're deciding whether Fountain Hills should bear three, actually four, serious risks. The first is the value of your homes. Is the mic on? Okay, I'm starting again.

Tonight you're deciding where Fountain Hills residents should bear three serious risks. The first is the value of your homes. For many families, their home is their retirement plan. They spend decades building its value. A wireless facilities near your home, even 500 feet near your home, can threaten that value through a decision that we never asked for. Imagine if you chose to sell. Fewer buyers, fewer offers, and being forced to accept less for your home.

Even if you never sell, your investment will suffer and so will your neighbours. If a facility is seen by your neighbour, the value of their house decreases. Research by Bond and Wang found that proximity to wireless facilities can reduce residential property values by approximately 20%. How many years would it take you to save that again? If the Planning and Zoning Commission recognized that a 4% loss can cause serious hardship, why would our town allow facilities even 500 feet near our homes?

The second issue is a 500 foot setback. The proposed ordinance says small wireless facilities must be three to five feet from our homes. Then it opens the door to an exception, the public right of way. The right of way is the land along your street right in front of your house. That exception could put a small wireless facility just 20 feet, 20 feet from your door.

20 feet, that's your front door, your driveway, the bedroom window where your child sleeps, where your child plays, where the radiation from this facility is emitting into your child's body. That's not a setback, that's a loophole. Remove the exception. 500 feet must mean 500 feet from every home with no exceptions. There's also an issue of a fire. If a fire occurs on your property that the tech company puts on, who is responsible? You are responsible. The town will not be responsible.

Your insurance will not pay. The tech company might pay part of it. It will be your responsibility. And if that fire goes on to another property, you'll be responsible for your property and their property. The fourth issue is the human reality. You can't ignore it. When I moved here, I became extremely ill with electromagnetic hypersensitivity. For six months, I lived in the dark with every breaker in the house off. I didn't know if I was going to survive.

I didn't know if my marriage was going to survive. This is not only my story. Other people in Fountain Hills are ill, concerned. If wireless close to my home or close to theirs, we may be forced to leave. And where are we supposed to go when wireless infrastructure has reached even remote communities? I commend Rick, I commend John, I commend the lawyers who are putting this together. You have a good ordinance, an ordinance that protects people in Fountain Hills.

What we're asking tonight is clear. Remove the right-of-way exception. Do not have it. 500 foot setback for every home. And a thousand is correct. Not even 500 because if it's 500 close to your home, your home will be devalued by 20%. So this is not about the health only. It's about the value. It's about the fire. It's about your property. It's about your financial loss that you will have. Next speaker, please. Crystal Cavanaugh, Fountain Hills resident.

I'm not sure how many here or at home have actually read the entire packet on this agenda item, but even if you've just read a portion of it, you will realize precisely why our town and this council brought in the outside law firm who had the expertise to assist in writing and overseeing this particular ordinance.

As has been stated for years now it is a complex issue The residents in town needed a well ordinance that protects us as a community while still allowing this technology And after reading this packet I wholeheartedly support it although I understand others may have some additional suggestions tonight I too have a recommendation Councilman Watts addressed it but I continue with my thoughts for the record Under appeal section 19 dash one dash 11 on page 43 it reads in part any person adversely A Review procedures and timelines.

An independent consultant is referenced in Part B when it states, The town is authorized to retain an independent qualified consultant to review any application for a permit for a small wireless facility to review the technical aspects of the application, including but not limited to the following, and then it lists the matters. The majority of this town council saw the importance of expertise throughout this process and the careful writing of this ordinance.

So I think it is logical that a qualified professional should be included as part of the appeals portion of this ordinance also. Thank you. Next up we have Larry Myers. I mean, I'm sorry. Next up we have Lori Troller. Sorry, Larry. Followed by Larry Myers. We have an IT issue up here. Is Mike in the back? Can you come forward while Lori is speaking? Can you tell? I'm thrilled. Good evening, council. That's Scott and Vanessa.

Lori Troller, resident, thrilled we're at this point and I have a few issues for consideration. Starting on chapter 19.1.3, General Requirements, on page 16 we define the setback from a debris zone, but we don't define debris zone. So if we could include that in the definitions. Also on page 17 we talk about preferred locations. We list everything, but the schools fall out of that list. I don't know why we lost the schools on that list. And, oh, that was something else.

Also on 19.3, page 17, we talk about the 25 10-foot setbacks. I would like to change the word main entrance to public entrance. Page 18, we talk about the height of antennas. We have a minimum height of 8.5 feet. Can we change that to 12 feet? Then in section 1914 design standards page 20 we talk about all sorts of data that can be communicated on the towers. Can we just call that title one?

Then in section 1915 the application submission request on page 21 we do not have a balloon test and considering our definitions say that our small wireless can be 50 feet in height. I think that warrants a conditional test based on height. Page 25, we talk about acoustic analysts, and we do not define what too loud is, so that's arbitrary. So I would like to get that in concrete.

Somebody evaluating that could have a hearing loss come up and it doesn't sound loud to them, I'd love to get a concrete number on there. On page 26, we also talk about measuring the emissions from a new tower. It says get right under the mount point, as close to the antenna as you can. Antennas don't emit straight down, they emit in a cone. I just want to make sure that we're not taking a reading where it says zero. I think the point is not to start at the far end of the admission.

I think they're trying to say start near the poll, but it reads a little funny. I would just make sure that we're not taking a reading where there is no reading.

Then in section 1915 the application submission request Oh we talked about this This is the distances for the facility notification and for the property impact report I going to leave those alone We already did discuss about the Board of Appeals or Board of Adjustments for Appeals I do want to mention for Claire sake there is a call out in the ordinance for ADA considerations that is there If that was not mentioned she needs to be aware of that And boy, do I want to give my sincere thanks to John.

I can cry, literally. John, Scott, and Vanessa is a fantastic product. Thanks. Next speaker, please. Council, expert, consultants, mayor. So I'll answer Hannah's question. It was five years ago because I was 70 and now I'm 75. So I'm deeply offended that anyone would think that this could go on any longer, especially since we were so wise as a town to hire such esteemed experts. And why you would not want to protect every resident. This was started to protect every resident in this town.

Not a couple, not me, every resident. So why you would want to not, you would shortchange yourself in any manner whatsoever, I can't fathom that. And so I fully support you passing this. Make the amendments. The ones that I had, I think Councilman Watts, who I would also like to thank for five years worth of plotting through really, really hard technical documents of which I don't know that there's that many people, especially the loudest voices, probably I didn't.

And getting to this point, the planning and zoning commission meetings and workshops, you know, I know who was in them because I was at every single one. And some of the voices who seem to have the most to say about this not being passed tonight were not in attendance. I repeat, not. And so I just had one other thing that I didn't know whether Councilman Watts actually said. In 19-110 exceptions, it says reviewing authority.

