Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 03.18 City Council Regular Agenda rACHF de/ r _,..„ ....,vg„,„. , ,,,.,,,,,,( f..,,,k,.,..„ ,. n '----__________ Vtget.4, — —I 1,.iir: (.1-14,;:! ' "L9IZOIAP W ity on &4rac`ie 2unction CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA March 18, 1981 7:00 P.M. 6:00 P.M. EXECUTIVE SESSION INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL --ZjAcciess Ab6en+ (1 ) ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA (2) ACCEPTANCE OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 1981 AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND COMMUNICATIONS CALL TO THE PUBLIC CITY MANAGER' S REPORT PUBLIC HEARINGS (3) PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 86, PZ-1-81 , AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 2503 PUBLIC HEARINGS, (FIRST READING WITH EMERGENCY CLAUSE) OLD BUSINESS (4) INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ELECTION OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS NEW BUSINESS (5) PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION, ACCEPTANCE OF RESIGNATION FROM COMMISSION. (6) AWARD OF BID - PROJECT PW-81-1 , PARKING IMPROVEMENTS TO CITY HALL COMPLEX (7) EXECUTIVE SESSION, APRIL 1 , 1981 (8) INFORMATION AND REPORTS REQUESTS OF COUNCIL (9) ADJOURNMENT 1001 NORTH IDAHO ROAD • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE(602)982-8002 :d.,+�t;+..n'a;"vd!'h'.u;fm:d.;.tvYv',..YF,Kr�.k-'•'b+kca4 3as. A.42t.ram-rt3'wa "' ;ic. sct+5.,v.:-^..- ,sW4h..,�'= .,,.eh 4wr;r.+. '�^``rM a, ,. -_ - - I1 Ef1 NO, 1 `ink 5 " �tl BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED. ykik : �w liaftk CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING March 4, 1981 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, ^Y ,..:. v.-3.� . 1 ..., was held on March 4, 1981, at the Apache Junction Council Chambers pursuant to notice required by law. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Seeman called the meeting to order at 7.00 p m I INVOCATION Councilman Eidson led the invocation PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Council and public participated in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present. Councilman Norman Hill, Councilman Thomas _ Damiano, Councilman Marie Shanks, Councilman "`� _ �' Jimmy Eidson, Vice Mayor John Granillo, and Mayor Virginia Seeman Councilmembers Absent. Councilman Jerry Burgess C Staff Present City Manager G Ray Lee City Clerk/Director of Administrative Services Marlis J Davis Director of Public Safety Bill McDaniel Director of Public Works Richard Broman City Attorney Michael Curtis Building Official Leo Frazier Others with Council Business: Beth Truax, 1307 S Hale Drive, Apache Junction Howell Anderson, 1981 N. Ironwood, Apache Junction Harvey Morrison, 1934 W Roundup, Apache Junction Pat Smith, 936 S Bowman Rd , Apache Junction ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA ) Mayor Seeman asked that Item No 5 be deleted and asked that the Sentinel put something in the newspaper regarding the availability of appointments to the Health Commission. Vice Mayor Granillo MOVED THAT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS AMENDED. Councilman Eidson seconded the motion VOTE Unanimous The motion carried. ri m ^'r"'o-YSMd',,,, .. ACCEPTANCE OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 1981 Councilman Damiano MOVED THAT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THAT THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 1981, BE, AND HEREBY ARE, ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED. Councilman Hill seconded the motion VOTE Unanimous The motion carried. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Seeman introduced Mayor Don Strauch of Mesa who presented on behalf of the City of Mesa, a framed photograph of the City of Apache Junction taken many years ago, to - the City Council Mayor Seeman announced that Steve Workman, the Student of Parliamentary Procedure has recently received notification from the Director of Admissions and High School/College relations that he is one of the finalists in an Arizona State University Leadership scholarship Mayor Seeman read a letter from the East Valley Health Service Center Advisory Board concerning the assistance to the Apache Junction Fire Department in conducting their "Jaws of Life" campaign _: .<•fvi Mayor Seeman read a letter from Rock Shadows Park 'Golden Alters' baseball team • expressing appreciation for their efforts in supporting the seniors softball league Mayor Seeman read a letter from Richard E Wolfe of the Division of Mobile and Manufactured Housing Standards thanking the City Council and Richard Broman for their cooperation and assistance with the addendum to contract number 15. Mayor Seeman read a letter of resignation from Thomas Farrell of the Parks and Recreation Commission to be effective February 23, 1981 Mayor Seeman read a letter from Governor Babbit pertaining to the Health Care Ordinance. CALL TO THE PUBLIC Mayor Seeman stated she had received two requests to speak at Call to the Public and added that since both requests pertained to agenda item number 6 she would like to defer the requests until that item was addressed. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Ray Lee called upon the Director of Public Works to address street-light security. Director of Public Works Richard Broman addressed the street-lighting plan, the scope of the plan and outlined the initial steps that have been taken. Director of Public Works Richard Broman further stated there will be a meeting of the State Transportation Board on March the 18th in Apache Junction PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no Public Hearings OLD BUSINESS There was no old business REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL > 's MARCH 4, 1981 PAGE TWO oak /Elk NEW BUSINESS VEHICLE LOAN AGREEMENT WITH THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY ) Councilman Damiano MOVED THAT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THAT THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY, THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER, BE AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR THE LOAN OF VEHICLES ON A ROTATIONAL BASIS Vice Mayor Granillo seconded the motion. VOTE Unanimous The motion carried PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL RETIREMENT BOARD ) Mayor Seeman MOVED THAT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THAT THE FOLLOWING PERSONS BE, AND HEREBY ARE, APPOINTED TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL RETIREMENT BOARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES WILLIAM ARNOLD SAID TERM TO EXPIRE MARCH 4, 1985, AND LEO FRAZIER, SR , SAID TERM TO EXPIRE MARCH 4, 1983, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE TERMS OF THE ELECTED MEMBERS BE AS FOLLOWS DANIEL M. SCOTT, SAID TERM TO EXPIRE MARCH 4, 1983, AND GARY JONES, SAID TERM TO EXPIRE MARCH 4, 1985. Councilman Damiano seconded the motion VOTE Unanimous The motion carried. EQUESTRIAN COMMITTEE (DISCUSSION ITEM) ) Mayor Seeman asked Council- man Shanks to chair the item. Councilman Shanks read a memo she had provided to the Councilmembers pertaining to an Equestrian Committee Councilman Shanks then opened the meeting to the public and recognized Mrs. Pat Smith. Mrs Pat Smith, 936 S Bowman Road, Apache Junction, spoke on behalf of the Horseman's Association and explained the intent behind the request for an Equestrian Committee Mayor Seeman stated she would like to have time for review in order to ascertain the best and proper way to set up the Commission. Mr. Harvey Morrison, 1834 W Roundup Street, requested that the Council keep in mind questions concerning who would be policing the Commission, and whether the Commission would deal only with horses or with all animals He warned the Council of the potential health problems accompanying horses and other animals [_ Councilman Shanks stated she would favor a board or commission that would work along the lines addressed by Mrs Smith pertaining to horsemen's rights and non-horsemen's rights Councilman Shanks then turned the meeting over to Mayor Seeman ( NOTE The following people wished to address the Council, however, they failed to fill out 'Request to Speak' forms and, therefore, were not recognized at "Call to the Public " Upon being made aware that the individuals wished to address the Council, Mayor Seeman recognized them ) REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 4, 1981 PAGE THREE Mr. Hal Anderson, 1981 N Ironwood, addressed the Council regarding some property to be discussed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting of March 10, 1981. Mr Anderson stated that he felt the City had adequate land zoned for industrial uses and would like the Council to seriously look at whether the City needed additional industrial land Mrs Beth Truax, 1307 S Hale Drive requested that the foliage bordering W. 12th Avenue where it enters into Delaware be removed to allow for safe exiting from W 12th Avenue on Delaware. Director of Public Works Richard Broman stated sections of the fence that were obstructing the view have already been removed, and additionally, because of a petition submitted by the residents in the area requesting that the vegetation remain for two to three years, it was determined that as long as there is no safety hazard, foliage would be allowed to remain The areas that still remain where visability is hampered because of the shrubbery will be looked at and dealt with EXECUTIVE SESSION, MARCH 18,.1981 ) ) Councilman Eidson MOVED THAT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PERSONNEL AND LEGAL ADVICE BE HELD ON MARCH 18, 1981, AT 6 00 P M IN THE CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM Vice Mayor Granillo seconded the motion. VOTE Unanimous '"`' ...` ..;.,y :4a3kM.,,, The motion carried. INFORMATION AND REPORTS There was no information and there were no reports REQUESTS OF COUNCIL `Councilman Damiano explained the reason the entire ordinance is not always read at the Council neetings, he further stated the entire ordinance can be reviewed at City Hall Mayor Seeman MOVED THAT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THAT DIRECTION BE GIVEN TO THE CITY MANAGER AND TO THE ATTORNEYS TO PROVIDE THIS . COUNCIL WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPOINTMENTS FOR MEMBERS OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE MANAGER ARRANGE A SUBSEQUENT MEETING BETWEEN THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE COUNCIL TO DISCUSS GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND A POSITIVE COURSE OF ACTION Councilman Shanks seconded the motion VOTE Unanimous The motion carried. [ ADJOURNMENT ) Mayor Seeman adjourned the meeting at 7 47 p m APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1981 BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION ATTEST VIRGINIA SEEMAN MAYOR 1_. � {rx MARLIS J. DAVIS yusy:> ram.., CITY CLERK 4 'T ' ;' x e*. € W%1' Ai.4 . . - . ' • .. . ' . IIEM NO, 2 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THAT THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF EtiRUAR*a48, 1981, BE AND HEREBY ARE, ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED . )71/1) . . liflag/tot6e/A LAlz-t-iL-At)f ea/1/2-46%0 ACHF PQ , ✓ o gR,Zoo- ity C pace e 2unction March 11, 1981 MEMORANDUM TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL THROUGH: RAY LEE, CITY MANAGER.w—� FROM: JOE GERO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING SUBJECT. REQUEST FOR AGENDA ITEM - PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 86 (WITH EMERGENCY CLAUSE) BACKGROUND: Section 2503 of the Zoning Ordinance has been found to be in conflict with the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS § 9-462-06 (F) and § 9-462.04) . The Arizona Revised Statutes requires fifteen (15) days notice minimum advertising time for the Board of Adjustment while the City Zoning Ordinance requires seven (7) days. To correct the error, proposed Ordinance No. 86 has been prepared. In that the City provision is less than the State requirement, the emergency clause has been attached. By practice, the City is now using fifteen days minimum advertisement for the Board of Adjustment. This was advertised on February 22, 1981 for public hearing for both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council . The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the case on March 10, 1981, and thereafter voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend approval . The reason for the approval is to correct a provision in the City Ordinance in conflict with a State Statute. A recommended motion is attached. Approver for Agenda Date Item # JWG/kmc 3-18-$1 ____ First Reading Second Reading _. .._._ X Pt b'ic Hearing Old "Business New Business 1001 NORTH IDAHO ROAD • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE(602)982-8002 RECOMMENDED MOTION ORDINANCE NO BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THAT IN ZONING CASE Pz-i-S/ , a.