Paradise Valley council continued a controversial solar structure amendment after community opposition to height and notification issues, approved routine lodge renovations, directed staff to phase out the fire service fee into the general fund, and decided to sunset the police alarm monitoring program

Thank you for joining us. The meeting is now called to order. Would the clerk please call the role? One moment, please. That sounded like There we go. There we go. All right. Mayor Stanton here. Vice Mayor Leel here. Council member Andy Keller here. Council member Leapman here. Council member Moore here. Council member Pace here. Council member Thomasson here. We have a quorum. Thank you, Mr. Miller.

As a reminder, this meeting is being livereamed on the internet and will be archived in the town's website for future viewing. There are no scheduled executive session items today, but the council may adjourn at one time or another during the meeting to receive legal advice from the town attorney regarding items on the agenda. Executive sessions are not open to the public. That moves us on to our study session.

Uh the these items are scheduled for discussion among council staff and their designates. Votes will not be taken on any of these items at this time, but will be scheduled for final action later in the meeting or at a future meeting. Members of the public are asked to hold their comments until call to the public scheduled to begin shortly after 6 p.m. Public comments are also be invited when an agenda topic is placed on a future agenda for action.

The first item is the discussion of the fire fund service fund and it will be presented by our CFO Leslie Dash. Thank you. Apologize for the delay from the last meeting. I would uh advise everyone that I'm trying to keep as close to our study session time aotment. So uh we have 60 minutes for this and Mr. Rush, take it away. Thank you. Um so I have brought forward the fire service fund a couple times previously. Um, but the council has requested more information and more history.

So, I'm going to try and give that to you tonight. Um, so yeah, in the 2026 study session, I presented information on it. And generally, the fire service comes up during the budget cycle. Um, but we're doing this outside of the budget cycle. Um, so some of the different things that council asked were um just some of the history of the fee, what our annual expenditures are, collection information, and a budget impact. And so I've tried to capture all that information in this presentation.

Um, so I am going to ask for council direction um just to give direction or some kind of guidance on how they want to move forward with the fund because it is um continuing in an ongoing deficit. Um so we're going to cover the history, the annual expenditures, collection information, um author options for fee escalators, and um just various options that the council can take or direct uh to address the deficit. Okay.

So fire um prior to having this uh fire service agreement and the fire service fee, the town of Paradise Valley um uh contracted with private companies, individuals would pay the private company directly and the town wasn't directly involved in it. Um and then the town entered into an agreement with the IG uh an IGA with the city of Phoenix to provide the fire service. And the idea behind this is that it would uh be more efficient and less costly for the residents.

Um originally um when it first entered into this agreement, the fees were paid out of the general fund and then they transitioned to a dedicated sales tax, but that sales tax uh grandfathered or um expired. And at the time that that sales tax expired, the council um looked at various options to replace that tax. Some of the options they looked at were starting a fire service district, doing a fee, property taxes, just various ways to pay for the fire service fund.

Um they eventually decided on a fire service fee and that's what we adopted and that's what we've been doing ever since. Um, so I did, um, at the time they adopted the fee in 2013, the costs were about $3 million, and the fees were set to recover that cost. So it would be completely cost recovery. Um, and it was set up to be business-like in an enterprise fund because the idea at the time was that it would be self-funding.

Um, so at the time they also decided to split it between residential, non-residential, and vacant land according to the percentages that were currently in place. Today, that percentage remains the same. The fees have not changed. It's been the same since 2013. However, the costs have gone up significantly since then. revenues have increased a little bit, but not enough to cover the cost.

And the reason why I keep bringing this up and why it's brought up in the budget every year is we do have a financial policy that says that enterprise funds will set rates and fees in order to recover their costs. Now, um, and it's not doing that. Um, and so just by default, the general fund is subsidizing. So, um, and that's why I keep bringing it up. Um so we have a history and you can see around um 2018 is when they first started going into a deficit but they still had a fund balance.

Uh but eventually in 2021 they ran out of fund balance and then they started going into negative and that's when the general fund had to start subsidizing the fire service fund. And it was brought to my attention by one of the council members that there was a discussion in 2017 during a study session.

Um the town manager at the time was considering lowering the fees um and it was discussed in council session and the decision at council at that time was to um and then they found out that Phoenix was raising its cost by 12% and that it would push it into a deficit faster and so they decided uh not to raise the fees or lower the fees at that time. So um that's just something that came out in a study session. So no change was made at that time.

Um, so I put in the annual expenditures over the five years. By far the biggest cost is our IGA with the city of Phoenix. Um, there are some other uh costs, but that's the biggest portion of of what we're paying every year. And if you have any questions during the presentation, stop and we can discuss or we can go back. Um, so back here I took the Phoenix line from this one and I broke it down to the different portions of the contract that we're paying for.

Again, the biggest cost is staffing by far. Um, so for somebody had asked about collection information. Um, so we currently are billing for all of our enterprise funds. Um we have a single person in finance department and we allocate that person's time off to um less than half off to alarm. Um and then there was questions about the aging and our collections are running about we have maybe 2.4% outstanding. So we have we do really good with collections. That's really hasn't been an issue for us.

Um, so a fee escalator. So it was brought up that we could raise the fees and maybe put something in place that said if we raise the fees, we could put something in place that said increase the fees annually to cover the percentage increase in the contract. And we could do language like that. We'll get to some of these options later on.

The only caution I would say is um that could create a lot of volatility because some years it's not very much and some years it's really high and I think it would be I would recommend doing something that's a little bit smoother for the residents if we were to um put in some kind of a and we could do that too. We could do an average or something else to do that. So when we get to the options we'll talk a little bit more about this.

Um so the main options to address the deficit or to do nothing continue subsidize the fire service fund um with the fire service or with general fund revenues and this is okay but if we do it I just would like council directions to say we're going to freeze the fees and we're going to subsidize it. We'll still be supporting with a known factor and actual direction instead of by default to subsidize it. That's an option. that's a valid option.

Um, but we would have to just kind of override our own internal policy to uh keep fees to cover costs. Um, we could eliminate the fee and absorb the whole thing into the general fund and that would currently cost us about $4.5 million a year. We're currently collecting about $3 million a year in revenues. So, um, it's an option. And then, of course, a third option would be to raise the fire service fees to cover the cost of the program. And there's a lot of different ways to do that.

It could be a one-time increase. It could be staggered over several years to soften the impact. We could include an escalator. Um, there's options for the escalators, too, like I discussed. We could do um something that's kind of averaged out. They're average increases or something like that. Um really there's a lot of options to address this and I'm just looking for council direction on how they would like me to proceed with this fund.

So with that I also put in this table and it looks like it's maybe not showing the whole table in here. Um this is one I had brought up in a previous study session and to bring it to cost recovery at the time it would have been a 67% increase and that would have included enough funds to set aside for capital purchases and also to bring the fund balance up because another financial policy we have is that we should have 90 days of reserve and we don't have that right now.

So, the idea would be to have that fund stable enough that there's a 90-day reserve and that we could also make capital purchases when we need to. Um, and I do have a model of this that we could play with uh different fees and um see what the impact would be and what the revenue would be as we increase the fees. But this is keeping the structure exactly the same as it was set up but just increasing it. Okay.

So that's all I have for the presentation and now if you guys want to discuss it and ask me any questions I'll try to answer them the best I can. Thank you Mr. Rush. Appreciate that. Uh just just out of curiosity whatever direction is given tonight uh obviously would translate to potentially an action step that we may take but anything that we would be uh it wouldn't be whatever if there was a change wouldn't be effective until following the next budget cycle.

So um if we were to say we wanted to adjust the fees, we would have to go through the regular fee process which includes public hearings. So it would be a process and if you wanted to increase the fees, I would bring you recommendations and options that you could look at and discuss how you want to raise the fees. So it wouldn't be an overnight thing. Yes. Thank you. All right. Uh let's begin with some feedback from my colleagues. Council member Pace, I think you had your hand up. Thank you.

So, this is something that some of us, a couple of us on council have lived before. Um, in 2017, uh, the mayor and council member Moore and I had a deep dive with our mayor at the time, Michael Collins. Um, and we had a really deep and good discussions. And, uh, one of the things at the time was, um, the mayor at the time had um, been advocating to give the money back to the residents because that was sort of a informal promise by council and public policy to try to do that.

Um, and so we held the line at that moment. It wasn't the time. There wasn't, the delta was not there for hotel revenues to do that. And that's why some of us held the line to say, "Hey, let's we understand it. We'll always respect that." But it wasn't the right moment to take it over 100% or a part of it. Um, so not everyone has to do that. Every, you know, council can do what they want. But at the time, that was the comments that I recall.

And I, you know, I have been an advocate for a long time that, you know, as a town, public safety is what we pay for. We don't charge for police on a separate fee. We don't charge for other things. We're supposed to be taxfree. This really is a tax. Let's be real. It's a tax on our residents. We may not have a property tax, but we have a fee tax. Um, when it's able to, I would like the town to absorb it all. I don't think we should be charging our residents. I never did. But we're not ready yet.

And I think when the next two hotels come online, um, we have the opportunity to do that and budget for that and cover it. Um, and that's just one person's perspective, but I I think it's something that most towns and municipalities pay for their fire for the residents. Um, they don't charge them. It's something that we've done because of the timing of having to transition from rural metro to this and we were already as residents paying for rural metro back in the day. We all did that.

Um, so I would hope that, you know, I don't see to do any change tonight from my perspective. I think this is a good thing to look back on until we get enough revenue for the next two hotels to come online. Um, and we see what happens. We'll have the money if the what is it called? Whatever the proposition goes through force, I don't even remember the name. The one for the expenditure limitation. Thank you. Thank you, Council Leon.

So, if the expenditure limitation goes, we're going to be able to afford to pay back our residents instead of keep putting it in the bloated reserve fund. So, we had money there that we can adjust just like we've been doing with the pension fund. We wait till we have enough money and we pay things off and we we took care of that and did a really good job and we're fiscally good about that. So, I would like to see us pay all of it at some point.

Um, so the residents don't have to keep paying this particular tax. It was necessary. It's necessary today, but I don't think forever and I think the future is coming close when we'll be able to take and handle that. Um the part about costs and staffing um when you say staffing is the biggest cost that's not our staffing at PB, right? That's the Phoenix staffing from an IGA. That is correct.

That's what we pay the contract which we negotiate hard about and we work on and um we have experience with all of us and the professionals that that negotiate that each time. Um we keep good relationships with Phoenix over that and the firefighters have been amazing and they really do an excellent job for the mountains we have. It's a unique, you know, area to have to service. So, that's been going well. We have to keep negotiating that. The one concern um that I heard, was it two nights ago?

Um is that with the No Surprises Act and the drama with that and the cost of it's going everywhere, they're saying to project for cities and municipalities a 6 to9% increase in medical costs, which is going to be our town, which is going to hurt us for our expenditure costs as it is. And then it's also going to come through on the Phoenix because we get floated with some of those fees. I don't know when we buy the next firetruck. I know we have to do that every so often.

That's another reason we needed to have, you know, the expenditure limitation raised. Um, I would like to hear a little bit about the collections. So, we talked about that in 2017 and I love that you brought all this stuff up. I think it's great to see all this. It's good. We need to pay attention to it. This is a big cost to our residents and us, but what is going on with collections and how do we get them back? Because we talked about this in 17. So, how do you collect?

There's like 80,000 a year or something you guys are always chasing. 70 to 80 or something. Is that um It varies. We um just do general collections due diligence. Yeah. Um just like any normal collections. Uh where we end up with some uncollectible accounts is generally when people have moved away and it becomes difficult to try and collect. But we have a very a relatively small amount of uncollected amount. Do you do leans to preserve rights after like HOAs do? No, we do.

We can I don't think we can do lean for fire service fees. Can we call our alert? Uh, Mr. Mayor, council member, there's nothing in the statute that permits a lean for this. So, you would have to go exercise judicial action to get a judicial lean and then impose that lean if you were going to do it. So, if we have 5,200 homes and they just choose to stop paying it, little silent strike, then we just what do we do? If we're not if we're not collecting them, that's kind of a weird comment.

So, how do we how do we collect and make this so people actually participate and pay the fee because that's not fair to others who pay it and then we run short of money. So, out of over $3 million we have outstanding $80,000. So, how many homes does that represent? I I'm not sure but we're looking at like maybe $600 per year and it could be several years and most of those ones are people who have moved away.

So it's it's from my perspective 95% and higher in collection rate is considered very good for municipality. So it's not really high on my priority list to you know be more aggressive with collections. Um generally speaking people pay their bills here. So that's just yeah well I'd be interested to see I'd like a little drill down just for me on how many homes are we talking about? What's the timing? What do we actually do to collect with automated AI today?

It's so easy to collect and do things and then what the consequences are if people don't start paying. So, you know, I Yeah, because that's the same number we had in I think it was 70,000 in 2017. If I if I go back and look, it was in that same range. So, curious. All right. Anyway, but those are my perspectives. Thank you for listening. Thank you, uh, Council Member Leeman. Thank you, Mayor.

I am wondering whether we want to wait a month or two to see what happens with respect to proposition because I agree with council member Pace. I do believe that the town of Paradise Valley should be covering even though we are fiscally conservative and small government. fire safety is essential and it's a lot more than fire because it it is also of course the ambulance and the EMTs and all that.

Um I also did some quick math and look that we spend $42,000 a year on billing, $297 on internal administration. I assume that's for collections. Yeah, it's on slide 13. Little tiny number there. Yeah. 2,297,000 on admin which which is I assume is collecting and overhead of the staff and then so that would be $339,000 we would save a year if the town just paid the bill without the administrative cost and overhead of having the collections.

Not only that, but every citizen who pays, it's another bill and it makes no sense and we can't even deduct it like we would if it were a real tax. Um, so and then if we add the 80,000 in uncollectible, we're over $400,000 that we could save next year alone if we moved this into being paid for by the town. I to me police and fire and ambulance are totally essential. So let me So then I had a question.

When you said absorb into the general fund, this would have to come out, it would need to be budgeted each year and come out of our general budget. So it would essentially increase our general budget by approximately $5 million. Um assuming that we weren't making up the shortfall already, right? So, um I want to address what you said first about saving. Uh there would be no savings to the town.

We'd still be spending that same amount on staff time and everything else because we're still doing the same things we'd be doing. We're not going to fire our utility billing person because um the fund isn't paying for it. I don't understand that. What other utility billings? Water. We don't have water. Water, alarm, and fire. Or sewer. I'm sorry. Sewer, alarm, and fire. Oh, and I have I don't have sewer.

Okay, we're gonna But just saying I don't think it'd be like a savings to the town, but it would be just a savings for this fund. But that's understood because we are going to be talking about alarm also. That's next. Yes. Um and so the savings or the amount it would be to the general fund now would be the $3 million that we're collecting in revenues because we're already paying the difference. So that would be the increase. And but what about the um the the Where'd it go?

The banking and the billing. That's $42,000, right? So that if somebody pays their bill online, Yes. they would not have to be paying their bill online anymore. And plus we would have zero uncollected amounts. Yes. Um so negative contract. I also had one other thought from earlier discussions and this is my last point is right now I understand that the firefighters we have in Paradise Valley are highly experienced and at the top end of pay because it's considered somewhat of a plum position.

I'm wondering and that is the largest expense in the contract. I'm wondering if when we look at renegotiating the contract, we negotiate a mix of seniority so we don't get stuck with the highest level. And that's the end of my comments. If I may, thank you. Yes, please. The only consideration there is the Phoenix Fire Department's U seniority bidding policy since they can shift bid based upon their years of service.

Then more experienced firefighters typically are the ones who get the priority bidding. I I mean it's something we could explore with them the next time we run we we we go through negotiation, but that's that's why that's the case. And my understanding is that previous to the last time it was amended, which would have occurred prior to my starting here, there was a shift from an average firefighter salary to actuals. So the a the actuals as I assumed was people want to work here.

So therefore we probably already had experienced firefighters. We were just paying for the average firefighter. So if you're suggesting that maybe for future negotiations we might want to look at that. We can. I'm just letting you know that that those pre-established policies would operate throughout the entire department system. And I'm not sure how we would be able to carve out but we can look at it. Just wanted to say that. Understood. Thank you. Sure. Council member Andy Keller.

Uh thank you mayor. Um I too echo the same comments uh as my two colleagues. I do have some questions. Um if you could go to the when we started acrewing the deficit. Yeah. Um so I believe in 2023 if my memory serves me correctly is when we bought the new firet truck. And so that was the million dollars because I know it was like a a million dollars. Yes, we purchased a firetruck in 2023. So that was our what started our big uh downfall.

Um now I know I remember from those discussions that we were able to prolong the time of replacement for the firetruck because they don't drive as many miles as other firetrs and other municipalities. Is that still the same today? And what is the schedule for replacement of fire trucks?

Um so actually um city of Phoenix keeps the replacement schedule um but we it is a relatively new uh useful life is usually 10 years on the fire trucks but it depends on use and uh technology and a lot of other factors. I have uh reached out to them to get a schedule but I don't have it right now. Okay. And so I think that we trade off time. So next time it would be them would purchase purchase the fire.

Um, when I read the contract, it it said that they would buy the first one, we'll buy the second one, and then afterwards, we alternate. Yes. Okay. Uh, okay. Just wanted to make sure on that. Um and then if you go to the next page, oh my other question on the fire trucks is um since it is a a capital uh expenditure, would it be able to come out of if that proposition is approved, do it come out of the capu capital accumulation fund? It's not a project.

It's I would think I would guess no, but I would have to check. Yeah. Yeah. But also the thing with the firet truck too and you're looking at the expenditures. It's a capital asset and so we actually allocate those expenditures over the useful life of the truck. So you're not seeing the whole thing at once, right? Yeah. Um Okay. My next question was um for if you can go to the next slide.

Uh the banking and billing I have talked about this since I've been on council for eight years is uh merchant services fees. Uh I I don't think anybody's ever done anything, but um I would look into it because uh banking fees, I was in banking for 25 years and uh merchant services, you can negotiate rates and that kind of thing. So I would I've been harping on it for eight years. So I have three council meetings left, so I'll continue saying it for the next three.

Um and then my next question is uh non-cash expense. What is that? That would be depreciation and um it's one other item, but it's mostly depreciation. Okay. That's what I thought. Yeah, that's a depreciation. Yeah. So, right now we have a building depreciation and the the firetruck depreciation built into that. Right. Right. Um, and then I was reading the minutes of the 2012 uh council meeting uh where they talked about um uh not having residents pay for the fire service fee.

It says, "Mayor Lamar stated that this action is the culmination of a process that started in April 2011 to solve a structural deficit when the council entered into an intergovernable intergovernmental agreement with the city of Phoenix for fire and emergency services. The town was collecting more revenues than at any time in history. the council decided to replace the subscription fee service residents had historically played to rural Metro with revenue from the general fund.

Um, and then it says goes on to say it was assumed that at the time that the resorts would end up uh helping us to pay for this, but um that kind of is where we're at now. Yeah. So, um uh I I support I hope that the because I know if we uh bring this into the general fund, it'll affect our um expenditure limitation capabilities. No, no, because we it's already included in the expenditure limitation, right? Okay. Oh, okay. Because it's an enterprise fund. Okay. All right. Good.

Um and so well, that all works out. So my thought is to see what what happens and um I don't support I think that this whole fire service fee should go away in my opinion. So I will yield from there. Thank you. Other comments council member Moore Thomasson. Thank you mayor. I have a question. Mr. Rush. There's a schedule up there and I apologize I can't find the page but it shows the number of homes in each of the different size categories. Thank you Mr. Ching.

Um I think there's so that shows residential, non-residential and vacant. Somewhere in the materials I saw the number of homes in each size category. So in residential we have three different size categories. We do and small, medium, and large. I think you're looking at the fee schedule maybe. Oh, and here it is. Oh, we don't have the counts on this, but yeah, we do have three different fees. I thought at one time we did have a count.

Anyway, I would be very interested in getting an updated count on how many doors we have in each one of those three categories because I think it's shifted quite a bit. So, if we think about if we decide to change the fees, it would be interesting to know the number of households that we increase the fees for. And I know that the document I saw listed as a source the county assessor's website which shows the size of homes on that.

So, um I don't mean to do staff work, but I'm sure there's some smart AI manipulation that could take the county assessor's database and come up with number of home size in each of the different categories. So, if it's not too much work, I'd be interested in seeing that. Um, relative to my opinion on what we should do, the first thing you said was that we have a policy that enterprise funds will recover costs.

So if we keep this as an enterprise fund, my position is that we should have it pay for itself. I don't think it we need to come up to balanced immediately. That would be quite a a cost shock as you identified, but I do think it should be a self- sustaining fund. I do not support fire service being funded out of the general fund.

Um, if we right now if we change if we took if we started paying $3 million a year that we weren't paying now in 10 years, which is not a very long time, that's $30 million. So that means we just sit here and gave away $30 million. If I look at $3 million a year, which would be the incremental cost if we paid everything, $3 million a year in revenue would not even be funded by one Ritz Carlton whenever that may come on board.

So I agree that our financial picture will change when the two new resorts come on. We have one that is dirt and we have one that's in bankruptcy. So, we are probably two plus years away on our best day from revenue from future resorts and the new resort revenue balance just isn't there. We were founded as a limited government small town and being fiscally conservative and being small government has been one of our hallmarks.

And right now we have a fire service fee that I don't think residents are objecting to pay for. I have not heard one I think in nine years on council and literally thousands of doors I've knocked and probably a million resident interactions, I've probably had less than 10 comments about the fire service fee. So I don't think it's an issue for our residents. I think if we doubled the cost, we'd hear about it, but I don't think it's an issue.

Um, I also don't believe in the concept of a bloated reserve fund. We have a healthy reserve fund. It throws off a great deal of interest for us. Not only does it throw off $6 million a year in interest for us, which is larger than state shared revenue, that interest is not subject to our expenditure limit. So there is a lot to be said for keeping our reserve fund where it is.

We should not be ashamed of growing it and I am not in favor of fully funding the uh fire service fee relative to what we should do. My current thinking is we should increase the fire service fee over time to get it to be self- sustaining. Whether or not we want to preund a balance I don't have a thought about. I think we should think creatively about how we allocate that money. I found it notable that although it's a fire service fee, 97% of the costs go to medical services.

Medical services are offered on a per person basis, fire protection is offered on a price per square foot basis. So something I would just like to consider put in our creative thinking hats is if we vary it by size of residents or if we make it one flat fee for all residents. The downside to that is the smaller homes generally with older residents potentially less capacity would see the greatest increase. So I don't like that but I just want us to think creatively. I think that's it for now.

Thank you mayor. Absolutely. Council member Moore. Thanks, Mayor. Oh. Um, well, I'll just start off by saying I've run three campaigns and I've vowed in every single one of them that I would not support a property tax. And this is a property tax. If we didn't have a fire service administrator, which is our town manager, which we just approved at our last council meeting to extend that contract, you wouldn't be able to call it a fee. This is really a tax is what it is.

And I'm glad I'm in the majority of my council members who have run on the same thing that they do not believe in a property tax in the town of Paradise Valley. The question I have is so when on the itemized I similar to others that but I tell me who why the $300,000 for admin who is that how do you allocate that and whose whose salaries are those and how many people are working on just this fire service fee that it would be 300,000 annually.

Um there's more than just salary in there but a big portion of that is salary. It's part of the utility billing. It's part of the finance team. Can you tell me how many people are how many people are working on that? How many people work on the billing? I think it's 300,000. So, is there It's not just billing. I have to do the financial statements for it every year. We There's a lot of work that goes into maintaining the fire service fund, administrative work.

So, if you want a detailed analysis of what all that is, I can provide that. But not tonight. I didn't go into that much detail. I did go and look into the allocation. It is mostly staff. Is our town manager uh part of He might have a little bit of time in there. I think there's a little bit of legal in there. How much does he work on the fire service fee? How much time's allocated from our town manager on that? I think it's based on some percentage.

I think it's a small percent or something like that. Yeah. But the salary is not small. I mean, so any percentage is is large. Um, and I do support, and it was one of the questions I had as well, is um, and we do contracts with the city of Phoenix. So, I don't understand why we can't put in there that we would like a better blend of people. If I was a firefighter in Phoenix, where would I want to go? Town of Paradise Valley.

It's a really nice gig, the nice stations, and uh, not as many calls as you would get in downtown Phoenix. So I mean I would I would be here as well. So I think it's something that if we negotiate a contract, we can put anything we want in a contract. They may not accept it, but it's certainly the answer is and there was enough support from the council that that's something we should look at. And I think that there's a majority on the council that supported that.

So that's what I would like to see moving forward because I support that as well. Um, and then, um, when we have the three allocations on there for square footages of homes, when a home goes from 3,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet, who who looks at that and then who bumps up the fire service fee? And has that been happening? I think it happens when the property I'd have to check, but I believe it happens when the properties change hands.

Do we know is there someone in the room here who is part of the administrative that works on that that would know that answer?

I would have to I don't know if Katherine's still here, but she does the utility billing, but I think it usually comes when I mean, do we know the the policy of how we change that fee when the house goes from So, we have not never changed the fee and we've never done a study like we could hire somebody to go or have somebody go and uh pull the Maricopa County records and do all that, but we I don't think we have ever done that in the past to true up to property size.

I think it's when things change, we make adjustments to their records. The fee hasn't changed. We're still collecting $3 million just like we were in when it first started. Approximately $3 million, which means no one's fees really change whether they their house has gone up in square footage or not. That's if we're notified of it, then we when they who would notify you uh when they contact us to set up a new account.

So when a new person moves in, is that when they set up a new account or when a new person moves in? Generally, that's when the person doesn't move in and there's the existing person. So if somebody went in and said, I'm going to expand the size of my house there. I don't think there's a notification process to us on that. I mean, I'd like to know understand I'm also in favor of eliminating the fee because I think it's no different than fire or anything else.

I mean, if you were in any other municipality, that's just part of your property tax and this is considered one area that's been carved out. And we seem to have a very robust surplus of general funds.

And so I I think it's something that is can be accounted for and it has been and there hasn't really been has there been a problem financially with the town that this keeps coming up that we need to really be looking at this and we need to be pinching for dollars in this location or not that since I've been here no yeah I didn't think so and not since I've been here either have I heard anything like that but is there any com people complaining about the fee that they're already paying right now?

Do you get a lot of complaints from residents? We do not. So whether it stays in place or it goes away, I certainly don't support increasing it. And I I think we have enough funds in our that's why we pay that's why we get bed tax. That's why we get construction sales tax. That's what we it's to benefit the residents. And this is the residents. It's it doesn't all need to go towards administrative or staff or I'm not saying that's all important as well.

and it has to be administered, but it's it's certainly something that our res residents are benefiting from. So, um if the homes are um the home is in default on the payment, who's tell manager Cheng um who makes that policy to say that we don't need to do anything about it because I think our percentage is good enough the way it is. Yeah, I I don't want to mischaracterize that we don't do anything about it. We follow up with the person.

But the problem as has been identified by M dures is that the typical reason why they're these bills age is because the person who we used to be billing has a balance and they no longer live there. They sold the property. So now we're going after somebody who doesn't live there anymore but left. And instead of billing forward to the new property owner, which we don't do, right? We we can't don't and can't do.

Then there comes a question of how aggressively are we going to collect against those who for whatever reason didn't pay some portion of their fire service fee while they owned that property but no longer owned that property. So I was while they owned it but no longer owned it. That's what I'm saying. Yeah.

So, so there are people who if they don't the re part of the reason why they don't they didn't pay is because they were well again I don't want to assume people's intent but if we're having a connection between an inability to collect because they stopped paying and they're no longer there then how aggressive do we want to get to then track them down to their next you know wherever they are and continue to to do it.