Did we ask for that to be in the definitions what the reviewing authority was? Because if we didn't, then I would like to have that there. And then I concur with the Board of Adjustment has no business even being in the general vicinity of this complex topic. The reviewing authority should be the final say for remedies and for also exceptions. So I think Councilman Watts covered that.

And with that, I really hope that as I'm 75 today, I would implore you to give me a birthday present, end this nightmare, and move on to other town business. And I appreciate your time. Thank you. Are there any other speakers? No, there's not a mayor. Okay. And now we'll open it up for a council discussion and as long as I have the microphone I have a couple things I want to say. For me, it was the nail on the head was preserving town character. I don't know.

I think planning and zoning had a dozen, dozen and a half meetings over the last five years. I was at every one of them except for one. I was at the workshop. Questions were asked, information was exchanged. We've had plenty of opportunity over the last five years to digest this and come up with solutions and recommendations and hiring this firm. And Rick, as the liaison for our town council for this, I can't say enough about what a great job you guys have done.

I have been out talking to residents 98 of the residents that I talked with don want another structure in the middle of their front yard in front of their front door It just that simple This is not a partisan political thing This is a community ordinance That how I look at this And the lady that mentioned the 20% hit, she's spot on. I've talked to a couple of real estate agents who also agree with that. And again, if you went to those meetings, you learned a lot.

You learned about not in front of a primary doorway, not obstructing street visibility, impact, insurance requirements. I had no idea. That's why I went to those meetings. I sat in the back. I didn't say a word, but I sat there and I listened and I learned about what we need to do. And then local control. So it's a good ordinance. I'm in favor of it, and I'll turn the mic over to whoever's next in line here. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Because I want to protect the values of our property owners, because I want to protect our dark sky status, and because I want to protect the charm of our town, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask if Councilman Watts would like to make a motion with the amendments he was talking about, including the Board of Appeal, and the town council, the 300-foot, the 500-foot. If you want to make that motion, I will happily second it.

It's too lengthy to read again, but I'm going to give the notes to John so he can integrate them into. So I would like to move forward with the approval for the ordinance. Aren't we still talking about it? We are. We are. And with the caveat that I'll give John my notes on the appeal, the expert, the review, we answered senior, the noise component, identifying decibel levels and manufacturer specifications, the 300 versus 500, that's a consistency thing, we talked about that, that was reviewed.

And the clarification on the thousand feet, all those are on my notes. And so rather than reread them, I'll give them to you to incorporate. And that would be my motion to move forward. I will second the motion with the amendments included. Mayor, if I may. So, Mayor, Councilmember, so Ms. Trawler had a number of items on her list. Many of them were the same, but a few were a little bit different, I believe. So were any of those items to be included or not?

Frankly, I thought the majority of the items that were mentioned were already included. They were already addressed, and there was one or two that I don't think we can address. We've kind of belabored them. The range of impact on housing is 4 to 20 percent. So there's a lot of things that we've already addressed before we got to this point. So I think you agree with Mayor. Okay. Thank you, Mayor.

I just had a short spiel for the few who are newer to the issue, might be wondering why we're doing this, what is the big concern, why does it have to be so complicated. While we are absolutely a pro-technology community, there's something to be said for ensuring that there remains a balance between private and public interests. An example of I think I've done this spiel in one of the last meetings that we've had about 5G, but I have the dates this time.

In the 1880s, when Thomas Edison was wanting to roll out electricity to the nation, really, the original direct current system would have required a local power plant in every neighborhood. Let me repeat that. Not every town, every neighborhood would have needed a power plant in order for that to work. It wasn't until 16 years later that that was no longer the up-to-date technology, made the DC moot.

If we had built those out all over the country, we would be stuck with a bunch of dead power plants that then had to be cleared out and that land was forever graded. What we're talking about today is something similar with small cell wireless. It is the most up-to-date technology for now. Have you noticed how much your phone has changed in the last 15 years? How much your computer has changed in the last 15 years?

If we were to allow these to just build wherever they wanted in the name of progress, we might end up looking really silly with a bunch of antennas and people. So that is the reason that I have been so hawkish on this issue, why this has been a conversation for five years. I want to be pro-technology and pro-technological process, but also wise about our town's resources and about protecting our public. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

At this point, I know it did come up during the call, the law firm, the Scott McCullough law firm that was chosen. I just want the people of Fountain Hills to know that this law firm is an advocacy law firm who is involved with the Children's Health Defense Fund. They are anti-federal active answers, active answers, vaccinators. They have been in the 5G industry asserting that exposure to this technology is debilitating, causes damages to DNA, reproductive orgasms, blah, blah, blah.

This isn't just a neutral law firm that has come here to write a responsible ordinance. It's they're an advocate and they're pushing this to the very limit and I'm quite sure that we're going to run and follow the law. The agreement also provides that McCulloch law firm will be acting on behalf of more than one party in the same manner and describes DaVinci with Fountain Hill as a joint endeavor. I'd love to ask him about that.

So it seems like we are being involved in a broader strategy to push back against this kind of technology, and I think the people of Fountain Hill should know. This is a little bit of a lab experiment.

I would, if I could, ask them, could they respond unequivocally that every deadline, every fee, every approval requirement, every renewal provision, every termination provision, and relocation provisions in this document document would be consistent with ARS 9-591 through 9-599 and applicable federal law. If so, I would like for them to identify the statutory authority for the provisions that give this town broader discretion than those prohibited under statute and federal law.

I know that's a difficult question. It's one we can't answer tonight, but those are the questions that need to be answered before we go forward that they can verify that we have the authority to do what we're doing here tonight because in my opinion, we don't. Thank you very much. It has been a long time coming and there's a lot of reasons for that and not alone just the complexity of this matter and how complicated it is.

But I still have serious concerns with this ordinance, not just what was said tonight, but just in general. Like Brenda said, when we hired this law firm, we discussed it and we had significant concerns about potential conflicts of interest, the scope of the engagement, the attorney's position regarding 5G, health and telecommunications, and other provisions. To me, they weren't adequately addressed, but here we are.

We now have over 40-some to 50-page ordinance before us that raises a lot of questions that people have been asking and addressing. But I have a question, and I don't mean to put Mr. Lasota on the hot seat, but have you completely reviewed this legal document? Because you are now our current town attorney. And I want to know if I can go to you and talk to you about this document that you'll be able to have answers for me. Mr. Mayor and Councilwoman McMahon, I have reviewed the document.

I am comfortable speaking with you about it. But obviously we've retained people who deal specifically in this matter. So I'm happy to talk to you anytime. But certainly I think you should utilize the consultants as well. The consultant is not my attorney. You're the town attorney and I rely on you for advice.