►ar&-X h (. i,.,..4.a...{,,.. ALSO KNOWN AS ORDINANCE NO. $6 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE APACHE JUNCTION ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTION 2503 PUBLIC HEARINGS, REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE REASONS FOR APPROVAL OF THIS MOTION ARE OPTIONAL CHOICES a. Those reasons as set forth by the Planning and Zoning Commission which are hereby adopted by reference." b (Council may wish to use only some of the Commission reasons If this is the case, you will have to read those specific reasons ) c (Council may wish to use all new reasons or other reasons in addition to the above. If this is the case, you will have to read them and you are requested to write them out for the City Clerk.) ORDINANCE NO 86 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE APACHE JUNCTION ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTION 2503 PUBLIC HEARINGS, REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, AS FOLLOWS. SECTION I IN GENERAL The Zoning Ordinance, SECTION 2503 PUBLIC HEARINGS, shall be amended to read as follows "SECTION 2503 PUBLIC HEARINGS Upon receipt of the application, in proper form, the Board of Adjustment shall proceed to hold a public hearing on the application at which all persons whose property is affected, and the general public, shall be given an opportunity to be' heard Notice of time and place of the hearing, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered and including a general description of the area, shall be given at least fifteen (15) days before the hearing in the following manner: `,1,7..Y.. .1�444.' C4U'61sax.fa r''2NR ea i i Publication of the notice at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Apache Junction, posting the notice in conspicuous places close to the property affected, and by depositing in the United States mail notices thereof addressed to the last owners as shown on the list submitted by the applicant under the pro- visions of Section 2501(c) of this Ordinance. SECTION II REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance or any part of the Code adopted herein by reference, are hereby repealed SECTION III PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY If any section, sub-section, sentence, phrase, clause or portion of this Ordinance or any part of the Code adopted herein by reference is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent Jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. SECTION IV EMERGENCY CLAUSE WHEREAS, it is necessary for the preservation of the peace, health and safety of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance shall become immediately operative and in force from and after the date of posting hereof PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THIS DAY OF , 19 Mayor oft. Ask Ordinance No Page 2 ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM• City Attorney IL 4 .„ . , F(-0 Vv --7-fcl . . 0 0 r Y , " : �,... `�'.Hai+'+..'!��'�:14i��4u7fY$7�i��N`3h#�a�!�;iRriM6N... ,. .. ✓ .�. -.. -. .. .. 6n'vS.'i4��%.JttaF:r;`,#�1��raNfSr'+'rw. _.r_...y ._� r ,.:. . .,,. '- :, ,.,... :.,.,_ ._ ._,. ,.. . .... ... . .._ ..,. , ... . . ou iwil j) ITEM NO. 3 ft), _ lib. c)I&'uik c2 I610,1,( CBE IT RESOLVED BY THE rAYOF AND CITY OUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THAT IN ZONING CASE PZ-1-81, APPLICATION BY COMMISSION INITIATIVE, ALSO KNOWN AS ORDINANCE NO. 86, AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE APACHE JUNCTION ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTION 2503 PUBLIC HEARINGS; REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY, BE AND HEREBY IS, APPROVED AND ADOPTED. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE REASONS FOR APPROVAL OF THIS MOTION ARE : (CHOOSE ONE : ) A. "THOSE REASONS AS SET FORTHE BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WHICH ARE HEREBY ADOPTED BY REFERENCE . " B . (COUNCIL MAY WISH TO USE ONLY SOME OF THE COMMISSION REASONS . IF THIS IS THE CASE, YOU WILL HAVE TO READ THOSE SPECIFIC REASONS . ) C . (COUNCIL MAY WISH TO USE ALL NEW REASONS OR OTHER REASONS IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE . IF THIS IS THE CASE, YOU WILL HAVE TO READ THEM AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO WRITE THEM OUT FOR THE CITY CLERK. ) 1)6w. / R�� JiAA.kn( I 14 �►U(, �� l�A/Ok lA W Q ... FflP ATl(1PTIfN (WITH FMFRGENCY CLAUSE) Ask ..,:..... .�.._.G�., . r ... ITEM NO 3 CALL UPON THE CITY CLERK TO READ THE TITLE OF ORDINANCE NO, 86, BY TITLE ONLY, FOR THE FIRST READING, FOR FIRST READING Isk ».xa x ., a w. +dwhu+b.s��,.,;n. .w�... "s-�s..�tfa�ep`H.y�i'.pxF.q`Cr7a+:.X as».M:r`i5.�s�!�la }'r+t i,a.w_'e:"-.. .,�.:. ..::..^a4=r_;8;".w..,.tf.:,:r.. ., .�.,-.,: .. .. ITEM NO, 3 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THAT IN ZONING CASE PZ-1-81, APPLICATION BY COMMISSION INITIATIVE, ALSO KNOWN AS ORDINANCE NO. 86, AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE APACHE JUNCTION ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTION 2503 PUBLIC HEARINGS; REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY, BE AND HEREBY IS, DENIED, FOR DENIAL Ask LAW OFFICES MARTINEZ, CURTIS,GOODWIN,KARASEK & HADDY 1402 FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS BUILDING MICHAEL A CURTIS JAY M MARTINEZ 3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE SUSAN 0 GOODWIN PHOENIX,ARIZONA 85012 DAVID K KARASEK TELEPHONE (602) 248-0372 LARRY G HADDY ELLEN M CROWLEY REFER TO FILE NO WILLIAM P SULLIVAN 244-12 March 11, 1981 To: City Council From: City Attorney Re: Apache Junction Industrial Development Authority Pursuant to direction of Council given at the City Council meeting of March 4, 1981, this office has reviewed the status of the Apache Junction Industrial Development Authority and reports as follows : 1 . Board of Directors : a. The City Council has the obligation to elect the Board of Directors of the Industrial Development Authority. ARS §9-115 provides : "The Authority shall have a Board of Directors in which all powers of the Authority shall be vested and which shall consist of a number of Directors, not less than three nor no more than nine, all of whom shall be qualified electors of the municipality or county with respect to which the Authority was formed . . . the director shall be elected by the governing body of the authorizing municipality or county, and they shall be so elected that they shall hold office for overlapping terms. At the time of election of the first Board of Directors the governing body of the municipality or the county shall divide the Directors into three groups containing as nearly equal whole numbers as possible. The first term of the Directors included in the first group shall be two years, the first term of the Directors included in the second group shall be four years, the first term of the Director Approver for Agenda -_- --included in the third group shall be six Date ifog1d/ars and thereafter the terms of all First Rea:ing 3431 -�-Directors shall be six years. " Second Read;ng _- FL!l'c Ol i flusiness �l W BJrness City Council March 11, 1981 Page Two According to the Articles of Incorporation of the Apache Junction Industrial Development Authority, the following persons were on the original Board of Directors: William Wright Richard Metz John Drummond Virgil Johnson Walter Kesteloot Dorothy Johnson Ruby Mae Forsberg Subsequently at its meeting of December 18, 1979 Dorothy Johnson and Ruby Mae Forsberg tendered their resignation which resignations were accepted by the Board but the City Council has not appointed replacements for Mrs. Johnson and Mrs. Forsberg. Mr. Wright has advised us that Virgil Johnson has moved out of the City and intends to tender his resignation. That will leave as Board Members William Wright, Richard Metz, John Drummond and Walter Kesteloot. Dr. Dean Seaman and Sam Gardom wish to sit on the Board, which would then constitute a Board of Directors of six members which would be consistent with the Arizona statutes and the Articles of Incorporation of the Industrial Development Authority. ARS §9-1155 provides that at the time the Board of Directors are elected by the City Council that they be elected so that they hold office for overlapping terms. That was not done at the time of the original appointment. Attached is a form of motion for the Council . 2. Action by the IDA to date: The Board held its initial meeting on December 18, 1979. At that time Mr. Wright and Mr. Johnson were authorized to execute a Memorandum of Agreement with the Commerce Development Corporation providing for preliminary approval of Issuance of Revenue Bonds in the approximate sums of five million eight hundred thousand dollars. In addition a Preliminary Bond Resolution regarding the issuance of the Revenue Bonds was adopted. No action to City Council March 11, 1981 Page Three carry out the Memorandum of Agreement or the Issuance of Revenue Bonds has been taken by the Commerce Development Corporation, but Commerce Development Corporation has advised the IDA that it still wishes to proceed. 3. Notice of Meetings : Robert Pohlman, Counsel for the Industrial Development Authority, has raised a question as to whether proper public notice of the December 18, 1979 meeting had been properly posted in order to comply with the State 's open meeting law. If the notice was not posted properly, actions taken at that meeting can be declared null and void, and those actions would include the adoption of the Preliminary Bond Resolution and the authorization execute the Memorandum of Agreement between the Industrial Development Authority and, its development associates . 4. Arizona Corporation Commission Filings : The Industrial Development Authority is now current in meeting the requirements for filing of annual report with the Arizona Corporation Commission. 5. Recommendations : We recommend that, since there are some questions outstanding with regard to notice of the original meeting at which official action was taken and that since Comerce Development Corporation has not proceeded with the bond issue, the Board of Directors should be reorganized following a new election of Board of Directors by the City Council and all actions taken at the December 18, 1979 meeting be repeated. Attached are suggested motions for carrying out these recommendations. BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council that the resignations of Virgil Johnson, Dorothy Johnson, and Ruby Mae Forsberg from the Apache Junction Industrial Development Authority, heretofore tendered to the City Council be and they are hereby accepted . WHEREAS, ARS §9-1155 provides that the Board of Directors of an Industrial Development Authority shall be elected by the City Council and that they shall be so elected that they shall hold office for overlapping terms, and BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Apache Junction that, pursuant to ARS §9-1155, the following slate of directors of the Apache Junction Industrial Development Authority be and they are hereby elected by the City Council to serve on the Board of Directors of the Apache Junction Industrial Development Authority : William Wright, Richard Metz, John Drummond, Walter Kesteloot, Dr. Dean Seeman, and Sam Gardom. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that and shall hold office for six years, that and shall hold office for four years and that and shall hold office for two years and that thereafter all terms of directors shall be for six years. ITEM NO, 4 (MOTION 1) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THAT THE RESIGNATIONS OF VIRGIL JOHNSON, DOROTHY JOHNSON, AND RUBY MAE FORSBEPG FROM THE APACHE JUNCTION INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HERETOFORE TENDERED TO THE CITY COUNCIL BE AND HEREBY PRE ACCEPTED, MOTION BY: gt:d/ZUYL SECONDED BY : VOTE : lliguiin, (MOTION NO, 2) (NOTE: Whereas, ARS 9-1155 provides that the Board of Directors of an Industrial Development Authority shall be elected by the City Council and that they shall be so elected that they shall hold office for overlapping terms . ) BE IT PESOLvED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION THAT, PURSUANT TO ARS 9-1155, THE FOLLOWING SLATE OF DIRECTORS OF THE APACHE JUNCTION INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BE AND HEREBY ARE ELECTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO SERVE ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE APACHE JUNCTION INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORTTY: WILLIAM WPIGHT, RICHARD "1ET7, JOHN DRUMMOND, WALTER KESTELOOT, DR, DEAN SEEMAN, AND SAM GARDOM, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT bun4 +''Jhk HALL HOLD OFFICE FOP SIX YEARS, THAT AND SHALL HOLD OFFICE FOR FOUR YEARS AND THAT AND SHALL HOLD OFFICE FOR TWO YEARS AND THAT THEREAFTER ALL TERMS OF THE DIRECTORS SHALL BE FOR SIX YEARS. Ink irilet3/i} to .'Thomas C Farrell ....kY�.,'�'!