We've because of the fact that it's relatively small to the level of collection, I think we just haven't we haven't come to you yet to say we need to hire a third party collection agency or something like that to more aggressively collect this $84,000 balance, which to my knowledge has stayed relatively flat over the over the life of the fee. So we haven't had any tremendous spikes one way or the other. It's remained relatively stable as a percentage of overall collections.

So, so there's no hit on anybody's credit or anything like that. They can just we could just So, any one of us can just stop. I mean, we're in a public meeting. Any one of us can just stop paying and nothing happens. Yeah. Nothing happens. Yeah. No, just say I don't want to pay anymore. I suppose that's one way to distinguish it from a tax. Yeah. Well, well, because it's not a tax, right? That's what I'm saying. But, but it's not a tax. That's what I'm saying.

Well, I'm not here to debate with my council member here and I have the floor. I understand. What I'm saying is like Thank you, Council Thompson. I wasn't suggesting it was it's a fire service fee, but there had been some conversation among council members that they felt, at least I don't want to put words in people's mouth, but they looked at it as tantamount to attacks. And what I'm saying is because of the fact that it's a fee and we haven't yet.

Although we could consider more aggressive collection options for those who don't pay it, we haven't done that to the point because of you know when you said there's no consequence. That would be a reason one way to distinguish it from a tax. Not that it is a tax, but thank you for that clarification. I think you have the majority direction of where this goes tonight.

But bringing it forward, if you're going to bring it forward again, because we continue to hear this over and over and I would like to some at point some point that this body is the one that makes the decision, not staff, that we don't continue to hear it unless you want to bring more information back when it comes to policy because it sounds like we need to do some cleanup on administrative fees and and I uh council member and Dean Keller, I completely agree that she said this many times about the banking service fees.

That seems awful high to me as well. And I think there's something that could be done about that. So that's where I I go searching for money that's out there that's free right now before we start going back to our residents asking them for more money. I yield. Thank you, Council Member. Vice Mayor, thank you, Mayor. Um, very good conversation tonight listening to all of my fellow colleagues and everybody has some good points here.

I'm going to um give some thoughts about direction but also have a few questions initially um and a few comments to some of my other council council members um uh comments themselves. So uh in the beginning 1961 when we were incorporated as a town were we using rural metro then what were we using for fire? Does anybody go back that far? Understand what how we work that? I didn't go back to that far. I just went back to the transition from Yeah, I just didn't know. Yeah.

Well, just not not sure how that worked. So, we started when we started with rural metro. Um, to me, I'm looking at history, former councils, and what was the intent of this fund rather than making a big sweeping change, which might be, you know, um, time for, but I I just want to make sure I'm understanding my foundation and my platform. History shows the intent that, um, we left rural metro hoping that the alternative, IGA, was going to be less costly.

I think those are your words in the presentation, but it wound up being more costly. I don't think it would be more costly. If we were to use rural metro today, it would be more expensive than our IGA with Phoenix. Okay, that's but except that we're funding it and before they were paying directly to rural metro, so it took the town out of the picture. So yeah. Um so if the intent of starting the um enterprise fund, which Google says to me, no, an enterprise fund is not a tax.

It may function as a, you know, somebody may look at it as a tax. Definition accounting wise, you know, just for the record, it's not supposed to be a tax. It sounds like a previous mayor was considering a tax at some point, which is fine, their prerogative, but they chose this instead so as to not call it a tax, whatever, you know, rose by the name, whatever you want to call it, but just for the record. Um, so we call ourselves fiscally responsible.

Um, and that's fine, but I think part of fiscal responsibility is also fiscal transparency. So, honestly, I'm less concerned with uh, you know, whether the general fund is going to pay for this or whether we're going to keep the enterprise fund and have it self-fund as much as being honest about our accounting. Um, if we want to change the way we've done it and say we're going to cover this now within the general fund, great. If that's council consensus, I'm on board.

I'm not going to fight anyone on that. But I also think we can't have it both ways. If we want to keep it a general, if we want to keep it an enterprise fund, it's supposed to be self-funding. The biggest I wasn't sure how I felt about this tonight until I heard you say by not funding the enterprise fund correctly, its intent, we are overriding our own internal policy and on multiple levels.

It sounds like um so to me what message does that send and now is a precedence what else can we override that's on our own internal policy. So less about the dollars of course I want to be fiscally responsible if we have the money to pay for it. Um you know some of the conversation was that um you know what municipality doesn't you know cover public safety and fire fees and what municipality doesn't charge taxes?

So we do things differently and I honestly am a lot less about where we land on it but a lot more about being again fiscal conservativism, fiscal responsibility and fiscal transparency. So transparency is the name of my game. So that's where I I yield and I'll I'll follow council consensus or direction.

Um, but those are thoughts that I think we all we all need to really keep in mind when we do this and do it intentionally and I'll support whatever council majority, you know, wants to do intentionally. And one last thing, there are some comments about how we can clean up some of the fees and administrative costs. Always in support of that. Why? That might be a different conversation and a different study session topic, but of course, why not? I yield.

One more comment from Council Member Pace and I'll wrap it up. just in hearing everybody. It was a great discussion. Um since you're looking also for policy direction, I want to echo some of the things my colleague said and make sure we're looking at these as we leave, you know, however we decide on the increase. But, you know, we've talked about this. I know council member Keller is going to say how many times I brought this up. AI is super fast on billing.

You don't need people and staffing on that anymore. And I'm sure our new council member Bob Brown can help educate and share information about HOA billing and how to do it appropriately and fast and quick. We don't need people manual inputting resources. We don't and it automates everything. It automates a weekly reminder for pay has a link on it. If so, anything we can do if you're already doing it, that's fine. But we don't hear that.

Um, but that can save on I just like to look at that that we're doing enough on that. The collections if we have we're only talking tonight about the 80,000, but I don't know what else might be out there for the zoning penalties and other things in town. So maybe that's another pocket we talk about on a study session for collections overall because we can do contingency. If we have a staff attorney every day, we got someone to send those judicial leans now that I understand it's it's a hassle.

That's why we have a staff attorney every day. Let them go do stuff like that. If you want to do it on collections, go get a contingency and have someone else do it. But how much money are we walking from? I don't feel comfortable with that. That's 80. I I was counting. If you just take 80,000 divided by 400, you're talking about 200 homes that aren't paying. That's a lot. That's not right. and whether it's multiple with one or not with the other, it's not right.

And if we have zoning fees and stuff that aren't done, that's not right. I like the merchant service fees. So that would be my direction, too. That's the third category. Um, and the fourth, it's a super simple thing for a policy change for overwriting. We've made that choice since 2017, override it. It's been a choice that's been a policy decision as council because we view it as a tax.

So, we are not going to send it back and mostly it sounds like tonight the the group, we'll see what the mayor says, but the majority is saying no tax, no increase. We're trying to get to the point where we can pay for it for our residents. Every other city municipality pays for their fire. We're the only ones that don't. And I've advocated for this forever. So, I know we're not quite financially there yet. And maybe it's we have to leave status quo. I get that today.

But the trend should be we're getting to that point as soon as we can get enough revenue in the door. But that's my take. Anyway, those are some policies. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Um Mr. Tresh, thank you very much for the presentation and I know you were ready to go the last meeting, but this was an excellent overview of where we're at. I believe the number one responsibilities of a municipal government is public safety without a doubt.

So between police and fire, that's our core really core responsibility that our residents rely on. I too have looked at this as as more of a of a tax in my interpretation. Uh, and I do feel that this is something I'd like to see go away. Uh, I don't want to see us creating a property tax, but I also think this could be there's a solution here, and I think it could be brought forward to take that fee and put it into the general fund. I think that's a pathway that I could support.

I do concur with my colleagues that are saying that perhaps we need to to see how this election goes, but that that's that's one thing. And potentially there's going to be all kinds of opportunities that new things will be happening. Hotels will expand, hotels may open, whatever we see is going to happen there. But this, I think, is a a fee that I would like to see the town absorb and take away from passing through to the residents.

And like many of my colleagues, I've been on several elections and several campaigns, and I haven't heard many complaints. I've heard people will occasionally bring it up. they'll ask about it, but very infrequently compared to other topics that seem to be more of of pressing subject matter to the residents that I've talked to and have heard from. So, with that, I think you've heard a pretty good consensus from this group. I think uh Mr. Rash and Mr.

Chang if you have anything that you need differently, but I believe you got the consensus that we would like to see this a phased out and how that is phased out and phased into uh the next steps I'm going to defer to Mr. Rush and and staff. Thank you for that, Mr. Mayor. I I just want to make a clarification.

I think I heard a consensus say that part of our decision making, not decision-m, well, your decision-m, but our presentation back at some later date would be predicated upon waiting until after we see the results of the election next month. I did hear that. Okay. I don't see a majority. I that's why I'm asking that decision. No, if if I may, I'm the one who mentioned it and I don't think now that I understand that we already have just wanted to clarify payment in the general fund.

It was said we just want to make sure. So that said, not contingent upon the election. Yeah. Um yes, we would like to see something I think collectively that would come back to us. not contingent upon the election, the holidays, but it would be direction for staff to come forward with a plan and a timeline for how we would execute. Okay, got it. I think unless there's something different that I I Vice Mayor, no, please. It's fast. Pam Kirby just wrote me.

She said when the council she sat on passes, they called it a tax. Laugh out loud. Okay. Well, that's Say that again, please. again, you know, council member, please. No, please, please, please. No, that's No, let's let's take that off the table. Um, so anything further from Mr. Rash or Mr. Chang? Can I just ask a clarifying question? Um, I hear there's interest to phase out. Would it be acceptable to bring it forward in the budget?

Are you looking at a slow phase out or would you like it eliminated in the next budget cycle? I'm seeing a heads not on a slow phase out. Is that what I'm seeing or no? No. Let's do it sooner. I agree. Next budget cycle, especially if we have the tax cut, we've got the money in the budget to do it. We have the budget set this year. So, it's the be next fiscal budget. Yeah, I agree there.

I I think a slow phase out would leave a lot more of the administrative costs and expenses here and would So, we'll plan for it to bring it forward in the budget cycle moved into the general fund with an adjustment to the financial policies. That would make sense, I think. looking around. Awesome.

There's part of this conversation that I I think will implicate uh our attorney's office and there is a distinction between eliminating the fire service fee which is a creature of state law as I understand that that the town is able to do that versus making the policy determination not to collect the fire service fee.

And so when we talk about this in the current economic state, I guess the direction I'd be looking from from council would be do you have a preference as to whether or not the budget I mean a budget will bring back a budget to you know to the council during that cycle.

But if we say we no longer wish to collect the fire service free from the town, you know, from the town's properties, we can then simply say we're not going to do that and refrain from it as opposed to saying we are eliminating the ability for future councils if economic decision or situations and circumstances were to change over time to then have those councils in the future to say that decision was made in 2026 27.

However, because of financial situations have changed, we'd like to reinstate it as opposed to eliminating it, which would be a more ownorous task, at least sitting here thinking about it. Does that make sense? And I'm seeing head nods on that, Council Member Thompson. Are you comfortable with with that distinction and us pursuing? I'm head nodding in favor of the not collecting, not eliminate the ability to work through it with Mr.

Magguire and his and his staff to to kind of figure out that what that looks like, but I want to make sure that you know the decision was made for the reasons that I've heard as opposed to other reasons. So, okay. Thank you. Thank you everybody. Question on that mayor if I may. Yes, please. Will that change the admin cost? Oh, yeah.

I think it's because if you're still going to be the fire service administrator, is your part of your salary going to be included in the annual budget as part of this? I I appreciate the question, council member, because I want to kind of clarify as I understand it, and I'm certainly not the chief financial officer for the town of Paradise Valley, the administrative allocation is a bookkeeping exercise. So that only it's not it's not an it's not an additional allocation.

It's a if you have people who work for the town or third parties who work on behalf of the town who touch and concern the work that is done to administer this that you have to account for it in your books. So I I don't want to leave the misimpression that we are asking for a line item of $297,000 annually on top of in addition to things. It's merely sort of a percentage allocation for the purpose of accounting.

Not so so so but to answer your larger question, council member Moore, the larger question is if if there's if there's nothing to collect, there'd be no allocation and there would go down to zero. Yeah, that's just want confirmation and that's all I'm saying. So on this meeting, but that doesn't mean that the staff that's allocated.

question I have is since we were able to just continue the fire service administrator at the last meeting in a in a consent agenda because it really wasn't that big of a deal. Yeah. Why is it so hard to just eliminate it and someone if a future council decides to go back and do it again? They would just simply do the same thing. They would reinstate the administrator which allows you to call it a fee and charge a fee. Why would we continue on with that contract? Mr.

Mayor, council member, a question. Thank you. Yeah. Um, you still need that structure in order to have the town have the obligation to give to do fire service. That structure is pretty good for that. That makes sense. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you. All right. Well, we had a few more follow-ups. Appreciate that. Uh, Mr. Thank you again very much. We've got a pathway. Mr. Chang, you Yes, we did. And we got it in 60 minutes. So I was gonna say I'm looking at the clock.

We got right to Much appreciated council. There were moments where I thought we might slip, but we didn't. There's more. So all right, Mr. R is staying up here for the next presentation to along with the chief. So awesome. All right. Well, next up we are uh on to study session item 26-288, discussion of police alarm monitoring program. We've slated it for 30 minutes and uh we welcome our police chief, Mr. Freeman Carney and Leslie Rush. Mayor, thank you council. Great to be here with you.

Um, I was asked to uh provide uh kind of an overview of where the alarm program is today. Primarily, I think focused on uh the financial aspect. So, today um we'll be doing that. We're going to talk about uh with that program operations and workload.

We're going to talk about some of the financial and customer considerations for you as as you get the current state of the alarm program as well as uh and and then at that point town council direction on where they would like to go with the future of the program. Uh so we're going to start off with just kind of the the life cycle of of one of our residents, a customer and with the alarm program. So if you see there you have the customer on top.

um that they're really dealing with three different uh entities when they're having an alarm system through Paradise Valley. They're kind of numbered. There's more to it than that, but the the starts with us to the town of Paradise Valley with onboarding paperwork and then it goes to a third party technician that they need to go find to get equipment to uh figure that out. And then eventually it gets to the alarm monitoring company, which is currently Becklar.

Um, so they're dealing with three different uh entities on this uh as they as they work through it. Whereas typically when you have an alarm company, you would see the customer on top and then that far right one that's that in the green that says Becklar alarm monitoring, it go straight down to them and they deal with all that. Um, so for our customers, it can get a little uh um disorganized for them at times because they have to go to three different types of entities to get answers.

Um, for example, one could be and has been we have had a a customer, you know, contact Becklar to cancel their alarm system and Becklar tells them okay, right? But no one tells us and so it never gets canled and so they think they get cancelled um and they're still getting bills. Just stuff like that can happen with three different um entities trying to run this customer uh program. So that's kind of how it starts.

And then uh how the actual alarm works uh the traditional alarm that first that first section up here um it starts with uh traditional alarm companies the the alarm triggers.

it goes to uh uh this the alarm company's system software and then from there the third step it goes to the alarm company uh where they receive the alert system and then the alarm company will try to contact the resident um three different times uh and and then if there's no answer they then call police PV police dispatch and then officers are sent out that's how uh a normal without uh private company and And whereas us, how we work with our system, the alarm triggers, the system goes to the same company, the the same um software, but then it's routed back right back to Paradise Valley PD dispatchers, and then they are the ones that will call make those calls before sending the police out.

So, you're kind of skipping that step of of of the actual company, and then dispatch will send them out. So if all things are perfect, um our estimate, it's very estimate, rough estimate, is the alarm in town alarm system can actually save potentially four minutes or so. Um if everything's smooth, right? But that's if everything's in a perfect world. Whereas if we have only one dispatcher on and they're on 911, 911 takes priority of the alarm, right?

Or if they're on a call with a officer and they're uh talking to them, they got to that takes priority. And so if all things aren't perfect, that four minutes goes away and it's probably pretty close to a typical alarm company. Um as far as time saving goes. Um just some history subscription I was asked to provide that uh 2021 we are about 265 2022 uh2 uh customers and you can see kind of the decline from there whereas in 2025 we were about 238 customers um throughout the town.

Our high was in I believe uh 2008 and we had about 610 customers. That was probably the high of that program. Uh these are these are how many total alarms that we get that come in and we actually uh respond to. Uh I I typically use the 98% false when I'm asked because that's usually right. It's actually higher than I thought at least for the last five years. I'll probably still say 98 just to be conservative, but uh it's 99% false.

Uh the alarms we do get are false alarms currently for the past five years. Um dispatchers, there is staff time it takes with with running this system. As far as the dispatchers are concerned, um it's very doable the amount of time they they have to deal with the the alarms. It's not super taxing on them. As you can see, approximately nine hours a month dealing uh working through the alarm systems. That's basically the calls they have to make like an alarm company would have to make.

Um we're we're at about nine hours a month. Uh that doesn't include they do do some tests. Uh they do test the equipment with customers. Uh but that's very minimal. So the actual tax on a dispatch as far as time goes isn't too bad. Um, however, our our other staff, our record staff, it is pretty rough uh as far as time commitment for them. Uh, approximately 8 to 20 hours a week. uh they're they're spending on a variety of things.

U pulling false alarm data, uh customer accounts, preparing and mailing resident letters, responding to ongoing alarm needs, and uh the the height of the tax on them is closer to the end of the month when they're trying to work on false alarm billing, their false alarm bear billings. Um I'll go to the expert on this slide here. So the alarm fund is solvent but because of the decline in customers over time and the increase in expenses over time it um is losing money currently.

Um there are different options to address that. Um but as it stands right now they are losing uh money each year and if it were to continue at this level eventually it would become it would not be solvent. So um something needs to happen to this because this is also an enterprise fund and it's supposed to be self-supporting. Thank you.

Um, and there some other uh potential concerns that that should probably council should be aware of that we we we've had some cancellation and billing issues that kind of talked about that a little bit, but we've had other issues like that. Um, people delinquent accounts and how how does that work? Does the alarm company go after him? Uh, I'm surely not going to send an officer over there to get their get the town's money.

Um, so it's just kind of awkward that like I said, there's the three entities. Um we do have the we've had some monitoring communication issues and this very well could be a an issue the the private sector alarms have too I don't know but um where it did not test properly meaning it's not working and no one no one knew or made aware the customer aware of it.

Uh, basically a test is like a a ping um that that it gets and to make sure it's testing right and there's there's accounts that it's happened and we didn't know and that scares me and kind of bothers me because our names on the sign out front and I don't like that but it could be common that that happens with other companies. Um, and then like I said the delinquent accounts um issues that we've had. Um, so there there's pros and cons to any anything.

Um, some of the pros are if all things are perfect and right, like I said, it could be it's potentially a faster notification, which is great. We can get there quicker, but again, it's about 99% of the time they're they're false. Um, which, uh, again, the faster notification could be a great thing. Uh, it's a personal touch. Um, customer service wise, they they like us. They like our dispatchers calling them as opposed to when I say they, the residents. They like they like our dispatchers.

Hey, we had an alarm. They love that. Um because our dispatchers are great and they provide great service as opposed to somebody they don't know in Virginia or wherever, right? Um so that that's kind of a pro, I think. Um and it's a unique option for our residents. It's kind of cool. Like you guys have your own alarm system. Um so I think that's a pro as well. Some potential cons, uh the cost to run the program. As Leslie uh described, it is a time strain on staff. It really is.

Um there's it's it's a it's a problem uh dependent on vendor for tech problems, reliability, and high quality customer service. We're dependent on someone else. And I just I don't like that. I like to be and I'm sure you guys feel the same way. You want to be in charge of your equipment and customer satisfaction. And I don't like customers not happy, but I can't I have no control on making them happy because it's a third party. It's just kind of awkward. So that's a con. um in my eyes.

Uh additional operational liability concerns. Um some of those include software limitation limitations. Um like I said, uh the these alarm systems, uh they're not set up for like a a 911 dispatcher system. They're set up for a room full of alarm monitoring company. So, um, if a one dispatcher is on and alarm comes in and another one's coming in, they can only take one at a time. They won't even get alerted that another one's coming in that that audible alert.

They won't even know because they're currently dealing with one. Um, so that that's some software limitations that that you should be aware of. Um, so now if we have two on at a time, which we do at times, um, two dispatchers on, that that helps it easier, right? Two can take one at the same time, but it's not set up for that. So that's a potential con for you to consider. Um, but with that, you know, it's kind of the key question is how does council uh would like to proceed with this?

Here's a few thoughts for you, but we you can discuss more. uh continue the program as currently operated uh continue the program with operational changes or transition a plan to move residents to the private sector. So those are some of the thoughts options but you can come up with more. So with that uh that's kind of the presentation. Thank you chief. Thank you Mr. Rush. Appreciate that. I think first hand up. All right. Thank you mayor. Uh kill the program. It should go to privatize.

We've said this. I think council member Randy Dean Keller and I have been fighting this battle for four years. It needs to go. It never should have been in the police department. The resources should be focused on police efforts. Um I uh a couple key points. I think what you just said last just makes it more strong for me to kill the program.

To have a situation where residents are calling in on dispatch and they get blocked is just a potential lawsuit for the town because they can't get through. Uh we have software limitation. It's not a call center. We don't need this. Um and we need our resident I mean our police and team focusing on their resources 8 to 20 hours a week. way too much time have to spend on this kind of program that's easily privatized.

Um the one question though and we shouldn't be underwriting it for 200 people uh for 70,000 a year and so on. Um the one thing though I would did want to ask you when you go to the time on the four minutes on the alarm program on PowerPoint 4 um when and this was by the way excellent excellent presentation. I went over it was Saturday and I thought primo gave us everything. I like the pictures. I like the stats. You guys did fabulous on this.

But the traditional alarm workflow, when you say that about the private sector, alarm triggers, signal goes to alarm, they receive the alert, they call the resident to verify. They don't have to. That's a choice. And mine's a choice. I can make it go direct to police if I want. It's just I don't want to get the a charge, right? So, I make them call me first so it doesn't go direct to you, and then I have a false alarm. I mean, that's the choice the resident makes.

That is an option in on the private sector. We allowed to have it go straight in. It's not a problem. So, that's another thing. They can call direct, and it's just on bypass if I want that for my private sign. But the other thing about that, one of my heavy lifts on council was when I was two years chair of AOPS, Chief Wingard and I had to do the delivery to the town. That was our job for two years to charge for false alarms.

That was a very big change in this town because what happens is if it's still the same is we studied the number cost of the 90% and the 99% and it was two officers in the day. I think it's probably the same, but back then it was two officers that had to go to the call if there's a false alarm. We had so much wasted time and so he and I had to sell everybody council was supportive but sell the residents with letters.

We did the whole soft approach that we were going to start charging for these false alarms and we wanted them to pay attention to their alarms. Make sure we weren't getting false things and we cut down so many of those false alarms. So my question on here on the false alarms under this program that's with the police department, are we charging in the same way we do every other resident when there's false alarms or do they get a benefit out of this and not charge? Okay, so they are being charged.

So we're getting money. Okay, fine. Because that usually cures. That's what we used before to cure people from that. And that's also why people get the call first. We make a choice to have the alarm companies call us direct instead of go straight to the police. You have a choice um because you don't want to pay the extra false alarms. And yes, I know we have the one resident who does it deliberately and he does it often and he wants to test once a year how fast it takes the police to respond.

We've dealt with him for years. But anyway, just a point for everyone is we worked really hard, you know, eight years ago to change that. And I think it is it I hope it's true that our false alarms for the rest of of the town is less than that number or is that including everybody including those on the alarm? These false alarm this slide right here. Yeah, this slide right here is all alarms. So, we still need to go back out and re re-educate them again. You're getting too many.

Okay, that's what I want to know. Thank you. Thank you, council member. Other comments or questions from the team? Council member Andine Keller. I uh Thank you, mayor. I think this has been a great program that that the police have offered for a very long time. I think we're the only police department in the country that offers an alarm monitoring system. Is that correct? I believe so. I there there there have been some throughout the you know last 20 30 years but they've um got away from them.

Yeah. Yeah. And I've always since I've been on council thought that this was a matter for the private sector. Um and I think that the you just spelled it out with the amount of manh hours it's taking for the on the administrative side. Um we need our officers, dispatch, everybody focused on um uh 911 and all that goes into that. Um and uh um I I know I kind of looked at this eight years ago. We looked at it when I was first on council and I um the market share was over 5%.

So I was like, "Okay, I'll stay with it." But when the market share is below 5%, you really my my old boss at Bank of America used to say, "If your market share is below 5%, you really don't have a product to sell." So, um, uh, I agree with him and, uh, I think we need to transition this to the private sector. Um, but do it slowly so that the residents that do have this program have an opportunity to figure out where they are and what they're going to do.

Thank you, Council Member Council Member Leeman. Thank you, Mayor. I I'm going to sound like an echo here. I I agree. The numbers don't make sense. If we have basically a 100% of alarms, if you round it up, are false alarms. I do not think alarm monitoring is a essential service the same way that fire is. I do not think that approximately, my math is 3% of the household should be taking up this much town finances, staff, and time.

Um, and the thing I didn't really think about was the public records cost and the recordkeeping costs as of course I did think about the liability being a lawyer. Um, so I agree entirely. I think that maybe we set up some sort of transition service so we can get this done cleanly in the next six months and don't have it on the budget next year. I I just don't see the need for it anymore.

And there are so many unlike fire services, there are so many good private alarm companies and the administrative complexity of having three entities. It's just too much. We shouldn't be doing it anymore. Um too much time and effort and that's it. Thank you. Other comments? Council member Thomasson. Question and a comment. I noted that we've had or you've reported a decrease in households that um signed up for the service. Was any reason given for why people stopped or changed service providers?

I know years ago like in '08 when we we at our height um back then we had our own system or all our own equipment and it was old and it didn't have the options to do some of the things that other companies can do some of the fancier tech we didn't have that so I know we probably lost a lot at that point because we didn't have the capability that other companies had um other than that I think just over time we haven't pushed it we haven't tried to sell it or um get it going and didn't advertise it.

Yeah. It just kind of decreases over time when you don't do that naturally. Thank you. Um relative to my um opinion on this, it's a whole lot more fun when I agree with my colleagues, which I do on this issue. I think it's time to sunset it. Um but I do want the record to reflect something interesting. Right now, we are subsidizing $290 per household for the 240 residents who have the fire service.

So, we are subsidizing the fire service at $260 a household, and we're subsidizing the alarm service at $290 a household. So, the delta is not that great, but I do think it's time to uh move on down the road on this one. Thank you, Council Member. Coun. Thanks, Mayor. Uh, Chief, just a couple questions. So, um, when the when the, uh, monthly subscribers go down, doesn't that lower your admin cost as well? I mean, you get less calls.

And when when you get a false alarm, you say there's a lot of paperwork that you have to do to it when you get it. Can you explain that? I would think uh I I would just think the the tasks and stuff would go down for sure. Yeah.

when when so your overhead will go down as it I I I mean there's no history in our presentation which I always like history of what has happened in the past with council but um I know that um the people that are on this are very passionate about being on it and I'm a council member that's doesn't I mean it's we're unique in a lot of different ways so I don't necessarily support killing it but I think what we talked about in the past was the is not we weren't advertising it and I don't I don't want to be the town historian.

I wish we had this stuff in our history in our presentations in our public presentation here but I believe it was that we were not advertising purposely because we were looking to have it phase out over time. Yeah. I don't know if that was official direction but that's that's the Is that how you remember it as well? Yeah, that's how I remember it. That's kind of how I remember it as well. So, um if um the the these false alarms that you go out on calls, I'm not quite sure the 90 99.987%.