Historically what has happened when we see such a complex document, legal document come through, We get an email from the town attorney letting and we usually have an e go through it you know letting us know pros and cons etc He addresses questions and then it comes before council I feel like that has been completely missed and I don feel comfortable moving forward with it and that not an insult to you It just what we have done in the past with something of this complexity And I've reviewed this ordinance, and I've identified over 25 or so problems with it, and I'm not a telecommunications attorney.

These are questions that raise conflict of interest laws, etc., conflicts with federal and with state laws, and I'm concerned with that. They haven't been answered, which is precisely a point, because I think given the complexity of this, and yes we have a consultant, however, I think we may want to consider hiring an independent land use attorney to review this as well.

I'm also concerned about provisions that appear to be overly burdensome for the telecommunications providers because, and we do certainly, we have an obligation to protect our town and its residents, but we also have to make sure that regulations remain within the limits established by federal and state laws because after all the federal government does regulate the telecommunications.

And we don't want to effectively prevent or have a requirement that effectively prevents or unreasonably restricts any telecommunications provider from doing something that federal law protects it from doing. I mean, we do have a letter from AT&T. They have threatened a lawsuit. I would hate to have to be stuck for years in litigation over this. Also, there's just a lot of legal consequences with this in adapting it tonight. And there is also a timing issue we need to consider.

The FCC is moving forward with changes in its rules concerning state and local requirements affecting deployment of high-speed wireless infrastructures under Section 253 of the Communications Act. And if those federal changes are expected, they are expected very soon. And so I believe it would be prudent on our part to understand these first before finalizing such a comprehensive and complex ordinance. Yes, I've heard about time. I've been involved with it as well.

I understand and recognize our community's needs, but my concern is there are so many things brought up tonight about this that are unclear and they're significant that they need to be addressed. And I still have a ton of questions that we don't even have time for tonight.

So I really wish that we would consider tabling this item, you know, addressing the amendments, addressing the concerns, maybe get another expertise in before we pass such a monumental document that affects all of us and that we know the FCC governs and is going to rule on very, very shortly. And yes, I heard the consultants say they're going to fight this and they don't want it, but that doesn't mean that that's going to happen.

I have a feeling it is going to happen and I don't want to have to come back here again and spend five more years trying to amend the ordinance that we could wait a little bit and have it be complete and better, more applicable to our town. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. I want to thank Rick for all the work he did on this and appreciate the motion he made with the amendments to it.

I do just want to clarify for the first person who came up and spoke, she's not here anymore, but I do believe that there is not an exception for the right of way in front of someone's home. It would be the 500 feet. Is that correct? So she said she wanted us to do an exception for the right-of-way in front of someone's home, but that's already been addressed, so I'm saying that for her. Thank you. Mayor, I apologize.

I know that we have a motion on the table already, but if it's all right, I'd like to ask a question to our consultant real quick. Mr. McCullough, I apologize. We didn't really give you a chance to introduce yourself. So I wanted to ask how many telecom cases have you been involved in in your career? I lost count in 1990, at which point I'd done more than 1500 rulemakings in contested cases.

I been litigating almost exclusively in this field since then I think I probably up to about 10 cases now And I have also represented local jurisdictions in many matters, whether they be a local electric or gas or water utilities. I recognize that you're wearing a different hat when you're doing that. I've worked for the industry and against the industry. So I've got a fairly broad and wide experience in this field. Thank you.

And this specific role that you're taking for us, how many municipalities or I don't even know, states even, have you assisted in similar ordinances? I'm going to have to let Vanessa answer that question. I think she's got the exact count rather than I. Okay. Yeah. We have assisted at least, Scott says at least 12 over his career. And within the past, you know, six months, we've assisted two or now three, in fact, so throughout the country. And one other ordinance is the municipality as well.

Thank you, Vanessa. And back to Mr. McCullough. I know you've been on both sides of the telecom industry for a long time. Do you have an estimate of how many cases or ordinances that you've assisted in? How much of that experience recently has been specific to small cell wireless? Most of the applications these days are for what meets or is claimed to be a small wireless facility under the FCC rules. There are very few macros, macro towers, 50 feet or more being proposed.

They still come, but for the most part, it's small cells is where the game is being played right now. I would estimate 85 to 90 percent of the applications we touch involve small cells. Okay. Thank you very much. I have a question for our town attorney. Mr. Lasota, would it be a fair statement to say that lawyers can have different views on all kinds of other topics and still be an expert with small cell ordinances? Certainly, Mayor.

And the thing about attorneys is they obviously have ethical obligations to this council. So, I mean, they are your attorney. I'm your attorney, but so are they. I know we heard about a case that was won today, I think, by Justin Pierce, and he was your attorney, too. So all of them have ethical obligations to act as directed by you, and I think they're taken very seriously. Thank you very much. I wasn't insulting anybody or making a question about whether or not you're being ethical.

That wasn't my question. And thank you to the consultant. I appreciate the years of your expertise. However, it doesn't erase or fix the fact that we have questions. There is a questionable complex of law in the documents, questionable errors, questionable cut and paste with other jurisdictions, paragraphs, etc. So while your expertise on it, we still have questions about making this particular document fit in our unique town of Fountain Hills and have it be the right So, thank you very much.

Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to ask if we could take a few minutes to give my fellow councilwoman the opportunity to ask her questions. Okay, so I believe we have a motion and a second. Is that correct? Can we get a roll call vote, please? Sure. Councilmember Skillicorn. Yes. Councilmember Larrabee. Aye. Councilmember McMahon. Nay. Councilmember Calabianakis. Nay. Councilmember Watts. Aye. Vice Mayor Earl.

Aye Mayor Fridell Aye Motion passes 5 Thank you We now move on to regular agenda item 9B Rachel Thank you Mayor I going to pass this on to John Wesley again This is a companion item to this one we just finished So John Sure As mayor and council, as I mentioned earlier in the previous discussion, as part of adopting the small wireless ordinance back in 2018, it was accompanied by a number of other documents to help implement that ordinance at the time, a wireless facility lease agreement, the right-of-way design standards and guidelines, as well as the standard terms and conditions documents.

As part of this process, Vanessa and her team have looked through those documents for any updates that might be needed. We didn't identify any initially, but as we continue to look at how the ordinance is being implemented, there is a provision in that document. They need to be updated whether we make any other changes or not. And that is provision in section 6.9 that requires submission of hard copies and a certain number of hard copies of a document. We don't do hard copies anymore.

