Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-11-24 City Council Special MinutesCITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 24,1997 The special meeting of the City Council of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona,was held on November 24,1997 at the Apache Junction City Council Chambers pursuant to the notice required by law. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Coleman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present:Mayor Coleman Vice Mayor Surra Councilmember McClain Councilmember Durbala Councilmember Urich Councilmember Insalaco Councilmember Eck Staff Present: Others Present: PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Curtis Shook Assistant City Manager George Hoffman City Attorney Joel Stern Development Services Director Larry Harmer Special Counsel William Farrell Associate Planner Rudy Esquivias Deputy City Clerk Janet Mason PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO.1014 AND THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION AND THE APACHE JUNCTION UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.43 ) )Special Counsel William Farrell briefed the council on the item.He stated this is an advertised public hearing for citizens to give to the council their thoughts,suggestions and comments,and for the council to give direction to the staff on the possible adoption of the ordinance and the intergovernmental agreement.He stated the issue before the council tonight is about children,the future of the city and the quality of life for the children and the citizens of the city.He added council would be hearing some of the basis and the reasons for taking this step.To his knowledge there is no other city or town in Arizona that has enacted a school development fee.He commented they should be hearing some testimony from citizens and interested participants.Some will say the action SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24,1997 PAGE 1 OF 15 will destroy single family construction in Apache Junction,that this will cause first time home buyers and low income home buyers to be unable to afford homes,and that this will usurp the authority of the school board,the county, the state legislature and possibly the state supreme court.They may also be told that they are wise,brave,bold and taking a step and showing experience well beyond their years.They will not hear from the children who will be attending the schools if this fee passes.He ended by quoting from a 1994 state supreme court case where the court struck down the property tax method as the method of allowing an equal and equitable education system in the state,and encouraged the council to keep in mind the comparisons that will be made between this community and all the other communities in the state that may have no bearing,and that financing a general and uniform public school system is in the collective self-interest. Development Services Director Larry Harmer stated the program began in October 1995.They solicited for proposals,reviewed them,went through interview processes,and a preferred consultant was presented to the city council with a contract awarded to James Duncan and Associates in December 1995.The feasibility study began at that point,which detailed the potential of assessing fees on new construction in the community.The final report was started in April 1996,and focused on parks,library,public safety,streets and roads,and the schools.The results were published in November 1996 and have been available since then. The first four went into effect earlier this year.The schools were not in effect,partly because of the recent bond issue and because they were entrenched in major capital improvement projects at the time.The development fee portion being considered tonight is from the 1996 study.There have been no substantive changes to the study;the method of assessment,credits and calculation and the final proposed fee assessment have not changed.They are asking for public input this evening and for council to ask any questions they might have.There will be no action taken until the public hearing on December 10.He then introduced two members of the consultant team who packaged the 1996 study.One speaker is Dr.Eric Damien Kelly,currently the Dean of Architecture and Planning for Ball State University,the president of the American Planning Association,a regular partner of James Duncan and Associates in the drafting of land development regulations and development impact fee studies.Most of his work involves local governments.He is a charter member of the American Institute of the Certified Planners,a member of the American Bar Association,and a member of the American Planning Association's committee that monitors important land use issues from state and federal jurisdictions.The other speaker is Mr.James Duncan,the principal of James Duncan and Associates,and one of the most recognized authorities in the area of development and impact fees.His most recent experiences have been in the west,and his original experience is from Broward County,Florida. Broward County became the frontrunner of development impact fees for the nation in the early 1980's.The transportation study of Broward County is used as a national model.He co-authored the Texas Impact Fee Act,the nation's first state -enabling legislation. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24,1997 PAGE 2 OF 15 Mr.James Duncan addressed the council.He stated he wanted to go over the methodology for the school development fee.He feels they should follow a conservative approach,and he recommends they take the lowest number when there is a range.He added development fees are not a panacea for all the facility ills.It will not pay for all the capital needs due to certain legal inhibitions.Traditional financing methods should be used in concert with the development fees.His firm has done over 130 impact fees for over 40 communities in 16 states from coast to coast.They are the only firm that has prepared development fees for almost every intermountain west state,including Montana and Idaho.He then proceeded with his overhead slides,starting with the boundaries of Apache Junction Unified School District No.43,which includes Gold Canyon and Queen Valley.This is important because one of the first premises of development fee methodology is to establish a nexus,one between the City of Apache Junction and the school district.In the 1990 figures,83.3% of the school age population enrolled in the district lived within the city limits.In 1996,it was projected that 83.7% lived in the city limits.This forms a strong nexus,and shows it should continue to increase.The second nexus needed to establish that dwelling units generate students,and this showed that whereas the intermountain area usually has .809 students per family home, .186 per multi family unit,and .5 per mobile home unit,Apache Junction only has approximately half of the intermountain west data.It was shown that it costs approximately $10,202 to provide capital facilities per student in the Apache Junction community,based upon current costs for the schools already built in the district.When doing development fees,credits have to be looked at in order to make sure the community and homebuilders are not "double- dipped".They should not have to pay twice,which could happen if there has been a bond issue that they must pay for over time,so the school debit/credit per student had to be determined.It was determined that $2,672 per single family unit over the next 20 years would be paid by the bond issue,which would have to be multiplied by 2.5 as there is only .4 students per family unit,in order to determine the full student credit of $6,747.When the cost per student of $10,202 has the credit of $6,747 subtracted from it,this leaves $3,455 as the difference.This shows that they will only receive $3,455 per student to assist in developing facilities through these fees,due to having to give credit for the bonds,and why additional funding will have to be found to help build the new facilities.To find the net cost per unit, you multiply the $3,455 by how many students there are per household average, which would be the maximum fee.This is only charged to residential units. Assisted living units has a zero impact fee as they do not have any students. A single family dwelling would have a maximum fee of $1,368,the maximum fee for a multi -family dwelling would be $276,and the maximum fee for a mobile home would be $366.A ten year growth projection showed that there would be a little over 12,000 single family homes,about 2,000 multi -family and almost 6,000 mobile homes,which would bring in around $19 million over the next ten years if all of them paid the maximum fee.This would pay for one high school or four elementary schools at the current value.Though it would not be the sole provider,it would be a meaningful provider for the city. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24,1997 PAGE 3 OF 15 Dr.Eric Damien Kelly addressed the council.He stated he was there to talk about the legal issues,though he is not a licensed attorney in Arizona.He has edited one of the four major treatises on land use issues in the country.He added they ultimately have to take the legal advice of those licensed in Arizona.He believes they are talking about part of an evolution,not a revolution.Developers did not put in anything when they first started developing land many years ago,all they did was blade in roads and sell the lots.The city would have to do the other improvements and tax the citizens to do it.About 60 years ago they made the developers start paving the streets.About 40 years ago cities starting making the developers put in sewer and water lines and any drainage facilities.Since the 1950's,cities are struggling to provide the larger public facilities,including the parks and schools.The cities have been asking the developers for acreage for the schools,which many of the developers donated.However,not all the developers had to do that and they have litigated over that.The courts have stated that developers can help pay for schools if the way of doing it is fair.The law,the National Association of Homebuilders and James Duncan and Associates all agree that the fair way to do it is with impact fees.It apportions the cost among everybody according to their development.In the past,the big developers would give the land and the little developers never had to give anything.Often the accumulation of small developments has a larger impact on the community than the larger ones. The U.S.Supreme Court has stated the impact fee is the only legal way to apportion the cost.There has to be a formula and a plan.They are widely used in many states in the country,many of which do not have enabling acts from the state legislature.Arizona does have an enabling act from the legislature stating development fees can be charged.There have been school development fees charged and successfully upheld in court in other states without and with enabling legislation.It is the logical next evolution.In a rapidly growing community,developers need to help provide the facilities for the public.There is a lot of precedent for doing this.The state has good enabling legislation that gives the city the ability to charge development fees to recover the costs to the municipality of providing necessary public services.If someone challenges the city on this,they will have to argue that providing schools is either not a cost to the municipality or is not a necessary public service.It would be a difficult argument to make.The Arizona Supreme Court gives municipal governments relatively broad power.He gave an example of an Arizona city being able to