You actually still go out on that many false alarm calls or Yeah. So, let's say 2025, right? the alarms, 99.99% of all those were were false. They were even after calling and talking to them. And yeah, false meaning that it was they weren't home or the alarm went off and it was a malfunction of the alarm system or something like that. Yeah. Or kids set it up, whatever reason. Who knows? Yeah.

And that that's across the board no matter who it so it doesn't matter about the company whether it goes privatized or stays here it doesn't change your workload when it comes to that if these people in fact move to another monitoring system. So um uh and they all are paying a false alarm fee when they show when you guys show up. Uh, what's your recovery rate on false alarm fees? I'm not sure on the financial portion of how many. Wouldn't that be included in your profit and loss on your budget?

Yeah, we do bill for the false alarms. We send out bills for that through our utility billing. What's our percentage of collection on that? I didn't check that, but it's high. It I can get you a number on that, but I did not check that specific. if we're going to continue future discussions on this to know what the collection recovery percentage is on that.

But um the um the the real big difference is that if they were privatized, they would have their alarm monitoring company who gets the signal would be the ones calling. And that's really the where your biggest concern is on staff time is that you're administering that time right now. Is that correct? Is that as far as the biggest concern? Yeah. I mean, is that because your your your false alarm dispatches are aren't going to change much? Yeah.

I don't think this if if this is what you're this isn't a big concern. It's about nine hours a month total with dealing with that. I think this is probably the bigger concern for time. Um, so you know, if we if we were to keep it, uh, I would recommend like Yeah. And that's just for false alarms, you have to put in that much time. Huh. Yeah. So, and and the I'm not on this system, but the majority of the people that have been and feel passionate about it.

They're they like that you're the ones receiving the call instead of the alarm monitoring. Like I said, private company. Yeah. It's one of the pros, I think, is is they like hearing from us. And I I' I've gotten both sides of it. I gotten people come contacting me saying they love the system and um and please keep it. And I said, "Well, it's not my decision." But I uh and I've also had people why are we having this? Why? So it's both way hear from both sides on on it.

And these are just some of the pros and cons. But one of those I do think is that personal touch from us. They like hearing from us. Yeah. Okay. Thank you for the answers. Thank you council member. Vice Mayor. Thank you mayor. Uh great great comments, great presentation. Um and forgive me if I missed it. It literally may have been in there. But is um before we just throw this whole thing away, I'd like to just ask a few questions about its salvageability if if it if it could be.

If not, that's fine, too. Are your rates for this in line with the competition? Is that you guys charge something similar? So, I I I did a quick search and they seem to equivalent to about the private sector. Okay. Prices.

And then my other question would be um uh council member um Thomas actually asked my question about as a reflection of the overall alarm use or is there some reason why uh you know the direct to you guys has been less popular and I think that uh I had some good uh input about why that it may have been sort of on the down low just thinking we're going to get rid of it so we really haven't been uh promoting it. Do you think um and I'm just kind of thinking out loud here.

I wonder if if if there was an appetite, I don't know that there is or not to um make this system a little bit more robust, get the education out, anything like that. Would there um uh is that a no? I'm just I'm just I'm just I said I'm just thinking out loud. Thank you. Yes.

Um, so I'm just wondering if there's any if you see any salvageability here, whether you updated the software or you know, and I'm just talking on uh a level of the people who you say are so very um uh favorable to it and like having a direct uh line to you. So yeah, I think um anything salable depending on what you put into it, right?

So, I think if we if we got some staffing, maybe at least two dispatchers on at all times uh for that way our chances go up if somebody's able to answer for that alarm. Um yeah, I mean, if there's no appetite for it and then selling that uh advertising it, we get more I I think you could get more CL clients for sure if we're advertising it and promoting it and um so there's things like that that could be done that that would Okay. give you a shot. and thank you for that.

And then my last question, I mean, it sounds like a cumbersome situation, I'm fine with it going away. I just think that the residents who are on it deserve to have these questions asked. So, that's why I'm doing that.

So, um, I also would like to know if this is an enterprise fund that's going to be sunsetted and it doesn't have to be handled the same way as the fire services fund, but would that be the direction that it would be completely closed and sunseted or how like how would this show up differently than what we may or may not be doing with our fire services fund, which I realize we have not decided on yet. So, I yield.

If we decide to if you decide to move forward and uh sunset this program, then the enterprise fund would shut down. Okay. Thank you.

Well, I will say that I've seen a lot of iterations of the alarm uh plan over the years, and I remember very well that uh Chief Wingert uh did exhaustive research uh when when he identified the fact that the equipment was failing and that we should go to a third party provider and we did that and um and I commend the effort and I do think it's a wonderfully unique product and a wonderful unique offering to the residents of Paradise Valley and I'm I'm disheartened that it hasn't taken off and done better because I know back when we looked at um trying to continue and potentially go into the third party that would help us.

Um that was to me the last effort to try to move this forward. But clearly um it's run into a lot of headwinds and I I'm sorry about that because I do think it's a unique very unique um uh product and service that we offer. Uh but I also realize that it's on a declining scale. technology is increasing and we know that a lot of private providers that are working in the industry and it's only going to get more uh intense in terms of options and technology.

Um, and so, uh, my thought too is that we be respectful, create a transition plan, but I think we do, uh, we do sunset this, uh, moving forward. And again, I applaud you, Chief, and your team for years for trying to, uh, to make sure this, uh, got the best chance it could, uh, to provide the service.

and to those residents that we'll be working with um eventually here uh should this go to uh to pass that um we understand we appreciate it uh but we also are not in the alarm business that's not business that the town is is in um public safety is so uh with that I believe that should give you direction I look around the room if there's I I I believe I heard consensus that we lean towards the sunset unless I'm hearing something All right. Anything else? Thank you, Chief. Thank you, Mr. Resh.

All right. We are again right on time. This group is working. It's working well. And we take a little break. We can take a little a quick break. Yeah, that's fine. Five minute break. Now uh we'll be moving on to item number 26-286 and that's a lot of chatter a lot of chatter uh discussion of uh fiscal year 2627 sustainability measures uh carved out for 45 minutes with our uh our colleague Isaac Shaveira.

Before we turn it over to Isaac, I just want to say um we I've certainly understand sir outside of our roles in uh with the town and in your roles as elected officials of the town understand you know that sustainability can mean different things to different people and the setting of goals around sustainability is a conversation that uh we're certainly you know uh welcome to have.

Um, part of the reason why we're here today is because, you know, in the most recent general plan, uh, that was passed by, uh, Paradise Valley back in 2022, there was a sustainability element that was included in that, and we've, uh, produced it on slide two of this of the deck that you have here today. Go ahead and someone should advance that. Yeah, Isaac, there you go. Boom. Okay. Okay.

So, we're going to provide an update on what we're doing, but the kind of the the foundational uh understanding comes from what was passed back in 2022 for the sustainability element. And so, you see six and I and I I I want to start from this slide because you can see that in the town of Paradise Valley, we look beyond sort of the environmental sustainability to include also the financial sustainability.

And you know, we I think even though we haven't necessarily called it that, that the conversations that preceded this uh presentation, I think touch and concern to a certain degree the commitment of the town to a financially financially sustainable practices. Um I don't think we would have had the kind of conversation that we had the last 90 minutes if that wasn't something that this council already embraces to a significant degree and in many other aspects as well.

So I wanted to point that out just to kind of say that that the the broad the breadth of sustainability can go beyond that but that is not to the to the exclusion of course of the other five goals that are contained in the in the general plan. So with that I'll go ahead and and turn it over to to Mr. Shira. Thanks. Thank you Andrew. Good evening. Isaac Shave public works director.

And as uh Andrew was uh discussing these goals, obviously as uh the public works director, I touch on some of these and I'll talk briefly about some of the items and some of the work that we've been working on, but certainly not all of these goals that uh this evening that uh that are on the screen I will be touching. The first one is um the focus really on facilities um area is um really to reduce energy and water usage and any type of uh water and energy consumption.

For the most part we have um the areas of our facilities that uh encompass uh our campus here, town hall, fire station, police department, public works and the municipal courts. These are the areas of of focus for our facilities. Uh to be able to try to focus on uh when I uh arrived here with the town of Paradise Valley, I knew it was important that uh we needed to perform a uh energy audit uh to to basically establish that baseline. Uh we hadn't done one in the past.

So I wanted to make sure that um uh we had an energy audit. I worked with the utility company APS to be able to um do that evaluation. Um and as part of that evaluation, it gives us an opportunity to look at our energy usage uh identify some opportunities to improve our lighting andor our HVAC operations. We're also planning on doing the same for our town facilities uh uh irrigation systems and water usage on the water side.

Uh one of examples for example is waterless urinals from a plumbing uh water perspective. And really the goal here is to identify practical improvements um track the results and then uh look at our utility consumption both from the energy side as well as our water side. And just on that note, uh let me share some projects that we've been working on.

Um we've been retrofitting the nonLEDD uh lighting systems that are within those facilities that I just talked about to the new LED technology systems. Uh we've replaced worn out and damaged uh exterior door seals obviously to try to um take advantage of the energy consumption, energy usage there.

um replacing HVAC heat pumps uh at the time of replacement for more energy efficient units and then ali adding lighting occupancy sensors uh so that we're not wasting energy when nobody's in the in the room. And lastly, one of the goals that uh that I have uh moving forward is to replace exterior single pane windows for high performance windows uh wherever those may be. In terms of our fleet, I'll touch a little bit on our fleet.

Um, we uh can also assess and possibly reduce some fuel consumption as as part of our programs, measure vehicle miles through operational changes. Um, this of course includes using virtual meetings when effective.

It gives us the opportunity to uh instead of commute to other agencies, utilize virtual meetings, combining inspections and site visits, being able to work with staff to take advantage of combining these types of inspections or site visits, improving our field crew routing so that we're not wasting gas and or uh uh using more fuel than what we need to if we don't have to. and then encourage car pooling and uh for regional meetings and trainings in this area.

What we would like to continue to measure as Amy does a great job in this trip trip trip reduction program is to measure and reduce unnecessary travel while maintaining the level of service that our residents expect. As far as the uh landscaping portion of it, water conservation is is particularly of course uh important especially in our desert environment.

We historically and currently focus on native and desert adapted plants, efficient drip irrigations, and assessing uh smart controllers is something that I want to make sure that we look forward to to be able to um change our irrigation systems on a seasonal basis, adjust our irrigations and our medians so that we're not either overwatering or underwatering.

Um, we also take a look at uh sighteline uh maintenance access, long-term landscape costs as well is something that we're looking into as part of the uh revitalization of our landscape medians.

And then of course some of these improvements as as far as the smart controls is the improvements uh that we make or that we plan on making is to make uh phased improvements as some of this these items that I talk about like the smart controllers are not cheap um or uh and and so we want to make sure that uh we're we're incorporating those in a phased approach from a financial perspective.

Um I want to uh uh fi finalize this with s um sustainability must include sound financial stewardship consider sustainable alternatives such as purchasing or reducing paper uh digital processing which I know we're working on already.

Uh and then also to continue to prioritize the town's long-term financial um health and any proposed improvements that we of course make in this area uh should be evaluated for upfront costs, ongoing operating expenditures, potential savings and long-term financial impacts is super important as we move forward through financial uh sustainability.

In summary, these measures I have spoken to you about uh provide a practical framework for uh improving resource efficiencies across town facilities within the areas that we have completely full control of like our fleet operations, our facilities, uh our landscaping and then in our in our finance purchasing areas.

Keep in mind as as we have this discussion, as you have the discussion as well through uh mayor and council, the emphasis that uh administrators are we as administrators are working on is to be able to evaluate the opportunities as we uh uh look at the new technologies that are out there. Understand of course the cost and benefits and then of course once we institute any type of new measurements of course measure the results as as uh as they come.

At this point, I'd like to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Shiver. I appreciate that. And obviously, this is a topic that uh comes up quite frequently from our residents in different forms. And of course, at the Maricopa County Association of Governments is always looking at good sustainability practices and ideas and engagement. So, thank you for your presentation and giving us an update on the things that your team is looking at, what the town should be looking at.

Um, so I would ask, are there any questions from my colleagues? I'd start with council member Leven. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Mr. Shira. As everybody at this table knows, I have been pushing for a sustainability audit and review since I got on the council and was on the planning commission when we adopted the general plan.

And the general plan has a large section on sustainability as well as a section on um environmental planning and water resources that includes some requirements and goals over air quality. Um so what's interesting about having sustainability in our general plan is that it's an optional element of the plan.

The state does not require that we include sustainability, but the fact that the planning commission and the town staff and and the council put so much time and effort into this plan because we have to do it every 10 years and included sustainability and put some very specific prescriptions in here as to what the town needed to do.

I think we need to take a step up and treat this as an important matter because not only was this town, this general plan worked on and but it was also approved by the majority the vast majority of large majority of voters back in I believe it was 2022. So I'm delighted to have this. I thank you for putting this together. I think it's a very good start.

I have a number of comments and questions and so I was a little confused in this presentation as to where we are what we have done and what's in process and what our goals are. So I was disappointed not to know what we have done in the past other than one audit. So in the future I would like a lot more measurables along those lines. Um how many vehicles do we currently have that are alternative or sustainable vehicles in our fleet? We have zero. That's okay. Thank you.

I truly hope that will be improved as required in the general plan of course subject to the parameters in here. Um the general plan also talks about something as I was reviewing it for this that I find fascinating and I wonder where we are and that is says in S2.5 the town shall we require all new government buildings and encourage special use permit pro projects to utilize a minimum level of sustainability based on an accepted green evaluation system i.e. lead.

I wonder if we are actually doing that and whether we have communicated that to the planning and community services develop department. He's shaking his head now. I I'm I I Yeah. And it is mentioned the leads and the SUPs are mentioned twice in the sustainability. So I have a significant request that we start doing that as it is called out in the plan.

Um, you mentioned vendors and I appreciate that and just for a little background, I was working at ASU when we were the most sustainable university in the country and um, so I'm familiar with a complete sustainability program. Um, specifically in procurement, not only is it nice that we're using less paper, but any sustainability goals we have, I would want very much to also have our vendors follow.

For example, if we are using, I don't know, electric leaf blowers, for example, do we require or request that our vendors also do these same levels of sustainability we do? That is something at ASU we focused tremendously on with very great overall effect. And I I think the answer might be no, something to look forward to and add to the list to do in the future. Um, who owns the sustainability program? Is there a central place for it or is it You mean like a position? Yes. Who who in the town?

Sorry. I we don't have a specific sustainability office or officer. A lot of it I think falls to the directors and in the case of purchasing which there's some area for the purchasing you know function to look for sustainable options when purchasing for the town that would be our purchasing officer. Okay. But but to say that there's one person um there's no one person designated as the sustainability officer or coordinator. Okay. Thank you.

Well, again, I'm delighted that we are looking at this and focusing on it, but I personally think we could do a lot more and a lot better and even getting rid of plastic water bottles. I mean, that's kind of long overdue in my opinion, but I could get off my soap box and thank you all for indulging me on this. Thank you, Council Member. Council Mr. Pace, Mr. Mayor. Yes, sir.

Council member Leapman, for the record, I just wanted to clarify we the chief reminded me that we do have an electric motorcycle. That's right. It's quiet because it is quiet. No, I was going to say so two now. Oh, two now. Two. One's broke. Oh, all right. I think Council Member has No, that's fine. No, first of all, um this is a hard topic to have brought up.

So, I commend Council Member Eliteman for doing it because it's not something that hits at the top of the list with the limited government we have and the amount of money we have. So, it isn't something that I think um in all my years, you know, we've really talked about and I think awareness is the first key. So, thank you, Council Member Leman, for your time and effort and commitment. I could tell you're passionate about it. We all have our passions and it's important.

So, I think it was actually good to go through. At first, I was like, why is this on the agenda and how did it get on the agenda? And then I was like, oh. And now that I hear you talk again, I'm like, "Oh, these are good points. If we never talk about it, we never make a difference, right?" And it is something in this day and age to think about some of these things.

So, um, you know, there's things in here that I think the lowhanging fruit that doesn't really cost us much that actually does honor our general plan and that council member Leman's trying to raise to us. Simple things. You know, we mentioned we don't need to have these. We could start getting Paradise Valley bottles and all of us if we could get a water filler here in the building, we all can bring our own bottles.

We don't need to buy them and then we can fill our water bottles and so most places do you have that? I mean and I would wholly support something like that. I don't know whose job this I don't know if I think it's yours. I don't know whose job it is but I don't know who owns it. That's a good question. You know is where do we go to just have a bottle filler and we have a lot of people who walk who hike come in to see the art who do stuff.

If they knew they could come here and just fill their bottles they might show up to do that um right here and do it. So I think that's like an easy thing that we should do. we haven't done until the awareness today, you know, and talking about this issue a little bit um on the single-use plastics, you know, most places again because I do have a place in Laguna Beach, so I get to see what other communities actually do on these things. They do a lot.

Some they go way too far, but um we always use bamboo plates and bamboo silverware. And I don't know why we don't because that goes in the recycle bin. I mean, it's a super easy thing. It's actually very modern to do. It's very comfortable to do. Um, and I don't know that there's a huge cost factor in something like that.

Um, because, you know, I mean, again, it made me think about some of these the easier issues here that um, and I don't know if on the building I'm just throwing things out because I guess that's what we do here, right? Is um, in the rooms. I don't know if we have the automatic lights on and off in all the buildings or you're working towards those goals. So, those are little things that I think cost money. It's not cheap, but it does it does add up.

Um, I was interested uh more so um on the the landscaping because I'm the landscape girl. So, you know, I'm all big about that. Um, I had a question on as you're and first you guys are doing an amazing job. I have I always say that landscaping is getting better and better. Things are awesome. The roads are being paved. I can't tell you how Chris is like awesome with the notices, the vendors you guys picked.

never seen such a well done paving program and charts and tables which I send out to everybody when they ask and it's really great and I know it's been adjusted with rain so you guys have really really pivoted nicely. So that's all great and kudos to you guys.

Um when we get to landscape when you're redoing the medians and I know in the old days when we used to get our reports we actually did not have water to those medians so we're having to pay for a truck at different times of the year to go down and just water and spray. Yeah.

Well, that's why I was wondering, are we still doing that or are we trying to transition the new upgrades to some and it's a phase program, but as we do the medians that you're redoing, are you now doing conduit under to bring water to them? Are you still having to do it through the spray truck on the median? I'm curious. No, no, Mr. Mayor, Council Member Pace, that's a great question and it's it's a slow uh process as you have seen. Uh we've been really focusing on Lincoln Drive.

Um and then we'll be transitioning to Tatum. Those are the two large corridors that our visitors see most. And so yes, when we get to Tatum Boulevard, we are going to have to take a look at uh bringing some infrastructure. Obviously, it's going to cost some funding and money. Um but it is going to take time and yes, that is the goal. Okay. So that costs a lot because you have to do and especially in our mountains and stuff. There's no easy dirt to get underneath for conduit.

I mean, and you do double conduit so you have one brake. You have a space to put something under again for lighting or conduit. But flow meters are the future. So is that what you're when you talk about smart, you're talking about flow, right? Not just Yeah. So flow meters are super expensive. I have three on my property because I have 38 valve boxes. So I get landscape and irrigation infrastructure 100%.

So, I think flow meters are the way to go because you can monitor it from the phone when you see the water go too high, too low, whatever, it triggers. So, it's expensive though. I mean, I we just have to know as a council doing that one is really good because I really don't think it's great to be doing the water trucks going up and down both from sustainability standpoint, everything else. It costs money, time, you know, it's energy of a gas truck just spraying some water.

You know, it has to be done interim, but I do think that should solve. Um, what's the other things we could do? I don't know. No, I mean, I think I I can't support things that cost more money um to do that are significant and I can't support things that aren't durable.

So, when you look at some of these items and you're choosing equipment or needs, we went through this with the fire truck, you know, um our town manager at the time, don't even laugh, she was all advocating to buy the fire truck that was electronic, electric, and I mean, our whole town went crazy when they realized the lack of durability. Yeah, it was something. So, we don't want that.

We don't want anything that's not durable or causes more increase in harm to people or workers comp, any of that stuff. We need to keep it in balance, but as we can make these movements, what is it? Or has been tested. Yeah. We don't want to get something that dies. You know, they really pushed. We're on the path for an electric fire truck. Would have been a disaster in our area for batteries and needs and reusability. So anyway, I like a lot some of the things.

I do thank Council Member Leman for springing this out. It does make you think about things. It made me look at the bottles, you know, as soon as I saw I'm like, "Wait a minute, why are we doing that?" Um, so I think there's been some good awareness.

I do think we don't have a lot of money, so we have to be a little bit careful and not go too far ahead of the curve and let some of our peer communities test some stuff that are bigger and have more money and then if they work, we can maybe bring them here. Um, anyway, I yield. That was it. I just had a few little contributions. Thank you. It's a good Thank you. Other questions or comments from council? Go ahead, please. Uh, thank you, mayor.

Um, I too was questioning why we were way we had this on the agenda, but it's a good reminder because the general plan was approved by our uh residents and um it was included in the general plan after many um community-led meetings, this was uh added. So, um I too agree with Council Member Pace on a lot of the items. Um, I see that you had HVAC in here and then you me mentioned it. That's kind of a hot spot for me.

And so I just wanted to make sure that when you're saying you're replacing energy efficient items in HVAC, I want to make sure that that actually works and it lasts as long as other stuff the the because we have had so many costs related to our HVAC and we want to make sure that it lasts a while. So, um, do you have any, if you're referring to, um, Mr. Mayor, council member, um, if you're referring to the town hall AC system that, uh, we had units, um, that weren't replaced with the original.

We are working towards getting those replaced. They are 24, 25 years old, and they will be new energy efficient. Yeah. Uh, but I'm just making I would just want to make sure that they are long lasting, that they're not something that's going to wear out in a few years and then we're going to have to go back and re and buy another one. That's my whole That is correct. Yeah. Um, uh, the other thing is I saw about the fleet. Um, I don't really think that we need police cars that are electric.

I think hybrid vehicles are great. Uh, I love hybrids. Uh, I had many company cars that were hybrids and I mean I would fill it up and I would have like 500 miles to go, you know, drive. So, um, I think hybrids are great. Um, and, uh, I don't see us, uh, I don't see the reduced work trips working. Um, but and I don't support continue expand video and audio meetings when effective. I think we there's something that happens when people are in front of each other.

Um and uh I I would not support increasing the amount of uh Zoom related meetings because I do think that there's something that valuable that comes out of in-person meetings. Um and uh I'll go back to the financial stability, you know, um sustainability that is in the general plan and it is something that I'm very passionate about.

And um while we're looking at something that is the what the main title is sustainability, we always need to remember that we're um weighing the costs and the benefits and making sure that this and the length of time and um the replacement value, all those things so that we um are not just doing this because it's on the general plan. We're doing it because it makes sense. And so um uh I'll yield from there. Thank you, council member. Any other comments or questions from council?

Council member Roar. Thanks, Mayor. Yeah, I certainly support uh sustainability and I appreciate you bringing this forward. Um and thank you, Council Member Leeman, for spearheading that. Um I I do want to state that the general plan is a visionary document. It's not a code. So with that meaning that things that we do going forward that are being proposed by staff uh I would expect to see uh strong matrix of the cost versus uh benefit from something like that.

So I mean there's a lot of lofty goals on this presentation. So do you is that what staff plans on doing is bringing these forward? uh in a phasing type thing or just how do you plan to move forward with this? Mr. Mayor, council member, um this is that's a great question. These what I've talked about these this evening is really some goals and some strategies to meet our general p plan uh and and the the policies and procedures that have been set by previous council.

As administrators, we're going to bring to you uh what we feel u is meets those goals and policies for mayor and council to decide whether electrification of vehicles, what type of uh vehicles work. We will present to you u u different solutions for this council and this group to make decisions.

Do you plan on bringing forward a um a cost analysis that's done by professionals or is it this going to be something staff's going to tell us that this is cost effective and without are we going to have real hard data that shows us what the value is to things coming forward. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Moore, I think it'll be a little bit of both. Um I think there's certain items that uh that we uh as administrators um can provide hard data on um the ROIs, the analysis, the data analysis.

Um but if this council decides to uh for administrators to go and hire professionals on certain items, be more than happy to do that. I would think it would already be out there if these are things that you're bringing forward. I'm I don't think we're trying to be visionary in leading the municipalities and in the country. So, I'm sure you can find stuff that's already out there without hiring anymore. We certainly have plenty of consultants that work for the town of Paradise Valley.

I don't think we need anymore. Um, but thank you for saying that. Um, the just to mention um the police motorcycles that are from the chief. I know that the last time that we he spoke to us, uh, he would like to go to gas powered motorcycles and I know that motorcycles don't really have a long, uh, life on battery powered. So, um it it's an issue there.

But, um just kind of moving forward with these things that you have all of the data that if you're proposing something like that, like that there's infrastructure in place from APS to support it. Uh how much it would cost to upgrade systems and feeder lines that come into the town of Paradise Valley. I brought that up before.

Um, and I'm sure this is just like uh we're not talking about changing out the whole fleet, but I I'm um I just look forward to the the things that you bring forward and and uh the further conversations we have with that. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Thomasson. Thank you, Mayor. One of the things that makes a great community is one that is willing to continue to improve and never take the eye off the ball about getting better.

And in that regard, Council Member Leapman, thank you for bringing this up. And Mr. Shivera, thank you for leading your discussion with a focus on practical changes. Uh my only commentary is is uh partly to leverage off Council Member Andell's comments about um being thoughtful about where we seek to save trips and how we seek to be more environmentally conscious. We are a small municipality surrounded by larger municipalities and we need our friends everywhere we go.

and you generally build friends and create relationships by having contact. So I don't want us to, as they say, cut off our nose to spite our face. Um, also I want to stay focused on the issues that matter to residents. Last council meeting we had council, we had some quite a heated discussion about residents who were concerned about service level code issues, some pretty basic stuff. We had a robust conversation amongst ourselves.

So, I just want to caution that we don't move down the path of putting off site visits or putting off in-person resident response or delaying our responsiveness and our concierge level service because we're trying to save a trip up to Mockingbird. So, as long as we keep our residents focus in mind and don't get too crazy, I I couldn't, you know, I couldn't be more supportive of where we're going.

I just don't want to wake up one day or sit at that table and hear that we're funding an entire new sustainability officer to run around and look at everything we do. So, please keep it focused on practical changes to all staff. Please keep resident focused and priorities in mind and let's continue to improve within that construct. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, mayor. And um thank you to um all of my fellow council members for having this discussion tonight.

I think it's super important and especially to council member Leeman for bringing this forward um and recognizing kind of with fresh eyes as you came out here. Hey, wait a minute. Um as somebody who studies everything you do did a deep dive on that general plan and as you said um it's front and center. First time that's been in a general plan if I not not the first time. Okay. So it's so if 81% of our residents voted that in knowing that that was there.

I mean that that was a something intentional. However, I do agree what I'm hearing around the table. There's we don't have to do everything at once. We can take a moderate approach. The the lowhanging fruit as council member Pace said, I mean single-use plastics, easy peasy. I can't imagine that there's any higher cost to a water station over time.

And I would also caution as we're looking at costs, as I'm sure you guys always do in your presentations, it's not just, you know, is it $500 today versus $700 purchase, but over five years, we're going to save $1,000. So just a long range thinking of being able to to replace this for that including I would support um some sort of a fleet that recognizes that perhaps gas powered vehicles aren't needed in every single situation. Do we need an entire fleet fleet of electric or just hybrid? No.

I mean, we could start with one or two, but just intentionally moving in the right direction sends the right message to the people who took the time to vote our general plan in is is what I see. Um, intentional purchasing. I like the terminology you're using. Just give it a thought for a minute, right? Um, like the idea of a water station. I know the police department has one that has like fancy features, too. You can do like energy and you can do flavor, you know.