We do all electronic. And so this is simply updating that terms and conditions document to reflect that change in how we handle applications today, that they're all electronic. And so staff recommends approval of this resolution to make that change to the terms and conditions. Oh, sorry. So this is solely to change the application process to match updated website and make it electronic. That's all this is? Right. Thank you so much. I would like to make a motion to approve as written. Second.

Before we get that far, are there any comment cards? Town clerk? Yes, Mayor. The town received two online comments with a position of against, and one request to speak from Larry Myers, which he has declined now. Okay. Thank you. So we have a motion and a second.

John, I assume that some of the things that we discussed as far as the change to the ordinance, the inclusion of the, of the elimination of Board of Adjustments, Town Council, those sorts of things that are on my list I'm going to give you, will also be incorporated into the definitions such as the noise and a couple of other things here. So is that a fair assumption? Council member, we'll look at what all those would be and what makes for a complete accurate ordinance. Perfect. Thanks. Okay.

We have a motion and a second. Can we get a roll call, please? Council member McMahon. Aye. Council member Watts. Aye. Council member Skillicorn. Yes. Council member Calabianakis. Aye. Council member Larrabee. Aye. Vice mayor Earl. Mayor Fidel. Motion passes 7-0. Agenda item 9C is regarding possible sale of town owned parcels at various locations. Rachel. Thank you, Mayor. We are going to shift topics but not presenters. This is another John item. It's kind of a John Knight tonight.

As mentioned, back in December of last year, this council asked us to look into the potential of parcel sales based on potential town usage versus the ability to liquidate them. John has brought one back previously. He took a broader look at it and is bringing several back for consideration this evening. John? So, yes, Mayor. Thank you, Town Manager.

So, as was stated back in December 25, we received some direction to begin looking at this topic, various town parcels that weren't really needed by the town and could possibly be sold. We brought you one specific example back in March, and you directed staff to move forward with that particular parcel, and we're in that process. It's a little bit of a slow process, but we are at the point of getting the property surveyed and the plaque created so that those could move forward. forward for sale.

You at that time direct us to look at other properties and in doing so I've identified five others for discussion this evening to get direction on to see if you'd like us to move forward with any of these. So with that, go through them one at a time here and see what direction you have. So one is here on North Del Cambrai. It's a small area adjacent to a couple of lots. We acquired this property back in 97. It's above the floodplain.

No town department has identified any particular use for this property. Right now it's just something for us to maintain to some degree. It could easily be subdivided into two lots that would be of similar size to the ones adjacent to it. I don't know if you want to do any discussion as we go or wait to the end on each of these to get the direction, but we can do it either way. I think we'll let you get through with your presentation. Okay.

Then the next one is here off of Greystone and Sycamore. There's an area, again, that's above the actual floodplain of the lots there. The town acquired at 97. I've taken liberties to draw a shape on this map of what a lot might be if we move forward with this and get some actual survey work done. The shape may change a little bit, A little bit, but a shape of that size is comparable in size to the other lots in the neighborhood. It fits the zoning requirements.

But it's because of the zoning, only one lot really is all it would fit in this particular area. On Sunburst, along the south side there, we've got this area. We acquired in 1995. The town manager noted with this one, there is some consideration at one point in the past with the property owner in the area of WCW. of donating some, if I have the correct correct me if I'm wrong, potentially donating some of that vacant land to the southwest to the town and then maybe some of that becomes a park.

So maybe there would be a need for some of this land for access. But other than that, and that's a lot of ifs and maybes, there's no current actual planned town use for these lots and is of a size that it could be subdivided to four lots of similar size to those adjacent to along that south side of Sunburst. Moving to the other side of that wash there along Palomino, we have one lot of similar size to the other ones adjacent to it. Again, identified town use.

It's pretty steep, which is probably one of the reasons maybe it wasn't kept for a lot to begin with, but you can see the similar topography on the adjacent lots that they built. So again, there may be some opportunity there. Somebody might be interested in that lot. And then over on Aspen, upper Aspen, there's a track there along that wash that is above the floodplain.

Reviewed that carefully with a town engineer, and there's an area there that could easily be subdivided into three lots of similar size to the ones adjacent to it across the street. And those are the lots that we've identified at this point. So again, we're seeking council direction on any or all of these and moving forward in the process. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My preference would be to leave these as open space, so I'm not so excited about developing them.

So, from your perspective, John, there's no future value in keeping these lots? There's no use that you can perceive? Mayor, Council, that's correct, as we've looked at it from the town staff. There's no uses. It is open space for the neighborhoods, But developing for any specific use, active use, park use, no, there's no particular need. They're just some properties that we're maintaining.

Is there any way to, when and if they're sold, to have a condition that they have to retain their existing zoning? I would turn to the town attorney a little bit, but I would think that could be a stipulation of sale in the deed, that here's your zoning and it can't be changed. I think it's worth considering. Mr. Mayor and Councilmember Watts, I think that it could be included.

It's a contract for sale and I think conditions, I think there's maybe a question about how long you would want that for, but that's a, I would say, a council choice and if that's what you want to do, it could impact what you get for it, but that's up to the council.

I think there's a case to be made and if you go back to Log Lane for instance, and Log Lane wanted to subdivide that lot to 17 lots or so, I would hate to see something like that occur when the residents in the area have a certain expectation. So I'd ask that in consideration at least. Okay, thank you. First of all, thank you, John. I know that I was part of the difficulty on this, of asking you to go through one by one, and I really appreciate your diligence in that.

My fellow council member actually brought up my main concern, which was making sure that these lots would keep the zoning of the surrounding area. So it sounds like there is interest in that. That would be my direction on the topic, but otherwise that pretty much covers what I was going to say. So thank you.

Thank you Mr Mayor Yeah I think that a good idea There are lots of useless If somebody could turn them into productive lots of fountain hills I think it a great idea Maintaining the zoning a solid idea If we can manage we did put another one on I don think it been sold yet but if we can sell some of these vacant lots to fix roads buy lake liners or buy a new fire truck it a good idea So thanks John Thank you, Mayor. I just, I have three questions.

First one is why these lots, and maybe because you asked him to look into the lots for sale. My second would be the estimate of their value, and the third is what would the money be used for? So, Mayor, Vice Mayor, I can answer, I think, the first one of those. The others are beyond me. So, after getting the direction from the council back in March to continue looking, I did go through the map rather carefully looking for all the town-owned parcels and the ones that showed some potential.

And working with the town engineer, the public works director, identified those that were in the flood plain, so not possible. There were a few that had some deed restrictions that made them not possible, but was able to identify these five at this point, that showed the potential for being able to be sold. There may still be a few more if we take another look at it, but this is most of the ones that I could identify. As far as their estimated value, does anybody have any idea?