*.=�'�P.iX'7n"�+.1"5�..•"f:� ,5�.'Q.°t' ':`.Ta# ����.Yh�'T+�T��Y���`�'i''tC�h h�`'„� _y�+� +,'�Yiv l Nam! ' �_ S ''j.," - i �.423- 3`3i::'a/.,d��R't. e 1211 S. Lawther Drive Apache Junction, AZ 85220 February 20, 1981 To: Mayor and City Council Please accept my resignation from the Parks and Recreation Commission, effective February 23, 1981. Due to circumstances beyond my control, I ask that you accept my resignation. Sincerely, cc—Jeff Bell Approver for AgendDa . .---- --- afee Q Item First Reading s.—I� J Second Reading Public Hearing Old Business ........ New Business •°- • • - - A ITEM NO , 5 comjarive BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT OF APACHE JUNCTION THAT THE RESIGNATION OF THOMAS C, FARRELL FROM THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION BE ACCEPTED WITH REGRET, -jo : uou ,01(1, .hltiin\,m0;11 IrMAAjg, 0ACHE0}n✓G 0 Lh L , x L Z' cr-�11- _. Y '9R/ZOP `Oily o ache unction � Cp March 12, 1981 MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council 4 THRU: City Manager FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Paving to Maintenance Yard and Animal Control Areas Presently, the access to the maintenance yard and animal control shelter is unpaved and as such, there is a possibility that with a rain cycle of extended duration, the maintenance yard could become inaccessible. Should this occur, there is a possibility that heavy equipment and highway user vehicles might not be able to respond to an emergency to protect the public, or to provide basic services. Realizing budget constraints, this department implemented a plan to improve the access at a minimal cost, by doing major portions of the work with City and CETA personnel. As paving requires special equipment and skills, this aspect was put to bid. The bid included a basic bid for 2" of asphalt cement, alternate #1 - single course - chip seal coat, alternate #2 - double course - chip seal coat. Considering all three types of construction, the 2" of asphalt cement (basic bid) will wear longer and require less maintenance than the other alternates, because of the weight of heavy equipment and volume of traffic that will be using this corridor. Another consideration for paving is the public that frequents the animal control shelter. Dust, rocks, and mud will certainly create an annoyance and possibly a hardship. Attached you will find a copy of the bid tabulation for seven contractors. Number 6, Briscoe Inc. , submitted the lowest price for the basic bid. I recommend the council award Briscoe Inc. the contract for paving the access to the maintenance yard And animal control shelter in the amount of $8,732.70. Approver for Agenda zz t j Date !ham # First Reacting !.�-/ I RWB/an ten':a•u. 7.::;i'ng - -- attachment "' ' " (Y`.i i.U:. .SS UL-•,, r • .- 1001 NORTH IDAHO ROAD • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE(602)982-8002 Assik p PyACHE✓G ►_ r� w cry, � ''�` .......,! 4,pIZONP V ity o . &4pache 2unctian BID OPENING PROJECT NO. PW-81-1 PARKING IMPROVEMENTS - CITY HALL COMPLEX ROAD EXTENSION TO "MAINTENANCE YARD AND ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER" FEBRUARY 26, 1981 2 P.M. CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Present: Marlis J. Davis, City Clerk; Richard Bryant, City Engineer; Marsha Crissman, Secretary; and representatives of five firms submitting bids. The meeting opened at 2 p.m. in the City Manager's office. Marlis J. Davis closed the acceptance of bids. The bids were opened as follows: 1. A & J Paving, Inc. P. 0. Box 2758, Mesa, AZ 85204 Cashier's check - 5 percent of bid The bid was not signed, although there was a signature on the reference page. Basic Bid: $12,550:00 Alternative 1: 6,200.00 Alternative 2: 10,200.00 2. Bentson Contracting Company, P. 0. Box 8007, Phoenix, AZ 85066 Bid bond - 5 percent of bid Signed by Vice President L.F. Phillips Basic bid: $10,392.75 ($3,725) Alternative 1: 6,193.80 ($ 2.22) Alternative 2: 8,537.40 ($ 3.06) 3. Valley Wide Contracting Company, Inc. , P.O. Box 27392, Tempe, AZ 85282 Cashier's check - 5 percent of bid Signed by President Mearl E. Pitts Basic bid: $ 8,788.50 ($ 3.15) Alternative 1: 4,185.00 ( 1.50) Alternative 2: 6,696.00 ( 2.40) 1001 NORTH IDAHO ROAD • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE(602)982-8002 Ask Ask BID OPENING PROJECT NO. PW-81-1 Page 2 4. Markham Contracting Co. , Inc. 2010 West Ironwood, Phoenix, AZ 85021 Bid bond - 5 percent of bid Signed by Estimator Tom Markham Basic bid: $11,146.00 Alternative 1: 10,900.00 Alternative 2: 11,200.00 5. Rodeway Paving and Construction, Inc. , 2302 North 36th Street, #103, Phoenix, AZ 85008 Bid bond - 5 percent of bid Signed by President Basic bid: $10,800.00 Alternative #1: 5,300.00 Alternative #2: 6,780.00 6. Briscoe, Inc. , P.O. Box 3766, Phoenix, Az. 85030 Bid bond - 5 percent of bid. Signed by Vice President - Engineering R. L. Tenboer (LOW Basic bid: $ 8,732.70 BIDDER) Alternative #1: 3,738.60 Alternative #2: 6,835.50 7. Ajax Contracting Co. , Inc. , 3011 West Whitton Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85017 Bid bond - 5 percent of bid Signed by Vice President/Accountant Basic bid: $10,910.00 Alternative #1: 5,666.00 Alternative #2: 8,075.00 Because all seven bidding companies are located outside the city limits, none are eligible for the 5 percent bid given to companies in Apache Junction. There being no further bids, the meeting was closed at 2:10 p.m. Marlis J. Davis City Clerk an -k! r. i!.4.04;r).;:O.44w�7fX 4:44 %Y%WdW3 a:.;'!4 "HPGiAc.. ..'441 "' .F.tti''"`` ,s-ir , 4y,_ //a' • / r • ai.p•:.;%.A.esra6A11.44Ut't 4:r v+*gio..:.:J.pa,0a:47.,,,,h.4o • .,, .,,'-..-e.,,,• ,,= �."...--'..b .ra_.:. .} _.._ -ih ,il '''...,r.MMM..,• _ a o V .. _-K -..... t/•.4'.',_ l'k)ff (1) . 71111111111111111 ,' 17.e i ,,. \:, ei* ITEM NO -' " � -/ BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF HE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, APIZONA THAT BRISCOE, INC. BE AWARDED THE BID FOR PROJECT NO. PW-81-1, ;, ; �Jc\ Q PARKING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY HALL COMPLEX — ROAD EXTENSION TO �� MAINTENANCE YARD AND ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER, IN THE AMOUNT OF jie, Q ,,�� $8,732. 70, CONDITIONAL TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS. • MR APPR(1VA1 ,(/O�t„ '"� °"tet iv) N ' a • Mf::`lk:Mi�.�'K^/?,t.��'�!.l1F1!,�'§h,51rbG•`..w.r•..:...'. . ..'t:-: •r-ii.!vr4:+Sv.1.r ....r:_.. ;.._... ...: '.-:-.. , -.._. .. -. _. .-... , L EE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THAT THE AWARD OF BID ON PROJECT NO, PW-81-1, PARKING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY HALL COMPLEX - ROAD EXTENSION TO THE MAINTENANCE YARD AND ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER, BE DENIED, Ff1R flFN T AI Is Rh. soh* ITEM NO. 7 -ONAlkL" ara \ \,:s1 „per BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PERSONNEL AND LEGAL ADVICE BE HELD ON APRIL 1, 1981, AT 6:00 P.M. IN THE CITY MANGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM, 1 +011, '+:w"AitFr as-. -.;.,-, - PQACHE✓�, ._. U 'i(lR t Z '�RfzoN� ity 4 04pacGee 09unctian March 11, 1981 MEMORANDUM T0• City Clerk FROM. Director of Public Works SUBJECT• Minutes of Airport Commission meetings We are enclosing the original of the minutes of the Airport Commission meeting of February 9, 1981, and the original of the (informal) minutes of the public forum held on February 11, 1981. Please insert these minutes into the minutes book RWB/an encl. Approver for Agenda. ..................... Des 16,m# First Rcid'1g Secc-s..°^e.',3 � r " C'., 1,-s 1001 NORTH IDAHO ROAD • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE(602)982-8002 MINUTES OF MEETING AIRPORT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9,1981 Meeting was called to order by Chairman. Dr. D. H. Robinson, at 5.03 P M. Present Dr. D H Robinson, Chairman Mr John Forsberg. Vice Chairman Mr John Drummond, Secretary Dr. J. H Downs Mr. William Wright Mr Richard Oltman Ms Priscilla Gardner Mr. Richard Broman, Director of Public Works Mrs Althea Nunn, Recording Secretary Guests Mr James Harris, Buell, Winter, Mousel and Associates Mr Steve Coffman, Coffman Associates Mr Ken Brust, Coffman Associates Invocation was given by Mr Wright Pledge of Allegiance led by Mr. Forsberg. 1 Chairman asked if all members had reviewed the minutes of the meeting of February 2, 1981 Motion/ seconded by Mr Wright, Mr Forsberg, to approve the minutes as presented. Voted unan- imously 2. Chairman called roll Declared quorum present. 3 Chairman introduced consultants. Stated all members have read site selection plan #3 (Working paper #3 ) Is there anything you can bring us up to date on? 4. Mr Coffman We have several things to bring up at the public meeting We will show the film "Air- ports Mean Business". We have also brought a slide presentation that we are putting to- gether We will outline where we have got to so far, what the next step is, the process of selecting airport sites, what the ideas or concerns are of those in attendance We would like to keep as open a forum as possible. 5. Chairman asked for Public Works Director's report Mr Broman stated he did not have one 6 Mr. Brust asked if there is any specific feedback from the Commission members re site selection? 7 Dr. Downs stated he thought site F would definitely be the best choice, also thought the residents of the City would have less objection to an air- port put in this area rather than closer to the City It's reasonably close to the City. I have talked to Harold Christ, the developer of the property north of that, he also has property to the West of Site F, and he feels an airport would be very compatible with that area He would change his plans for that area which was going to be mobile homes, to conform to whatever fits the airport best. lk -2- (Mr. Brust asked that this area be pointed out on the map, which was done by Dr Downs.) 8. Mr Brust asked if the main concern of the people coming to this meeting would be whether or not to have an airport, or just that they are against the airport. 9 Mr Wright stated he thought most people would consider Apache Junction too small an area to need an airport, also that many persons moved to this area to enjoy the rural setting, and would con- sider an airport would bring change to that rural atmosphere 10 Mr Brust We will address what an airport can do for the community 11 Mr Forsberg_ stated that is the essential thing to stress, what an airport would mean to the City and surrounding area, in the amount of dollars that can be generated,future employment, and all this kind of thing 12. Mr. Brust indicated first half of presentation will be to "sell" the airport to the City, to talk about what an airport can mean to the City, the second half will be devoted to the study itself, the technical aspect of it, where the study has taken us, what our recommended sites are now, and address questions on that area Open discussion was held re sites. Mr. Brust pointed out that some of the sites were located on State land, which would make it much simpler to place an airport Question was asked about moving these sites slightly, Commission was advised this could be done, depending on flight patterns, etc. B, C, F and H would be the favorable sites We are not ready to come in and say we are recommending this particular site We want public input, let them tell us what they want We will then recommend the most feasible location Chairman stated he thinks this is the purpose of the meeting. B & C have good points due to their proximity to the proposed freeway, too close to res- idential.Mr. Wright mentioned that F would not eliminate that, as there is an expected growth of 20,000 people in the Mesa Del Oro area in the next few years Mr. Broman stated that Sky Harbor was a few miles from the City of Phoenix at one time. Consultant pointed out that Scottsdale Airport was also a few miles from the residential areas of the City, and is now in trouble because of noise problems. 