Um, and then when we do have to have uh a water for our for our residents who come to a meeting, there's no reason why we can't look at recyclable type situations. Um, I like that we're having this discussion bringing awareness. Um, shows respect to the residents who have brought this up and there's many of them. Um, so I'm Yeah, I I I think every I think everybody's on the same page. Even if it sounds like we're not, I think we are. So I yield. Thank you. Um, Mr. Shiver, thank you very much.

Uh, this has come up in lots of ways from residents and I know those that participated in the League of Cities and Towns know that there are several sessions that are always brought forward on sustainability and best practices. And I think as we go forward and I I concur that I don't want to see additional costs or necessarily a a sustainability person.

Uh but I think this is a level of awareness that I think is important for all directors to be looking at and that's what my goal was today in this discussion is to have that uh let's talk about the fact that I I look back years ago when Mayor Ben Wilner brought in an ASU water expert to talk about uh drought tolerant plants and and that was years ago compared to today when water is absolutely center of everything right now and so I think we have done this type of thing looking at sustainability.

I look over my shoulder and I see a recycling uh bins over here. I think this is the the point that I would like to to see is and I think the town manager uh as you work with your leadership team and your with directors have this in their mind about what you know what elements of sustainability uh again it's not a uh a mandate to go and do all of these things.

It's a mandate to think about it, to think about it when you go through your planning for the year, to think about it when you come forward for uh budget. And again, if there's some options that you want to offer, make sure they're cost conscience conscious and that they are uh they're not going to increase. Um, I I don't know much about bamboo plates, but I I understand I heard that today.

And I don't know that much about bamboo forks and knives, but if uh if the price is uh negligible, uh then that's that's something you may want to think about. But I think all of these things may not be immediate and they may not be uh a checklist other than the one word, sustainability. Just think about that as your teams go through making their budget and thinking about what our town's doing.

I think the discussion about what you're doing with the water and the irrigation on the on the roads is terrific. I know you've taken uh and I know we're going to talk about leaplowers here on the next subject item, but I do think again it's us thinking about this. We are stewards of this community. We were elected to represent and look out for the best interest of the residents. And to that degree, sustainability is included.

It's included in the thoughts of our general plan and it's included in good leadership practices. And I concur. I think council member Thompson said a lot of these things may be available through other connections with our sister municipalities or with our with the League of Cities and Towns or the Maricopa Association Governments. I don't I don't suspect and I'm not I'm not asking for you to dig into each one of these uh and justify I think there is data.

I think Council Member Moore may have said that there's data available for best practices and I really encourage that. But I thank you uh and thank you council member Leeman for elevating this discussion and and continuing because again it's not a directive. It's a it's a awareness that should be included in all of our decision-m.

I know I became the uh recycling leader in my household and it took me quite a while to get Olivia and Drake to throw away their their plastic and their cardboard, but I think that's that's behavior modification and I think you do that over time and I applaud you for coming in with this presentation and making us aware of what you're working on and what we may be seeing down the road. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Shivera. All right. Next up, and we are moving right on time. Thanks again.

Is item 26 number 285 and this is discussion of leafblowers for 45 minutes with Chris Martinez. Good to see you, Mr. Martinez. Good to see you also. Thank you. Uh good evening, mayor, members of council. Um yeah, thank you for the opportunity to discuss our testing program that we uh put forth this summer with the battery powered leaf blowers. Um the purpose of the presentation is to provide the comparisons that we found between the battery powered units and the gas powered units.

Um we can discuss the highlight uh or highlight operational considerations and the cost of the two and then we'll discuss the public works current practices and recommendations moving forward. So our test program uh started in the spring. We tested four brands of battery powered commercial grade uh leaf blowers and other tools, but specifically the leaf blowers.

Um in that program, we also worked with local distributors to obtain costs for the units, the equipment, the batteries to get an idea of what the overall cost would be. And then our public uh works staff uh myself and some of our other staff uh we research local agencies and businesses who have transition from gas powered equipment to battery powered equipment.

So the current inventory of our public works department uh gas powered leaf blowers is four backpack blowers, seven handheld gas powered blowers and from the battery uh powered side we have three handheld blowers currently. Uh the photo to the left is one of our public works technicians um working at the Goldwater Memorial using one of the the testing uh the battery powered leaf blowers.

Some of the comparisons that we want to identify um is one of the most important is the noise level produced uh between the two. So the battery powered leaf blower on average between the four brands was about 66 dB as marked on their technical specifications. Uh the gas power blower that we use is right around 75 dB. Uh the weight between the two the different uh products the gas powered versus the battery powered on average uh between the four that we tested it was roughly about 36 pounds.

Um, and then the gas powered unit that we that we have is about 26 pounds full with a full tank of of gas. Um, the technical specifications, there's a lot of them when you start researching the blowers and the different models and things like that. But some of the items that I wanted to compare, um, one of them being the blowing force um, of the battery unit shows again on average between the four right around 34 newtons.

Um again on paper that's what it's showing and then the gas powered blowing force of the model that we use is estimated right around 35 newtons. Um the run time for the battery powered units was another factor that we really observed. Um on average we got about 30 minutes. Some of them ran for 20 minutes, 15 minutes before you start losing power. Some of them ran for 45 minutes.

Um but on average it was about a 30 minute run cycle and then with the gas powered unit we could get up to 70 minutes um with a full tank. So some of the considerations of batteries the pros and cons um the ease of the ease of use was one of the the biggest. It's easy you as long as you have a battery that's fully charged. You push the button and technically it just starts running. Um the reduced noise was another um factor that was a major pro. Um zero direct emissions at the user level.

That was another uh pro for our staff and and obviously the residents around. Uh some of the cons of the battery powered units. So compared to gas, they're generally heavier. The batteries are, you know, anywhere from 9 to almost 20 pounds just for the battery itself. Um, and then the units, you know, they range also, but again highlighting the the fact that the gas powered unit was about 10 pounds less uh in weight compared to to battery.

Um, some of the other cons of the battery, the blowing power decreases as the battery charge declines. So, as the batteries wear on over that 15 or 20 minutes, 30 minutes depending on the model, you start noticing a power output um decrease also. So then our staff is tasked with changing out batteries in order to efficiently, you know, get their job done. Um, and then again, the shorter run time compared to gas. You know, it's very easy to pull a battery out and put a battery in.

But if we're comparing, you know, the run times of the two units, the batteries are typically shorter when when fully, you know, engaged with their turbo mode or high high speed mode. Uh the photo on this slide is of the Scottsdale Fairmont Princess. I visited their facility. Uh worked with their um engineering department because they have transitioned from gas to battery. Um it was a little bit of a bumpy road, but they got there.

And this is the this is their setup showing the different models of batteries that they use to operate all of their equipment. Their blowers, their trimmers, weed eaters, everything is battery. and that's in respect of their their guests uh for the gas consideration. So the pros of the gas unit and the unit that I'm showing here is the standard steel product that we use on our in our public works department.

So some of the pros is that consistent power output if you you know it'll run the same from the minute you fill up the gas tank until it runs out of gas. It has the same power output. Um, with that longer run time, you know, our technicians generally wear out faster than the unit wears, you know, runs out of gas. So, they're looking for a break. Um, the weight compared to battery powered is again on average about 10 pounds less for our staff to be um carrying around with them.

Um, some of the cons, obviously the emissions is is one of the major cons um at the user level. Um there's more effort to run these units. So in the mornings when they're blowing, it's cold. You know, these units have fuel sending units you have to plunge to prime the system and you know, you're pull starting this unit and there it's not as easy as a battery powered unit. So you know, obviously our staff likes the battery powered better. Um there's a higher noise output.

you know, at 75 del output. Obviously, it's it's pretty noisy. Um, and then it requires more maintenance compared to battery powered use uh units over time, you know, meaning throughout the year we may send a uh one of these units to a local shop to repair a carburetor or fix a fuel line or, you know, what whatever. There's more maintenance over the life of the unit of the gas unit compared to the battery. So then moving into some of the costs that we've identified.

Um for the battery powered cost, we chose the one that I think performed the best for our department, which is a crest model. I've never heard of it, but other mun municipalities are using it. Um the model is their KC501.9. um in order to accomplish a major cleanup around the town complex, the town hall to um as we do on most council meeting days to make sure the place looks good, we would we would need to buy three units, three battery powered blowers.

um due to you know ensuring that we have enough battery life to do the job which could take up to you know an hour at times to blow the the parking lot and the grounds we would um want to purchase sufficient batteries. So nine nine batteries is what we estimated and then the chargers the units themselves to charge those batteries are there. So overall the cost for the three um blowers themselves right at $1,900. Uh the nine batteries are the batteries where the cost really comes in.

Uh it's almost $13,000 for the nine batteries. And then the three chargers in order to charge those batteries, you're you're right around $2,400. Then moving into the annual estimated cost. This is uh I mean there's many factors that you can plug into um the internet, chat, GPT, any any source to help us identify what the the annual costs are. And I'm talking how much how many hours per day are we using it? How many days per week are we using it? How many days per work?

You you know there's a bunch of factors that that play a part here. On average, um it's it's about $55 per year per battery to charge. So with the nine batteries, we're right around $500 to to charge them throughout the year. And then looking at the gas powered um estimated cost, we already have the backpack blowers, but if we're comparing the apples to apples, three of those units that I showed on the on the previous slide, um and I there is a discrepancy in this cost by $20.

It's it's showing that the gas powered blowers are $630. In fact, they're $637. So, I just want to I just want to clarify that there is a discrepancy. It is kind of odd to see an 18, you know, $1,890 cost here compared to the batteries. That's why my estimate was my estimate was a it was off. So, I want to clarify that. But again, we already have the units, but if we were to buy them new, you're looking at almost 1,900 bucks for the units.

And then and then after that, you fill them up and you go. the annual fuel cost. Again, with these factors in place, um you're about $73 per unit. So, the three times that is right around $2,100 for fuel and and oil costs.

So, moving forward to what we recommend the public works staff is um to continue using the gas powered blowers in various areas through town, specifically the town rideways, the Goldwater Memorial, um continue evaluating the technology that's out there for battery powered equipment with the goal of transitioning one day to a battery powered um tool lineup um when they meet the needs of the public works department and they compare with those gas powered units.

And then um lastly, as far as some of the plan in place is um we're currently using those batterypowered leaf blowers um in various areas of town. Um so we will continue doing that when you know it makes sense. We will purchase a battery powered unit and we'll we'll use it around our operation. And then um this is the last slide.

So some of the trends around the state, you know, local municipal trends as well as um some of the resort trends specifically here in Paradise Valley and also our neighbor in Scottsdale. Uh the county has a um program. It's called mowing down pollution program where it's a trade-in program. Basically, you trade in your gas units. You receive a a a voucher to purchase battery or electric equipment. Puma County similar um a lawn and garden replacement voucher program. Um and then local resorts.

I reached out to almost all the resorts here in town plus the one in Scottsdale and they're trending towards battery powered units obviously for their guests. um you know the the peace and quiet of for their guests, but they still have to revert back to gas powered units.

When they get a contractor to come in and do a major landscape overhaul or there's a major storm cleanup, they still resort back to gas powered units, but they're definitely encouraging contractors, staff to to move forward with battery units only. And with that, that concludes the leafblower presentation and I'll open it up to questions. Thank you, Mr. Martinez, and thank you, Mr. Shiver, and your teams. I know you spent a lot of time this summer looking into this.

Um, I I know my colleagues and I have received quite a few emails asking and inquiring and looking. Um, I know the town manager and I have had multiple discussions and what the county is doing and how we work with the county uh to help manage the emissions issue, the noise issue, um, and the particulates obviously.

Uh, so thank you and your team for putting the time in and giving us an evaluation that's well worth evaluation to see where we are and to see what we might find for best practices and efficiency and what's best for the team and for the job that you have. Uh, with that, I'd ask if there's any comments and council member Keller. Uh, yes. Thank you, mayor. Um, great presentation. Thank you, Mr. Martinez. Great job. Um, I'm just curious on the staff report. Ow.

Uh, it says town council requested staff to evaluate the use of battery powered leaf blowers and report their findings. I'm just wondering when that occurred because I don't remember ever giving consent to study gas powered leaf leaf blowers. I don't recall it being a I don't recall if that was a directive.

I know it was discussed with a couple of discussions with council member Leapman at the deis uh regarding leaplowers and we've seen a number of comments but I I presume that it was something staff was doing. Last time we talked about this and went around the table was in April. You weren't at the council meeting I was filling in as vice mayor and we there was not consent to study this.

So, I'm just curious how this got to the town council requested staff to evaluate the use of battery powered leaf blowers. I'll answer that question. Uh, I think that's probably not correct. I don't remember a specific council consensus to say go and do a side-by-side comparison of gas powered versus battery powered. From my perspective, we have a couple of things. One, the technology that we use in public works and other departments is all purchased through our budget process.

And from time to time, I think it makes sense to highlight things that we do and the fact that we go through a process to think about as new technologies come online, does it make sense? And this is just an example of that. So, I think that makes sense.

At the same time, candidly, um, since I've been here, I've received a number of calls and emails and had meetings with members of the public who are Paradise Valley residents who have expressed varying degrees of concern about the use of gas powered uh, uh, leaf blowers in the town. Um, so ultimately the larger question of that is something that would have to be council direction.

However, because those meetings exist at the same time as I know that our staff is undergoing the process of looking at other technologies, it seemed like it made sense and it was opportune to have that. So, I can't tell you exactly why that made it in the staff report.

I don't think that's accurate, but I do think it's responsible for staff to come to council periodically and give you updates like this to say technology is changing in this area and we are looking at whether or not it makes sense for us to more fully invest or not invest at this point. So that's that's I can speak for my perspective on that. Are we going to amend the staff report then?

Um I think certainly by the minutes of this meeting we we will clarify and make sure that when it comes we will. I don't know if I don't know if we'd amend the staff report for a meeting that already happened. But there's no precedent for that. But I certainly would would would ask the town clerk make sure that that this conversation is accurately reflected in the minutes of the meeting. And then what was the cost for public works to do this study?

Uh there was no upfront cost other than staff's time or basic payroll cost. Um they were all loaner um products. Okay. So we'd received them on on loan for anywhere from two weeks to close to a month. Very good. All right. That's all I have to say. Council member Pace. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you um as always for your paying attention to details. Council Randy Gallery. You always do that with us. It's finance or minutes. That's good.

Pay attention to us and and what's being written. Um couple things. First, great presentation and good detail. I would say that this was really easy to read on Saturday when I was going through it all and it was good to hear how it looked. I mean, I think, you know, I would agree with Council Member Andy Keller that I didn't know how we got here, where we spent money. We're doing this because I read that on the staff report. I did not talk to her about I was like, why how do we do that?

I don't remember being there for that. Um but but having said that, you know, in the end of the day, we have a lot of residents who asked a lot of questions about this 8 to 10 years ago. I already went through this whole cycle before a lot of people were here, staff and everyone. And we we had a lot of interest by the residents then for trying to do something about the air, the particulates. It's the same exact thing we're going to do through today.

Same um we looked at a lot of things back then. um the costs were worse back then to try to do what you probably had better cost in comparisons today than eight years ago. Um I did float the idea that I and I totally understand why, but I did float an idea that I was trying to bridge residents with the council and the staff to try to um do a program that allowed for rebates from the town off their fire fee bill.

um if they wanted to do electric at their homes and they could prove it with a it's it was an administrative kind of a headache which was also my peers were like that's a big job you know but the concept was there was like does it do any good is it worth doing do we motivate people by giving some rebate and and encouraging more of it by a voluntary basis since we're kind of limited government we try not to impose a lot of things on our residents but try to make it a choice um and you know that did not make it very far in the analysis however what I you know I want to tell you when I learned all this and I went through all this um that people forget so we love Paradise Valley right we all think it's beautiful and the mountains it is absolutely the worst air quality because of the mountains it is absolutely we went through all the studies I had the doctors here in town provide the reports so just so you know even though we love our our our lovely mountains and none of us really I have asthma I stay here I know I get suffering at times because of exactly this reason, but I'm not moving because I love it.

But right, the people who live in the bowl, not for those of you fortunate enough to live outside the bowl of the mountains. Um, we have the worst zone and smug particulate dust pollution in the entire state and the country. And in fact, Paradise Valley has worse quality air quality than 94% of the cities in Arizona. So, what we studied back eight years ago when we were going through all this is we didn't realize at first we all had this impression it was the gas floors, right?

I mean like it's an easy target, right? And then we went through the study and did the medical reports that got submitted to us by those who know and it turned out we are bad regardless and this was this is you know obviously exasperating and is worse but we already start out bad and the reason for that is the bowl effect and the weather inversions and we're surrounded by the mountain ranges. I mean it when you hear about it you go oh yeah that's right that's why it all came out that way.

Um so there's a lot of things about that and you can read about it. We did reports back then. I mean, you know, so it's good that this keeps coming up and it's good to check new things every decade. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Or maybe it'll be sooner in the future. Um, I think anything we can do, you know, that helps us with air quality is great, but the reality is if you choose to live in PV, it is one of the sacrifices for the beauty. Everything has its good and bad.

Um, so I, you know, I already came at this one cycle, you know, and, um, I can't support heavier equipment. That's my employment law background and the impact on workers comp, you know, there's no way. I mean, the workers comp and the heavy is just one of those things. However, again, in time, we don't know what gets lighter and better. Technology improves all the time, and 10 years ago, we didn't even have the equipment we had today.

So I think it is actually even though we may not have formally approved as a council I'll speak for myself I think we had so much resident interest again it hadn't been looked at in nine or 10 years um eight years from my cycle and it was good to kind of see this comparison you know and I asked because I work a lot with the Arizona Landscape Contractors Association so I went back and asked I said is there any changes there anything people can do what's going on in the industries um you know and there wasn't yet and everything I researched even in California I went to research and it was not yet advocated yet like that level um because the equipment was too expensive, it wasn't enough runtime, and it was heavy.

And those were the three things that came into play. I do think the industry will keep pushing to make it better. I think that's great. I will say for personal use, our household has an electric gas blower. My 85-year-old mother has an electric gas blower and we use them, but we're using them for 30 minutes or less, right? We're doing our patios, we're doing whatever, and it's quieter and they don't bug the neighbors because they're doing it.

Um so, there is something to be said for personal choice um in our own lives. And I do believe also when I have my lovely housekeepers who are amazing, I keep Dyson electric vacuums on every area and every section and I make sure they're charged so they don't have to carry the big bulky, you know, vacuums through the house that hurt your back and, you know, just a pain in the ass. So anyway, you know, I do that for my own housekeepers as a choice.

People can do that in their own houses for the yard and the garage and just put in the the battery like how you showed it. That's pretty nice. Was that the four seed Fairmont that had those? Yeah, the four. You don't have to have that big of a thing in your garage. But you just open the garage if you have four, you know, electric packs and are on the thing. You can help your own neighborhood by starting that trend. And I've always advocated for that.

I started that eight years ago, but I think people forgot it. Um, and I think it really does help, but your landscapers only have so much time. We have super large yards here. It is not easy. Um, it's hard on them in the summer. You can't ask too much more. You won't have people doing work here in Paradise Valley. So, we have to be a little careful about what we do.

I do like the idea of awareness and I like the idea of setting a standard and I'm glad you did the proposals, but I can't support going further with it either. And you know what? I commend you guys with 10 gold stars that you gave a staff recommendation. I'm always irritated when staff comes forward and does all this work and doesn't really tell us at the end. It's always this, well, whatever you want to do. We kind of want to hear it. If we don't agree, we tell you.

We're not shy, but it does help to hear what the guys think, the workers and you and all that. So, I support the staff recommendation. If you want to do them in the, you know, in some areas, fine. I'm really impressed. You got loaner products. Good for you guys. You and Isaac are always money sensitive. That was really cool. I would have hated to hear, you know, that we just spent a ton of money on this stuff. So, I think it was a great try.

Just want to add some of the context and thank you for all that you did in the report and and it's good to be aware of these things at times. It just to me it doesn't work right now. Thank you, council member. Council member Moore. Well, thanks, ma'am. I just want to uh well, thank you uh for all the presentation that you brought forward and I want to thank all of our residents that have uh written in to us and and had concerns about this as well.

But I think you know the few that have written in I I would imagine every single resident in the town of Paradise Valley would like to have less noise and better air quality. So, I don't think it's um a big stretch to say that we all suffer with the the noise that it creates, whether it's electric or it's gas. Just some questions for you on the the the two that you compared. Did you use two-stroke or four- stroke gas lowers? We own a two-stroke. Okay.

Two-strokes actually have a higher shreel sound to them. I mean, it's which is I think more annoying than a four- stroke would. Throw four stroke has a a lower tone to it. Um so correction on that we it was a four stroke. You did use four strokes. Yeah, I believe that still be our fourstrokes that you have. Yeah. Ones we currently have are four strokes. Correct. Correct. The ones that that we own. I'm sorry. Yeah. Um anyways, um and I can we'll see what slide number that is because I love it.

Slide six. Throw that up there. I know. It's so clean. That's fantastic. So, if you're an on-site res resort and you're able to put something together like that, that's fantastic. How would a landscaper who shows up on your job site um who's going to need about 15 batteries for the day um to charge his electric gas blowers?

How would he do that other than have a generator on his truck that's running all the time so that he can charge the batteries that he's going to have to use in his gas blower? Is that a semi rhetorical question? That's a question. That's a question. How would you how would a mobile unit, which is I I think it's great that you can do that here right at town hall. You can do that at a resort and you can build something like this and you can go and change them out.

Do we Do you actually know how long it takes to charge one of those larger batteries that you have? I I don't have that off the top of my head. I know that you guys were testing them. How throw a number out. Yeah. I mean, probably three hours, three to four hours, right? We would we charge them overnight, you know, when we're done for the day, right? So I don't see how that actually works for a mobile unit. Do you? Right.

So our incident response unit, what's it's what we call it, our emergency response unit in public works, um is outfitted with some charging stations that are converted to allow us to charge batteries on the truck um through a gas generator. No, through the the running of the pickup truck as it's running that they'll charge the batteries. Oh yeah, we're going to running the truck to Exactly. to save on emissions to not run a gas blower, right? Essentially. Yeah.

So, the idea of putting battery units on that pickup truck was the ease of ease of use um when we come up to a scene instead of playing around with gas or or whatever. The battery uh tools on the truck are easier for our staff to pull them out, push the button, they start. That was really the the idea behind putting battery units on that truck. Yeah. I I I mean I think it's u it's a real challenge and it still is and I'm I appreciate all the work you guys did looking at it.

Um I I think that there are some things that we can do as a town and I u we can look at the hours of operation is you know a Sunday afternoon or Sunday morning at 6:00 a.m. Do we need to hear one of these? You know, there's there's things that we can look at that would pertain to the gas blowers, but I economically or even just in a practical sense, I don't know how a mobile landscaper is going to be able to go all electric, right? And I and I appreciate you looking into it.

And I think there's there's some potential in on on campus here and and other on-site facilities. But until that's resolved, I'm not interested in doing regulation that would change that. But I am interested in looking at the hours of operation. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Council Member uh Council Member Thompson. Just a clarifying question.

I understood tonight's presentation was a review of what um public works has been doing and not to I appreciate all the comments but are you asking us to give opinions on town policy going forward or is this discussion just limited to a reporting what we've done tonight's reporting what the town has done and looked at this uh not looking outside at any regulations or anything but uh looking at what we are doing on the campus in the town. Got it.

So, just just to clarify, I'm a I'm a s simple soul. What it sounds like is the electric leaf blowers make sense. They make for the town. They make more sense when you're close to home in the charging station and when you're around people where noise is particularly an issue and we can manage that which is probably why the resorts are moving towards electric because most resort properties and use of leaf blowers are very close to guests.

Um yet when we are out not immediately adjacent to people and we have higher volume needs Goldwater Memorial landscapes that the um gas make a lot more sense and that tends to be the practice. I just want to make sure I understand that. That's correct. Thank you. Scottsdale. So we know what our resorts are doing. Does Scottsdale as a municipality use electric gas or a combination? Um, I have not had a chance to speak to them.

I reached out to other cities around Scottdale was one of them, but I I I don't always get a response back from our neighbor. So, I do know of other cities that I actually talked to and I I can speak on what they're doing, but as far as City of Scottsdale, I I haven't received much feedback. What are you hearing from other municipalities? I'm just curious how how it's living in the municipal world. Um other municipalities are some of them aren't even testing at this point.

They're okay, you know, they're just living with the gas. Um city of Flagstaff I know have converted to um to battery powered units around some of their grounds. Um I spoke to city of Mesa who or city of Chandler, I'm sorry, the city of Chandler around their downtown district. They're using battery powered tools um but reverting back to gas powered with their heavy heavy lifting and and you know larger projects. Perfect. Thank you. And I just wanted to make a comment to our town manager.

I remember when you had shared with me that you that our public works department was you shared with me a couple things I just want to put on the record and and I thank you for it. One of the things you said to me was and I know we feel it as council members. a consistent mess, a consistent concern we've heard from residents over many, many, many years is the leaf blower issue, noise, dust, etc. And we all know issues come and go in this town, but that's an issue that's been consistent.

And I appreciate you um taking the initiative to create at least a test within our own town. And um based on what public works staff has said, I sounds like we're almost leading edge relative to other municipalities in terms of at least experimenting and try it. So I just wanted to give kudos to you for the initiative of conducting the test. Kudos to public works staff to yay getting it donated. We didn't even spend 17 grand. And kudos again to bringing this report back to us.

I think it's a very practical realw world um data set for us about how leaf blowers would work to the extent that we would have broader conversations in the future. So thank you all for jumping on this issue and how you jumped on the issue and how you reported it back to us. Thank you mayor. Council member Leeman. Thank you mayor. Um, thank you for doing this report and I think it was beautifully laid out and nicely clear and I am coveting this Fairmont Scottsdale Princess nice clean shop.

Um, one thing that was not mentioned here is first of all MAG's trade-in program is available to landscapers, towns, individuals. MAG is Maricopa Association of Governments and they are the ones who so anybody who's interested should if they want to look into it. Um the second thing is that the county regulates particullet. So that's not something that we have much control over.

But one thing that I want to mention about gas leaf blowers that was not part of your study but to me is critical is the emissions and the health issues of the emissions. And I especially am concerned about our employees using the gas blowers as well as all the landscapers in town who have those gas things right on their backs.

And I do think that that is a balancing consideration because I would be happier if we moved faster toward adopting cleaner, quieter energy consistent with our general plan and the the quality of our neighborhoods. And I am fascinated that the resorts have already gotten there. And yes, it's the noise.

I also think that it's a luxury experience and as we are Paradise Valley and we are a luxury town and I do think it's something that we should definitely relook at again since clearly my colleagues aren't interested and I understand moving forward today. Um, but I thank you all for bringing this up and for doing your study. And I know you've received a lot of comments and I know there are people here who probably will have comments during the call to the public. So, I'm cognizant of the time.

We have 10 minutes for dinner. So, I yield. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Can I Sorry, Mr. Mr. Martino just wants to let you guys know a little bit about the PPE that our our employees wear and use when they're using them in the field. I think this picture illustrates it, right? Yeah.

So, our staff, we talk about it in our morning meetings, uh, regarding safety, um, whether that's operating a vehicle or just out doing their their job um, with the dust mask, you know, the N95s we stock, you know, the safety glasses, the ear protection. Um, this gentleman has an actual arborist helmet on because of our tree trimming that takes place.

So, yes, that to your point, Council Member Leeman, um the safety of our staff is definitely a high priority and that's how we try to mitigate that. Thank you. Now, Vice Mayor, thank you, Mayor. I'll try to make this brief so we get a few minutes of food in. Um, thank you for uh the um examples that you gave today and and the presentation.