I have not done that yet. That will be a next step if the council gives us direction to move forward and have the appraisals done. Because I just, and then when we sell them, the money goes to wherever it goes in the pot. So I kind of have a feeling along with Councilman Skillicorn, I like open space too. So I'm just trying to see is it value for people in our town to have some open space or is it for us to sell and fill all the space?

Let me add that, so if you go back to the one where you said there was a park down on the back side, that was the one off of Sunburst, would there still be access if we sold all four of those, or would we need to take one of those and have access to the back side for a potential park? Mayor, so here's the track along the south side of Sunburst, that has potential for four lots, then there's also a lot over here on the next slide. Is that ours?

This is ours too, this is again the one on the next slide. So we would have access to if we wanted to park. So there's some more open space for you. But my point for all this was we've got a lot of road work to do. We've got a lot of expenses coming up. Fire truck, other budgetary busters that are sitting out there that, you know, these lots are in some really nice areas. I can't imagine they wouldn't be worth a pretty penny in this town.

And it would really give our budget some relief to be able to move on these and explore the I think if we give direction, find out what we're talking about in the way of value, then we have an idea. But we can get a lot of road work done with these lots and pay for other essential needs that benefit the whole town. We're sitting on these properties for 55 years and somebody said, well, maybe you want to save them for a rainy day. I think it's raining out right now when you look at our roads.

We need a lot of road work done in this town. So that's just my thoughts. That's just my thoughts. So I would be for giving direction to proceed with the process on this. Yeah, I don't know if we need a motion, but if we do, I'll move to proceed staff to go ahead with the sale. Yes. Who said second already? Peggy? She beat me to the mic. Didn't use your button. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Can we get a roll call vote, please? Sure, Mayor.

And I just want to let you know on this item, the town did not receive any comment cards or requests to speak. Okay. Councilmember McMahon. Aye. Councilmember Calabianakis. Aye. Councilmember Larrabee. Aye. Councilmember Watts. Aye. Councilmember Slidichorn. I like the idea of some zoning restrictions, but I would still be a no. Vice Mayor Earl. I didn't get a chance to ask the question. When you say move to approve this motion, this here says just one or more of the properties.

So are we just approving the sale of one or more of the properties? Probably more. I'm just asking what was the motion. Which what was the motion? Just one or two? One or two. Okay, yes. No, it's all. It just an exploration then What you just said explore To go through the process I guess my vote doesn't matter either way, does it? There's direction to go ahead. Pardon me? There's direction to go ahead. Okay, so direction to go ahead, I guess. Mayor Fidel. Aye. Motion passes six to one.

Thank you. Agenda item 9D regarding ordinance 26-14 amending the town code for short-term rentals. Rachel. Thank you, Mayor. Our short-term rental ordinance has been in effect for a number of years. It's based off of the The statewide adoptions that were done in 2022. We've now had a chance to sort of operate under our town ordinance. We have now sort of identified some of the loopholes, some of the areas where we can tighten it up, and also areas where we've had some stumbling blocks.

So John's going to present some changes that we'd like to make to this ordinance. Thank you, town manager, mayor. So yes, as stated, we've been implementing this ordinance now for a number of years. We've identified some challenges with it and opportunities for improvement.

And so staff's been working for about a year reviewing ordinances from other jurisdictions, state statutes and really what it says, what allowances and requirements really are there to propose amendments with the goals of addressing the problems and particularly approving the suspension processes I'll talk about a little bit later. So just stepping through the sections of the ordinance quickly and some of the changes that are in there.

So there were a few definitions that were added and a few deleted. Again, to better address some of the topics and challenges that we've had. Some changes in state statutes, such as the accessory dwelling units are now specifically mentioned in state statutes and when they can be used and not. We have people trying to do various types of activities that weren't clearly discussed in the code. So the banquet space event centers, those were put in there to make sure those were clear.

We have issues sometimes with the problem was not created by the person who rented the space, but a guest. And so we define a guest and then later put in some regulations for that. So those types of items, probably the most important one on this list really is the last one, the verified violation. So we'll talk about a little bit more later as we have tried to implement the ordinance and doing suspensions with existing homes.

We didn't really clearly understand at the time what a verified violation was. As it turns out, that's defined in state statute as a ruling by a court on either a criminal or civil matter. That creates that verified violation. So we added those definitions. Moving on to the permit section and penalties. There's a little bit of ambiguity in there. So we have situations that are unclear sometimes when a person is applying for a short-term rental permit. Are they really the owner?

Were they really authorized by the owner? Do we have multiple designees applying for permits at the same property and so forth? So try to clear that up and make it clear that each unit requires its own permit, that the permits are issued only to the owner, even if the designee applies for it on behalf of the owner, the permit will go to the owner and there's only one permit issued to an address.

And then we also clarified information regarding the role of a designee, that if there is a designee, that they are responsible right along with the property owner for implementing the permit and monitoring the conditions of the house.

We removed an item that we'll talk about again a little bit more, an attestation of notification that's in the current ordinance that requires that as part of registering a home, that you certify or attest that you have mailed a notice to all the property owners that are adjacent. And that's been a problem from the beginning, verifying that that has really happened. Then evidence of registration with the county, we had in there as an application requirement.

State statute doesn't really allow for that, so we took it out of the application, but it's still in the code, just moved to a different location. And then other requirements that were not in the state statute were removed. We did add some additional provisions to allow staff use of application information for enforcement purposes, Clarifying the owner's designee's role in the process, including when it comes to code compliance.

Permit revocation, allowing to immediately revoke if we find that they lied in the application, they didn't meet the requirements. We don't have to wait and go through another process. Then how to handle a reapplication after denial or suspension. Those items weren't in the current code. So again, this is directional how to handle those items.

In section 864 emergency point of contact requirements we cleaned up some of the language there for a better consistency and there was a provision dealing with violations that didn really fit And so we moved it to its proper place in the code In 865, we again worked to address some of the problems we've had with some of the homes in town. We've had the parties and activities that really weren't what we had in mind and would want to see in our neighborhoods.

And so we again, we cleaned up some of that language by defining some terms and clarifying what was meant. And so here we get to the one on the neighborhood notification again as mentioned. The code now requires the applicant to attest that they have sent notice to the property owners. They tell us they've done it, then we get property owners calling us saying, I never got a notice, how do I know they're there?

And part of that, the reason for that notice is so that not only does the neighbor know it is going to be a short term rental, but that gives them the name of the contact person and how to contact with a phone number and email. And so it really is a problem for the neighbors when they don't have that. So because of those problems, the state statute gives us another option, and that is to work with our provider to have a website where you can just go look at a map.

And so it is up and running now, as the town manager mentioned earlier. Here's the website. And if you go on the site, if you click on any of these dots, you'll get a box that'll pop up. It'll tell you who the owner is, who the designate is, and what the phone number and email address is. So if it's 2 o'clock in the morning, you realize you're having a party next door and you want to know who to call, go to the website and find out. You don't have to go through MCSO or anybody else.

