Fountain Hills postpones Fountain of Light sculpture, approves $100K security agreement, debates impact fee increases
FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA — September 18, 2019

Fountain Hills postpones Fountain of Light sculpture, approves $100K security agreement, debates impact fee increases

Council held public hearing on major development impact fee increases (single-family homes rising from $1,601 to $7,767), postponed controversial 50-foot Fountain of Light sculpture pending dark sky ordinance compliance review, and received public comments on traffic safety and homeless services.

Fountain Hills Council Postpones Fountain of Light Sculpture Amid Dark Sky Conflict; Development Fees Triple in Contentious Analysis

Fountain Hills council postponed consideration of the proposed 50-foot Fountain of Light public art sculpture indefinitely Wednesday night, directing the artist, Public Art Committee, and Dark Sky Association to coordinate on lighting engineering and alternative locations before the council makes a final decision. The action capped a 5+ hour meeting that also addressed the town's first major development impact fee overhaul since 2014 state legislation rewrote the rules, and received preliminary public feedback on a revised general plan draft that some council members and residents said failed to adequately capture community input.

The postponement of the sculpture—a glass structure with internal illumination designed by artist Brian Shader—emerged as the evening's most dramatic moment, crystallizing tensions between the town's identity as a Dark Sky Community and its aspirations for distinctive public art that attracts visitors and anchors downtown revitalization.

The Fountain of Light Dispute

The sculpture, originally proposed for the eastern end of Avenue the Fountains (Sharon Morgan Plaza), was rejected by council over a year ago on location grounds. Tonight's hearing centered on a western Avenue the Fountains site adjacent to Town Hall. The design calls for a roughly 50-foot structure with a 14-18 foot diameter footprint—significantly taller than the adjacent Town Hall building itself.

Community Services Director Rachel [last name not stated in transcript] presented three previously considered sites: the Sharon Morgan Plaza (rejected due to required fountain relocation and tree removal); a Shea and Fountain Hills Boulevard intersection (rejected for traffic safety and lack of pull-off parking); and the future La Montaña roundabout (rejected due to incomplete design and pedestrian access hazards). The Avenue the Fountains location, she noted, offered existing electrical infrastructure, minimal pathway disruption, and served as a visual bookend to the historic fountain at the opposite end of the park.

The Dark Sky Ordinance Collision

Council Member Brown raised the central controversy: the town's outdoor illumination ordinance (Section 8.03.C) caps unshielded outdoor lighting at 1,125 lumens—roughly equivalent to a 75-watt incandescent bulb. A 50-foot illuminated glass structure, he argued, would almost certainly violate that threshold and jeopardize the town's recent designation as a Dark Sky Community, a status drawing international observatory development interest and educational partnerships with Arizona State University.

"I'm on the board of the group that is trying to build a dark skies center and observatory. This seems very incongruous with what it is we're trying to achieve overall. I don't think it makes sense for fountain hills that's my personal view. We're one of what 20 towns in the world I believe that is a dark skies community." — Council Member Brown

Joe Bill from the Dark Sky Association echoed the concern. He explained that when observatories aim telescopes toward ambient light sources, the magnification effect—"multiply that by a thousand"—can eliminate vast portions of the visible sky from study. He was careful to frame the issue not as opposition to the art, but as a technical problem requiring solution:

"If it can be done with one the equivalent of a 75 watt incandescent bulb then it meets the requirements of the ordinance, it meets the requirements of IDA [International Dark Sky Association] as well, and we would have no objection to that." — Joe Bill, Dark Sky Association

Artist Response and Scale Compromise

Shader acknowledged that lighting engineering had not yet been completed. He demonstrated the model's light transmission through the glass—internal illumination that travels within the panes rather than escaping—and stated confidence the ordinance could be met. However, he conceded the design had not been tested by a professional lighting engineer.