I I'm I I would be remiss not to say, you know, I appreciate the equipment testing, but the larger concern and what I thought that we put this on the agenda for is um what residents experience every week, the dust, the noise, the inability to enjoy the outdoor space.

And if not at this meeting, another one, our discussion should should at least address those impacts because I feel like we talked about something that I didn't hear from my residents, but I appreciate what what you brought to us today. If I could lean for a moment into education, this does not have to be action. Education is fantastic. Maricopa County already has ordinance P25. There's a phone number available Monday through Friday 8 to 5. Look it up. They enforce. They will come out.

They will take photos. They will um no blowing into roadways is part of the ordinance. The slab sur it has to be a stabilized surface only. Can't be dust. So when you see and I I see it the mayor has gotten my videos. I have it's it is not just that Arizona or the the U in between the mountains in PV has bad air. It's on my windows every week. I feel your pain. It's an issue. But if we can educate people that they're doing something wrong. We can put it in the town weekly.

We can put it on social media. We can educate and you can call Maricopa County and they will enforce. Has anyone I don't know if anyone's tried that yet. I'm gonna try it next week and just see what happens. So, with that, I yield. Um, I think it is an issue. Um, I think the time is not right with the dollars. Uh, but in 10 years, it might be, in three years, it might be. So, just let's all keep an open mind on on continuing to do our part like a lot of the resorts have.

They found a way to make it work. And I I yield. Thank you. Thank you. And again, Mr. Martinez, thank you and your team. I concur with the staff recommendation on this. uh appreciate the uh research looking at it, the laner uh units.

I think this is a longer term discussion that clearly some of my colleagues have indicated is of interest and we do get a lot of comments from the public regarding leapblowers not specific to the town staff and not specific to the town campus but the subject of leaplowers in a more valley centric you know expansive way that it's a topic that people want to hear more about and look towards best practices and I know uh hours of operation are something to look at and I trul truly believe that education is a great it's a great tool.

A couple years ago, the Maropa County did a great campaign uh to address uh air quality following major holidays like New Year's Eve and Fourth of July regarding fireworks and they were very u thoughtful and creative and really did a great job uh in communicating that and I think this could follow that same path at some level. But I obviously this is a discussion that we may have down the road with our with our team. But thank you Mr. Martinez and your team. Thanks very much.

And with that I don't think there's any further direction and we've completed our study sessions just a little bit behind. But thank you for everyone's uh being conscious uh to the time. There's a little break and then we'll reconvene in about five minutes six minutes at the deis. Thanks everybody. All right. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Well, good evening everyone. Thank you for joining us. The town council meeting for October 22nd, 2026 is called to order. Would the clerk please call the role?

Mayor Stanton, here. Vice Mayor Leel here. Council member And Keller here. Council member Leapman here. Council member Moore here. Council member Pace here. Council member Thomasson here. We have a quorum. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Uh, next on the agenda is our pledge of allegiance. And I would like to uh we have such a beautiful town and it's so wellmaintained. And I want to thank our public works department for the incredible work that they do every day to keep us looking good and being safe.

And I'd like to invite our director of public works, Isaac Shaveira, to lead us in the pledge. 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. Thank you and your team, Mr. Shiver. Yes. Uh next up on the agenda, we have no presentations tonight, so we go right to the call to the public. The call to the public is an opportunity for residents to address the council on matters not on the agenda.

In conformance with open meeting laws, the council may not discuss or act on any of these matters raised. However, the council may respond to criticism after all public comments have been made, ask staff to review a matter, or ask that it be placed on a future agenda. Speakers are asked if they can state if they are a town resident. Residents are asked if they can keep their uh uh limit their comments to three minutes, if you would.

Uh, and if you'd like to address the council at the uh, podium at the entrance to the council chambers, there is a form if you want to grab one of those, fill it out, and you can deliver it to our town clerk, Duncan Miller, and he will bring them forward for you to come and address. These are going to go first. Got Okay. All right. We got a good crowd tonight. Um, all right. First up, I would like to invite uh, together I would invite Clary Young and Allison Wedell to come forward.

There they are. Okay. Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Label, Council members, and everyone. I'm Claire, and this is my partner, Allison. We're members of the Paradise Valley Youth Advisory Council, and we're here to present the results of our sustainability audit. We put together a one-page handout with photos of everything we mentioned. Copies are available if you want to follow along or keep for reference.

Our goal was to find a way to promote sustainability in Paradise Valley that is accessible, inexpensive, and realistic. We weren't looking to propose something big or costly. We just wanted to look at what's already here and how it could be made easier, cheaper, or more accessible. So, we started with what the town does well, and there's a lot. The general plan includes a sustainability element. The state of Arizona doesn't require one.

The town chose to include it, so it's a value here rather than an obligation. The plan describes low water landscaping and two green fire stations. And it sets a goal of leading the community by example. We saw this in person when youth council members tooured town hall with Vice Mayor Christine Label and town manager Andrew Cheng. Thank you both for your time and for answering our questions. A few things stood out.

Staff use paper cups instead of plastic, which cuts plastic waste every time someone gets a drink of water or a cup of coffee. There are three separate vents for trash, plastic water bottles, and aluminum cans. Each label clearly, so sorting is easy. And the building has a lot of live plants, a sustainable choice over plastic decor. Paradise Valley already has a sustainable base, and what we're presenting next builds on it. I'll hand it over to Allison. Thanks, Claire.

As Claire mentioned, Paradise Valley already has a very strong foundation for sustainability. Our goal was to identify a few practical opportunities for improvement while keeping cost and convenience in mind. During our walkthrough, we identified four areas where the town could explore reducing single plastic, single use plastic like utensils, coffee creamers, water bottles, and cup lids. Our first opportunity is utensils shown in the top left image of the handout.

We noticed plastic forks and spoons in several rooms. The town could compare wooden, bamboo, or other suitable alternatives based on cost, durability, and disposal options. Our second opportunity is coffee creamers shown in the top middle image. We noticed many individual plastic creamer cups. A bulk dispenser or pitcher could still allow staff to serve themselves while potentially reducing packaging waste. Our third opportunity is water, shown in the top right image.

A bottle filling station could make it easier for staff and residents attending public meetings to fill their reusable water bottles. When we spoke with finance, we learned that the town purchases water bottles for staff meetings and events. Since a refill station would involve installation, plumbing, and filter costs, the town could compare those expensive expenses with current water bottle spending to see whether it would make financial sense.

Our fourth opportunity is cup lids shown in the bottom left image. The town already uses paper cups in a few rooms. Exploring fiberbased lids that work with those cups could be another simple way to reduce plastic use. Together, these four opportunities show that sustainability doesn't always require a major investment. Sometimes it starts with looking at everyday practices and finding alternatives that work just as well.

A possible next step would be to compare costs and potential waste reductions to determine which changes are most practical for the town's budget in daily operations. We recognize that our town audit is a starting point and our suggestions are ideas the town can consider alongside its existing priorities. Paradise Valley has already taken positive steps towards sustainability and we hope these opportunities can help build on that progress.

Thank you for your time and giving us the opportunity to share our findings. Thank you. Thank you both very very much and thank your uh group as well for putting in some valuable time. Appreciate that. Thank you. All right. Uh, next on the call to the public, I'd invite Christine Pearson. Everybody, my name is Christine Pearson. I'm a resident and homeowner. have lived in the house in Paradise Valley for 23 years.

Um, first of all, Mayor Stanton and council members, uh, thank you for taking our concern seriously at the last meeting. For the first time in nearly 5 years, you gave me hope that this pickle ball situation actually will be addressed. Tonight, I'm asking you to engage an acoustical specialist with specific experience assessing pickle ball noise. One example is Tucson based Dr. Lance Willis, a certified PhD acoustical engineer of spinarian and Willis acoustics and noise control.

His firm consults on pickleball noise nationwide, including at Arizona communities such as Sunlakes, Pebble Creek, and Trilogy at Encantara. I've read some of his research. I offer his name as one qualified resource. The essential point is to obtain expert assessment grounded in reliable measures. As you review this issue, you will encounter and already have in many opinions and personal accounts. Certainly, residents can describe what happens in our own homes.

However, decisions about court setbacks, expected noise levels, and mitigation require qualified measurement and analysis. Paradise Valley already has numerical noise limits. Please learn from a qualified specialist how pickle ball noise should be measured, whether effective mitigation is feasible at existing and proposed court locations, and how any proposed remedy would be tested.

Please do not assume that a particular distance, a barrier, or other modification will work without evidence that it will adequately protect neighboring homes. Mayor Stanton and town council members, please meet directly with a qualified acoustical specialist to learn what reliable assessment requires and what the evidence can support. Please keep this matter on your gen agenda until it is resolved as well. Don't rely on assumptions. Don't rely on untested remedies.

Don't rely on ungrounded references. Get the data. The peaceful enjoyment of our homes and the residential character that helps give Paradise Valley its value now depends on you. Thank you very much everybody. Next, I'd like to invite Terry Sterling. 21st. Hi, my name is Terry Green Sterling and I live in Paradise Valley. Let's make sure Arizona's most beautiful town is not known as Arizona's noisiest town.

A certified acoustical expert can help advise the town as it updates noise and zoning ordinances. Noise is complicated in the 21st century. For instance, one pickle ball court generates close to 1,000 hits an hour. 1,000 hits an hour. Each paddle strike is 1,250 hertz where human hearing is most sensitive. Our hearing is designed for human survival. Each paddle strike triggers within the listener a fight orflight response. The antiquated method of measuring sound. Oh, wait a minute.

Our current noise code relies on old-fashioned A-weighted decibel limits. This antiquated method of measuring sound understates the true impact of a pickle ball of pickle ball noise and makes it appear within code limits. We need a modern method of measuring the high impact sound that pickle ball generates. That method exists. An acoustical specialist can tell us how it's done.

As it is, the current current planning department zoning code interpretation for pickle ball courts lacks intellectual rigor. It would make Paradise Valley a laughingstock should it be codified as it is. And here's why. The interpretation does not call for notification of impacted neighbors during the permitting process. and the new setbacks in the uh zoning in the in the planning department interpretation. The new setbacks for courts would do nothing to eliminate the noise burden to neighbors.

Nothing. Minimum setbacks of 250 to 500 ft will enable noise mitigation. Please refer to the document I gave you on managing pickle ball through zoning. It's all in there. I close by asking you to retain a certified acoustical firm like spendy and Willis and Tucson which has many municipal clients to advise you as you update your nose noise and zoning ordinances. Thank you. Thank you. Like to invite Sarah Snell. Hi. Thank you for having us up here.

Um, I listened to the work group about the leaf blowers and I really appreciated Mr. Martinez's presentation, but it had very little to do with our concerns as neighbors. It had to do with what the town is doing on town facilities, but nothing to do with the real life experience of us as neighbors. I've been here 30 years in this in Paradise Valley as a resident with my husband and we've seen the ubiquitous nature of leafblowers explode as I know all of you share.

So, it's something the noise is really concerning, but my specialty is medicine and that I'd like to speak to. The the issue that uh council member Pace brought up about the bowl of our mountainous area is absolutely true, but what we're doing is we're creating the kind of exhaust that exceeds what our automobiles have and produce. So, we have carbon monoxide, which is, by the way, not filtered with the mask that Mr. Martinez showed us in the photograph.

We have volatiles like benzines and tluanes produced with these gas also not filtered by the masks in the picture that we saw and particulate matters which really hit the asthma issue many of which are not filtered through those masks that we see.

So if we ignore the the health consequences to our valley residents in addition to the noise which is again so bothersome I many of you had the experience of walking out with your meal your breakfast and coffee and just going back in because the noise is too horrible. It just ruins your experience and that was always that not always the case. So I would ask us that discussion was so underpowered and so limited. We were talking about one quarter of the issues and the accuracy.

He was not trying to cover any of this. That was not his job. I really appreciated what he did cover. So, thank you. I'd like to invite Mr. Eric Meyer. Good evening. Eric Meyer, town resident for 30 years. slipped out of the town uh just outside of town since 1968 when Chapperel and and Koba. Um I'm here on the leaf blower issue as well. Um every election everybody runs on the quality of life in Paradise Valley. In those 30 years uh the quality of life at my house uh has declined.

There is not a single day that passes without leaf blowers running outside. Today was an example at lunchtime when two backpack blowers were running outside in the neighbor's yard across the wash. Those create 110 dB on average each. As we learned in the presentation today, a desk the decibel system. We have a town code that says 56 dB is the limit at the property line inside my house. I am sure it was louder than that for over a half hour. So that code is not being enforced.

Uh, beyond that, went on a bike ride this morning till I got rained out. I passed 16 homes with blowers go going. Four of them violated code by blowing the leaves into the street. Also illegal, not enforced by the town. Um, it would be nice not to have those blowers going all the time for health reasons. Um, but also, as we found out at the presentation, the resorts have gone to uh electric because for for their uh customers. I see myself as a customer of you.

I used to be able to sit out by my pool as if I was in a resort. Now I have blowers every single day, two hours on Saturday morning with one of my neighbors across the street, two hours across. It was an hour today with two blowers going. So, I would ask uh my council members that you actually appreciate the concerns that your residents have. Um the cost was addressed in that issue, but it wasn't done over years.

The payoff when you compare electricity to gas was about seven years uh to break even on those electric blowers. If you look at it over time, the increased gasoline cost. Um, so as a resident, I would love to have it go back to the way it was 30 years ago when I could sit in my backyard whenever I would like and not have the blowers going. I can talk about the health. I have 30 more seconds. Yay. Um, so the health risk I I did practice emergency medicine.

Uh, the worst thing I ever to do is go tell a parent that their child had died of a severe asthma attack. Anything we can do to prevent that from happening uh would also be a nice example for the council to set uh for our residents. Again, as far as a cost, we saw those uh uh uh electric were going to cost a $17,000 investment. Um I think if we put on the ballot, do we want to get rid of gas blowers or have a nice entrance on Double Tree or not?

I know how I would vote, which cost millions of dollars. Um, this is $17,000 in our overall budget for the town to set an example, but I also think we should consider uh regulation on all those blowers. There are companies that promote using only electric um and work in the town. Um, so I would appreciate um you considering those things and and hopefully uh listening to your constituents and and giving them back the town they once had. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Uh, next I'd like to invite Randy Baness. Randy, not exactly sure what I'm gonna say because I know she's going to say some other things, but having sat through the uh session earlier and this is on the uh uh the leaf blower issue. Um some of the some of the uh specifics of the presentation were a bit flawed. uh we used averages rather than specific units in terms of from my perspective as a finance guy and a and a CFO and a costbenefit analysis and comparing like kind.

So the information you got wasn't would not have been adequate for me to make a decision. Um both from the weight of the backpacks Julie you brought up the weight he gave was not actually the weight. It's actually 32 lbs not 36 pounds which will make a difference. The ergonomics of the backpack are designed differently for the electric. Um with respect to the chargers uh Scott had some questions about charging these batteries.

Uh that particular unit was designed specifically for a very fast charging battery. That battery charges faster than you can use the equipment. For example, with their battery packs that you saw that nice deal at the resort that those batteries will charge in eight minutes as you heard from as you heard from uh Mr. Martinez. Um that battery can be used for like 20 minutes. So this is a big this is a big issue that the battery man or the the um battery pack blowers have um have accommodated.

They say that you can use two batteries instead of three as Mr. Martinez says and you can recycle those all day long as far as the mobile landscaper. They make a they make a battery bank just like you have for your cell phone when you get on the plane and you uh that that a that a that a mobile landscaper could have in his vehicle. Similarly, when they arrive at your house, they can plug it in even if you don't have the the fast charger that that battery will charge in 12 to 14 minutes.

Again, faster than you can expend it blowing. Um so again just some details that were missed in that presentation. So if you're making capital um expenditures based on that presentation I would tell you that it was it was missing some very important details upon which you might be making um important financial decisions.

Uh but all that aside, there's an aspect that also needs to be quantified and that's the health uh risks that we've talked about and um was mentioned the fumes of you were worried about the uh the um the claims of the backpack being heavy. Um, uh, think about those fumes and when, you know, you had a you had an opportunity to use electric and you chose to use gas and as a result that worker was hurt medically. Um, again, I'd h I'd challenge you to think about those things.

um the the um the the environmental issues and everything else. Those all have to be quantified. And it's not just about dollars and cents for the capital equipment. It's what's the cost of a better lifestyle for your constituents. Um okay, it's all I got. Thank you all very much. Thank you. I'd like to invite Cynthia Vaness Thank you all. There there was life before blowers and it was better. We've been in this town for I think it's about 35 years.

So we've been here a long time and and life has gotten worse. Um so one comment about the the battery packs. We could also have homeowners provide blowers that are available for their landscapers. And so the landscapers don't have to run out of batteries that the homeowner has. We can encourage homeowners to do that for their for their landscapers. So that there is a solution to that. We have for years been expressing our frustration with blowers. And it's not just one blower.

It's all houses around and there can be up to three, sometimes four blowers going at the same time. We like to walk every morning and we we leave the house by 4:30 or 5 just to avoid the sun. And they're already going and there is not a single day that we don't have blowers and I walk by and I make a big scene. I put my shirt over my mouth, but I don't want to have to wear a mask. I don't want to have to wear earphones when I go by this. You know, this is not this is not pleasant.

Um, so we strongly support the proposed the proposed ordinance that that uh that we saw from Karen Leapman and um and uh this was for a 12-month transition. It could be expan expanded and make it a little bit longer and easier for our landscapers. But this is a different issue than the towns. I I totally agree that the town should set an example, but we residents shouldn't have to wait for that to happen.

Um, other communities have done this, not just in Arizona, but Washington DC prohibited gas blowers in 2022. Montgomery, Maryland implemented a phase out with financial assistant for landscapers, and Ann Arbor, Michigan is completing its transition by 2028. And those are just three examples. There are many others and many in California. So, the this proposed 12-month transition would give landscapers enough time to adapt and homeowners could help in that process. So, thank you very much.

Thank you. Like to invite uh Bambi Vincent. I'm also on the leaf blower issue and I agree with everything everybody else has said opposing leaf blowers, gas powered leaf blowers. I live at the end of a culdesac so I have four contiguous neighbors. I have leaf blowers every day. Some days I have teams of two. One one neighbor blows twice a week. Another neighbor, the one closest to my patio, blows three times a week, all season, whether they're in town or not. They're often not in town.

I think a lot of it has to do with the landscape companies themselves. On every team they send out, they assign one or two or maybe three men to operate blowers. And they may or may not have other skills, but they blow whether it's needed or not. and they're just blowing dust and walking along putting dust in the air and you may see 11 leaves moving. Maybe not. They're not always things that are picked up. Um I think it's education.

Education to um the landscape companies that we don't want those gas powered mowers blowers and homeowners who may or may not be aware of what's happening. Thanks. Thank you. Um, Mr. Town Clerk, are there any further requests to speak? No, Mr. Mayor. All right. Uh, next on our agenda this evening is the consent agenda. Items on the consent agenda are considered by the council to be routine and normally enacted in a single motion.

If a member of the council or the public would like to discuss an item, it will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. With the town manager, please summarize tonight's consent agenda. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We have two items on tonight's consent agenda. First is item 26-280, approval of the minutes of the town council meeting of October 8th, 2026.

And item 26-287, discussion and possible action to approve the second amendment to contract number C-25-045- NG with Wayo LLC International. And that's it, Mayor. Oh, sorry. Sorry. jumped the gun. Is that that concludes? Sorry, I said that. Okay, I think I must have said that. It sound like I was still talking about that item. I was not. That's it. No more items. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. When you're done with this vote, there was one more call to the public. All right. Okay.

Um, well, we've uh we will uh come back to the vote on the consent agenda. If there's a call to the public, happy to hear hear the uh the resident. You want to announce who it is? Sean McCarahan. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. I apologize. Um, good evening, mayor and council. My name is Shawn McCarahan and I live at 5745 East Vos Ranchos. Um, I last spoke to you on October 8th.

Uh, I'm not here tonight to to reargue um my case, but I'm here to be constructive uh to talk about how the board of adjustment applies the law and how the town could do that work better to preserve Paradise Valley. Next door to me, um, the board voted six to zero to approve a pickle ball court 5t from my property line with a 20 foot light pole 10 feet from my property line. Town staff had written that a smaller court could fit elsewhere on the lot and that the lights were optional.

In effect, the board treated not having a lighted pickle ball court as a hardship. State law says a hardship must come from the land itself. I asked whether that case was unusual. So, I reviewed every board variance decision from January 2021 through September 2026, 41 cases in total using the town's own staff reports, packets, and minutes. Packets and minutes. My review, the supporting workbook, and a summary deck will be submitted to the the town clerk after I speak.

I'm an interested party, and I invite staff to check every number in my report. Here is what the record shows. The board of adjustment is consistent where the facts are clear. Steep hillside lots were approved eight of eight times. The board went against its own staff six times and five of those times it approved. Applied strictly the town code and state law support all 14 of the board's denials but only seven of its approvals.

So I repeat, of the 41 cases, if you apply the strict the law, town code and state law, they support 14 of the board's denials, but only seven of its of its 27 approvals. Most of the rest were reasonable once on difficult lots like bigger garages, additions, and pools where a code compliant option existed. Here's what I think matters most. I did this review with an AI tool working only from public records.

It read thousands of pages of packets, tested each case against each legal criteria, and flagged inconsistencies and errors sitting in the public record. A person still has to decide, and I check the work, but a tool like this could give the staff and board a first draft analysis of every application checked against the code and against past decisions in a fraction of the time it takes. Now that save time could go where residents feel it mo feel it most like code enforcement.

The same approach could help the hillside building committee the planning commission other touts parts of town government. So I ask kindly the council to place two items on a future agenda. One is a review of board of adjustment variance practice, including findings on each criteria in every motion and a staff report on how the town could pilot AI tools to make reviews faster and more consistent with state law.

And second, well, not second, I apologize, starting that um that review with a variance and hillside uh review. Thank you for your time and I'll submit uh the hard copy and I'll email it electronic. All right. Uh, that will conclude public comment for tonight. Uh, but I would ask if my council colleagues would like to have the town manager review the consent agenda or if we can move forward with a motion. Um, mayor, I would like to remove item 26-287 from the consent agenda. All right.

Uh, it has, uh, been noted that item 26287 will be considered separately. Uh, is there a motion to approve the balance of the consent agenda? So moved. Second. All right. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor of the consent agenda minus 25 uh 26287. All in favor? I. All right. Uh, with that, Council Member Pace, you have asked to uh consider 26287 separately. Yes. Uh, thank you, mayor, very much. Um, and thank you to Staff for putting it on here.

I had a couple questions and I don't know if it's to the town manager or whether uh our town engineer Char Johnson is here or is it or is it to Mr. Weaver? Look how there we go. He raised his hand. Okay. Um I'm always paying attention to infrastructure and sewer repairs and those items in our town from the beginning. So I see um when I read the staff report, thank you for that. Um it indicated that this was an emergency situation to do the repairs. Is that correct?

And the estimate is about $150,000 or is it $650,000 or $175,000 I guess mayor, council member, the Yes, it was essentially an emergency repair after a backup. The the cost estimate was 150 which was an increase from a previous retainer that we had for them and they've essentially completed the work and we're guessing it's going to come in about half of that. So this was the contract we needed approved.

were going to come in well lower it seems but no and thank you for taking care of this and addressing it but what I caught my eye that concerned me was that the staff report indicated we didn't have enough money to do this in the past budget so we had to postpone it till now just this fiscal year on this emergency situation because of fiscal constraints in our budget is that accurate or is that a mistake I mean I I'm assuming it's I'm just that's why I'm asking It got me concerned.

It says, "Under background and scope, second sentence, due to fiscal budgetary constraints, the repair work for this emergency was postponed to the fiscal year 27 capital improvement plan, sanitary sewer system repairs." Mayor, council member, I I I don't recall the specifics of that. My my my guess is, and I can look into it further, is that we had things budgeted already. It's not that we couldn't have if it had come in ahead, but when the budget's full, the budget's full.

So, we tried to push this one out and then when Scottsdale tried to clean it for us and it it backed up, it became a little more emergent. So, okay. So, it backed up and had a Did it have a problem for a homeowner as well? Yes, it did. And so, um, but when I see a sentence like that, it makes me very nervous. Not because you you guys did great. you you're following through as a staff and everything and I appreciate you bringing it forward.

But when we don't have enough money because we're short on our expenditure limitation and that's what's up for our voters right now on supporting 426. It's these are the things that matter and this is a good example of it because we didn't have enough money in this budget to do 175,000. I can't even imagine if we had other issues pop up and we're already close to our cap. So I appreciate you putting it in there. I will support it tonight, but I feel like we need to know this as a council.

That's why I'm highlighting it because I read the report that this was an issue and with our limits on money when we have things happen with our residents or if we wanted even to hire a acoustics person, we have to have enough money to do it. So, um I appreciate the information. I'm glad you're jumping on it. Um and that's my comments and I'll be happy to support it, but I wanted to understand this constraint. So, thank you. Thank you, council member.

Uh, with that, I'd ask if there is a motion to approve uh item 26287 from the consent agenda. Mayor, I mo I move to approve item 26-287 to authorize the town manager to execute the second amendment to contract number C-25-045- NG- A2 with Waco LLC International for emergency sewer repair work in the amount of 150,000 increasing the total contract amount to 175,000. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say I. I. All right. Motion passes. All right.

Next on our agenda tonight is the subject of public hearings. There is one public hearing tonight regarding discussion and possible action on the Franciscan Renewal Center major special use permit amendment and it will be presented by our planning uh by our planner Brandon McMahon. Mr. Yes. Thank you, mayor, members of council. Uh this is the public hearing for case SUP 2602, a major special uh use permit amendment at Franciscan Renewal Center.

So obviously the goal this evening is to discuss the application and for the council to provide final action uh to this place of worship is located east of the northeast corner of Lincoln Drive and Smoke Tree Lane and the west portion of the church um is within the town's jurisdiction and the east portion the larger portion is within the Maropa County jurisdiction.

Uh to recap process th this far, um this uh the planning commission uh forwarded a unanimous recommendation of approval on September 15th and council did uh hear this application again uh at the September 24th study session. As I move through the rest of the uh presentation items that are highlighted in yellow uh differ from last you saw this application. Uh this application again constitutes a major SUP amendment due to an increase of more than 40% uh floor area.

Uh this application uh now is a proposed 90% upon the existing on the site. Uh to review again the applicant is requesting to to place three solar shade structures um a reduction of the four from when this statement of direction was created. Uh so these three uh arrays, you can see the square footages up on the screen. Um last you saw the array one was 3745.6 ft. It has now been reduced to 3,433 ft. Array 2 once was 4370 now is 4,58 ft. Array 3 previously was 4,214 ft.

It has now been reduced to 3,746 square ft. uh totaling 11,237 square ft which is roughly 5.48% of the increased floor area. Uh the existing uh building that is on site is that community life center which you can see on that aerial. Um the applicant has also informed staff that he met with the resident to the north on October 20th and offered to again lower the arrays to 14 ft max height with an 11t clearance height. And I'll go over that height in a subsequent slide.

Uh to review, uh town council has approved similar shade structures uh previously. First Southern Baptist Church went through an intermediate amendment in 2023. Um and that uh array was approved at a maximum height of 14 feet 11 in above adjacent grade. Uh, Temple Salil went through a similar intermediate amendment in 2013 and that array has a a maximum height of 14 feet 6 in from grade. Again, in terms of land use, the church use is unaffected by this request.

Um, and we uh the future vegetation has already been discussed and was added in stipulation three. Um it was also brought up at the last meeting that uh based on one of the other stipulations is to have the trees along the northern uh portion of the site uh trimmed. That has already been completed uh by the applicant.