Try to find that letter you got six months ago, what did it say, is it up to date? Then go right to the website. In H66 to H610, again, there were a few minor modifications. We had to correct the numbers because we took out a section, so you see that being a little bit different. But a couple of minor changes here in terms of the proof of ownership. The online marketplaces allow you the option to get your insurance that way, so if they provide proof they've done it that way.

That's more clear in the ordinance. And we updated the list of the prohibited activities. So the big change again was in the permit suspensions. You may be aware a year or so ago we had a home in town that was really having a lot of challenges with some activities that weren't appropriate for the neighborhood. And so we issued them some citations and then worked to suspend their registration.

In doing so, we found out that our code really didn't provide the tools that we needed to go through that process. So that was really one of the things that caused us to move forward with this. And so, again, we looked at other cities and towns, how they're handling it, as well as what state statutes allow us to do. and to develop this new section, B and C, in 611 to handle the permit suspension process.

Again, it needs to be clear that we get to this step only after there are verified violations. Verified violations mean they have been, they've received the citations from town staff, and we have worked with them, and it's gotten to the point where they've gone for a judge, and the judge has found them guilty or responsible for whatever it was.

So they've been through all those processes first and then at that point, in most cases it takes three of those before we get to the suspension, but there's some things that involve a felony that can go after one. So they've been through all that and then we can get to the suspension. And so it requires notification to the property owner and the designee to set the hearing and allows them some input on when that hearing would be.

And then the rest of the ordinance describes in detail that hearing process and who has responsibilities, how long they can take and those types of things. And ultimately the hearing officer after hearing all the information can decide if suspension is appropriate and issue a suspension for 3 to 12 months. 12 months is the maximum allowed through state statute.

And then through the rest of the ordinance 612 through 616, there are just some minor changes for some clarity and consistency of language, but no really substitute changes. So with that, Council, any questions you have for me with regard to this? John, do we have a third party that does this administration after hours? I know during the day, daylight hours, our code enforcement can. MCSO. MCSO does it afterwards?

And when they do process a server, like a process server, when they leave a violation, nobody's home, is there some sort of an affidavit that they fill out? So, Mayor, Councilmember, if Lieutenant Vance may need to come support me on this and we'll see. But typically what will happen is they will go and they will witness the activity. If necessary, they will shut an activity down and they will go to the next meeting. They will take a report. They provide that to code enforcement.

Code enforcement will be the one that actually follows up with any citations and on through any court processes. It just seems like historically there's been a lot of loopholes, either not answering the door, much like a traffic violation. I'd like to see if we can't close those. If we've got them covered already, then fine. I didn't know if we used third party in MCSO as a good third party. Thanks. Mayor, thank you.

I just wanted to take a pause and recognize John and his efforts in this because whether you recognize it or not, this has actually been a heavy lift for the staff because it's not just John, but it's our code enforcement, it's MCSO, it's our finance department and our business licensing. It was a lot of moving parts to get to this and to really identify where the problems were, how they could be fixed. And it was a lot of rabbit holes that we had to go down to get here today.

So I just wanted to thank the staff and everybody that was part of getting this proposed and before our council tonight. Just jumping in on that, thank you, the time management. Paul and Michael from finance, Michael in particular, he's good at finding those details and looking through. And help us work out a lot of those. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to move to approve the ordinance 26-14 amending town code article 8-6. I'll second. Are there any comment cards? There are not. Oh, I'm sorry.

There are two. First up is Crystal Cavanaugh followed by Larry Myers. I'll be very brief. Crystal Cavanaugh, Fontaine Hills President. I just want to state that I do appreciate the attempts to clarify these and make amendments to our short-term rental ordinance to meet the neighborhood needs. I love the insurance requirement, though. I mean, it's a no-brainer. Of course, it's a business within a neighborhood, and you should have insurance.

Just as when we had dialogue about transitional residences, group homes, it's logical. That is also a business within a neighborhood and it too needs insurance and I'm very glad that you guys passed that. Thanks. Next speaker, please. Larry Myers once again, council, mayor, and town attorney.

So I became aware of one of our nuisance creators with regard to the insurance provision on the community and transitional housing because we require insurance for those businesses just apparently just like we require insurance for this business that takes place. And so I just want to call attention to that item that took four years and had the insurance provision previously stripped out by a council before y'all, with the exception of two, took the dais.

So thanks for putting the insurance provision back into that one. Thanks for having the insurance provision in this one, because residents who are near these places They probably would really like to have the insurance, so thanks a lot. I appreciate it. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Can we get a roll call, please? Council Member Larrabee? Aye. Council Member McMahon? Aye. Council Member Skillicorn? Yes. Council Member Kalavianakis? Aye. Council Member Watts? Aye. Vice Mayor Earl? Aye.

Mayor Ferdell? Aye. Motion passes 7-0. Thank you. And the next item, John again, it looks like handbills. Rachel? Correct. Back in September, we brought forward some proposed changes for our handbill ordinance. This is the result of that direction. John? Hey, Mayor and Council, yes, back September 1st, we had a discussion. You gave us some direction, and the town attorney and I sat down and made some amendments to the code based on what we understood the direction to be.

First one was to get rid of the distinction between commercial and non-commercial handbills. So all treated the same. And the second was to allow all handbills then on occupied properties, if secured and not visible from the street. As we looked at that, we recognized a couple other little things we ought to include. So one is the code currently referenced is just U.S. Postal Service.

We got other delivery services and so forth today that weren maybe present at the time this was done before We also recognize there are times that code enforcement staff is posting property for street projects or whatever So we want to make sure there wasn any confusion that those were allowed So here is the ordinance as we are proposing it The portion about the handbills being secured was already in the code So we added a provision that the handbills are placed out of view from the adjacent public street or sidewalk So they can just throw a bag of rocks on the driveway or whatever with it in the code We've got to get it up under the mat or someplace where you can't see it from the door.

And then again, expanded the postal service to other common carriers and added the provision about posting property for government purposes. So that is the amendment that we hope is in concert with what the direction was from the council and like a recommendation for approval. I just wanted to make a motion to approve. Thank you so much, John, for your work. Second. Second. Second. Third. Do we have any comment cards? No, we do not, but I have a question. Who made the second? We did.

We just- Unified. Weissmere. Okay. Thank you so much. The flag goes to the vice mayor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thanks for your presentation. Thanks for upgrading that. I'm going to vote no on this. I'm going to repeat what I said last time when it came before the council. I think that all our seasonal visitors, some people call them snowbirds, would not appreciate people coming on the property and leaving a bunch of flyers on there.

and they will accumulate over time and they will be identified as a place that could be robbed because the people aren't there. Criminals are sophisticated. They target empty homes and we are facilitating that. I think this is a really bad idea. I think that the people should be home and accept the material or it should not be placed at the house.