Council Member Brown proposed a compromise: scale the sculpture to match Town Hall's height of approximately 35-36 feet, reducing it from the proposed 50 feet. He asked Shader directly whether he would be willing to:

  1. Engage a lighting engineer to test compliance with the dark sky ordinance
  2. Scale down the structure to roughly match Town Hall's silhouette

"Yeah to your first question about the engineering I'm sure that would be rather quick. I could create some test blocks that would be of the same scale as the actual piece to see what the light transmission is and I'm sure they can calculate all that. And then yeah I can come back with those figures. Um as far as scaling it down I'm not opposed to that." — Brian Shader, artist

Carol Carroll, co-chair of the Public Art Committee, stressed the importance of the project for the town's 50th anniversary (planned for 2020) and downtown revitalization. She noted that the committee would work with Shader and the Dark Sky Association to ensure compliance.

Council Division: Downtown vs. Gateway

A secondary debate emerged around siting. Council Member Tallis advocated moving the sculpture to a location along Shea Boulevard near the Fort McDowell Casino entrance, reasoning that a major art installation at the town gateway would attract visitors and signal Fountain Hills' quality of life to travelers. He floated the idea of a landmark welcome feature—even suggesting playfully it could be a "Luxor-style shooting light in the sky."

Allen Skillicorn favored the downtown Avenue the Fountains location, arguing that placing the art in the town center would drive foot traffic to new shops and restaurants, consistent with the Public Art Committee's broader strategy to activate downtown.

Council Member Brown supported the downtown location but called for the scale reduction. Council Member Charneau voiced openness to exploring both possibilities—downtown at reduced height, and a separate, potentially larger piece at a gateway location on Shea—but emphasized that current public art ordinances required public access and donor recognition plaques, which might not fit a remote roadside gateway monument.

The Postponement Vote

No one formally seconded a motion to proceed. Instead, Council Member Brown moved to postpone indefinitely, requesting that the artist, Public Art Committee, and Dark Sky Association meet to address:

The motion passed unanimously. The groups are expected to return with a refined proposal, though no specific timeline was mandated.

Development Impact Fee Study: $1,601 to $7,767

The bulk of the meeting centered on a public hearing on proposed development impact fees—a highly technical, state-mandated process that several council members said left them overwhelmed and underprepared.

Benjamin Tate of Tishler Beasley presented a 10-year Land Use Analysis and Infrastructure Implementation Plan (IIP) that forms the foundation for calculating impact fees. Current fees for a single-family residential unit are $1,601. Proposed fees total $7,767—an increase of $6,166, or nearly 385%.

Current Legal Framework

Tate explained that Arizona's 2014 impact fee legislation—enacted during the post-recession economic slowdown partly to reduce developer burden—imposed strict rules. Cities can only charge fees for infrastructure serving new growth, not for correcting existing deficiencies (unless funded from other sources). Fees must be recalculated every 5-10 years and reviewed against actual development patterns.

Fountain Hills' current fee structure (adopted in 2014, based on a fee study by another firm) covers only fire and parks, charging $0.24 per square foot for non-residential development. No street or police fees are currently assessed. Proposed changes would add streets, police, and expand non-residential categories with differentiated rates.

The Land Use Assumptions

Tate projected growth over 10 years based on Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) forecasts:

Council Members Charneau and La Crone questioned whether MAG's 2015 projections were accurate, noting that earlier projections (using 2010 data) were inflated due to recession. Tate conceded that MAG's 2010 forecasts proved "notoriously off" but that 2015 releases had been more reliable.

Parks & Recreation Fees

Using an incremental expansion methodology (maintaining current level of service), Tate calculated:

Proposed park fee: $1,941 per single-family unit (cost per person of $903.02, multiplied by 2.15 persons per household).

Fire Facilities Fees

The town has 16,000 square feet of fire facilities (two stations) built at ~$423 per square foot. Tate projected only 1,450 square feet of additional capacity needed over 10 years.

Proposed fire fee: $524 per single-family unit—an increase of $224 from current fees.

Council Member Brown questioned the $423/sq ft figure, noting that Fire Station No. 2 cost $600,000 more than anticipated. Tate acknowledged the number was based on that project's final cost and fell within the range ($400-$500/sq ft) typical for valley cities. Town Manager Grady agreed the figure was reasonable, noting that previous council had expected a third station in the state trust land area—now unlikely to develop.

Police & Streets—The New Fees

Police: Tate proposed charging $464 square feet of additional police facilities over 10 years. Current fee structure includes zero police charges.

Proposed police fee: $86 per single-family unit; $0.02 per square foot for industrial development.