Uh in terms of height, again as previously stated, the applicant has now um offered to lower the maximum height to 14 feet uh with an 11 foot clear height, which is well compliant based on SUP guidelines at being 24 ft for accessory structures. These arrays are also uh compliant in terms of setback per guidelines being 60 ft adjoining residential and 40T uh adjoining a public street. The nearest setback is to the west at 99 feet away from that property line.

In terms of landscaping, the only thing that has changed since the last you saw is with the reduction in area of each array, they've shrunken each end. So, they were able to salvage uh roughly four trees that will still remain in place. Um this slide also uh depicts the stipulation three that was added um with the planning commission approval of adding that plan selection should the residents to the west wish to have uh plantings to better screen from screen the arrays.

Uh in terms of public comment um all required notifications uh and postings have been completed. To date there have been three mailings. uh voluntary notice was also sent back uh in April to these affected parties to the west and the the sample notice uh you can see on the screen to the right. Um notice for tonight's meeting was sent out on September 25th. There have been two letters of support as well as uh multiple comments made during these public meetings.

Uh in yellow you'll see there that three late email comments uh were uh submitted to staff and provided to you via the town clerk. Two from residents to the west and one from uh a resident in Colonia Maramonte. Staff did go back through the uh notification material and those two residents to the west did receive all three mailings to the site address and to the county assessor owner address.

In terms of next step, uh, if approved by town council this evening, the applicant will again move forward with building permits and completing all the other requirements found in ordinance 20262. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions, take any comments, and thank you. Thank you, Mr. McMan. Appreciate that. To my colleagues, any questions on the presentation? Council member Leapman. Thank you, Mayor. Um, could you go to stipulation number 10? Is that available? My question. Thank you.

It says the owner shall maintain four existing trees along the north edge of the property to a maximum height of 15 feet or as coordinated with town staff. So, I have a few questions there. Um, do we know what kind of trees those are? Uh, the applicant has stated that they are mosqu trees. Excuse me. Mosquite trees. Thank you. So, are they native and drought tolerant? Uh, uh, Council Member Leeman. Yes, that is correct. Thank you.

And how often do does the town in SUPs or otherwise regulate tree height of heights of trees that are not on a subject property? Uh, Council Member Leman, members of council, um, I would have to look back through uh, other stipulations, but as far as I know, it is not a common occurrence. Do you know if I I I know I'm putting you on the spot. Do you recall ever having done it before? Uh, Council Member Leeman, members of council, u, in amendments that I have processed, I have not. Thank you.

And I am concerned about this coordination with town staff that is also required in stipulation number 10 because this is a again why would town staff need to be involved in the coordinating of tree heights on private property on a kind of an this seems to me like an agreement between to um home um land owners rather than something the town would get involved with. Is it common for the town to coordinate this way in SUPs?

Council member Leeman, members of council, um when planning commission was crafting the stipulation, I think it was intended to give some flexibility with that stipulation so as to not come back and amend that stipulation. So as if there were some future coordination to be involved, it could be done per this stipulation and not be amended. Understood. And thank you.

Just for the record, I am not comfortable with cotifying into a special use permit such a restriction on a on a um a height of trees, especially native um trees that are something that if you look through our general plan is full of developing a tree canopy and using native trees and drought tolerant trees. So I have a number of issues with that particular stipulation. Otherwise I have no issues with this but I will be asking that that stipulation be removed. So thank you. Thank you.

Other questions or comments from my colleagues? Council member Pace. Thank you. Um when you how long have you been with the town of Paradise Valley? Since 2022. Okay. So like three years. And have you researched everything in the town of Paradise Valley for the SUPs and what's approved when you were taking this communication and telling us that it's never been done for landscape before to have height requirements? Uh, Council Member Pace, members of council, I said that I have processed.

I didn't say that. I had researched. So, yes. So, in the last three years, you haven't personally processed a height restriction. Are you aware if anyone in Paradise Valley has done that before? Council member Pace, members of council, I'd have to research and bring that back to you. Okay. So maybe the better answer is you don't know. Is that correct, Council Member Pace? That's correct. Okay, fair enough.

Let's I don't want to have misinformation for our council on making these important decisions. And I already did you get the packet that I sent you about SUP permits and I sent it to staff that indicated the town regularly looks at height requirements of all kinds of items on properties for SU properties. Did you receive that from me? Uh, council member Pace. It was not forwarded to me. No. Okay. Did Mr. Weaver get it and forward it to you?

Mayor, council member, you'd have to repeat the Yeah, that's okay. The information after I listened to the planning commission who had a lot of good comments about putting a 15-oot height limit in to reduce conflict and to impose that on a um SU property.

I pulled together the Paradise Valley history of looking at SUV properties and making those decisions about height requirements, even if it included landscaping and other items to help support the general plan and keep open space and things of that nature. Didn't I send that to you and you received it? I I'd have to go back and look at it's not something we could provide into the process. We wrote this up as the commission had adopted it. So, okay.

So when I took the time to research the information because there was misinformation provided at our council meeting on this topic when it said we did not actually look at these things to protect our residents. I gathered all the information. So I'm hearing tonight is to educate and provide that institutional history. The staff did not get to see it and you didn't share it with them. Is that correct? Council member case I make sure we focus on I am I'm focus this is the key issue right here.

What are you saying? We're right out of dispute right now with Council Member Leeman wanting to change it. The planning commission looked at it and Mr. Brandon has testified to us that he didn't wasn't aware that SUPs could actually address landscape or other requirements for height. Mayor, council member, Mr. McMahon didn't say he wasn't aware that they could. He's unaware that they have. Okay. Are youware aware that he has not and I did not forward that email. Okay, fair enough.

Are you aware that SUPs in the town of Paradise Valley um from our houses of worships, our schools or our resorts that are planning your staff and this council can actually look at those kind of amendments and stipulations and put height requirements whether it's landscape or other items on a property that's SUP? Mayor, council member, legally speaking, yes, we could.

Typically, the way it would do it, we would do it would be to select plants of the proper height, but it's within the realm of something a town could do. Okay, fair enough. So, we can do it and it's on here. Is there anything wrong with item 10 on the stipulation to limit the heights of these trees to 15 feet as an SU stipulation in Paradise Valley? That's an opinion. Council member, Mr. Mayor, council member, if I can jump in on that one.

The the question is asking for a legal conclusion from our planning staff, which I don't really think is appropriate for them to answer. Uh if you want an answer to that question, we can certainly go into executive session and I can provide it for you. But uh I don't think it's okay for Mr. Weaver to provide that answer. No, I don't need e session. We can do this in public.

Is item number 10 town attorney Magcguire is that allowed to be in here and is that legal and approved that the staff has this as a stipulation? Is there any problem with that? Mr. Mayor, council member, we have there are two things that I would want to remind the council of. When the SUP provisions were put in place, the United States Supreme Court had not decided the Sheets case.

And so your discretion with respect to all of the things that you can put into an SUP because it's essentially a zoning decision was unbridled legislative discretion. After the sheets case, your legislative determinations, just like all of your other discussions, have to now be subject to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. So, if you want me to give you an opinion as to whether or not this meets or does not meet that, we'll do that in executive session. Understood.

I then that's a different question than if these stipulations can be approved as they are tonight by our council because I would assume as a town attorney, you would have already called this and had us remove it if there's something wrong with that stipulation being in this for something to just approve tonight. Can we approve it tonight or not as is? Mr. Mayor, Council Member Pace, again, if you want a legal opinion on that stipulation, I will provide it to you in executive session.

If you want to have the discussion about whether or not to remove that stipulation, you can do that up here. Okay. So, let me ask another question. As the town attorney that you work for us, did you not review this before tonight before we're supposed to be approving this? Pardon me, Council Member Pace. I would I respect you've got some many questions here. I would uh ask that we would adjourn into executive session to get feedback from our town attorney. I second. It's been moved and seconded.

All those in favor? I we will suspend the meeting until we complete our executive session. All right. Well, thank you for your patience. We'll continue with uh questions from the council for Mr. McMahon and we were with Council Member Pace. Thank you, mayor, and thank you, Mr. McMahon. All right. Thank you. I have a couple of questions about communications to residents. So, we're trying as a councilman and town and staff and your team to get communications to residents.

And we did get a number of well-written letters um today, yesterday, this week. So, thank you to the residents, whoever they are, if they're listening, that sent them to us. Um, we started this process before we did the statement of direction and you even had made the comment you were sure the CASA would talk to all the adjacent residents and I hesitated because it's always hard when applicants come to us whether they actually honor that and how we get to them.

But independent of an applicant talking to residents, you as the town sent out notices, correct? You mailed to the residents. Uh, council member Pace, members of council, that's correct. The applicant sent the notices on town letterhead. Okay. Okay. So, they're sending that one, but you get you get support back from the so the applicant sent these notices out, not you, not the planning staff. That is correct. Okay.

But they send you a statement that they are and a list that they actually sent them. Is that the normal process still, council member? That's correct. They and they also provide us with uh sealed affidavits. Perfect. Um so we have a process that is supposed to notify the residents and in what um what distance is this one for communications? Council member it's 1500 square feet around 1500 square feet. Okay.

And we are starting to experience an issue repeatedly that people tell us they don't get the notices. Do you know why that might be? Council member, I'm unsure. Again, this applicant has mailed to both the owner address and the site address per the county's records. Okay. Um, one thing, yeah, the one thing we're learning is a lot of people don't get their mail. I saw the one um resident say they didn't get their mail and like I know my friend here doesn't do her mail.

They have people who do their mail for them anymore. Um, and so and a lot of people it's a second or third home so they stop mail and it never is going to get there. So, is there another way we could try to communicate to get to these residents in time to participate in the process? Is there things that can we put it in the town manager's newsletter when there's something when we're sending notices out? Would that be helpful?

Council member, I appreciate the the line of questioning, but I do think we need to focus on this SU and what Mr. Fair enough. Well, you guys heard the comments. I would hope the planning would look at that. Um, but we did get three. We were told before there was only one resident that was objecting to these in the vicinity, but we now have is it three? We have three comments now, right? Correct. Two to the west. Okay. And one in Colonial Colonial Ramonte. So those three oppose it.

Uh it's unclear in one of the uh responses. I think they were they were stating that they were unaware that they did not get their mail. Okay. All right. That's fine. I just get concerned that we have so much notification and people aren't getting it. Um, okay. That's all my questions right now. Thank you for council member. Other questions from my council colleagues for Mr. McMahon? Council member Thomasson. Thank you. Mr. McMahon, could you pull up slide 41? Thank you.

So, first of all, I want to commend you and your team for all the work that you've done working with the planning commission and working with the applicant and the residents. I know it's been a long process and a lot of detail. So I attended the last planning commission where planning commission voted I think 70 I'm not quite sure to recommend approval and I was struck by this visual.

As I understand it the line that is there originally showed the view impact like that's supposed to replicate what the uh shade structure would look like. So I understand that couple part question. would you confirm that that's what that line is supposed to be? And then subsequent to this making this visual, two things have happened. The renewal center agreed to pull back the uh start of the shade structure and they also agreed to reduce the height.

So what I'm looking at at is not the visual impact of the shade structure, but in fact the current visual impact relative to this orange line would be in effect lower because it's further back and it's lower. Is that correct? Uh council member Thompson, members of council, that is correct. The orange line indicates the general width of the solar array and it's difficult to see in the shadows but that is the applicant provided a a lift and that orange line indicates where the top of that lift is.

Okay. But that is correct that they have again reduced the height to 14 ft and removed 20 ft of array setting back uh the array further from the resident to the north. Okay. And I understand this is an application for a solar array. We're not talking about putting another building there or home or anything, but to help me visualize if if it was a home or if they wanted to put a building, SGP guidelines would be what? 20 feet, 24 feet in height.

Uh, council member, members of council for an accessory structure is 24 feet and the setback for accessory structure is only 60 feet from height. Okay. And I know that's SG guidelines. I'm not suggesting that's what anybody wants to do, but relative to the guidelines, if I look at fif if I look at that orange line, how tall it is and how far back it is compared to what could be there, it just gives me a sense of a visual impact. Thank you for explaining that.

And again, I appreciate the work of everyone involved. Thank you, mayor. You other questions for Mr. McMahon? Any from my colleagues? All right, with that, uh, thank you, Mr. Oh, Mr. Uh, Council Member Moore. Thank you, Mayor. Just a quick question. You keep saying 14 feet, but on our presentations it says 15. Am I correct? Um, per this um at the time that that this packet the applicant has stated that he met with the neighbor to the north and offered to reduce outside of this.

So, if there were to be any sort of approval or motion made, we would have to add that as further stipulations to lower the height for them. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. Um, all right. I'd ask, is there a a presentation or report from the planning commission? Not seeing any. All right. Uh, with that, I would ask if the applicant would like to make a presentation. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you to the town council. We appreciate you.

Uh, I just want to say that we aren't trying to destroy people's views and we really have done the science and the and the necessary work to prove that this isn't going to destroy anybody's views. Um, and we're really good people at the Franciscan Renewal Center. We save lives every day. Our miss, that's our mission is renewing lives. And instead of giving APS hundreds of thousand dollars a year for electricity, we'd like to generate it from brother son. And it it tree heights, whatever.

You want to come walk the property with me every month and tell me which trees I need to trim, I'm happy to do that. We're very reasonable people. So, all I'm asking is we've been at this for 10 months, right? We're close to $20,000 into this thing. Our donors are are adamant that we get this done and we need to get it done.

We need to get a shovel in the ground before the end of the year because there's a tax refund from the federal government from the uh inflation redu reduction act that will give us 30 to 40% back of what we invest in this and we're going to take that and roll it into more so that we can eventually be net zero. So, we've done everything everybody has even requested of, you know, tree heights, whatever. You we're very we're very reasonable people.

We just don't want to pay APS for money that could be used to save more lives. That's that's the issue. We want to go net zero. And that's all we've done. everything everybody's asked of us. Um, so yeah, I mean, we're talk this is over six $600,000. I could get $200,000 back to roll into more solar so we stop using fossil fuels to turn our lights on. Uh, so I I don't know what else we can do. And we have land rights. We have the right to do this.

and we've we've compromised and we're as far as we can. We can't compromise anymore. So, I would really appreciate if council would see our side and realize that this is a good thing. It's not a bad thing. We're not trying to disrupt anybody's lives or views. We're trying to do the right thing. This is the right thing to do. So, I appreciate your time and I'd like to have uh if it's okay, Buzz Slavven, our attorney, speak as well. Mr. Mayor, the speaker did not state his name on the record.

Could you uh could you repeat your name? Sorry. I'm Mike Slivers, director of operations at the Franciscan Renewal Center. Thank you, sir. Good evening, Mayor and Council members. I am Francis Slavven. I've been a resident of this beautiful town for over 30 years. I in the newspaper this morning, it said we were the 30th most expensive city or town in the United States in which to reside.

Having said that, it also said that the average residential structure in Paradise Valley sells for $3.5 million. So interesting. Um I'm also a uh a member at the at the Francis Renewal Center and I've been there for almost 30 years as well. Um the decision to be made here is based upon established criteria um under the zoning ordinance and under your general plan. Okay. And the staff has reviewed this and made a recommendation telling you that we do conform. Okay.

And we've got a planning commission. The planning commission heard this thing more than once and uh and they also made that same conclusion that that we had satisfied uh the requirements and together with uh a number of stipulations. Now um as to those stipulations, we we uh like Mike said, we just we agreed with them. That was fine. uh not necessarily that they were something that we would have gone out and and uh bragged about.

Now mere opposition from adjoining property owners is insufficient for denial without demonstrated actual harm. That's what the law says. Got to be some actual harm. So what does that harm consist of?

Well, seems like it's more than merely impacting a view from the we we've met on several occasions with with a woman to the north of us and and I've spoken twice or three times to her attorney and we also have uh and we just recently received these these uh emails and council member Pace so you know we sent out a notice to to as we were required to do and we had a meeting a hearing or a meeting at the at the Francisco Renewal Center and people some people showed up for that and I they were all in favor of this project.

So except Mr. Schwarz I think she was there or her son Shawn was there but essentially we went out and we tried to contact everybody. Now, is this a great process, the United States Post Office? Well, I've found out that the hard way that it's not always the greatest. But having said that, um I have probably handled over 200 zoning cases in my lifetime. And my my my most popular one was the Camelback Espan 24th Street and Camelback Road for our former governor, Mr. Simington.

And I can tell you that no matter how hard how hard you try to communicate with the people in your community, someone is always going to complain that they didn't receive the notice. And I understand that. And it's it's also the same thing in the in the I do some commercial litigation as well and those are provisions in there with regard to people who did not receive notice although it was sent out.

Now the array number four which was shown on the screen the the orange one if you will that was eliminated. So that one is gone. So although there's parking there's parking there but there's no structure going to be built there. So you can imagine having going to a building. Let's say you go to a building for a meeting and you park outside, you don't park within a garage or a structure and you come outside, you feel the consequences of that.

So not having these covered parking, our our members also feel the same way. So whether it's solar panled or not, if it's covered parking for our people, covered parking, that's what we're asking for. and we comply with the requirements. Our original application was for approximately 100 covered spaces. We have probably 70 to 75 at this point in time. So we've had a significant reduction in what we applied for. Did we over apply?

No, we didn't over apply except that through the the uh graciousness of the Francis Renewal Center were able to accomplish what we've done so far. So, we've been both gracious and cooperative. We started this process with you in January. Here we are 10 months later and Mike Slivers mentioned the fact that If we don't get this started soon, we will lose a $200,000 credit for the inflation for the inflation reduction act. So, it's important for us to move this ahead as soon as we can.

We've met with se several times with the neighbors. We've met with anybody who's asked us to meet with them or correspond with them. We have not shut anybody off at all. So, we've tried to be open to the communications that have come upon us.

Um, and at this point in time, uh, and I don't want to say this too sternly, but I don't I don't think there's a legal basis at this point in time to deny this permit application since it complies with all of the requirements that the town has in force today. Having said that, I appreciate your opportunity, the opportunity for to speak to you and and to uh if you have any questions for Mike or for me, we'll be certainly glad to answer them. Thank you very much, mayor and council members.

Any questions for the applicant from the council? Council member Pace. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Buzz, for being here. Um, you you've lived in this town how long? 30 years. Do you know the general plan? Do I know the what the general plan is? The town's general plan. Yeah, town's got a general plan. All right.

Do you like the section that talks about one of the uh that Paradise Valley general plan treats scenic views as a critical community assets and dictates that mountain vistas must be preserved? Do you agree with it? Well, if that were the case, then then I could go to my next door neighbor. I could go to the neighbors all around me and cause them to take their trees down and to move their houses back. You and I are lawyers. That doesn't work in residential. We're on an SUP property.

Is that correct, Council Member? I make sure we focus on I am on SUP properties. He's incorrect. That's why I'm correcting him. Not talking about residences. We're talking about an SUP property. Isn't that correct? Yes. Okay. Let Let me Maybe I can answer that in a certain way as well. Okay. These are There's five acres here. Correct. Okay.

If we were not using this five acres for a church or a church facility and we're just five acres zoned, one dwelling unit per acre, how many homes could we build on there? One house per acre. One house per acre. And how how tall could it be? Two stories. Residences will be different on flat land. Okay. So, we can have twotory residences, but we do SUPs differently. Huh? We do SUPs differently to have the privilege of house of worship and stakeholders.

I understand you do those differently, but I'm trying to compare if you have an SUP for a, if you will, a a religious use. Correct. You compare that with if you didn't need the SUP, what would be there? And I'm saying that we are less intrusive and less impactful than if this property were developed with single family housing. Okay, fair enough. But let's talk about the general plan. Do you believe in securing and preserving?

I'm sorry, Council Member Pace, I have to ask you again because we have a good group of folks. I know this is an important issue, mayor. Super important in this town, and this is our chance to ask them the one time. I did ask to meet four times with the CASA, and they declined, myself and Council Member Andy Keller four times. So, I'd like to ask my questions now. Fair enough. Thank you, mayor. Because I we did try four times in writing. I would like to have had this offline.

So, I don't want to have this opportunity taken away from me and all the residents. Um, so when we look at the general plan, would you agree that in Paradise Valley that a lot of times our applicants come in and they've thought about our general plan and they propose things that are much smoother and much easier to meet what the residents would like in Paradise Valley than how this project has gone. Well, I don't know if I totally agree with that. Oh, that general say okay. Fair enough.

But I I think anybody and I've I've I've done this over the years. Uh for instance, when I handled the Esminade project, there were 10,000 people living in the Builmore that were opposed to that. Okay? So, I know what it's like to have opposition, but you meet with people. You converse with people. You try to go back and forth and try to come up with something that that makes sense for them. And you can also accomplish your purpose in mind.

And they don't disagree that there would be a permitted use for the southeast corner of 24th Street in Camelback. Same thing for this five acres. The question is what is reasonable? what is necessary for this project. I don't think anybody could say that putting in these covered parking spaces for a church in 110 degree temperatures uh is something that's unreasonable and not permissible.

Would you agree that First Institutional Baptist Church where we put them in on Scottsdale Road is different than putting the height limit you're asking at 15 feet around resus I know nothing about that case. I'm sorry. So why do you think 15 feet has to be the height instead of nine? Why are we having it so high to block all the views for everybody in the area? Well, why we don't need 15? I hate to interrupt again, but this is this is 15 ft versus nine.

Most people would say nine feet is enough for the for the So, if I'm not mistaken, the height is that would help. We we have lowered to 14 ft as presented by Brandon. Yeah, I know you lower it to 14, but why isn't it 9 ft like many of them around town? Because everybody's going to run into them. We have you have vehicles that are raised. Look at all the vehicles that are raised. I mean, I today I'm driving down Camelback Road in my office. I was a and I'm I'm in a full-size sedan.

How tall those vehicles were and and they seem to be very very popular. And so what do we do? We just simply say, "I'm sorry. If you've got a high vehicle, go to another church." Okay. Well, I have an SUV and I can get in a 6'2 in garage. So, I don't know why we need 15 feet. That's what I'm asking. Council member Pace, I have to interrupt again. We've got a proposal that we're discussing that's at 14 feet.

If I'm I may make an amendment to lower it to nine because that's what I'm hearing from other people in planning after this came out and other people who say it should be nine. So I think that's a compromise and that's why I'm asking if we can reach a compromise with the CASA to do something that would make more sense. Not at all. I'm sorry. We can't do that. No, we have compromised for 10 months to get to where we're at right now. We're done compromising. Okay.

So the decision is either we vote for it or don't decline it because of the lack of cooperation and lack of consideration right and again customer base let's let's not be combative I don't want to we know what's in front of us let's focus on that right so if it gets declined then then I'm going to have more involvement you're going to have what I'm going to have more involvement than I have what you're saying is you're going to sue us council base I'd ask you to please I will let's wrap the questions because there's other folks at the dasis that may have a I would say that one resident matters.

We've got three now who are adjacent. I don't understand why it couldn't have got worked out cooperatively and mediated between all of you to make something better for the whole community. And for that we're looking at the sign with lights. We're looking at other things that have happened there. I get the arrogance of the community. I don't get it. I would ask you think about it and try to do things that's good for the whole community. That fits the general plan. Okay. But you'll be there again.

What do you mean?

So, council member and I I would ask again the cause in this circumstance in my opinion has been council member we're not we're not here to negotiate so what we're talking about so so the nearest we're like 90 feet away from the people to the west from our from with our structure here how far away do you suspect we should compromise with them to provide for view impact they're not going to have any noise impact because it'll just be cars come again going in there from time to time.

But but so how far do we go in making that decision? We have been through this process over and over again. We eliminated array number four. Okay. We chopped that one right off which I think is a positive and I thank you for that. Yes. So no, I'm just asking if there's a way to compromise to make it better. Council member, again, we're we can't negotiate, but I appreciate I'm just asking. No, thank you. Thank you. Uh any other questions from the council for the applicant?

Okay, just as a reminder for those that might be viewing at home or in the audience. Uh thank you, sir. Um we are in a uh we're a hearing a public hearing process and I'm about to open up the public hearing and allow uh I've got several requests to speak. If you haven't submitted a request to speak, but you'd like to speak, uh, please go back to the lectern when you walk in and fill out that form and provide it to our town manager. But with that, I will open up the public meeting.

The public meeting is now open and I have a list of uh requests to speak. So, I'll go ahead and invite you to the podium. I'd ask that you state your name if you're a town resident. Please keep your comments to three minutes. And with that, I'd like to ask Chris Romano to come forward. Good evening, mayor and council members. You'll have to apologize to you because I just found out about this literally 48 hours ago.

We purchased uh I'm a representative for the owner of the property, a 97y old gentleman who currently lives in Rhode Island, but is out here six months of the year, has lived in Paradise Valley and various homes for 40 plus years. Three years ago, he purchased a home that burned down. You might remember it. It was off of Stanford, kind of in that area. Beautiful home burnt down. He purchased this home for himself and for his son when he passes to finish out his last few years here.

Um, tonight I am respectfully requesting a 30-day continuence of this application. The we learned of this uh we first learned of the pro proposed project late Tuesday afternoon, October 20th, less than 48 hours before tonight's hearing. The property was purchased on May 26th. The original notification was to return to the town because the residence was vacant during the ownership transition as it was, I assume, addressed to the previous owner. We did not open any of his mail.

The the current owner was unaware of the application and unable to participate in the earlier proceedings. We've effectively had one full business day to investigate the project. I'm not suggesting that the town necessarily failed to follow its notification procedures. However, the practical result is the owner never had a chance or received notice and had no meaningful opportunity to participate.

Given the circumstance circumstances of the 30-day continuence and unreasonable request referencing September 15 planning commission staff report page nine. The report specifically identifies 6527 North Smoke Tree Lane and it discusses additional landscaping along the western property boundary near the resident's backyard. The town and applicant therefore recognized that this property was relevant to the proposed improvements.

However, the owner was unaware of the proceedings and unable to provide input. Additionally, he's in Rhode Island and like I said, he's old. He he could not be here in time in the in the 48 hours. My understanding is that regarding policy LU62 is that the Paradise Valley's general plan specifically calls for the community impact assessments when improvements are proposed to special use permanent properties.

These assessments are attended to address potential beneficial and adverse impacts including impacts on mountain views. This application involves improvements to an existing special use permit. The residence I represent has existing views of Mummy Mountain from both its lower deck and elevated patio. The proposed solar structures and additional landscaping could materially affect those views.

Has the applicant completed a common a community impact assessment addressing mountain views as contemplated by general plan policy LU62? If so, does that assessment specifically evaluate the views from 6527 North Smoke Tree Lane? And I do not believe it does because they looked at it from the north side since nobody was there. The the cherry picker did not come up to see if we actually blocked our particular property. I'm not suggesting the project necessarily violates the general plan.

I'm asking whether the council has sufficient information to determine that the potential impacts on neighboring mountain views have been adequately evaluated. And I'm out of town, but I have a lot more here. Am I allowed to continue or do you need me to move on? We have a number of speakers. So, okay. Um, un unfortunately, we're really kind of behind the eight-ball here. We we we had no opportunity to respond. We had we did not we're not procrastinating about this.

Had I known, I would have been here the first day. So, thank you, Mr. Romano. I'd like to invite uh is it uh Marley Heights? My name is Marley Heines. I'm a resident of Paradise Valley, a homeowner, and I'm a member of the Franciscan Renewal Center. I brought the letter of notification that our whole neighborhood received and it was mailed and we received it on September 25th. I've also been aware of all the issues because it's been published in the independence.

I have uh first attended the Franciscan Renewal Center in 76. The Franciscan Renewal Center has been here 75 years. They have totally embraced the beauty of Paradise Valley. They have honored the landscaping. They have honored the beautiful structure. They have made it where it is non obstruive probably more than houses on the hill or any other place in Paradise Valley.