13 Mr Coffman spoke on the fact that the Department of Trans- portation funded many studies during 1976, 77 and 78, and out of 500 studies during this period, only seven (7) new airports were built because of unresolveable problems, and/or ob- jections to the airport. 14. Mr. Drummond said sites B & C were originally thought to be good sites as they are in the flood con- trol area, which would prohibit building. Consultant said this has not stopped develop- ment in other area, doubtful that it will stop it in this area. -3- 15. Mr Coffman stated once a site is chosen, it is necessary to move quickly, in order to secure the best possible prices, in order to be certain the land is available, etc. He went into some detail on the best ways to acquire State of Federal land 16 Mr Broman it will be necessary to re-emphasize that tax money is not paying for the airport. 17 Mr Coffman We will discuss that, we will answer questions in detail just to make sure that all the little points are covered We'll try to cover how much money, how acquired, when, etc. 18. Consultants stated if the Commission desires they will con- trol the meeting, however, would appreciate the Commission interjecting view on site choices. Chairman will introduce City officials, etc , then the consultants Mr Harris will then introduce persons from the State or Federal aviation groups. 19 Discussion was held re small airports being closed due to encroachment of residential areas, as air- ports were not put far enough away from residential areas, or airport planners did not plan on growth as it is occuring. Again, it was pointed out that sites F and G would be the most likely choices to minimize the problems 20. Consultants passed out material that will be used for public handouts for public meeting, showing proposed sites, etc 21. Chairman introduced Ms. Gardner, Advisory member, and Mr Ray Lee, City Manager, to the Consultants. 22. Adjournment Motion/seconded, Mr Wright and Mr. Forsberg, to adjourn meeting at 6.40 p.m. Motion passed unanimously Respectfully submitted, rU Jo Drummond, Secretary Approved Dr D H. Robin , Chairman r PUBLIC HEARING AIRPORT COMMISSION February 11, 1981 • A public informational meeting was held at 7.00 at the Superstition Mountain Elementary School, Ironwood and Broadway, Apache Junction, Arizona _._...w. .:�. :��_•'a. ?�:: ,...ate: Airport Commission Members Present Absent Dr D. H. Robinson, Chairman Mr Richard Oltman Mr. John Forsberg, Vice Chairman Mr John Drummond, Secretary Mr William Wright Dr. J. H. Downs Ms. Priscilla Gardner, Advisory Member Mr. Jack Womack, Advisory Member City Staff Members present. Mr Joe Gero, Director of Planning Mr. Chuck Newcomer, Assistant " Mr Richard Broman, Director of Public Works Mr Richard Bryant, City Engineer Mrs. Althea Nunn, Recording Secretary Honored Guests. Councilman Damiano Councilman Eidson Supervisor Karam Manny Pesco, Pres. Arizona Pilots Association [_ Chairman Robinson introduced the Airport Commission members, as well as Mr. Damiano and Mr Pesco, then turned the meeting over to the Consultants Mr Jim Harris, Buell, Winter, Mousel and Associates introduced Mr Brust and Mr. Coffman of Coffman Associates Mr. Harris presented the film "Airports Mean Business" Mr. Coffman then gave the slide presentation These slides were taken of local items of interest, and local airports, including Falcon Field and Scottsdale Also presented were slides of the different site selections Mr Coffman presented slides of several airports, one of the Kansas City Airport to indicate that this IS NOT the kind of airport for Apache Junction, one of the airports in New Haven, Conn., showing houses en- croached to within 60' of the runway. Overviews of the sites were given by Mr Brust He indicated the site of Williams Air Force Base on the map, and the terrain problems of selecting an airport site. A - Proposed freeway runs across northern section of Site A Privately owned dirt runway on this site. Closest site to WAFB B - Adjacent to City limits, and proposed freeway Mostly Arizona Grant Land, except northern portion which is residential and private ownership This has high power tension lines on site C - Overlaps Site B, mostly State Grant Land, except northerly portion of site. Same high power tension lines as B. D & E-Ironwood cuts thru left portion of D - canal runs from lower part of E to WAFB, dashed lines proposed AZ. Project. Entire D composed of Arizona State Grant Land. Sites D and A would interfere with WAFB Power lines running thru. Major draw- back, no current access to site Az State Gtant Land F - Just south of Sand Tanks area, all of the land is Arizona State Grant Land /'N /IMIN -2- G - Just East of Site F, just the other side of Highway 60-89, another high power tension line runs through just about the middle of the site. Arizona State Grant Land Sits right at the base where the terrain starts a rapid rise H - West side of Highway 60-89, power line on south edge of H, wash across the northern portion Meeting opened for discussion of sites. Mr. Coffman read letter from Mr. Robert Dugger (see attached). Question. Tax money being spent on airport Answer- He is correct, money collected from taxes on airline tickets -- do go on to furnish airport funds. It is a trust fund established for the purpose of establishing airports. It also collects money from other users of aviation. Users pay these fees, the money can be used ONLY for airports Question. Does that work like a road tax2 Answer- Yes Question. Cost of airport maintenance borne by local residents? Answer Just like any other business, and airports are business, this is one public facility that can gene;ate income to the community Airports charge fees for their use, those fees support the maintenance and further development of the airport. Those fees need to be established and the airport run just like any other business. Question If this is true, then why are they using federal money, why don't some investors get together and build the airport? Answer• The cost of providing airport facilities is extremely high, just cannot generate the level of dollars needed by private investment Question. If this is a money making thing for the City fine. If it is not, is there any way the City can bail out9 Answer• Certainly, several cities have. Question. If this airport is such a good deal, why are cities "bailing out"? Answer- There are some airports that are so constrained, and encroached upon, as shown on the slides, that it is creating some kind of an impact on the community so that the community does not want it anymore Comment. I think this is premature by about 5 years We have no road : :-:: access here, the Superstition Freeway is seven or more years away. We have no industry. Let's spend our surplus money, if we have any, to build the City first, before we build an airport Question Can you give a percentage of airports that actually make a profit? Answer. There are many airports that run in the black, I do not know the percentage, or total number The point I was try- ing to make earlier in the discussion is that any airport, managed properly, can do that. Comment - I think I can help answer this man's question. I have prop- erty in Rio Rancho - (in area of Albuquerque, N M ) ten years ago there was about 5,000 people and no place for them to work There are now about 10,000 people and no unemploy- ment, thanks to the Airport and Industry it brought in. This is a small airport similar to what Apache Junction would need. -3- Comment - I have lived here all my life, I am a 100% year round resident. We had a situation on the river with inadequate bridge cross- ings, because of people thinking exactly like you. I feel an airport can do us a great deal of good. Sure it cost some- thing, but how about the revenue we will realize from sales tax, how about the revenue from other things associated with the airport? This will more than offset anything it costs us (Mr Coffman continued with Mr Dugger's letter.) Comment - On using Federal Grants. Comment by Mr Coffman -This bill (airports) comes up only every 5 years, its new every 5th year, starting 1980 It is 1981 _ now, Congress has not seen fit to pass it, therefore, there are many airports in the country that are not funded. This happens every 5 years. Mr. Dugger's point is that he does not like this used to increase the size of the Federal debt or the Federal budget The aviation trust fund has an excess of five billion dollars, it has nothing to do with the budget, it's set aside for airport development Comment - from letter that airport is only of direct benefit to very few citizens Comment - the type of facilities we are talking about is aimed at direct benefit to all citizens, not just local pilots The facility is being developed to attract industry to this area, and is there to serve the aviation demands of the entire area. There is a critical need for airports in this area right now. Question - Is it true that there are 150-200 planes at Falcon Field that are not in contact with the tower? Answer - (Mr. Bresnahan) There are planes without radios Manny Pesco, President of the Arizona Pilots Association spoke on the need for an airport. He mentioned that he would not put a business in Apache Junction because it took him one hour to go from Phoenix to get to the meeting Over one billion dollars (this does not include Apache Junction) was generated in the Phoenix area as a direct result of general aviation. We have over 1400 members flying into Falcon Field for a break- fast and meeting, that's 1400 people that are going to be spending money in Falcon Field and Mesa, this money could be spent in Apache Junction. You cannot stand still, you must move forward I would like to extend all the cooperation of the Arizona Pilots Association - they are manu- facturers, businessmen, all types of people - that are willing to donate their time and cooperation to help you develop an airport that you can live with, that you can benefit by Question - Is there any way this can be put on a referendum to the people so we can vote on whether we want it or not? Answer - Certainly. ,..ram.. .... M ....:_..,>. . ..•cw Question - will this be done? Answer - I have no idea what will be done, it is up to the residents, and the political leaders Normally that is what happens, this is simply an investigation to provide the City authorities and the community with answers to questions Question - are you saying this could be? Answer - certainly Meeting was closed with an invitation to the public to come up after the meeting and ask questions of any of the consultants or commission members Approximately 98 people attended the forum. Some of these persons returned a questionnaire inquiring of support or no support for an airport. Tabulation indicated. 35 persons SUPPORT such a facility 25 persons would not support such a facility 5 persons were undecided. Al\ Aft 3114 East ,C ody Apache Junction, Arizona 85220 February 11 , 1981 The Airport Commission of the City of Apache Junction Apache Junction, Arizona Dear Mr. Robinson: Regarding the proposed airport, I would like to make the following points: 1 . Tax money is our money whether it comes from the Federal government, the state government, or the city government. From your explanation to the City Council I understand that a portion of the fees I pay on a commercial airline ticket go to the Federal fund that would be supplying the money for this airport. I object to my taxes being so used. 2. Even granting that Federal funds are "free money" the cost of maintaining the airport will have to be borne locally. Very few municipal airports are self-supporting. These costs may well amount to more than the cost of building the airport. 3. I strongly object to using Federal grants just because if we don't someone else will. This attitude is one of the factors contributing to the size of both the Federal budget and the Federal deficit. The more groups that apply for such grants the greater the appropriation for them in succeeding years . 4. I am not opposed to the pilots in this area having a local airport. I am opposed to paying through my taxes for a facility that I will never use, one that will be of direct benefit to very few citizens. As I mentioned to a previous meeting of this Commission, in my opinion if the local owners of private planes wish an airport, they should pool their resources, acquire private financing, buy their own land and build and run their own airport. In this way the pilots using the airport would have control over management and use fees of the airport. Thank you for this opportunity to present my views. Sincerely, Robert M. Dugger2 '--..:. 