build an ice plant and a hospital being essential to local communities in Arizona and agreed upon by the courts.It should therefore be very hard for someone to argue that schools are not an essential and necessary public service.If they state that the school district pays the cost,they are wrong.The city is trying to build a rapidly growing community,an economic base,and it is changing its demographics so that it is not dependent on winter visitors.The city needs schools for the families that live here year round.That service is as fundamental as water to having a healthy community.In hard dollar terms,a financially strapped school district will ask to borrow space from the city, such as classes in the library,city council or community center.Then the school will look at cheap land sites but which then forces the city to pave or SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24,1997 PAGE 4 OF 15 widen the roads,extend the water lines out into the country,extend the sewer lines and other added costs.The city government ends up paying these costs. The only legal issue is whether the school is a necessary public service that involves a real cost to the municipality.That decision is to be determined by the council with the assistance of their legal advisors and their staff. Impact fees,if they are carefully developed,well considered and understood, are good public policies.They are a fair,practical,equitable,defensible means of seeing that new development helps to pay some of the real costs of development -related growth.That is the ultimate decision. Dr.Barry Sutter,1960 S.Cactus Rd.,Apache Junction,the superintendent of schools,addressed the council. He stated a healthy community is measured by how it takes care of its youth and aging.Impact fees would help take care of youth of the community and protect the fixed income of the aging in the community.He believes it is a good deal for the taxpayers.As superintendent,he is to put kids first and build schools.The community has been very supportive of that and he recognizes that the community is changing.They want to support the quality of life in the community,and schools are a part of that.The school district has developed a partnership with the city to utilize and share their facilities jointly.They have grown together.He has an additional responsibility to look at the taxpayers and what is fair to them.He recognized their generosity in passing a bond issue recently,but he wanted them to realize what these impact fees would have meant if they had been in place ten years prior to 1996 when the bond issue was passed.He queried how much money they would have accumulated with the growth that they have seen. He noted they had not asked for a bond issue for ten years,trying to keep the taxes down.They are a property poor district as a community.He commented the district is one of the parties stating the lawsuit of Roosevelt and Bishop v.the State of Arizona is unfair because our people are paying too much in taxes for what they are giving their students and citizenry.Today,they are saying this fee is a fair thing for the existing taxpayers of this community. If this had been enacted ten years ago,then approximately $15 million would have been accumulated and the bond issue of $35.5 million would have been reduced,which would have lowered the tax rate fees.They are not asking for the school district to be allowed to run rampant on spending,they expect limitations on spending based on state standards.However,there needs to be some adjustments for rapidly growing and property poor districts.They do not want to enact impact fees to build a Taj Mahal for the students.It will be kept at a reasonable level based on the state standards.It will provide the programs for the students without passing it on to the existing taxpayer. This has been shown by the experts to be fair,conservative,and that it will not meet all the needs.In salaries,growth and likeness,this district emulates the Dysart School District.That district is dying;they cannot pass a bond issue due to a lot of people being on fixed incomes and who therefore vote against any bond issues.That impacts Dysart,and he does not want to become a Dysart school.The development fees would prevent that.Even if a bond issue was never passed,they would have some money to renovate and keep the schools running.It is a local issue,not a state mandate.They are SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24,1997 PAGE 5 OF 15 asking for local control.He would like to step forward,and he considers the council the brave and the wise.He believes it is good for both taxpayers and students. hearing on the item. Mayor Coleman opened the public Mr.Chuck Bauman,32 S.Barkley #30, Mesa,addressed the council.He is a co-sponsor of Taxbusters,a group spiriting the ballot initiative drive to abolish property tax in Arizona.He was here to give his group's endorsement to this idea.They believe it is a fair concept,more so than the property tax.They applaud the concept and the council's leadership in the state on this issue. Mr.Spencer Kamps,2111 E.Highland, representing the Arizona Homebuilders,addressed the council.He opposes the issue.He believes there are some significant and serious issues the council should be aware of in adopting this measure.He agreed that school finance is a serious problem across the state.He stated it is the homebuilders number one issue over the last couple years and it still is.They are in engaged in discussions with the governor and legislature resulting from the original filing of the lawsuit and the recent court decisions.They are trying to resolve the issue.The solutions adopted recently have not been met with the greatest reception from the court system.The property tax system established in the state does not work,specifically for low wealth districts and rapidly growing