Council Members raised alarm over this new fee for which no plan exists. Town Attorney Aaron noted that state law may allow transfer of unused police fee funds to other appropriate development fee categories, but he committed to researching the provision before the November 5 adoption hearing.

Streets: This was the most contentious component. Tate presented two street improvement projects based on town capital plans:

Using vehicle miles of travel (VMT) modeling and trip length adjustments, Tate calculated fees based on different development types' propensity to generate longer or shorter trips on the arterial network.

Proposed street fee: $5,215 per single-family unit—by far the largest component of the total $7,767 fee.

Council Member Brown's Core Objection

Council Member Brown, a homebuilder, pressed the fundamental fairness question: Why should new single-family homeowners pay $5,215 for streets when the town's major new developments—Eagles Nest, Firerock, Adero Canyon—are built on private streets and don't use town streets for most residents' daily trips?

"I really struggle with the infrastructure capacity is essential to accommodate new development well all the new development that is happening and has happened in the town of fountain hills over the last 15 years of private development and so i'm struggling asking one of my clients to come up with another fifty five hundred dollars for streets when they're already living and paying for streets that they live in now." — Council Member Brown

Tate and Grady both acknowledged that many new developments are indeed self-contained but argued that any resident will eventually use town streets for shopping, services, and recreation. Grady added that previous taxpayers (like council members present) had already paid property taxes to build streets that all residents now benefit from—a form of cross-subsidy that development fees help balance prospectively.

Town Manager Grady also clarified that development fees cannot pay for street maintenance, only capital improvements—a distinction in Arizona law that council members seemed to miss.

Hotel, Assisted Living, and Non-Residential Rate Complexity

Tate proposed different fee structures for different use types:

Council Member Brown objected to the hotel fee as disproportionately high—nearly half the cost of a single-family home for a room occupied seasonally. Tate explained that hotels generate significant trip demand and that valley comparables ranged widely ($1,500–$8,600 per room), placing Fountain Hills' proposal in the mid-to-lower range.

Council Member La Crone noted the density of information was overwhelming and that the materials had been presented all at once rather than allowing time for preparation and thought.

Timeline & Process

Arizona law mandates a 225-day adoption timeline:

  1. Hearing on Land Use Assumptions & IIP: September 18 (tonight)—public input; no vote
  2. 60-day waiting period
  3. Adoption of Land Use Assumptions & IIP: November 5
  4. 30-day waiting period
  5. Public hearing on Fee Schedule: December [date TBD]
  6. 30-day waiting period
  7. Adoption of Fee Schedule: January [date TBD]
  8. 75-day waiting period
  9. Fees take effect: ~May 2020

Staff invitation to council: Council members were invited to submit specific concerns or proposed modifications to individual fee categories before November 5 so that consultant revisions could be prepared for that adoption hearing. Council Member La Crone asked whether categories (e.g., hotel, assisted living) could be eliminated or consolidated at that November 5 hearing, and Tate confirmed that changes to the IIP could be made if council directed them in advance.

Town Manager Grady promised to research the Arizona statute on fund transfers and dormant fee balances and report back before November 5.

Opposition & Support

Public comment: Three speakers addressed the council during "Call to the Public." None spoke on development fees. Two written comment cards on the Fountain of Light sculpture were noted as being in opposition; none were noted in support of the fees themselves. (The development fee item was a public hearing only, with no formal public comment period allocated.)

Project Details (Development Impact Fee Study)

Vote Breakdown

No formal votes on the fee study itself. The council held a public hearing and staff presented findings. Council members directed staff to accept written feedback before November 5 adoption hearing.

Other Unanimous Votes (Passed Earlier in Meeting)

Other Notable Items

Traffic Safety at Sunflower/Palisades: Resident Carl Buschmann reported a recent rollover accident at the intersection of East Sunflower, North Sunflower, and Jack Rabbit—three roads converging on Palisades. He cited speeding (60–70 mph), obstructed visibility, and a fatal accident near the high school a year prior, requesting a four-way stop sign. Town Engineer Sam [last name not stated] committed to reviewing the intersection data. This item was referred to staff with no formal action.