1!_,.kt-7,.;- qR/ZO NP `pity o. (94pache 09unction March 10, 1981 MEMORANDUM TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THROUGH: RAY LEE, CITY MANAGER FROM: J ' JOE GERO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF PROGRESS REPORT - FOUR CORNERS REGIONAL COMMISSION Attached you will find copies of the cover letter and progress evaluation outlining acceptance of the third progress report by the Four Corners Regional Commission. Acceptance of this report will permit release of the third and fourth payments on the City grant from the Four Corners Regional Commission. Please note that acceptance of this report gives approval to the requested increase in funds by $2,050.00 to cover additional costs for completing a transportation study. If you have any questions on this matter, please direct them to the Director of Planning. JWG/kmc Info! Reports 1001 NORTH IDAHO ROAD • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE(602)982-8002 VR CORN9s add J 4 *^= OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-2350 ALAMO S E .SUITE 303.ALBUQUERQUE NEW MEXICO 87I06 * '* 4114040. � AREA CODE (505) 766 2990 9F"ONAL COMlit C2 March 4 , 1981 Mr. Joseph W. Gero Director of Planning City of Apache Junction Post Office Box K Apache Junction , Arizona 85220 SUBJECT: APACHE JUNCTION GENERAL PLAN SELECTED ELEMENTS FCRC NO. 101-811-082-2 Dear Mr. Gero • The third progress report on the above-captioned project was received in this office and has been reviewed and accepted. The third and fourth payments are now due . The payment in the amount of $10 ,000. 00 was processed to Washington , D. C. today. You will receive payment directly from that office in about three to four weeks . Yours truly , Dick Meyer Program Officer bam Enclosure cc : Federal Cochairman Mr. Ronnie Lopez , State Alternate FCRC EVALUATION OF PROGRESS/ FINAL REPORTS SECTION I Date : June 1 , 1980 Project Name : APACHE JUNCTION GENERAL PLAN Monitor : Dick Meyers Project Number : 101-811-082-2 State (s) :Arizona DISTRIBUTION : (please list number of copies sent) FCC Monitor Other 1 • Alternate (s ) Program Evaluator Other 4 CONSTRUCTION START : PLANNED : ACTUAL : TOTAL AMOUNT OF GRANT $ 53 , 000 . 00 NUMBER OF PROGRESS REPORTS (+ Draft of Final + Final Report a Plan ITEM of Report Report Report Report ReportfReportf Draft Final ' Work # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 [ it 1 Final _ Report I . REPORTS : Date Due . , 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 , )/1/80 12/1/80 3/1/816/i/s1 9/1/81 1/ 37/R7 2/ 1/82 Date Received 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9/11/8012/8/80 2/18/81 _ Date Evaluated , , 0 0 , 9/16/8012/12/8p 2/26/81 - 5 *Reports Delayed, 0 II , PAYMENTS : Amount due upon execution $ 30 , 000 . 00 Amount due upon acceptance of report 5 , 000 5 000 5 000 $3 , 000 $2 , 50o Amount duce upon receipt of Final $ . 2 , 500 00 PR l FCRC EVALUATION OF PROGRESS/FINAL REPORTS Plan ITEM of Report Report Report Report Report Report Draft Final Work # 1 # 2 # B # 4 # 5 # Final Report III , SCOPE OF WORK : Did project follow scope of work X x x I IV, *BUDGET (Comment on financial compliance) , , , , . , , . , X X x V. PROGRESS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS : *Satisfactory, , , , , . , . . . X x x *Unsatisfactory, , VI , CONTACT WITH PROJECT : Telephone (number) , , , , , , , 1 1 Letters (number) . , , , , , 2 1 CC On-Site Evaluations (number) ( If significant enter in Com- ments Section) . , VII , AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT (this phase) No , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , X X *Modification of the Scope of Work, , *!Modification of the Budget . , , x *Extension of Time , *Modification of the Payment Schedule , *Modification of the Progress Report Dates , , . *Change of Project Director, , VIII . REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED BY : , , DM DM DM DM DM DM , DM IX, CONCURRENCE : (Ex, Dir, ) , , , . (Signatures at end of each l \� \� LDH LDH Comment Phase) LfDH �bH 1 LDH LDH Pg. 2 . . FCiC EVALUATION OF PROGRESS/FINAL REPORTS COMMENTS : (Please give full details of any items selected on page 1 and 2 which are marked with an asterisk . ) Report I Item — __._ _� ^Number INumber Detailed Comments . ______-____ ____ 1 1 III Scope of Work: The grantee has addressed the RFP portion of the scope of work for the sewer, 1 • water, and transportation plans. No work has been initiated to date on the Municipal Complex Development or Land Use Plan portion of the Scope of Work. IV Budget. No expenditures to date. V Progress. Progress to date is essentially in agreement with the grantee' s projected completion schedule, with the possible exception of the Land Use Plan Element I which was scheduled to accomplish an existing inventory over the first six (6) months of the project. The grantee' s proposed selection process is approved this date, and, in accordance with Attachment 0, O.M.B. Circular A-102, the grantee is authorized to proceed with finalization of the procurement documents. Executed copies of these documents should be forwarded to the Commission when they become available. REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED: ' Date V/7/80 Dick Meyers, Pro am Officer /CO URRED: \*) i\\ 1 �'1 1 L 11, FYy D ate 1 y t', Louis D. Higgs, Executive Director • 1 Pg , 3 ( ) i I CRC, i 4 r VALU1r1oN 01- PROGRI SS/ t• INAL RLPORIS full details of any items elected on page 1 and 2 c,hich are marked I . ( COMMENTS (Please give I with an asterisk ) Report Item _.-----'--- -E- Number Number Detailed Comments . ___ --- -- - - -- 2 III Scope of Work . •b The grantee is following the approved scope of work . IV Budget : No expenditures have been made to date Because the Commission has advanced $35 ,000 . 00 to the grantee , no further payment will be made at this time Payment will be made upon written request of the grantee supported by documentation of need V Progress Report indicates satisfactory progress has been made toward completion of each of the five (5) major work elements . VII i Amendments . No formal amendments to the grant document have been made i However , errors in the reporting and payment schedules have been corrected by Commission letter dated 12/12/80 . REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED • D a t e I-2NC° ( Dick Meyers , Prog m Officer CONCURRED. tit ll/ (5 t y\w,i,f, „_&- � +l,� Date 1 ILouis D. Higgs, Executive Director Ii tf f ('RC 11' 1L11.AFIOti Of PROGRI tiff/ I INAl. RLPORIS i Ct)\NL\TS . ( Plc.ise give full details of any items ',elected on page 1 and ' ‘,h1 (. h are marlkcd with an asterisk ) L--- r Report ! Item \umber Humber Detailed Comments . _ `___ 3 III Scope of Work • The grantee is following the approved scope of work. IV Budget Expenditures are within grant limitations . Modification of the ! i subagreement to increase the total cost b this date Third and fourth y $2 ,050 00 is approved f I of this report Payments wi11 be made on acceptance V � Progress Progress is satisfactory REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED: td Date Dryers , Pr ram Officer 3/S/�l CONCURRED • ) ' V�� k Date #1;ik / Louis D Piggs , executive Director leg , CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 1001 North Idaho Road Apache Junction, Arizona SPECIAL MEETING February 9, 1981 A special meeting of the Apache Junction Parks and Recreation Commission was held on February 9, 1981 at 7.00 P.M. at the Apache Junction City Hall Complex pursuant to notice as prescribed by law. PRESENT ABSENT. Lois Broman Phil Richardson DeDe Scheff Gerald Bright Raymond Foisy Thomas Farrell Ronald Staples Ha-vey Long Margaret Carlin Staff Present Jeff Bell, Community Service Coordinator Sharon Seder, Community Service Dept Others. Pat Theeke Lois Broman, Chairman, opened the meeting by turning discussion over to DeDe Scheff. Ms. Scheff lead the [ discussion on the Baby Debut and Open Horse Show being held on April 11, 1981. The ensuing discussion contained the following donations could be gathered from the community for ribbons prizes, and judges. In return for the donations, an ad for each sponsorship could be read during the horse show announcements. Concessionaires could be charged $25.00 per booth. At least $1,500 could be netted from the horse - show with all proceeds going to the swimming pool fund. Harvey Long made a motion to have the Baby Debut and Open Horse Show on April 11, 1981, with Ronald Staples seconding the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Pat Theeke suggested that entry blanks for events be mailed, with personal contact to be made for concession stands A City water truck was requested for that day to be used at the P & M arena located on Meridian and Brown Rds Mr Foisy is to check on a P.A. system to be used Each commissioner is to make contact with businessmen reference sponsoring an event in the horse show News releases are to go out immediately so the show will have plenty of publicity. - - ^ A suggestion to have a model swimming pool in the form of a fish bowl on hand at the show m donations could be made to the swimming pool fund ' M/5 Harvey Long made a motion to adjourn with Mr, Raymond Foisy seconding the mmtion. Motion carried unanimously. � APPROVED ----- ��B�Y ' -~ ' �r /% CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 1001 N Idaho Rd Apache Junction, Arizona REGULAR MEETING January 26, 1981 A regular meeting of the Apache Junction Parks and Recreation Commission was held on January 26, 1981 at 7 00 P M , at the Apache Junction City Hall Complex, pursuant to notice as prescribed by law PRESENT ABSENT. Lois Broman, Chairman Phil Richardson, Vice-chairman Raymond Foisy Dede Scheff, Secretary Gerald Bright Thomas Farrell Ronald Staples Margaret Carlin Harvey Long STAFF PRESENT. Jeff Bell, Community Service Sharon ,Seder, Community Service GUEST. Heddy Hall The meeting was called to order by Lois Broman at 7 10 P M ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA A motion was made by Harvey Long to accept the agenda, and was seconded by Raymond Foisy. Motion carried unanimously ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES A motion was made by Ronald Staples to accept the minutes of the December 22 meeting as presented, and seconded by Gerald Bright Motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS Jeff Bell brought the Commission up to date on what the Community Service Department had in the way of recreational programs During the coordinator's comments, it was suggested contacting the newspapers and adding Recreation News each week The public would be aware each week of what recreational programs were offered Discussion was held on fund raising for a swimming pool and the necessity of having a pool in the Apache Junction area. A recreation plan was discussed and priorities were set as follows CHILDREN ADULTS SENIOR CITIZENS playground horse shoe pits horseshoe pits jogging/bike track shuffle board shuffleboard basketball courts volleyball (sand) jogging/bike track picnic tables jogging/bike track picnic tables bar-b-que grills basketball courts bar-b-que grills restroom facilities picnic tables restroom facilities archery range bar-b-que grills archery range restroom facilities archery range FUTURE LONG RANGE PLAN SWIMMING pool swimming pool swimming pool rodeo arena rodeo arena rodeo arena wading pond handball court handball court ramadas racquetball court racquetball court ball fields ramadas ramadas civic center outdoor shoot range ourdoor shoot range fountain tennis courts tennis courts amphitheathre amphitheathre civic center civic center ball fields ball fields golf course golf course (regular/mini) (regular/mini) driving range driving range fountain fountain The NOW plans were plans which could be a reality at the present with little cost involved. The future long range plans are plans which would take several years in the planning and creating There was board discussion on how to let the public know what the plans included, what the City was doing in the way of services, and what the public could do to help besides the news media There being no new business to discuss, a motion was made by Harvey Long to adjourn which was seconded by Gerald Bright The meeting adjourned at 9 20 P M. APPROVED 2� /e�h�tll/G t4'J9-2a Cha rman 4 Secretary i �" (i:S.-P\CHE ✓ �► .