I realize that I bought a house and when we built the house there was a vision of the mountain and with trees and with the neighbor policy there's no guarantee for mountain views. I appreciate Paradise Valley. I appreciate the mayor, the council, the wisdom present. I appreciate the integrity and that we work for the common good. I love the fact that I can be a neighbor and make compromises with my neighbor and that we take care of each other.

I appreciate and I'll watch the time the integrity and the kindness, the bending over backwards of trying to make a place that breathes the beauty of Paradise Valley. And if you walk on the grounds, people come. All are welcome regardless of race, color, creed, economics. They appreciate Paradise Valley. If you look at the landscaping, it is done meticulously. They honor the neighbors. They honor the water. They honor the uh structure, the height.

Please come and just take a breath of fresh air and be renewed. We appreciate your work, your effort. I appreciate the council, the clear communication, the regulations, and that views aren't guaranteed, and that if we regulated trees, we would have no resorts that support our tax bases. So I move and I ask you to please move on and take care of more important issues and make this community one that we're all proud of. And thank you for your service. Thank you for the police.

Thank you for the council. Thank you for everything that works here. and thank you for covered parking. As I come right here, I thank you and I wish that you will pass on this motion and move on. Thank you very much for hearing me. Thank you. Um I would remind uh I would remind all the uh speakers to try to keep your comments to three minutes if possible. I do have a point of order. I mean, Mr. Romano has flown here to be here and he didn't get a minute and 20 extra.

Miss Hines went past a minute at 20. I think in fairness to the public we should let him speak a minute 20. I'm just Well, that's a reminder that we asked you to stay to the threeminut uh rule. I'm not going to grant because that would mean I would be granting the rest of the speakers. And Mr.

Romano, I uh uh thank you for your comments and again, please be respectful of that threeminut time frame because as the the council has said, there's a lot of folks that would like to speak on this and we value that input, but there's got to be some consideration of what we're asking, which is stay to the three minutes. Um with that, I'd invite Kathleen Schwarz. I live in the house. I've lived there since I'm sorry. Can you speak in the microphone?

I'm Kathleen Schwarz and thank you for um letting me speak. I live in the house north of the um of the Casa. I bought the house in July of 1996. Um and when I bought it, the zoning was supposed to be just parking. And in the meantime, um they have given the easement to the the town has given the easement to the Casa that goes around the entire um subdivision there and they built the community center. Um I missed I will be I live there. I missed those notices.

Um this time I found them, but I'm going to tell you there were four homes that are really affected by this um the these these um arrays. And all they had to do, they never came to my house and talked to me. know me. They all they had to do is knock on four doors to discuss it. So the people that live to the west of me, unfortunately directly to the west, they they had to fly to Colombia. They're Colombian and they're back and forth. I just found this out. And then there's um Mr.

Romano and then there is um the house on the corner. Um those notices, they get if you're a busy person like I am, they get missed. all he would have had to do is knock on four houses to talk to him and that um but I would just say that there and we have tried there there hasn't been that much communication with us. My son is the one that went talked to them about after we've sent letters back and forth. My son is the one that talked to them on the 20th about lowering the array.

Um but it wasn't like that's we we didn't come up with a compromise. That was we asked him what else could you do? That was what was taught. Um, I um love Paradise Valley and I hope that we can. My concern is is this going to go on and on and on? What else is the CASA planning on building? And these arrays are not the same as what you see at the BA the ones at the at the Baptist the the array is across the street from a hotel. The ones um at So at the Sole, the Temple Sole, it's by a school.

It's not affecting people's homes. So, I thank you for time. Um, thank you. Thank you. Uh, like to invite Mr. Timothy Loda. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of council. Timothy Lotto. I'm here on behalf of Kathleen Schwarz. I will talk fast since I'll try to keep exactly to three minutes. Uh, Mr. Slavven, uh, his remarks on the law and there seems to be some confusion. This is a legislative decision before you. This is within your discretion.

If they had the right to do what they're trying to do, we wouldn't be here talking to you. Your your attorney, Mr. Magcguire, said it. This is a legislative decision. It's subject to referendum. You have every right to say no to it if you don't want it or if you want something lower. No, we're not going to do this, but we'll do 9 ft. That is your your absolute power as a council.

uh in terms of and you know if you want more of these uh 14 foot solar structures uh vote yes on this one because we're already already in the staff report we've got well we did this twice already so now we got to do it a third time. Uh Ka obviously has significant additional plans for for for more I don't know um if they're solar structures but they talk they've been talking about net zero we're going to do more. This is a start.

So, it's going to get harder and harder to say no to these solar arrays at this height, uh, if you say yes tonight. Um, I think some great points have been made about height. I was at Temple Sele uh, today uh, actually I've been there a couple times. They have a a row uh, north to south that's about 10 or 11 feet with a driveway right to the next next of it. You've got covered parking out here. I I didn't notice any damage to the covered parking.

I mean, there's still no good explanation for why these need to be so high. And you heard the CASA say, "We have done every single thing we've been we've been asked to do." No, they haven't. They haven't lowered the structure. It's just it's too high. If it were 9 ft, I wouldn't be standing here in front of you. Uh there's maybe if it were 14 feet. So, they took a one foot reduction. I mean, it it you know, they they did cut out some of the arrays.

I I think um in terms of the panels, they've cut eight out next to our property. Um but we would like them to to do a little bit more. I told and Mr. Slavven, by the way, his characterization of the of the outreach is is a complete uh work of fiction. Uh the outreach has been extraordinarily poor. I've tried repeatedly. I've I've officed in the same building as Mr. Slavven for I just moved out, but I'd been there 11 years. I called him. I sent him letters. I emailed him.

I finally got a hold of him on a on a Friday afternoon after several tries. And it was about a two-minute conversation. He said, "No, not interested. Don't want to talk." We offered to pay. Not interested in a conversation. I told him today. He sent me that email and yeah, I mean that 14 is better than 15 obviously. He sends me that email and I say, "You know, Buzz, um, I I think we could really, um, we've been asking to sit three minutes." Okay. Asking to sit in the same room all this time.

I think we could come to some agreement if we sat down and chatted. That has never happened to this day. All right. Next, I'd like to invite Oliver Hasslo. Hi. I come all the way from Canada. I I love this town, you know. I come every year. I stay at least two, three months, you know. I think uh a lot of Canadians come here. So, it's a very popular town back in Canada, especially in Manitoba. So, I would recommend, you know, to keep it as beautiful, you know, as green as we can.

And u that's that's all I have to say. Thank you. Appreciate that. All right. Next, I'd like to Sean Clansancy come to the podium. Hello, Mr. Mayor and members of the council. Um, you just heard from my attorney, Mr. Lota. I just want to say that this is a travesty. As a real estate professional, I understand your job. You have lots of u decisions to make. What I just witnessed here, I think, is is is very wrong. Mr. LaRose is representing a a neighbor of mine. They found out last minute.

I've notified seven I was only able to find seven of my neighbors to get a hold of them. Wealthy individuals favor Paradise Valley for confidentiality. They hide themselves in trusts and LLC's for privacy. And it took me, a licensed professional, numerous attempts to to find these individuals. And he couldn't even finish his opinion. And I and I think this is wrong. If the town cannot protect the views of Paradise Valley, Paradise Valley will no longer be what it is today.

Paradise Valley is known for its proximity to hiking trails in the mountain. Um, and what the applicant, the CASA, has stated numerous incorrect um, uh, facts. They have been very difficult to get a hold of. Um, I think it's sad that they that their attorney refused to communicate with my attorney until the last moment. They say that they're willing to communicate. I had to go personally on Tuesday to talk with them and I offered them numerous alternatives.

They say that their ray needs to be in the back of the building so trucks don't hit it. I have a Ford F550. That is the largest pickup you get before you go to a semi. That truck is between 7 to 7 and 1/2 ft tall. If an F550 is only 7 to 7 and 1/2 ft tall, why do they need 14 feet? Why do they need 15 feet? Why do they need 16 feet? If they were so cooperative, why didn't they agree to 14 feet to begin with? And it's just frustrating that a church whose namesake is St.

Francis of Aisi, who's a patron of animals and nature, that they're being this defiant. If they truly are who they say they are, they wouldn't be challenging this. And it's very sad because it's obvious that the the uh the other neighbor that came in and spoke positive of the church, they obviously contacted them. And it's frustrating that I understand it's great to hear people stroking your shoulder. You let them go on, but you wouldn't let my neighbor continue.

And it's just frustrating because I feel like we're not being heard. And I'm new to this, but it sounds like it's going to go to the CASA is going to be allowed to have this structure. And it's very sad because I couldn't get a hold of my neighbors and we've done everything we've can. It's I'm I'm so upset that I can't even talk and that's very difficult for me because this very rarely happens. Um and the CASA has stated their goal is to be net zero.

So they've already insinuated to you and to me when I met with Charlie Brown that there will be multiple phases of this project. So by approving this we will be you will be setting the president for numerous future projects. So this is Mr. Clansancy your three. Thank you. All right. Like to invite uh John D. Lewis to the podium, Mr. Mayor, council people, thank you very much. Uh my name is John Lewis. I am a resident and homeowner of Paradise Valley, and I'm also a member of the AASA.

And I've watched AASA for many, many years. Uh they're very uh concerned about nature as what was said earlier. Uh and getting and generating electricity from the sun is a lot better than using um you know coal or whatever. But um anyway that's not the point here. Um we are trying to be more efficient. We're like any other resort except we are a church. We do have um uh dormitories and ret retreats that are very important for people.

And uh I just want to say that I'm very much for this and all the things that have been happening there at the CASA. Um I I don't understand. I know that a lot of people are complaining that they didn't know till the last minute and everything. I live over on Cay Capiieros and um there's a street called Stallion that is right by um over there by um Mockingbird and thank you very much for redoing our streets that's happening right now.

But there were signs put up there and they were Las Vegas style signs because they flash and they say go to paradise valley.com you know and as citizens I believe that I have a right or I do have a right but I also have a responsibility to know what's going on and to check these I mean I'm in town more than I'm out of town and you know it's we can look up and see other means and ways to find out what's going on in my neighborhood. So, that's all I have to say. I'll retire early. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, I'd like to invite Carol Adams to the podium. Carol. No, she's gone. All right. Um, like to invite Ashley Amato to the podium. Hi, good evening mayor and members of the town council. My name is Ashley Pichamato. I am a Paradise Valley resident and my family has called Arizona home for five generations. This is my first uh town council meeting and one theme that I have repeatedly heard this evening is keep Paradise Valley beautiful.

In order to protect that beauty, we must first define what makes it beautiful. For me, it is the quiet low-scale residential character, the open space, and the extraordinary setting between Camelback Mountain and Mummy Mountain. I'm no historian, but I can just strongly say that this is probably the namesake, this particular street between these two mountains are the namesake of Paradise Valley. It truly is paradise, and those are the things that make it so.

I am not opposed to solar energy, the Franciscan Renewal Center, of which I am a devout cradle Catholic and occasionally tithe. I should go more often. Uh since I share a property line with you, there's no excuse. But I do have three children. Um and that is also one of the reasons why I am late to the party on this. I wish that my sole purpose in life was to sit and check the mailbox. Um and I'm not salulting anyone that that can, but I'm just in a position in life right now.

I am doing a remodel. I'm currently out of my home. I have three young children and I'm working and my husband has some health issues going on and so I unfortunately wasn't able to get that notice. Otherwise, I would have been here sooner. Um, but like I said, I'm not opposed to solar energy. I don't think that's the issue.

Um, my concern is whether these large permanent structures have been placed in the least impactful feasible location and whether the town understands what additional development may follow. I know I keep hearing the terms we've compromised, right? So I can only assume that other areas have been explored that roof solar panels on every single building there have been explored.

Otherwise that's not necessarily the definition of compromise if no other solution other than lowering the height is the only compromise here and removing a fourth array which is technically within the setback of the 40 ft. The most important unanswered question is why does this project have uh have to go here? The application explains that a western parking lot is convenient point for electrical interconnection, but what locations in the more interior portion of the property were evaluated?

I also understand that the campus intends to become a net zero energy property. I commend that and I think it's very admirable. Uh will these canopies accomplish that? If not, how much additional solar generation will still be required? Where will it be placed and what will the cumulative visual impact be along the campus's residential boundary?

Before any approval, I respectfully ask the town to require continuation of the application so that additional neighbors such as um the neighbor that just moved in a couple horse houses down can be able to properly review and a campuswide energy and solar plan showing the full buildout anticipated to achieve. We've actually reached the threeminute mark. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. All right. Are there any more requests to speak, Mr. Town Clerk? All right.

With that, the public hearing is now closed and I would open it up for discussion amongst the council. Any further discussion at this point, if you wish. Yeah. Thank you, mayor. Thank you everyone to be here and for all the residents who uh are speaking. I have a very hard time with this one. I thought we were going to get it across the finish line and then, you know, more things happened and then it kept getting more resident notices and we appreciate that you're all here.

And the problem with Paradise Valley is a lot of people aren't around all the time to hear it. I think it I think the last speaker said it best. This isn't about whether you're for against solar energy. This has nothing to do with it. Um, it's very difficult. I drove this weekend to really think about this and meditate about it. And I drove down Lincoln Road and I drove down the one I helped get in at First Institutional on Scottsdale Road at my old neighborhood in Vista.

And I supported that project because it wasn't any residents around it to see. And I asked the only resident who could even possibly see from the backyard in Vista where I'd lived for 12 years, 11 years. And they were okay where it was at. It's a very high structure there. And when I looked at it the other day, because I happened to go to the dermatologist there, I noticed how high it is. And it's very, very intrusive to the views that used to be there.

And you know, 20ome years ago when I was here, the whole goal was to keep open views. When I sat under Mayor Michael Collins, who I really respect when he was here, he had deep discussions with our council at night about oleanders and the heights of those and whether we want those blocking all the beautiful views as people come through our community and look. And you know, it sunk with me then and then I was like, well, is this just a one-off?

It's so much easier to support the CASA to say, oh great, everybody goes to CASA. Let's just support CASA, right? But it's a lot harder as a council member to think about what the future of this community is and the benefit for everybody here. It takes one slippage and the town is over because if they have it, everybody has 15 feet. They're not going to stop at night. Um, we have many open spaces at the house of worship and at the resorts. There's many. There's schools.

And I do think that the ones that were tucked into the first in Southern Baptist Church on Scottsdale Road and Temple Sole was out of the way and it didn't really block other homes views and they didn't really, you know, intrude and look the hard part for me. It looks like big infrastructure. I've fought my whole time being here for 12 years and fighting for the mountains and the views here. Um, that residents mattered. There needed to be buffers between the stakeholders and the the homes.

And I wanted to make sure it was not looking like Mesa, Scottdale, and Phoenix. And that's exactly what this picture looks like in in the in the I mean, some of us got this and that's what made me I got this on Friday or whatever. And I went out and started driving and my husband went out and took tons of pictures, too.

He said, "Is this what it's going to be?" And I said, "Well, I guess if it's an accurate depiction, it goes from this where you can see a mountain to nothing but infrastructure." And infrastructure is not really what PV wants. We pride ourselves on underground and utilities and not looking at metal and steel. That's what PV wants. PV residents want that. And so I have a hard time with this. And then I started looking at heights. And then I started talking to experts and technical people in town.

People form on the planning everywhere else. And I said, well, why 15 feet? My truck is an SUV big. I can get in at 6'2. I can get into the oldest garages in downtown Phoenix was 6'2. So what's the 15 for? I don't understand that. So then I was like, can there be some way to get to nine and make that look? Now that still looks metal and it's still a lot of infrastructure when you see the pictures.

My husband went out and took many and threw them on my desk and said, "Look, this is not good for PV." And here's why. He said, "Even if you lower it, it still doesn't look like PV." So that's what's hard about this decision. We're making a decision tonight as a council. It's not about what's the product the the bu the SUV property. It doesn't matter. It's a school or a church or or whatever. It doesn't it doesn't matter. resort.

It's how does that look and how does that fit or not fit in our community? Um, I have a real problem with the Las Vegas sign in the front of the costume. You guys already know that. I hate that. It's horrible. Everyone in town complains about it. We still look at it. I know Charlie's working on it to get the lights off. Never should have been there. Buzz should have done a better job. Jordan Rose would never let that happen in property. I tell you that right now.

So, people need to think Tim Lotto wouldn't let that happen to property. So, that should happen. Please focus on this issue. But it's true. You don't bring things like that to PV and you don't do that to not be trying to fit in to this community. And I know you smirk at me. I get it. But it is matter to me. It matters to me. And I think one resident does matter. And now we have four or five that was new to us.

I think people that live in this community have an obligation to try to make it better and to try to think about what the general plan was. Those lights and all the everything has not been followed. So I have issues with that. I think it could have been I think Charlie does a great job. He can actually handle this.

I think if there had been a meeting and it was actually done with the way the CASO is represented to be I think it could have been resolved and I really do think that I think he would have been at 9 ft. I think everyone wouldn't have liked that everybody but it would work and 90% of the cars the prisoners would fit. I really believe that but so I'm not understanding the 15. I haven't heard an answer as to why. So tonight I'm going to be doing a motion to reduce it to 9 ft for the stipulation.

The tree issue seems like a private agreement. I don't think that has to be there. That seems to give everybody some concern. You know, anybody can make private agreements and should and try to reduce things. So, we can take that off, but I'm going to take the motion to go to to nine feet. I think that's the right thing. I haven't heard one reason yet technically why that can't be done. I looked at all kinds of places and they have nine.

And I don't want to see mountain shadows and sanctuary and all the churches I saw today on Lincoln and all them come for 15 feet. It's just not right. It's not right for TV. So anyway, I'll make the motion. We'll see what my peers do. I think the compromise works and then we can get people across the finish line. Thank you. Thank you. Other discussion? Council member Andine Keller. Uh thank you, Mayor and Mr. Clancy. I do hear you. I just want you to know that.

Um I have been sitting here for a while um to watching and wondering why why we're going down this path uh when our general plan talks about uh protection of o open space and uh views and visually significant corridors and things like that.

And once we make this decision, um, it is, you know, gonna, like council member Pace said, are we going to it it's just going to set off other people down the road down Lincoln wanting the same thing, and that doesn't help our uh protection of the open space or the mountains. Um, additionally, I happen to uh be very fortunate to have a girlfriend that likes to hike uh very early in the morning. And uh one morning I was driving about 4:30, 4:30 down Lincoln.

And that's how I discovered the Franciscan Renewal uh billboard. And um uh it actually shocked me when I saw it. And um we in the general plan also um enjoy dark skies here and uh we've asked for that sign to have lower wattage. Council member, I'd ask you to focus on this SU. Yep.

Um uh my my point is that I haven't seen that yet and I haven't seen um the coordination with the Franciscan renewal to be uh accommodating and I do think that the arrogance has been uh disheartening and so I will not be voting for this uh uh I will I will be a no on this project. Thank you. Thank you uh Council Member Moore. Thank you, Mayor. Just a quick question for our staff. Um, so I've always been um height has always been an issue for me. So I've always um been consistent with that.

I think uh the the scale of a project matters and the compatibility of the project matters. Um, if I were to look at this and and um look at a 14 foot height on this, that would be similar to what that glue lamb beam is up at the very top right there. So, and I I appreciate the comment on the F550. I've had trucks like that myself and I know you can get those in a any garage that has got an eight foot garage door on it.

So, um I don't I I don't understand the reason for the height other than it to me it would appear because of the pitch of that you would have for a solar panel. Instead of pitching the panel, they're trying to pitch the entire roof and and gain the height for the angle of the panel. Is that is that Mr. Slavven? Maybe you could answer that or somebody that would have technical knowledge of that. Is that is that what you're trying to achieve here?

because I just don't see where that type of height is important for a any passenger vehicle on the road or even even any RV would fit within that. Council member Moore, members of council, the applicant did state during the planning commission review that the height clearance to the 10 or 11 ft was due to the utility vehicles.

So those vehicles that were not normal um vehicular driven, but those that are on site to do other other work on on the premises, we we have many many large vehicles, trucks, semi I'm talking semi-truckss. I'm not talking about F550s that pull onto our property at any given hour. Uh Mr. Clancy yesterday said, "Well, let him hit it. It's that's why we have insurance.

I have people that pull onto our property in the middle of the night with giant trailers with construction equipment to build houses in the neighborhood that run over trees in my in my islands. I I'm not talking about your general, you know, your SUV. SUVs are these days are over glorified station wagons. It's not a big vehicle. I'm talking about big vehicles, big, large. We're a retreat center. We're a conference center.

We have food delivery trucks that and every time they come, it's a new driver and they don't know where they're going. They don't read signs. They don't respect the traffic patterns. I see it every day. So, I appreciate what you're saying, sir. I do. and and everybody that's brought up the hype. I I get it, but you don't get our property.

Well, sir, I appreciate that answer and I and I'd like to say that you do have other parking on this property that would accommodate a semi if that was something that you would want to park on there because not everything's covered. This wouldn't cover your entire parking lot. You have one side that you're proposing to be 14 feet tall. Right. That would fit any vehicle that you're talking about other than a 53 foot tractor trailer which is 16 ft.

So I I don't understand where working with residents in this area. But I think it's compatibility matters and this particular project is next to residential neighbors and I think this this height is is not compatible with the residential uses that's next door to it. I think it can be brought down lower and still accommodate what you're you're doing in my opinion. If it's something that you'd be willing to look at for the next 30 days and discuss, um, I can make a motion to do so.

But otherwise, I'm going to be a no, sir. I mean, I I just can't get to at this location and setting precedent. I wasn't here for the other ones to to vote on that, but I'm not in favor of 15 feet. I'm in I'm in favor of 9 foot on one side and and 11 on the other. I think that's proportionate or something like that. So, you can get some fall for rain. Um, it's not going to park every single vehicle.

I don't think you need to build these shade structures to accommodate one truck that may come occasionally, two trucks, 10 trucks. You have other areas within your lot that you can park. And I think that's being considerate. I I didn't get a chance to um sit and talk to you about this because nobody called me. I would have had had you reached out to me, but I'm gonna either be willing to take a pause on this if you want to keep continuing or I'm going to be a vote no vote. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. All right. Uh any other discussion with council council member Thomasson? Just a clarifying question. Um, Mr. McMahon, did planning commission vote 70 to recommend this? Council member Thomasson and members of council, that is correct. 70.

So, just where I sit is planning commission and staff have been working on this for 10 months and there's been a lot of back and forth between the applicant and staff and planning commission and planning commission studied it and studied it. Um so where I sit is the group of volunteers that we asked to review this made made a recommendation gave it a great deal of thought. The height of these is equal to the two other churches that we granted shade structures to.

And I do recognize that context matters. I certainly do. And the impact to the neighbor, as evidenced by the orange line, is not that significant. So, can everybody always compromise? Yes, I I understand that. That's what we're about here at at the STAs. But I think there's already been a lot of compromise that has gone on. And this the renewal center is asking for what's been granted to two other houses of worship and has been recommended by a 70 vote by our planning commission.

So I'm just not seeing a strong enough argument to vote no. I I know there are uh residents that object. One is contiguous. Um I just I don't see enough reason to object. I think the renewal center has gone above and beyond in trying to be a good neighbor. So, thank you for answering the question about um the votes and the process, Mr. McMahon. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mayor. Absolutely. Council member Leman. Thank you, Mayor.

This is a difficult issue when we have neighbors who have competing wants and needs. I am concerned though that the private property rights of the Franciscan Renewal Center would not be honored if we did not allow them to build these structures. I understand the concerns about views. We don't guarantee views. Um and it's a very tough situation. But I do think that I also know that our general plan encourages solar. Um the planning commission has encouraged solar.

I sue used to be a planning commissioner and we certainly encourage solar on um hillside building. So I don't see that as a threat that we are getting more solar. Certainly, if they wanted to build a solid structure there, as it says right here, um they could do a maximum height of a building of 24 feet. So, I am concerned.

I will be voting in favor of this with with a suggestion to remove stipulation 10, but I I do not see a strong enough reason to say no to this reasonable request that was approved unanimously by the planning commission and I think we need to defer to the planning commission. So that's it. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, mayor.

Um, it's been a good discussion tonight, and I I respect every single uh resident and applicant and council member who is taking a lot of time and energy to really think this through. And there are a lot of moving pieces. Um couple of the the uh thoughts that are coming to me tonight. Um I did have uh we have an excellent planning department. Um they had 11 uh stipulations to this. Um they do a great job.

I personally do wish in hindsight that the 15 foot height was addressed earlier, but for what you know for certain reasons there's some sometimes not the information and that that is why we have this multi-step process and I know it seems like a really long time to have 10 months but at the end of the day you know learning all the information we we can up to the last minute as uh somebody once told me you never know how you're going to vote until you're on the deis And I I take that to heart because um you really have to use your critical thinking skills and think about um what this would mean.

My thought is the from what I'm hearing from the applicant, you know, the the sustainability and the solar and I I love all of that. Can that purpose be served in a different way? Can it be served with a lower height? Um what harm in in the in in the large s if a couple of utility trucks had to park somewhere else to make everybody feel really good about it. Um to me that's that's goodwill. Um and it's not combative.

I don't want to approach this at all from combative because that's that's not what this is about. It's about where could we lean into um a win-win. Uh to that end, I like the idea of reducing the height even further. I wish it didn't get this far before we had this discussion, but it is what it is. I would lean into a continuence. I know it seems like a long time, maybe a few more weeks, a month.

Um, and allow the parties, from what I understand, you know, there's not great blood, but that's what we're here to do is try to figure out how how to make that better. Um, uh, if both attorneys could get in the same room and talk about perhaps uh, you know, somewhere between the nine and the 15. I don't think 15's necessary.

I just go, "Oh my gosh, it is a lot." Um, while I also believe that we can't protect everyone's views forever, this is something we could do that I don't think would cause that much damage. That's my one vote view. I'd rather not vote it down. I'd love to vote for a continuence so you guys could work that out personally. Um, and uh a very wise uh person said to me, who I respect very much, uh, you know, you can't undo it once it's done.

Uh and uh we may at the end of the day, it may look exactly the same, but a continuence will give everybody a chance to just just get it to the finish line. I yield. All right. In a moment, I'm going to call for a motion. And I will tell you this is a uh this is a lot more complicated than it would have seemed.

And I uh I would support a continuence because I think that both parties, although maybe resistant at this moment, could find a space because I too agree with several of my colleagues that I think 14 height is um it just seems too much for me to actually see it being needed. Um I think a continuence I would support that. Again, I don't want to vote against this if there's a pathway for it to be successful.

And so I would support a continuence with the hope that the applicant will work with the neighbors and thank you to the neighbors that have been here tonight and have been reaching out to us over the past uh couple of weeks. Thank you for that. And to the applicant, you are a wonderful partner for the town, a wonderful partner and have always been and we hope that that will continue. And so I would ask uh if there's a motion to continue that would have my support.

Um if that doesn't then it would be then it would be a no tonight. So with that um mayor I move that we continue case number do I have to say the case number? Um hang on let me get the right sorry about that. It's been a night. Um, I move that we continue item number 26-258 for a 30-day continuance to allow the parties to talk further and return to us if they wish to consider an amendment or to consider their SUP amendment. I second that motion. All right, it's been moved. Oh, Mr.

Mayor, can we because the public hearing is open to avoid having a a uh Oh, you didn't close. Oh, I I thought I I thought we closed it to to avoid having to repost the public hearing and go through the entire process. If we continue to a date certain and you pick one of your council meeting dates and understanding the applicants need to get shovel and ground sense of urgency. Next council meeting November 12th. December 12th. November. November. I'm sorry.