And what I said last time is, you know, this is an item that I think all politicians should be recused from, and we shouldn't be voting on this because politicians running for office all want to put promotional materials on these people's houses. And so we all have an interest in this, maybe not fiduciary, but an interest in getting reelected. And so I would be a no on this. I had a question. If the entire council recuses themselves, how do we pass something? Thank you.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Can we get a roll call, please? Councilmember Skilicorn. Yes. Councilmember Larrabee. Aye. Councilmember McMahon. Aye. Council member Calavianakis. Council member Watts. Vice Mayor Earl. Mayor Fredell. Motion passes 6-1. Thank you. Moving on to 9F. This is our agenda item dealing with license plate readers. I think we turn this over to Alan. Sure. Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor.

I did ask to put this on the agenda because I wanted to balance the privacy rights of Fountain Hills residents and people who visit Fountain Hills, but also taking consideration law enforcement and making sure they have appropriate tools. And I had an opportunity to work with Jen Wright on this. She put together an initial ordinance. We went and sent that ordinance over to Senator Hoffman and a privacy expert, Eric Fowler, and made a few strategic changes to it.

And basically, I think this works out of balance. It protects the privacy of people, but it also gives law enforcement, which we love and we respect, the tools that they need to do their jobs. And Mr. Mayor, I'd like to thank you for your transparency on this and willingness to work on this. It is good to put this forward. And additionally, I know we met the public posting requirements. Actually, we had publicly posted for more time than what the state calls for.

But even a couple weeks ago I made sure that not only privacy activists but the people of Fountain Hills had access to the ordinance so they could read it themselves. And they actually had that for a couple weeks before it was even posted on our website. So yeah, that's kind of the details of it. I'm more than willing to entertain questions or go over the details.

Thank you very much I take exception to this being on the agenda tonight If you think about it council acts as a body It makes policy and acts on behalf of the town through action taken by a majority vote as required After proper notice discussion and consideration during a council meeting a majority of council members present are required to direct the town attorney to take an action including making policy including drafting ordinances initiating litigation or performing other legal administrative work.

And that direction must occur after proper notice and full public discussion of the matter before council takes action. Three council members acting individually cannot direct the town attorney to take such legal action. And that is precisely why executive sessions and properly noticed meetings are available when council actions are required. Accordingly the last meeting, three council people directed The council invited the town attorney to draft this ordinance in that direction.

It was improper and therefore the ordinance should not have been drafted or presented for council's consideration tonight. There's also a separate misuse of the process that taints this item. Council is required to discuss properly notice matters, particularly ordinances, as a body before taking action or direction the town attorney to perform legal work.

And in this instance even the mayor informed the council that this process has been misused and that procedural defect, it cannot be undone simply after the fact and by placing this on the agenda. And due to the improper way this item came before council, I don't think council should discuss it or consider it tonight. And in addition, there's a further problem. The matter that is noticed was noticed about automated license plate readers only.

The proposed ordinance, however, goes beyond automated license plate readers and includes privately owned recording devices located on private property among other provisions. These additional subjects were not properly noticed for council, regardless of Mr. Councilmember Skillicorn handing out this proposed ordinance that was misdrafted in my opinion.

The discussion or action on matters beyond what was properly noticed in the agenda violates open meeting laws, and I don't want to take that chance of that happening. For all these reasons, the improper direction to the town attorney, the misuse of the legislative and council process, the alert to properly notice the full scope of the proposed ordinance, and the fact that there is absolutely no direction for council to act in the notice and agenda item.

I don't believe council cannot discuss or consider this item. I think it needs to be removed from the agenda and taken up possibly at a later time. There is no direction. It's just like it was an afterthought and added and there's absolutely, you're not asking council to do anything with this. And it is improper for three council people to direct the town attorney to draft an ordinance. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.

I would like to move to adopt the ordinance as presented with the deletion of the entire whereas paragraph, referencing other jurisdictions that have taken similar action. My reasoning for that is I believe our ordinance should stand on its own merits based on what is appropriate for Fountain Hills. Second. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I've got concerns about the way this thing and the process by which this reaches tonight as well.

And I will allude to the mayor's email on this, but you know what they've managed to do here tonight is they can take three council members, direct the town attorney to write an ordinance. They can put that ordinance on an agenda and then without even discussion, except for a call to the public, they could call the question, have no debate. So it simply goes from three for future item, they write it, they call the question, and the public is completely kept out of the process.

That's unacceptable. When we put something on the future agenda, it should be agendized, the town manager should discuss it with the mayor, and we should open it up for discussion so people know what we're voting on. In this case, I don't know what notice Allen personally gave, but this is not a good process.

It bad public policy In the mayor letter he said last night it was requested that we have the town attorney or staff write an ordinance for flock cameras One example This is not how the process works We should have an open and transparent discussion first in the direction to staff and the town attorney for action I applauded the mayor for doing that We have the October 6th agenda flock cameras for discussion and direction After this happens and direction will be given to our council staff or the town attorney will follow the direction will follow up with action A vote.

We must be transparent and also have the public wing in as well. I thought that was a thoughtful statement. I thought it was well delivered. I thought it didn't make the newspaper. People saw that and it was just how things should be. We have we've just this is a bad process and I don't like it. And then the other thing I don't like is that this is once again with Mr. Skillicorn identifying a solution where there is no problem.

If I wanted to put a license plate reader or camera on public property, I would be prohibited from doing it. Anybody would be prohibited from doing it. You just can't do it. It can't be done. And so if law enforcement wants to put flock cameras, they want to talk to the council, talk to the manager, talk to the mayor, I would be willing to do that. And there's a lot of cases that can be made for flock cameras in law enforcement.

There are also significant privacy issues too, but that's a discussion that we should have. And so anyway, I'm going to vote no for this. I think it's nonsense. I don't like the process, but where I got here, and I don't think it addresses any issue whatsoever. Thank you. I'm going to ask the town manager to weigh in on this because I think there's a misconception. Our code of procedure actually does allow it to happen this way.

If we don't want that in the future, my suggestion is we need to change the code of procedure So that it comes for discussion first, direction is given, and then an ordinance is written. Yes, I did send the email because I felt that we needed to discuss it. Well, it got out into the public, I don't know how many weeks ago. But anyway, Town Manager, would you like to weigh in on that with me? I can certainly do that. I have our rules of procedure pulled up, but I don't have that specific item.