•. .,-,: COity o (94puche oQunction q,p1ZONP March 11, 1981 MEMORANDUM TO. THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL THROUGH: RAY LEE, CITY MANAGER- <\ FROM- .dam. JOE GERO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING SUBJECT: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION "MINUTES" FOR YOUR INFORMATION Attached you will find copies of the approved "Minutes" of the Planning and Zoning Commission from the regular meeting of February 10, 1981. Please have the original copy of the "Minutes" entered into the official record. If you have any questions regarding these proceedings, please direct them to the Director of Planning. J'WG/kmc fO e nits Li V, 1001 NORTH IDAHO ROAD • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE(602)982-8002 /"1IN MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA CITY HALL COMPLEX 1001 NORTH IDAHO ROAD APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA FEBRUARY 10, 1981 700PM In Attendance Absent Guests Ilene Taylor, Vice-Chairman Roy Hudson Norman Andrus Mildred Baker (absent) Tom Hunt John Hutchens George Baljo Ron Nybo Richard Oltman (vacation) Phil Rundstrom Henry Steelsmith Wendell J Clarke Sim Strickler Otis & Wilma Jones Ron Kell - Harold Tryon Joe Gero, Executive Secretary David Crowder Kathy Connelly, Recording Secretary Clarence Zehnle S D Gardom Cindy Smyers Bill Newsome - Harvey Morrison Don & Mary Nesser Dorothy Yaekle Mr & Mrs Lasswell Erich Kuntze 1. Vice-Chairman opened the meeting at 7 00 P M and requested the Recording Secretary call the roll. 2 Ms Connelly called the roll and determined seven members present as indicated above with Mr Kell being a late arrival 3 Vice-Chairman announced that the first item of consideration was the "Minutes" from the Commission meeting of Jan- uary 13, 1981 4 Steelsmith/Baker M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Com- mision of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, that the "Minutes" of the meeting of January 13, 1981 be approved and accepted as written " The motion passed 4-0-2 with Mr Hutchens and Mr Oltman abstaining since they had not attended the meeting in question. 5 Vice-Chairman briefed those present on the procedures of the Com- mission regarding public hearings and announced that the first item on the agenda was the continuation of the public hearing on case PZ-23-80 6 Mr Gero referred the members to Section 2803 of the Zoning Ordinance which outlined the 51% requirement of both number and land area which was necessary to make a rezoning application valid He added that Mr Jones had withdrawn his signature from the petition, thereby making it invalid since the applicant no longer met the 51% requirement He pointed out that the staff considered the application to be incomplete and that Mr Workman had informed him at 5 00 today that he was withdrawing the application. 7 Steelsmith/Baker M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Com- mission of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, that it accept the withdrawal of rezoning application PZ- 23-80 without prejudice " The motion passed 7-0 AMINk Page 2 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of February 10, 1981 8 Vice-Chairman thanked those in attendance for taking the time and making the effort to voice their opinion on the rezoning She then asked the Executive Sec- retary to brief the Commission on the next case. 9 Mr Gero explained that the next case was Maricopa County Z-80-111 for the Lost Dutchman Mobile Home/Travel Trailer Park located in the general area of Apache Trail and Signal Butte Road He added that it was a Special Use Permit application to add 17 more spaces to an existing park. 10 Mr Andrus explained that he was representing the owner and that the permit was being requested so that the '- ` gradual development of the park could be accom- plished He pointed out the park on the map and explained that it was being developed in phases 11 Vice-Chairman asked if there were any questions or comments either for or against the proposal There being none, she called for the staff recommendation 12 Mr Gero stated that he had not prepared a formal recommen- dation due to a heavy work load, but added that he had no objection based on the Maricopa County re- quirements for such a request 13. Kell/Hutchens M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Com- mission of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, that the approval of Special Use Permit Z-80-111 be rec- t ommended to the Maricopa County Planning Department based on the evidence that the request fits the requirements of Maricopa County and is a continuation of the existing park." The motion passed 7-0 14. Vice-Chairman explained that the next item was another request from Maricopa County, case Z-81-5 15 Mr. Gero added that the applicant was requesting that his property be rezoned in order to allow another mobile home to be placed on the property which was approx- imately 9/10 of an acre. He pointed out that the applicant was in the audience and located the parcel on the map for the Commission members 16 Mr Tryon explained that the property was already set up for two mobile homes and added that the original house that had been on the land had burned down The house had since been removed and he now wished to place a second mobile home on the parcel for a married daughter He pointed out that the property was already equipped to handle the second mobile. 17 Mr Gero asked how access was going to be provided to the second lot if the application was approved since he was actually requesting a lot split 18. Mr Tryon explained that there would be access from a road that would go to the rear of the property 19 Mr Kell asked if the R-5 zoning permitted multiple mobile homes. 20 Mr Gero explained that the Maricopa County requirement was Auk Page 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of February 10, 1981 1 mobile home per lot with 6,000 square feet per lot 21 Mr Steelsmith agreed that there might be a future problem with access once the original lot was split 22. Vice-Chairman asked what size unit was on the lot now and what size septic was there 23. Mr. Tryon explained that the unit was 10' wide x 50' long and that he didn't know the size of the septic He added that it had been sufficient for a large family with several children. 24 Vice-Chairman stated that he didn't see any need for concern about access since it would all be one lot 25 Mr Gero explained that two lots would be created if the rezoning was approved with one mobile home per lot He added that these lots could then be split again, creating four lots that would meet the zoning district requirements 26. Vice-Chairman asked if a variance was possible in this case. 27 Mr Gero pointed out that a variance wasn't permitted until all other options had been exhausted 28 Mr Kell asked if Mr Tryon could go to the Board if the Planning Commission denied his request ( 29 Mr Gero explained that the county Board of Supervisors Il would have to make the decision. 30. Mr. Steelsmith asked what was on the surrounding land 31 Mr Tryon explained that a golf course was to the west and R-5 zoned lots were to the north and south 32 Mr Gero pointed out that these R-5 uses may have been grandfathered 33 Vice-Chairman asked if there were any more questions or comments. There being none, she called for a motion 34. Steelsmith/Baker M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, that it recommend approval of case Z-81-5 to Maricopa County with a further recommendation that the question of access to the second lot be addressed " The motion passed 7-0 35 Vice-Chairman stated that the next item on the agenda was a request for a Commission Initiative on an amendment to Section 2503 of the Zoning Ordinance She asked that the Executive Secretary brief the members on the request 36 Mr. Gero explained that a difference had been discovered be- tween the required time for advertisement in the Zoning Ordinance as opposed to the Arizona Revised Statutues regarding the Board of Adjustment He further explained that a proposed ordinance with an amendment had been drawn up and already discussed by the Board members at their previous meeting He Page 4 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of February 10, 1981 pointed out that the Board members requested that the wording of the amendment be changed from a period of "56 days" to "a reasonable period of time", stating that the 56 day time-period made appear the procedure too lengthy and that some cases may require more than that amount of time He added that the proposed ordinance would be revised prior to the next meeting of the Commission 37 Vice-Chairman called for comments on the request There being none, she called for a motion 38 Kell/Hutchens M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Eommission of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, hereby authorizing a Commission Initiative to amend Section 2503 of the City Zoning Ordinance to conform with the requirements of the Arizona Revised Statutes regarding the advertisement time for the Board of Adjustment, and to approve proposed ordinance #86 as a Commission Initiative." The motion passed 7-0. 39. Mr. Gero added that there was another request for a Com- mission Initiative that was not listed on the agenda. He further explained that the Palm Springs Home- Owners Association had requested a Commission Initiative to rezone specific lots in the Palm Springs subdivision from CR-3 to CR-3 by Planned Development This would allow property owners in the area to establish higher requirements in Sec- tions 2, 3, 4, and 7 of Palm Springs He pointed out that the representatives had already been told of the $100 00 filing fee and were further requested to supply the Planning Department a list of the names and address of the property owners in the area of the rezoning He suggested that the Commission also re- quest that the Home Owners group assist the office in the addressing of the envelopes He recommended the approval of the Commission Initiative based on these stipulations 40 Mr Steelsmith asked if this would be considered "exclusive" zoning or red lining for specific groups 41 Mr Gero explained that this had already been discussed with the City Attorney and added that there are existing smaller lots in the area on which to construct the smaller houses 42 Mr Kell asked why the Planned Development was resticted to just certain areas of the subdivision 43. Vice-Chairman stated that Mr Gardom was in the audience as the representative of the group and that he might be able to answer that question for Mr. Kell. 44 Mr Gardom explained that the subdivision was too big to be done all at the same time, but that the Planned Develop- ment could be expanded at a later date 45. Mr Kell asked if the Palm Springs association was paying the bill for the rezoning since he was a member and yet his property was not included in the application Page 5 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of February 10, 1981 46 Mr Gardom explained that the Association was paying the fee and that Mr. Kell could have his properties included if he so desried 47 Mr Nesser explained that there had been private covenants in Palm Springs which were no longer in existence and that 90% of the lots were already developed He pointed out that it had been necessary to go to civil court if these covenants had been violated It was hoped that the Planned Development would make the enforcement of the restrictions easier. He added that these sections had been chosen since they were already developed for the most part and it was easier to reach the owners and have them agree to the Planned Development 48. Mr. Gero stated that he had no objection to the proposal, but suggested that the hearing date be left open at this time to allow sufficient time to process the application 49 Mr Kell asked why the Commission Initiative process was being used 50 Mr. Gero explained that it was necessary because 51% of the property owners were not petitioning the Commission. He added that the 30-day time limit on the signatures made it a difficult procedure He pointed out that the Commission Initiative process allowed it to come before the Commission and Council within a reasonable period of time l— 51. Mr. Nesser pointed out that Section 2801 of the Zoning Ordinance g explained that either the petition or Commission Initiative method could be used He added that since 90% of the lots were already developed that there would not be any major change, but would protect these developed lots 52 Mr Clarke stated that all of the parcels in Palm Springs were recorded with restrictions and could not be changed without the consent of all property owners 53. Mr Gero explained that the restrictions would not be changed but that the zoning would be more or less restrictive 54 Mr Clarke pointed out that the proposals would change the ti zoning over and above the recorded restrictions 55 Mr Gero explained that the change would allow violaters to come before the public agency rather than before the civil court He added that the restrictions would be discussed at the public hearing and that changes could be considered at that time He emphasized that the question now was whether or not to permit the Palm Springs proposal to come before the Commission as an initiative 56 Mr Hutchens questioned whether or not the Commission had the right to change the existing deed restrictions. Aft, Ark Page 6 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of February 10, 1981 57 Mr Clarke agreed that it was not up to the City or a group of individuals to change the restrictions. 