December seemed too long for what they needed. November 12th. Yeah. Yes. Um I so I would amend my motion if that's everyone's got the consent to u make a date certain of November 12th which we already have a scheduled council meeting. I second that. All right it's been moved and seconded. I'd ask if there's any discussion on the motion. All right. Not seeing any discussion on the motion. I'd ask for a roll call vote. The motion is on continuence to March, I'm sorry, November 12th, 2026.

Um, Vice Mayor Label, yay. Vice Mayor Label votes yes. Council member Andine Keller, yes. Council member Andy Keller votes yes. Council member Leapman, no. Council member Leapman votes no. Council member Moore, I. Council member Moore votes I. Council member Pace I. Council member Pace votes I. Council member Thomasson I. Council member Thomasson votes I. Mayor Stanton I. Mayor Stanton votes I. Mr. Mayor on this vote the eyes are six and the nays are one. Thank you. All right.

Next up we move to action items on our agenda. And tonight there is one action item uh tonight and that's so we got no we've got that's an action item. But you want to change the agenda? We could try to go back to Okay. So, let me just stay with the script and let me just keep going. Um, so, uh, there's one action item tonight and that's regarding the Elchara Lodge managerial special use amendment and it will be presented this evening by our town manager, Andrew Ching. Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, members of council. I'll be assisted tonight by Mr. McMahon. I didn't feel like he's been standing nearly long enough, so we're going to make him stand a little longer. We appreciate that, Brandon. Thank you. Uh just as a preface, um especially for members of the public who may be watching this, uh now or later, uh this is, and it's not often you can say this in government, this is actually a a matter of kind of first instance for this council.

uh the since the amendment of the managerial SUP uh provisions in the town code allowing for three members of council to ask for an appeal of the managerial decision. We've had I believe either 17 or 18 and each one of them has been approved uh without appeal. So this is the first one. So I just wanted to say that because it's not every day something is actually new. Uh and this is okay. Let's go to next slide.

So this uh next couple of slides uh um just briefly recap what the process is for a managerial special use permit amendment. um that there's a pre-application period where they work with staff that at whatever point that is sufficient then uh they make application for that managerial special use permit and that we are required to uh transmit that to the town council within two business days of making the determination. Um, and that transmission took place this week.

And again, it may not be completely unprecedented, but to have an item go to council on Monday and then have it here at the council meeting on Thursday is also somewhat unprecedented, but not maybe fully unprecedented. Next slide.

After that, there's a 7-day period under our current code that then the decision of the town manager becomes final unless within those seven calendar days, we receive written determination from at least three members of town council request that the appeal there's an appeal of the determination approving the managerial amendment application. And in this instance, that's what we received just in terms of the of the of the um the timeline here.

It was um sent to council by email uh by myself um and that was on Monday and by Tuesday we had received the three um appeal requests in writing um from three members of council. At that point then we have 14 days to set a hearing on the appeal request. the 14 days uh begins at the point at which we received the third request which would have been this Tuesday um October 20th. Within that 14-day process, this was the only scheduled council meeting that we had.

So, in order to meet that is why we scheduled it for this evening. Um so, again, it's fast, but it's also timely in terms of trying to meet the provisions of the code in the process within. Um so this is uh a request that was made by Elurro. Um they are proposing a number of items that concern renovations of their landscaping, their hardscaping and lighting in their outdoor dining areas.

Um the key u components of it is that there's going to be requested a new wood pergola uh with lights on it, two new wood trellis arbors, a new awning over the front, and the removal of seven jumbrellas. Don't look it up in Webster. That word doesn't exist other than in the uh port manto world that we live in sometimes uh in contemporary society. It just means a really large umbrella which is currently out there. There are seven of them right now. Next slide.

They also are requesting a new stone planter, some stained brick near their existing fireplace, some new P plant planter uh pots, uh new decorative gravel mulch, uh reconfiguring the stone wash uh that they currently have on property, some new ornamental boulders, new brick edging, new landscape lighting, and new string lights. Go back to that slide real quick.

And by new string lights, the existing string lights uh would be uh equipped with what you see up there in the upper uh right hand corner, a pedal shade to come into co- compliance so that the light cannot be seen off property. Okay, next slide. Here are some renderings of what the pergola would look like. Next slide. More renderings. And again, these were provided as part of the packet that went out in the email to council on Monday. So, here's the square footages that we're dealing with.

Um, as you can see, the overall additions less the overall removals uh indicates a net increase and lot coverage area of 419 square feet total. Um, we believed staff and by my uh determination that the proposed improvements met the town's criteria for a managerial amendment as currently uh in the code because the project does not do any of the following. It does not add or change any new uses. The uses remain uh as current.

two, the overall floor area um does not increase by more than a thousand square feet or constitute increase of more than 2% upon the existing um what's existing on the property. Three, uh it does not increase the total number of units or structures. Uh if you uh look at all the overall units that are being added and removed, there's a net less three structures on property in the out exterior areas.

or four have a material effect on the adjoining property owners that is visible, audible or otherwise perceptible and cannot be sufficiently mitigated. It was our determination that there is no material effect expected. The request results in the reduction of structures and that the proposed lighting is to be hooded and shielded which would then protect that lighting from escaping and being visible to uh other property owners.

Um, number five, it uh does not change in any respect the stipulations governing the original special use permit. A managerial cannot do that. Six, does not change the vehicular or emergency vehicle circulation or the required parking. None of these uh uh requests uh impact circulation, parking or traffic does not change the architectural style of the approved SUP.

Um, the new structures, the landscaping, the lighting are consistent with what has already been approved and does not change the architectural style of the approved SU. Yes, that's kind of a little bit of repeat there. Sorry it's late.

Um, so we are here before you tonight to request at least one initial uh uh action and it does require a vote tonight which is does Council either affirm or not affirm that the man town manager's decision on Elchara Lodge managerial special use permanent amendment SUP-26-09 meets the criteria for a managerial amendment. So that's the first question that we would have to pose. We don't reach the second question unless that decision is not affirmed.

But if that does happen, we would then request that council would then take a second vote to either deny the amendment in whole or in part or reclassify it to a different amendment category. Happy to answer any questions. Mr. McMahon is standing by as well to answer questions if he can. Thank you, Mr. Tom Manager. And I I would open it up for questions from council. Council member Thomasson. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. McMahon has earned his pay tonight. Good evening.

So I note one of the key criteria is the net increase in square footage of coverage. And to make that math work, you have to subtract 925 ft of Jumbrellas. So my question is, is the in the original SUP were 920 square feet of Jumbrellas included in the overall calculation and were they specified in the SU? Council member Thomas and members of council, that is correct. There's an SUP amendment in 2010 to add these Jumbrellas at that square footage.

So they were included in the original one with the 2010 amendment. Correct. With the 2010 amendment. So, it is technically appropriate to subtract them to get to the net change. Council member Thomasson and members of council, that is correct. Perfect. Thank you. Next question. On any of the maps there, can you show me where this pergola is going? It wasn't clear to me. Yeah, it's kind of difficult to see on this.

Um so the the large pergola you can see the the setback dimensions on the various uh string lights kind of toward the center bottom. Um if you go just above that you'll see a large rectangular trellis structure and that's where the location will be for the the pergola. So that's where the new trellis is going. Correct. The new structure. There will also be those two arbors that are adjoin that entry walkway as well as a a an awning that will be over the main entrance right there. Okay.

Thank you. And the distance from Lincoln, I'm looking at the drawings here. Is that three feet? What's the distance from the pergola to the property line? I believe the setback. Setback. Thank you. Yeah, I believe Looks like a looks like 104 feet. Yeah, it's it's greater than the 104 feet. I'm not sure. Okay, thank you. And the height is 10 ft. I think it's Yeah, 10 feet 8 is the 10 ft 8 in. So that's to the top of it, correct? So close to 11 feet.

And the lights that is the extent of my questions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Moore. Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I uh had a discussion with our town manager before the meeting after looking through this uh thoroughly and I asked him if he had a prior approval on the string lights because um like council member Leeman, I was also a planning commissioner and on the board of adjustments as well and we worked on our town ordinance for lighting and I believe that string lights are prohibited in the town of Paradise Valley. Do you know if this has been approved on this SU?

Council member Moore, members of council, string lights in particular are not uh disallowed. Um the string lights in question never went through a permitting or SUP process. So that's why it's being included with this. They will also be correcting, if you notice, the the heights they will be lowering. There's a couple that are over 16 feet. They'll be lowering them to 16. and they will be putting the caps, hooding, and shielding the the existing stream lights.

Can you show me in our code where it says string lights are allowed? Uh, council member Moore, members of council, there is no spec specificity in the code that says that string lights are allowed. Well, I remember the conversations in the conversations were that they weren't allowed and I believe that it is in there that says that string lights are not allowed. So, is there somebody that has a code book that can pull that up?

Mayor, council member, we we can I think Andrew's probably looking at that. The the fact that string lights by their nature wouldn't be allowed because they don't meet the dark sky concept, but for these caps which were being added to make these compliant. So, a typical string light is bald, an open bulb.

Well, I think the point I'm getting to is that since it wasn't approved, then you can't you administratively do a managerial amendment or go to the planning commission and do a administrative review as well if it's something that needs to be legislated through the SUP process through a major in order to do string lights. String lights were a a big issue. It's been a long time. I don't you you have them faster than him. The fastest one. What do I say? I think I I think I do. AI today is awesome.

Yeah. Um string lights, also known as fiesta, beastro or patio lights are generally prohibited year round in the town of Paradise Valley except for a seasonal exemption for temporary holiday lighting. It's under the town's strict outdoor lighting. And it says though if they are per fully shielded downshielded to prevent light trespass then that may qualify. I'm just quickly doing this. That's that's how I kind of remember it. But thank you for reading that.

So with that said, I don't think that this is a a managerial or a minor request. I think it would have to be a uh major and it would have to come to the council for discussion and a policy decision. I think everything else was uh satisfactory in in our code and allowable uses, but and and my concern is the 16 foot pole. So when we talk about I I haven't seen string lights that actually have shields on them. So I haven't seen that as part of the presentation.

But string lights are generally a bowl that hangs free floating bowl. Mr. Bear, I know that uh Council Mayor Pace looked online. I I used the town's newest search tool. Yeah, there we go. PV.AI and according to um ASKPV, yes, that it says that they are prohibited uh for hillside properties and that for non- hillside properties, it sets limits on foot candles, fixture setbacks, and but the definition there's no specific prohibition language in non- hillside properties for string or unshielded.

But going back to what Mr. McMahon and Mr. Wever said that the lights would have to be shielded in a way so as to it would not leave the property and currently those lights are out there and they're not shielded but this would bring them into conformance by shielding them with these shades that you see on slide six. As far as the 16T light I believe, correct me if I'm wrong 16 foot pole where the lights are attached to that's the upper limit. It actually swags down to less than 16.

Um but I believe and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. McMahon, but that the 16 ft requirement comes directly from town code as well in terms of the height of a light pole. Not for string lights. It comes from our not string lights specifically, but for lighting for parking lighting. Town manager, members of council, that was staff's recommendation to mirror accessory structures uh on a residential lot per SUP's. Again, that 24 foot limit would be for an accessory structure.

I'm sorry, couldn't hear that last part. Per SUP, it would be 24 feet for an accessory structure. Staff recommended the lowering to 16 to mirror what would be for a normal residential lot. 16 feet. Correct. Okay. I'm not I'm not sure how I get there that that's pertaining to a poll for string lights. I don't see a similarity there.

Uh, Council Member Moore, members of council, during staff's vetting of this, we uh, looked at the SCP guidelines, and typically on a residential lot, if they were to put a standalone pole such as this, we would treat it as an accessory structure. I I think that because of the location of them, and it appears that the 16 foot, this is right off of Lincoln, right in the front. If maybe the uh Mr. Rich, could you help out with that? Is that where I'm looking at it is correctly?

It's it it does show it as right off of the in the front of the facility right there off of Lincoln. So, they're where they're currently located today. Yes. Yeah. And that's the proposed location for the new institute as well. That's correct.

and and and mayor council councilman Moore um I mean I think I want to underscore the key here is that they've been there for for a long time we've discovered that it wasn't appropriately permitted but what they're doing today is replacing them and then with after working with your staff they're going to be shielding those lights so what folks probably didn't notice before they certainly won't notice now um and they're going to be within your code they're allowed by code uh and and we expect that that this will be an improvement for the area and we're hoping that you'll I'll support that.

As long as they're not prohibited in our code, then and my first concern was a procedural concern, which is that this is not a managerial amendment for something that hasn't been approved and it's not a minor amendment where the count the planning commission can make the decision. It's only the council that my understanding has the legislative authority to go in and approve string lights on an SU. Maybe I can ask our town attorney for his opinion. And Mr.

Mayor, I was finally meaning code has come back up because we have dueling AI answers on We have three different AI answers apparently. Section 1023 of article 10. Oh, there's guys. Well, we've It's finally opening. MUN code was rejecting that earlier. Um, if if the provision is it's a matter of interpretation by the council on whether or not you think this is something that needs to be booted to a major amendment for string lights.

I mean, that honestly that's, you know, a matter of degree more than anything else. So if it's your opinion that that's the case, then you know this is the first one of these that we've done. So you know the council has the discretion to to kick it up the food chain and procedurally if you believe that you know the only body that can make that decision is council then it's a major amendment.

Well I just I mean do we need to go into an executive session and get legal advice because I don't see it any other way and I'd like to understand it. Well, I would love to be able to do that after we get a chance to actually read 1023 to know what it says because like I said the I'll make a motion that we go into executive session. Second. All those in favor? I Anybody opposed? All right, we'll adjourn to executive session and ask for the audience patience. because the panels aren't tilted.

All right. Well, thank you for your patience. We'll now uh continue with the business meeting. I'd like to ask my colleagues, we'll pick it up with questions uh regarding the application and council member Moore. We were with you for questions. Anything further? Thanks, Mayor. All right. Other questions from council? Any questions from council? Oh, council member Andy Keller. Uh where is the new awning? Where is where is that? It doesn't show on the map. Duncan, if you could zoom in again.

It's just north of the that front event lawn. The new Oh, I see. That's not it. That's the new mayor. Uh, council member, it covers the front door. Okay. Oh, very good. Thank you. Oh, I see over there. Okay, now that makes sense. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Other questions? Council member Pace. Um yes, council and comment. Um first, uh thank you to the applicant. Thank you, uh court for being here. Um and thank you for letting us go through this process. I know it took you by surprise.

I get it. I've been in communication with many of you. But it was important to our council, for me at least, to have this go through a process with our town manager. We just had as I have talked to you um a managerial amendment discussion and you guys just happen to be first up. So there's no it would have been anybody was coming out. This was probably going to happen in anybody. We're just trying to understand with our new direction to the staff. We don't want to be surprised.

We want things ahead of time. We want to know what's coming. Um and we need time to digest it. And and the good news is because you guys did such a freaking good job with your package. It makes it very easy for us to adjust and go talk and then figure it out and kick the tires and do what our residents expect to look at things that are SUP properties. And that's really to me that's all that's going on here. I'm really grateful that um our town manager got it to us on Monday.

We were able to, you know, we didn't talk to each other. Everyone just independently had some feelings to appeal it. It was not something planned. Um and we were able to put it on tonight. So, you know, we appreciate your pay. I'm sorry you had to be after the cost, but um you know, it's it's much appreciated. Um there's a couple I I think this has helped now. I think we've you know, I feel like I've kicked the tires enough. I understand. I appreciate all the questions that my peers had, too.

Um so, I'm very supportive of it. I'm excited about it. I think you guys are doing a good job. It's going to be an improvement. Um there is, uh I just want to, you know, remind um I don't want to I feel bad. my town manager and and Chad, I'm doing this with a smile. Can we please please have the spreadsheet once a month so we don't get surprised like this?

We asked that the last meeting and that's when I think I I know when I was reading it at 3:00 in the morning and I said, "What?" Um I freaked out if I'd had a notice, right? See, I'm not alone. I probably wouldn't have really had I would have had my sufficient time to think it through or look or ask my questions and I had to panic because we only have such a short time to tell you.

Um you know do we have a plan to be given that spreadsheet ahead of time so we don't get surprised on SUP properties? U Mr. Mayor uh council member Pace to that point I I know we had discussions about providing a monthly update about pending special use permit applications. What occurred here is they made application last week. Within two days, we had it to you. So, in terms of timeliness, we followed the code as it was written.

But, and I want to address this because I think it's an important point. It's ancillary to this, but I think it's it's relevant to this, but it's still important, which is we do have extensive pre-application conversations with potential applicants. Happens all the time. Sometimes it results in an application, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes what they come in the door with is different than what they ultimately do.

My concern about providing a monthly rundown of not just applications, but more than that, I don't want I want to make the role between what council's role and responsibility is and what staff's day-to-day administrative responsibility is that we keep that clear. I think it helps everybody. My concern would be if I provide I don't want to overprovide because if we start kind of crossing lanes and and council sees something that's not fully baked in the administrative pre-application process.

I don't want to, you know, for lack of a better term, freak people out and say, "Oh, well, we would never Well, the answer is we're not done yet and we may have more work to do." So, my concern I want to answer it two ways. One, that was my concern. But two, yes. I mean, we we committed that we're going to provide you if there are if there are applications that are working their way through the process, we will give you status updates on all of those. Okay, fair enough.

Because that'll that's going to help a ton. And I agree, we don't want to see things in the middle till you're done. I mean, because things change so much. I will also say, you know, um we're really lucky, especially after going through the other project that we have lawyers um like Jordan Rich and UK court and uh Tim Lod and others who care about the general plan and this applicant does. I know 100%. Um and they're very committed and he lives here as well. So, I I appreciate that.

But I I just want to say it was a great I appreciate you guys being patient. I'm sorry that we kind of disrupted your week. We understand your expediency. Um, it really does help us, I think, and it was very constructive for us tonight, even though you guys had to sit here a long time. So, thank you. All right. Any other questions from council? Questions? All right. Would the uh anyone in the audience like to speak on this issue? Yeah, Mr.

Mayor, uh, council members, I I guess I got thrown into this, didn't get to say hello, but uh, my name's Court Rich from the Rose Law Group. I'm also a resident here in Paradise Valley and I get to go all around the state in the valley, you know, talking to councils. R very rarely though do I get to do that here. So, it's great to be home. Um, and I appreciate you've you've shown yourselves, you know, very clearly to be very careful and deliberate and thoughtful and I thank you as a resident.

Um, and I appreciate that we're here. I think largely because of the timing of this discussion. Um, I think as your staff stated, we qualify and meet all of the requirements for the managerial amendment. If there's any question about any part of it, um, whether it be the the string lights, again, we think that that meets all those requirements as well. I'm happy to talk to them. We've got, uh, one of the owners representatives here, we've got the architect, we've got everybody in need.

We threw it together quickly to be here for you. So, um, let me know if you have any questions and I'll leave it at that. Any questions for the applicant? Council member Moore. Uh, Mr. Rich, I just want to thank you for saying that, but uh, that was a procedural questions that we were working through, but um, and it had nothing to do with reflecting on this project in particular. Uh, so I appreciate the work that you guys have done on this.

It's a great property and I'm excited for you to move forward with it. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you, Mr. Rich. Uh, and I know we're going to move now to uh a motion, but I would say thank you again from uh for the patience again and uh and El Charles again have been a wonderful gem for Paradise Valley and we appreciate the ownership and we appreciate the management and we appreciate the sticky buns. So, don't think those go those didn't go unnoticed.

We all we all know that. In all sincerity, we really do appreciate your patience with this. Uh we're excited for all the great things that are are uh are you're planning for Elcharo tonight and u and we appreciate that. With that, I would turn uh to my colleagues and ask if there is a motion. Mayor, I move that SP26-2 qualifies as a managerial SGP amendment and that we approve the town manager's decision. Mayor, I second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion?

All right, with that, um, I would ask for a voice vote. All those in favor, please say, "I." I. Any opposed? Motion passes. All right. Thank you again. Appreciate that. All right. Uh, now we're going to uh go to future agenda items. The town's future agenda is subject to change and the public meeting schedule is available at www.paradis valleyaz.gov and click on meetings and agendas. Are there any items on the upcoming agendas that the town manager would like to note at this time?

I'll just note for the public that uh in addition to our published meetings for the rest of 2026 on uh November 12th and December 10th, uh that we have added a special meeting on November 17th. Uh that meeting will include the canvas of the election November 3rd, but also uh the discussion of the uh zoning interpretations.

Uh so it's going to be a pretty good chunk of the afternoon on November 17th and we appreciate that everyone can make the time to have make that happen and we look forward to a fulsome discussion. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Town Manager. I'd ask are there any questions or clarifications for the town manager? Council member Pace. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Sorry to keep interrupting tonight. So um to the town manager, you received a notice of four topics to add to that night.

Um we're doing zoning interpretations with three council members. So, are those being added that night? I don't remember which meeting. The interpretation meeting that I think it's that night, right? Interpretation meeting on November 17th. The four items I don't have in front of me. EV. Oh. Oh. We have four extra ones from the from the October 8th meeting after we heard the public and then they were the vote that you took to have a future agenda item. Is that the one?

That one's one, but we also submitted people submit four topics to ask to have it at that meeting. It was on the airlifts, the the plane, the you know the personal jets and it was the staff attorney and it was the it was two more. I can't remember them. You guys remember them? Well, we have agenda setting coming up next week. I don't I remember what you were speaking of, but that was the subject matter of the zoning. Remember us? Okay.

You guys will deal with an agenda setting because you have you have three agenda set forth or obviously you have a provision of this meeting where a council member can propose a topic for a future agenda and you can it's we already did. It's in writing to you. There's three people. I just want to make sure you got it. You're fine. I I I'm I'm confused. Could you help me out? I don't know what she's talking about. Yeah. Well, I think there's two different things.

And I I don't mean to speak for you, but I from what I just heard, uh we had some suggestions from uh for adding council agenda items from the last meeting that we all agreed and they're on the agenda. Understood. I think what the council member is saying is that she has and would like to suggest other council agenda items, including one, if I'm correct, about auton not autonomous about personal aircraft. aircraft is that am I accurate?

So that could be considered an agenda setting, but it has not been added to the agenda at this point. Thank you. Thank you. Four top. So there's four items of topics that were submitted by three council members for the agenda. I apologize I jumped the gun for the next agenda meeting to get it on the calendar. We had you know that's fine. So it was only submitted because I didn't see. So, so our practice in the town is that if three council members suggest agenda item, it's got to be four.

Oh, did I not do four? Oh, that's why it's going to agenda. I got you. And anybody can anybody any council member can suggest an agenda item and it could be considered at agenda, but it doesn't mandate that it's on the agenda. And if at agenda setting, uh, there's not a consensus that we're going to move forward. It's noted that it would be suggested, but it's not automatically added. Um, any more? Thank you. I just didn't know. Yeah, it's okay.

Any more clarification on uh the town manager's future agenda highlights? At that uh let's open it up. Any council member like to add an item to a future agenda? Anybody? Hands. Hands. Okay. All right. Then in that case, uh we will uh move on to mayor council manager comments and uh I will open it up to my colleagues if there's any reports. Council member Moore. Thanks, Mayor. Uh coffee with the cop on November 4th at 8:30 a.m. The topic will be education and DUI and collisions.

And also coming up is our car show on November 14th. So, a a well attended event. Again, we've got quite a few cars. It's not sold out this year, but um we're we're looking to get get it there, but that's coming up on November 14th. Thank you. Great event. Thank you, Council Member Council Member Leeman. Thank you. Two quick items. The first is that I had the pleasure yesterday of yesterday afternoon as serving as a greeter now that our door is locked out there. And it was lots of fun.

I met a number of you there as well as watched lots of people vote and my dog Ginsey and I had a great time. time went fast and I highly recommend that if anybody's interested in doing it, you should sign up because I think it until we make some decisions on the lobby and and whether that door is permanently closed during the day. To me, it made a difference and and people appreciated it. But I I would suggest we put a sign on the table that says greeter or something.

Um, my second quick item is on October 13th, which was after our last meeting, we had the grand opening for the new artist, Martin Galbat. It was beautifully attended. some people from the symphony played and I'm anyway we're upset about what's happening with the symphony but it was lovely and I want to invite everybody to enjoy the art and appreciate that and thank everybody who participated in setting it up and working the art the arts board did a great job. Thank you.

Other comments or reports? Vice Mayor. Thank you, mayor. Um, so, uh, big shout out and thanks again to, uh, the the the youth advisory committee who are very brave. They're very nervous on their practice the the day before and, uh, they're doing a great job. Um, also a little update.

Uh, there's been, uh, this last week, the last few days, there's a big launch on the spire effort that we, uh, had a our first uh, PR efforts and, uh, there's a press release that went out yesterday or the day before. So, we'll be hearing a whole lot more hopefully about that. Um, getting a little bit of um attention to Paradise Valley and Phoenix Business Journal and some other uh publications.

Um, so save thespire.org if you want to follow and keep up on on the fundraising efforts and and the uh tech efforts through the town, you can do so there. Um and uh a big shout out also we have a lot of uh local resident support and the the fundraising is is very successful and and uh there's pledges and uh items coming in and uh big shout out to uh the Franklidd Wright Conservancy which is going to be having their annual conference here in Paradise Valley.

I mean, coincidentally enough, never been here at the Double Tree Resort, and they are going to be giving us some good uh uh uh press and uh some uh platforms to spread the word on both Paradise Valley and Save this Fire. All right. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Uh just a couple things for my chair. Uh oh, Council Member Thomasson does have a report. Thank I don't have a report. I have a a 30 second shout out. I wanted to echo vice mayor's comments on the youth council.

When I heard about their sustainability audit, I was nervous that it would be a overengineered very large project. And when I saw the results, it was simple. It was clean. It would took a very little time. It had impact. Just a shout out to the youth council and a shout out to you, Vice Mayor, for your coaching and leadership. I mean, this is what limited government's about. This is beautiful. Thank you. Well, um, a great meeting, very robust. Uh, I would concur.

I actually wandered into town hall and, uh, into the sustainability uh, audit being done by the youth group and, uh, they were all there were quite a few of them. Uh, they weren't all there tonight, all here tonight, but I agree. I think that they uh, they really are doing a great job and that was a tremendous presentation tonight. And I concur with council member Thomasson to synthesize their thoughts down on the one page and do it within a three or four minute period.

I think there's something we could all learn from that. I think there's some good uh thought that we may want to learn from the next generation coming up. And then just a couple other thing I want to thank thank the arts board again for doing a great job on that unveiling. And thank you to uh Dr. Mrs. Harper for the symphony support having them there. And our heart goes to the symphony as it tries to refigure its future. But, uh, that was a spectacular evening and thank you very much for that.

I'd also remind everybody that, uh, between now and our next gathering is going to be Halloween. And if you are out and about, if you're driving or my colleagues, any of you are out trick-or-treating, uh, let's be extra careful to make sure that we're looking out for those those gremlins and might be running around. But, uh, just take extra time and and and make sure you're watching out for that. And then finally, and most importantly, Mr. Miller, Mr. Duncan Miller. Uh oh.

I want to say good luck on the upcoming election. Good job on keeping the the town hall as a viable voting location and everybody is coming in with their ballots. And uh no matter who you're voting for, no matter what you're voting for, just make sure you vote. That's the most important thing. So uh when we get together after uh after for the next meeting, we will have that vote completed. And uh again, thank you, Mr. Miller, for you and the team for for making it all worth.

And then also tomorrow if anybody's interested, I'm going to be out at the front desk at about one o'clock for a couple hours. You're doing volunter. Heck yeah. And with that, I would uh advise everyone that our next regular meeting scheduled is November 12th. And I would ask if there is a motion to adjurnn seconded. All those in favor? I I Good night everybody. Thank you. Hey, you know what? I was.