However, in our rules, it does indicate that three, a council member with the support of two more, can agendize something for action. It does not require it to be brought back for discussion. So there is a technical difference there. I believe it was specifically brought forward by council member Skillichord for action, if I recall, based on my review of the meeting. In the town attorney to do something, that's not putting it on an agenda. That's something completely different.

And the League of Cities requires the body to act on something like that. And in fact, our rules do say it requires a quorum. So this is misuse of the process, period. I can't speak for Jen Wright. I know she was here. That's why I don't want to speak for her. However, it's my understanding that she took the initiative to say that she reports to each of you individually and took that direction. No, she doesn't. She reports to us as a body. I know that for a fact.

I can certainly let our new attorney chime in if he'd like. However, those are the rules that I'm looking towards in terms of our procedures. If we would like to change that language so that items are brought forth, brought back at a discussion before action, we can certainly make that amendment in our rules of procedure. From the other perspective, did you want to chime in, Tim? Tim Stenzel, Sure.

I also reviewed the rules of The procedure and it does allow three members to bring it straight to the body. If there's an objection to that, it should be- Can you show me where that is? I can. Because I think we're saying that they have a right to agenda-ize something. They don't have the right to direct substance like that and setting policy. That's a big difference. Mr.

Mayor and Councilmember McMahon, I think that the staff, including town manager, town attorney, and the staff, I mean, I think they are here to assist. You know, I think at some point, and this is something that I think every municipality has to wrestle with, and I think Phoenix actually has a dollar limit on how much staff time you can occupy by one Councilmember. I mean, if you came to me and asked my help to write an ordinance that you want to present to council, I would say sure.

And I think that is consistent with the, well, I think it's a courtesy that would be a full-time, I mean, the same as sometimes you ask the town manager for maybe to do a little research for you on something. I mean, I think individual requests do have their place, as long as they're fairly limited. I know, but you're basically saying that only three council members are needed to set policy and direct that policy be drafted up. That is totally against the Arizona League of Cities and Towns.

I don't see any rule that says that's possible. That's completely different than what's required a quorum. We act as a body. And yes, it was agreed that three people can put an item on the agenda. That's it. That's all they can do. And this is going far beyond that. And it's irresponsible. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So the motion that was made, I would consider that a friendly amendment and support it. And furthermore, there's a little bit of discussion.

I actually kind of reading between the lines because really the discussion isn't has anything to do with anything of substance. The ordinance was agendized within the, not only the letter of the rules, but the spirit of the rules. There's precedence for this. I have introduced many ordinances. Some of them I've wrote 100% on my own. Some of them I've employed like Goldwater Institute to help me draft. We're not the bill of water institution. This is not the first time I've done this.

And even though that was a rude interruption, I've drafted hundreds of pieces of legislation when I was a legislator. That's not the issue before council. So on that point, I'd like to make a motion to call the question. I don't think they should move forward. I'll second that. Poor legal advice. Once the, if they got a motion and a second. We have a roll call vote please on the call. Town attorney, should we handle the public comment first? Mr.

Mayor, I would hear from public comment first and then a call to the question is obviously a privilege motion which would be in order at that time. Okay. Comments, please. Yes Mayor The town received three online comment cards with the position of against and two requests to speak First up is Larry Myers followed by Carol Rogala The last.

Mayor, Council, I would recommend, first of all, I wouldn't purport to know these rules, So I'm not going to speak to whether Councilwoman McMahon is correct or incorrect, but it would seem to me I'm a simple guy. And heck, this issue's only been around for 10 minutes, two weeks. We take up issues for four weeks, two months, five years.

If you want to make Councilwoman McMahon happy, Why don't you guys table this and then bring it back for discussion and possible action and then Councilwoman McMahon's happy. Councilwoman, Councilman Skillicorn gets his thing in front of you guys and then you can vote on it and that seems to be a common sense logical thing that I would do after I've heard this since I don't know all of the details. But you all decide and that's all I have to say on the issue.

But I do support, I'll be back to support it when it gets voted on. And so if I were, if you're doing it tonight, I support the ordinance. Thank you. Council and Mayor, Carol Rogala, resident. Now I guess there's a question as to what's going to even happen tonight, but I am speaking in favor of this ordinance, the reason being the automated plate readers, because they have video, the video is attached to AI services.

It's a violation of Article 2, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution, which is the private affairs clause and says no person shall be disturbed in his private affairs or his home invaded without authority of law. The other issue is Scottsdale has 85 of these, and they have a big war going on. This is being brought up in their city council meeting tonight.

So I think it was very prescient of Ellen to do this and nip this in the bud before we had any And then the other thing was just last week on the 1st a federal judge in Oklahoma ruled evidence submitted from a flat camera is inadmissible because it was an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment So, going along with some of the conversations I've heard tonight about people being worried about being sued for various things, that is something that is a concern.

And so I'm speaking for it and I hope that maybe you should table it and do what the other suggestion was, but I'm for it. Thank you. Okay. Question for the town attorney. In order of priority, does calling the question get superseded by anything like tabling the question? Mr. Mayor and Councilman Watts, it gets preceded by a motion to table or something like a motion to adjourn would have precedence over call the question, things like that. I'm in favor of it.

I'm in favor of what the industry has done with them is violation of the of the Fourth Amendment and other things. So I want to see if we can't find a common ground. And frankly, I didn't go and didn't read this. I thought it was discussion, not possible action. So I would make a motion to table the question. Sorry, Alan. I'd second. So we have a motion to table and we have a motion in a second. I'm sorry. Can we get a roll call vote on that? Sure. Councilmember Watts? Aye.

Councilmember Skillicorn? No. Councilmember Larrabee? The wording of this was in our agenda. We're in a public meeting right now. I vote no. No Council member Calabianakis Aye Council member McMahon Aye Vice mayor Earl No Mayor Fridell I in support of this but I also in support of tabling so we can have further discussion So I yes Motion to table the item passes 4-3. All right, we'll move on to the call to the public. Mayor, we have no one. Council directions to the town manager.

Anybody have anything? I've got a couple of things. Town manager, we're going to turn the fountain blue on October 7th in recognition of the memorial for the attacks in Israel. So that will be October 7th. And then the other thing I wanted to get on the public record was that Rick pulled his support for the Sharia law conversation or agenda item. So we will have discussion and direction on October 20th for that item. So that'll be forthcoming.

Just for clarification, if he pulled his support, would that only be too supporting? That's correct. So under my authority, we took it from an action item to a discussion. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Yeah. Thank you. My question is then what was just tabled, when does that come back? The next meeting? Okay. Now we have future agenda items. Does anybody have anything they want to put on a future agenda? You can ask that question. Can we get to light up the fountain pink?

I'm certain we can find a date to make that work this month. Thank you. Motion to adjourn. All in favor? Aye.