58. Mr. Gero reminded them that it was not a question of changing the private restrictions, but of changing the public zoning class He added that the com- plete situation would be discussed at the public hearing 59. Mr. Kell agreed that it was necessary to review all of the alternatives and that all interested parties had the right to a public hearing on the matter. 60 Mr. Gardom explained that the goal was not to cut out certain people or to dictate policy 61 Mr Strickler asked who would cover the cost of the filing 62 Mr Gero explained that the $100 00 fee would cover some of the costs, but that the City would have to pay the balance of the estimated $700 00 in postage that would be required 63 Mr. Hutchens asked if the petition process would obligate the cost to the Home Owner's Association 64 Mr Gero explained that the fee would be the same, but that he was requesting administrative trade-offs from the Home Owner's Association. 65 Mr Hutchens asked if the City could change deed restrictions 66 Mr. Gero explained that the City could only enforce the zoning violations, not deed restrictions He added that they could upgrade their own deed restrictions, but that they would also have to enforce them 67 Mr Nesser pointed out that Palm Springs only had covenants, not deed restrictions He added that these covenants were merely a "gentleman's agreement" with the only recourse being civil court in the event of a violation 68 Mr Hutchens replied that since there were only covenants, he had no objection to the request 69 Vice-Chairman called for additional comments There being none, she called for a motion 70 Kell/Steelsmith M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, authorizing a Commission Initiative for the Palm Springs Planned Development, subject to the terms of submitting the $100 00 filing fee, providing the City with a list of the names and address of the affected property owners, and designating indivi- duals to help with the addressing " The motion passed 7-0 71 Vice-Chairman requested that all members remove the corrected page 45 from their packet and place it in their copy of the Zoning Ordinance Page 6 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of February 10, 1981 57 Mr Clarke agreed that it was not up to the City or a group of individuals to change the restrictions 58. Mr Gero reminded them that it was not a question of a changing the private restrictions, but of changing the public zoning class He added that the com- plete situation would be discussed at the public hearing 59 Mr Kell agreed that it was necessary to review all of the alternatives and that all interested parties had the right to a public hearing on the matter. 60 Mr. Gardom explained that the goal was not to cut out certain people or to dictate policy 61 Mr Strickler asked who would cover the cost of the filing. 62 Mr Gero explained that the $100 00 fee would cover some of the costs, but that the City would have to pay the balance of the estimated $700 00 in postage that would be required 63 Mr Hutchens asked if the petition process would obligate the cost to the Home Owner's Association. 64 Mr Gero explained that the fee would be the same, but that he was requesting administrative trade-offs from the Home Owner's Association 65 Mr Hutchens asked if the City could change deed restrictions 66 Mr Gero explained that the City could only enforce the zoning violations, not deed restrictions He added that they could upgrade their own deed restrictions, but that they would also have to enforce them 67 Mr Nesser pointed out that Palm Springs only had covenants, not deed restrictions. He added that these covenants were merely a "gentleman's agreement" with the only recourse being civil court in the event of a violation 68 Mr Hutchens replied that since there were only covenants, he had no objection to the request 69 Vice-Chairman called for additional comments. There being none, she called for a motion 70 Kell/Steelsmith M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning lommission of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, authorizing a Commission Initiative for the Palm Springs Planned Development, subject to the terms of submitting the $100.00 filing fee, providing the City with a list of the names and address of the affected property owners, and designating indivi- duals to help with the addressing " The motion passed 7-0 71 Vice-Chairman requested that all members remove the corrected page 45 from their packet and place it in their copy of the Zoning Ordinance AMID. Page 7 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of February 10, 1981 72. Vice-Chairman called for a five-minute recess before proceeding with the work session portion of the meeting. The Commission returned to order at 8:45 P M to conduct a group work session on the proposal for the City Complex and what each member might think an essential part of the design 73 Mr. Gero reminded the members that a special work session had been arranged with the consultant on the City Complex design for February 26, 1981, and that each member would be notified of the time for the meeting. 74 Mr Oltman reminded the members that the Airport Commission was holding a public session on the proposed Apache Junction Airport and that it would be held on February 11th at 7 00 P M at the Superstition Elementary School 75 Mr Gero informed the members that the rezoning application submitted by Mr Stachar for the land in the area of Baseline and Tomahawk Road had been approved by Pinal County 76 Vice-Chairman asked the Executive Secretary to brief the members uy on the items for the next agenda 77 Mr Gero informed the Commission members that the next agenda would include proposed Ordinance No 86 which would amend Section 2503 of the Zoning Ordinance, two rezonings by Planned Development, and two rezonings from Pinal County, one of which was a Commission Initiative. He added that the deadline for filing for the March agenda had expired. 78. Vice-Chairman asked for other questions or comments There being none, the Commission proceeded to conduct the work session on the City Complex. At the conclusion of the work session, called for a motion to adjourn 79 Baker/Oltman M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning CT:Omission of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, hereby adjourning the meeting of February 10, 1981 " 80 Vice-Chairman There being no objection, adjourned the meeting at 9.50 P M Respectfully submitted, Joseph 1J Gero ' Executive Secretary Approved / Ilene Taylor, Vice-Chairman • February , 1981 COMMUNITY SERVICE ACTIVITIES A. MIXED VOLLEYBALL LEAGUE This league concluded on February 12, with about 100 participants. A very successful program for the first athletic event offered by this division. B. GOLDEN AGE SOFTBALL Another successful program for the first time around. Approxmiately 75 senior citizens played in this league. It ended the 28th of February. C. 3-MAN BASKETBALL Registration was completed March 2, and league will_ begin March 4. Ten teams have joined with about fifty (50) palyers involved. Should be interesting. D. YOUTH JOB REFERRAL SERVICE This service has died down tremendoulsy as of late. Plan to do more on publicity. E. SENIOR SOUNDS Another service that has dropped off due to lack of publicity. Not getting enough community input. We'll work on it. F. CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAM Remaining successful ! Held five programs throughout the community this past month. G. VETERANS DANCE This dance was planned to raise funds for the Veterans Memorial Park. Had to cancel due to lack of ticket sales. Very unfortunate. H. HORSE SHOW The Parks and Recreation Commission is planning Horse Show to raise money for a swimming pool . The show will be held on April 11 at P & M Arena. Expecting a large turnout. I. ALUMINUM CAN DRIVE The Parks & Recreation Commission has initiated an aluminum can drive to also raise funds for a swimming pool . A trailer has been placed in the southeast section of the City Complex. Let's fill it up! ! info I Re orfs „d . .� PROJECTS A. AORCC PROJECT Looks like the project is near completion. I 've been working with the school on joint-use agreements. B. SUMMER RECREATION PROGAM Have been spending a majority of the time organizing this year's Summer Recreation Program. It looks like we'll have an excellent program if all the pieces fall into place. C. VETERAN'S MEMORIAL PARK The community does not seem to be grasping this as a worthwhile project. Many fund raising ideas have failed due to lack of interest. Not getting the cooperation needed between the veterans organizations. D. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Thomas Farrell resigned from the Commission because of personal matters. Looking to fill the position as soon as possible. E. KEARNY VOLLEYBALL TRIP Apache Junction Volleyball Team didn't fair too well in the Pinal/ Gila Municipal Volleyball Tournament. We'll get them next year. F. LITTLE LEAGUE I 've been working very closely with the Little League making sure ballfields are scheduled and assisting them as much as possible. G. AORCC President Reagan has stopped the Land and Water Conservation Funding program for outdoor recreation. What a burden this puts on municipalities. I 've sent letters to Governor Babbitt and appropriate senators and representatives looking for their support on this program. H. MICRO-WAVE CLASSES A micro-wave cooking class will be offered beginning March 17 at the Gold Dust Mobile Resort. This program was set up in conjunction with the Maricopa County Cooperative Extension Service. r �l /06 I. COMMUNITY SERVICE BUILDING As soon as the newly constructed Community Service/Building Dept. building is finished, the Community Service Department has plans for a pre-school program for potty trained to 5 year olds. After that is underway, an after school program will be started. We have hopes and plans of designing a mini park for youngsters with a place for young mothers to prop up their feet and relax while still observing their young children. Great expectations for this building. P?ACHE ) 1/4) a A,:=1;1,'",K,1 ) U ' tpf 4 Z q,Q/ZONP it o C94pache 2unctaon March 5, 1981 MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: City Manager FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Airport Commission The Airport Commission, at its regular meeting of March 2, 1981, elected two (2) new officers. John Drummond replaces Dr. D. H. Robinson as Chairman, Richard Oltman replaces John Drummond as Secretary. RWB/an cc: Marlis Davis Joe Gero Airport Commission 1001 NORTH IDAHO ROAD • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE(602)982-8002 ACHE J �. rps .. `O'IR/ZONP c6ity o C4pache 09unotion March 9, 1981 MEMORANDUM TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL THROUGH: RAY LEE, CITY MANAGER,-,'-_. FROM: jcie,2JOE GERO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING � � !CHARLES NEWCOMER, ACTING EXECUTIVE SECRETARY L K�v TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUBJECT: MINUTES FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR YOUR INFORMATION Attached you will find copies of the approved "Minutes" from the Board of Adjustment meeting of February 2, 1981. Please have the original copy of the "Minutes" entered into the official record. If you have any questions regarding these "Minutes", please direct them to the Acting Executive Secretary. CRN/kmc i r 1001 NORTH IDAHO ROAD • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE(602)982-8002 4�► /6l BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA 1001 NORTH IDAHO ROAD APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA FEBRUARY 2, 1981 7 00 P M In Attendance Absent Guests Joe Jessamine, Chairman Pete Nunn (illness) Melvin Martin Don Nesser, Vice Chairman John Bosell Bill Vaughn Mrs Bosell Harvey Morrison Dale Burfiend Bill Furness 1 Chairman opened the meeting at 7 02 P M and requested that the Executive Secretary call the roll. 2 Mr Newcomer called the roll and determined the members present as indicated above 3 Chairman announced that a quorum was present and that the first item of business was consideration of the "Minutes" from the meeting of January 5, 1981 4 Vaughn/Furness M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment UT—the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, that the "Minutes" from the meeting of January 5, 1981 be approved as written " The motion passed 4-0 with Mr Jessamine abstaining since he had not attended the meeting in question 5. Chairman announced that the next item on the agenda was a public hearing on case BA-1-81, application submitted by a Mr Martin for a Mr Erlandson He asked the Executive Secretary to brief the Board members on the case 6 Mr Newcomer located the property in question on the map for the Board members and explained that Mr Erlandson wanted to split his lot in half, making each half 55' wide by 130' deep. He pointed out that the requirements for Trailer Homesite lots were that they must be a minimum of 8,000 square feet and have a mimimum width of 60' The lot split would be less than the minimum in both square feet and width 7 Chairman called on the applicant to present his case 8. Mr. Martin explained that he was representing Mr Erlandson He added that the property owner was interested in having the lot split because the area was a large percentage inhabited by retirees and the smaller lots would be more suitable for sale to such people He further explained that the lot size would still be suitable for double and triple wide mobile homes with all the necessary septic hook-ups as required by the City. 9 Mr Nesser Asked if the drawings for the property showed a right-of-way. 10 Mr Martin explained that there were no right-of-ways on Warner Drive that were dedicated to the City, but that they were going to do so Page 2 - Board of Adjustment Minutes of February 2, 1981 11 Mr Newcomer explained that the deed to the property excluded 30' for roadways and the right-of-way, but that nothing had been dedicated to the City yet 12 Chairman explained to Mr Martin that the minimum square foot requirement for the TH zone was 8,000 sq ft and that he was requesting a reduction by 900 sq.ft. 13 Mr Martin replied that that was the reason for requesting the variance. 14 Chairman asked if any one wished to speak either for or against the variance 15. Mrs Bosell told the Board that she was in favor of the lot split because she saw no reason not to do it since there would still be enough room for the septics and other City requirements 16 Chairman called for the staff recommendation 17 Mr. Newcomer called the Board members' attention to the memo from the Zoning Administrator in their packets and read the memo aloud 18 Chairman added that other lot splits had occurred under the County, but that the County had not carried out the proper inspections. 19 Mr. Martin pointed out that some lot splits before the City took over had caused problems by making some lots inaccessable He added that in this case the road would be dedicated to the City, making it better for both the property owners and the City 20 Mr. Furness pointed out that he considered the request to be a case of "spot zoning" which the City and the Board was not allowed to grant. He added that the Board could not allow this kind of lot split to occur in one place and yet deny it in another He added that he did not see any way in which the case could be handled since the Board was not per- mitted to grant the lot split in the first place. 21. Mr Martin explained that he considered the request to be a variance to the present zoning 22. Chairman pointed out that the Board of Adjustment was permitted to grant variances to setbacks and such It was not in the jurisdiction of the Board to reduce the size of a lot He recommended that Mr Martin investigate having the Planning and Zoning Commission make an amendment to the lot size requirements 23. Mr Newcomer pointed out that a rezoning would not permit a lot split unless it was in accordance with the regula- tions of the particular zoning district He added that there weren't any zones that allowed less than 8,000 sq ft for mobile homes 24 Chairman called for other comments There being none, he closed the public hearing 25. Mr Furness requested that they take a short recess to discuss the case 26. Chairman announced a five-minute recess. Page 3 - Board of Adjustment Minutes of February 2, 1981 27 Mr Newcomer pointed out that one of the alternatives would be for Mr Martin to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission and petition for a change in the wording of the Zoning Ordinance 28 Chairman explained that Mr. Martin could petition for a change in the minimum lot size for a mobile home to be 7,000 sq ft He then called for a motion on the case 29 Nesser/Furness M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of E11 City of Apache Junction, Arizona• In the case of BA-1-81, an application for a variance to the provisions of Sections 2308, 2003, 2004, and 2005 of the City Zoning Ordinance submitted by Melvin Martin in behalf of Gordon Erlandson for the property legally described as: The South 159.07 feet of the West 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 30, Township 1 North, Range 8 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, except the South 30 feet and the West 25 feet for roads, except the East 110 feet, and except the West 110 feet of the South 159 07 feet of the West 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 30, Township 1 North, Range 8 East, of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, located in Apache Junction, Pinal County, Arizona ( Hereby declining to hear and make a determination on this case The Board bases its decision on the following find- ings of fact 1 Section 2501 of the City Zoning Ordinance states that an application for any "permissible" variance of regulations may be made 2 The applicant is requesting to split a parcel in a manner specifically prohibited by Section 2308 of the City Zoning Ordinance. 3 The application, as submitted, requests a variance which is not within the Board's power to grant " The motion passed 4-1 with Mr Vaughn voting "no". 30 Mr. Martin requested copies of the sections of the Zoning Ordinance which applied to his case. 31. Mr Newcomer informed Mr Martin that this information was avail- able in the Planning Department Office 32 Mr Martin asked if that information could be mailed to him as well as a copy of the Zoning Administrator's memo 33 Mr. Vaughn explained that he had voted "no" not because he agreed with the lot split, but thought that it was within the Board's power to make a decision He had objected to the motion itself 34 Mr Newcomer explained that the Board needed to consider a change in its procedures in order to bring them into com- pliance with the Arizona Revised Statutes He pointed out that proposed Ordinance No 86 would extend the advertising date for the Board hearings and bring it up to the required 15 days prior to the hearing. Page 4 - Board of Adjustment Minutes of February 2, 1981 He added that this would then go the the Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council `'w` " 35 Mr. Vaughn asked if it was necessary to have a time period of 56 days outlined in the Ordinance 36 Mr Newcomer explained that the 56 days may not be necessary but that a reasonable amount of time should be allowed 37 Mr Nesser agreed that sufficient time should be allowed for the processing of the application 38. Mr Vaughn suggested that the wording be changed from 56 days to read "a reasonable amount of time" 39. Chairman agreed with Mr Vaughn 40 Mr Newcomer stated that he would revise the wording in the Ordinance 41 Chairman asked if there was any other business. 42. Vaughn/Jessamine M/S to adjourn the meeting 43 Chairman there being no objection, he adjourned the .. a meeting at 7 50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, (11;.Z Charles R Newcomer Acting Executive Secretary Approved Joe. ssamine, Chairman CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION MAGISTRATE COURT REPORT January thru February 1981 TRAFFIC PENDING CITATIONS FORWARD 438 MONTHLY CITATIONS ISSUED 322 TOTAL 760 DISPOSITIONS: MONTHLY PENDING Fines Paid 204 148 Dismissed 19 7 Suspended 15 10 Time Served 2 1 240 166 TOTAL 406 Monthly Pending 82 To Date Pending 354 CRIMINAL PENDING CITATIONS FORWARD 91 MONTHLY CITATIONS ISSUED SEARCH WARRANTS ISSUED 2 SUMMONS ISSUED 19 (Long Form Complaints Filed ) CRIMINAL CITATIONS ISSUED 34 55 TOTAL 146 MONTHLY PENDING Fines Paid 13 10 Dismissed 4 8 Suspended or Probation 2 7 Warrants closed ( Search ) 2 0 Time Served 3 2 24 27 TOTAL 51 Monthly Pending 31 To Date Pending 95 Pre-Trials & Trials Set 54 Failure to appear Warrants 95 ( issued ) Adak ter, CITY OF AL-ACHE JUNCTION MAGISTRATE COURT Rht'ORT JANUARY THRU FEBRUARY 1981 FINANCIAL STATEMENT: INCOME: Fines $18,328.30 Bonds 3,449.00 Professional Serv. 580.00 Misc. 97.00 $22,454.30 $22,454.30 Misc. = Transcriptions fees & Restitution fees. EXPENSES: OSC Tax * $1,703.36 ASC Tax * 772.09 PAS Tax * 469.96 Bond Refunds 173.00 Fines Refunds 56.00 Jury Fees 8.00 Professional Serv. 1,368.00 Misc. 423.00 $4,973.41 4,973.41 Net Receipts $17,480.89 FINE PAYMENTS OWED: Pending to Date Total $21,344,00 * * Less State Taxes when paid. CITY COUNCIL MOTIONS MEETING OF March 4, 1981 ACTION MOTION AGENCY DISPOSITION THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS AMENDED. - 0 - (motion carried) THAT THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY - 0 - 18, 1981 , BE, AND HEREBY ARE, ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED. (motion carried) THAT THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY, THROUGH THE CITY Cty.C1k/ Documents MANAGER, BE AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT D.P.S. signed and WITH THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR THE mailed to LOAN OF VEHICLES ON A ROTATIONAL BASIS. AZ Dept. of P.S (motion carried) THAT THE FOLLOWING PERSONS BE, AND HEREBY ARE, City Clk. Notified of APPOINTED TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL RETIREMENT appt. To be BOARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES: sworn in by WILLIAM ARNOLD, SAID TERM TO EXPIRE MARCH 4, 1985, 3/13/81 AND LEO FRAZIER, SR. , SAID TERM TO EXPIRE MARCH 4, 1983; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE TERMS OF THE ELECTED MEMBERS BE AS FOLLOWS. DANIEL M. SCOTT, SAID TERM TO EXPIRE MARCH 4, 1983, AND GARY JONES, SAID TERM TO EXPIRE MARCH 4, 1985. (motion carried) THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PERSONNEL AND City Clk. Posted 3/13/81 LEGAL ADVICE BE HELD ON MARCH 18, 1981 , AT 6:00 P.M. IN THE CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM. (motion carried) THAT DIRECTION BE GIVEN TO THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY C.M./Attny Election of ATTORNEYS TO PROVIDE THIS COUNCIL WITH RECOMMENDATIONS I.D.A. Brd. of FOR APPOINTMENTS FOR MEMBERS OF THE INDUSTRIAL Directors is DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT an agenda item THE MANAGER ARRANGE A SUBSEQUENT MEETING BETWEEN THE for 3/18 meetin- INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE COUNCIL TO scheduling of DISCUSS GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND A POSITIVE COURSE meeting to fol- OF ACTION. low election (motion carried) elOIL CITY COUNCIL REQUESTS ACTION NOT COMPLETED MEETING ACTION DATE REQUEST AGENCY STATUS 3/4/81 THAT DIRECTION BE GIVEN TO THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY C.M./Attnj Prepared for ATTORNEYS TO PROVIDE THIS COUNCIL WITH RECOMMENDATIONS Council agenda FOR APPOINTMENTS FOR MEMEBERS OF THE INDUSTRIAL of 3/18/81 DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THE THE MANAGER ARRANGE A SUBSEQUENT MEETING BETWEEN THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE COUNCIL TO DISCUSS GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND A POSITIVE COURSE OF ACTION. :,....,*4.*-4.1.344...71t,./4.-4.-7,tet,fer:i4 +44.iitt;.. • - - a ITEM NO. q BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THAT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, BE ADJOURNED AT 760 D p: 1 M ,