Transitional Housing for Homeless: Resident Timothy Lynch urged the council to establish a secular, community-based transitional living facility for homeless individuals, noting his own experience with eviction and the lack of a safety net in Fountain Hills. He identified David Iverson from Extended Hands Food Bank as a potential partner. The council accepted the comment for future follow-up.

General Plan Draft Vision Statement: The council received the preliminary draft of the town's revised general plan, which begins with a vision statement and character area framework (residential neighborhoods, commerce center, town center, Shea main gateway, Saguaro boulevard). Council Member Magazine criticized the vision as too vague and "fluffy," preferring specific targets (e.g., "financial dilemma is solved; town has seen influx of small high-tech companies"). Council Member Tallis expressed disappointment that the draft did not adequately reflect the passion and specificity of input from earlier community visioning meetings. Town Manager Grady acknowledged that the draft was a preliminary excerpt and that the full 47-page document contained more detail; he invited council members to review the underlying report and provide specific feedback before November 20 public open house and stakeholder review. No vote was taken; this was presentation and discussion only.

Resolution 2019-51 – Departmental Reorganization: Town Manager Grady moved the Communications and Marketing Coordinator position from Community Services to Economic Development, aligning tourism promotion with economic development efforts. The Volunteer Program Coordinator remains in Community Services. Grady noted that previous Economic Development Director Scott Cooper had proposed this change years earlier, and the new director supports it. No salary or job description changes beyond supervisory reporting relationships. Passed unanimously.

Resolution 2019-44 – Regional Homelessness Collaboration: Grady presented a resolution authorizing him to engage with other east valley city managers on data sharing and best practices to address homelessness, a growing concern across the region. The resolution commits no additional resources, only direction to explore solutions and report back. Passed unanimously with one written speaker card in favor.

Duration

Controversies & Context

Development Fees & State Preemption: In 2014, Arizona's legislature significantly restricted city and town authority to collect development impact fees, partly in response to home builder association lobbying during the recession. Pre-2014 fees in Fountain Hills reached $6,700 per unit before being reduced to $1,601 under the new law. That reduction has persisted for five years, during which construction costs for fire stations and other facilities have increased substantially. Tonight's proposed increase to $7,767 exceeds the pre-2014 level and prompted Council Member Brown to question whether the legislature might preempt it again. Tate and Grady acknowledged the political risk but noted that multiple valley cities (Tempe, Salt River, Surprise, Avondale) have adopted similar or higher fees under the same legal framework, and that Tishler Beasley's methodologies have never been successfully defeated in litigation.

Private Development & Street Burden: A unique feature of Fountain Hills' growth over the past 15 years is the prevalence of master-planned, gated communities (Eagles Nest, Firerock, Adero Canyon) with private streets. Council Member Brown and others questioned the fairness of imposing street impact fees when new residents may primarily use private infrastructure. Tate and Grady countered that all residents eventually use town streets for commercial, recreational, and service trips, and that impact fees represent a prospective fair share, not retroactive punishment.

Dark Sky Community Status at Risk: The Fountain of Light sculpture controversy reflects a broader tension in Fountain Hills' identity. In 2015, the town was designated a Dark Sky Community by the International Dark Sky Association—a rare designation that has attracted educational partnerships (ASU observatory, dark sky discovery center) and tourism interest. However, public art and downtown revitalization aspirations sometimes conflict with that status. The council's postponement of the sculpture reflects an effort to find a compromise that preserves both values.

Public Participation in General Plan: Council Member Tallis noted that while the town conducted two public visioning meetings for the general plan update, attendance was sparse (~20 people each) relative to the 22,000-23,000 resident population. He expressed concern that a high-profile rollout in spring 2020 might trigger unexpected opposition if residents feel their input was not adequately captured. Town Manager Grady and staff committed to expanded outreach through community organizations, schools, websites, and a November 20 public open house to give residents more opportunity to engage.

Notes on Missing Information

Next Steps:

The council expects to reconvene on October 1 for additional agenda items (including Item H, which was postponed due to meeting length). The development impact fee adoption hearing is scheduled for November 5. The general plan stakeholder review and public open house are scheduled for November 20. The Fountain of Light sculpture discussion will return when the artist, Public Art Committee, and Dark Sky Association have coordinated on revised engineering and siting options.