districts.Unfortunately,it sounds like Apache Junction is a victim of both.He stated this would be a small bandaid,as the issue comes back to property tax and its evaluation.The state will have to change the formulas and system to solve the problems in the city.One of the two problems they have with the issue is they do not believe the city has the legal authority. Common sense tells him that there have been bills at the legislature to give them the authority to do this for the last 9-10 years;they have failed every year.That tells him that the city does not have the legal authority and it will be challenged.The other reason is they believe it is unfair.They are taxing the home.There will be many residents and visitors moving in that will never use the schools;they will be taxed with this development fee. There are students who live in the county attending the city schools.Based on the unfairness,the issue needs to be revisited.He then stated he would answer any questions of the council. Mayor Coleman stated they had no questions for him. Mr.Scot Butler,1702 E.Highland #214,Phoenix,representing the Manufactured Housing Industry of Arizona, addressed the council.He agreed with the comments of the homebuilders' representative.His industry is also concerned about the policies in the communities of the state regarding affordable housing.Many of the first time homebuyers and retirees have nothing to spare for impact fees.To add even a SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24,1997 PAGE 6 OF 15 few hundred dollars to the cost of a home could prevent them from getting financing.They have seen impact fees injudiciously used in California price huge amounts of people out of buying into the communities where they work.In this impact fee,there is nothing that states how much money is to be charged in order to build a new school.He believes that is critical as if this is brought before the legislature,they will want to know how much money is being talked about.They will want to know the cost of what kind of school they are going to build,and how many of them.He also wanted to mention that it appears that anybody who pulls a permit to make a significant change to their home will be paying an impact fee.These are people who may have a 30 -year old mobile home and want to buy a new manufactured home to replace that.He inquired if a impact fee would be assessed on an existing residential lot because they are upgrading their home.That is the way he reads the ordinance.It does not appear to be limited to developers.If it is to be limited to developers,than this ordinance needs some work.He added it appears in the intergovernmental agreement that the school district is agreeing to do certain things that he believes to be illegal under state law, particulary where it states the school district is going to indemnify the city for all losses that arise out of the adoption of this ordinance and agreement. He does not believe the school district can do that.He ended by saying if they are going to look at the issue of school construction,they need to get involved at the state level in trying to develop a solution that is fair to everybody across the state.While it is wonderful that Apache Junction can use impact fees to solve its problems due to its growth,a lot of other districts in the lawsuit are not growth districts.If an impact fee system is advocated for the growth systems,it creates a discriminatory problem across the state in terms of the policy towards other school districts.They simply have more children coming into the schools without no new growth and have no basis for impact fees.He urged them to consider solving the problem at the state level and giving all students in the state the same access to the schools. Mr.Jimmy Eidson,1309 W.15th Avenue,Apache Junction,addressed the council.He stated he has been here almost 30 years and has always been a strong supporter of the school district and always will be.However,he has some concerns that have not been answered this evening.He is concerned about the city funds being used outside the city.He suggested an intergovernmental agreement with the county wherein the whole district would pay the same fees with all fees going to the school district.It would bring in more money for the district and he believes it would be more fair.It should authorize the city to collect the fees within the district.He does not want the money used outside the city.If this money is used just inside the city,it should free up money within the district to be used for the schools outside the city.He believes the fees are a good idea for the district and he would pass it if he was on the council.However,he does not want to see it go as the sewer district went, with the fees climbing each year.He again encouraged the council to have an agreement with the county to collect fees from their areas in the district; that way no one could say it was not fair. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24,1997 PAGE 7 OF 15 Mr.Tom Warshefski,1937 S.Palo Verde Dr.,Apache Junction,addressed the council.He believes this will be double taxation for the schools.There is already a property tax for the schools and now the council is talking about a development tax for the schools.He does not have any kids and he does not want to pay tax on top of tax for the schools. respond on the issue of double taxation. Mayor Coleman requested counsel to Special Counsel William Farrell stated that the ordinance as drafted will address only new construction or major reconstruction if a home is destroyed beyond 50% and needs to be rebuilt.Nothing in the ordinance impacts any person who is currently either an owner or resident of citizen of Apache Junction whose dwelling unit is already constructed.It is only applicable at the time a building permit is issued.Also,the property tax impact has been taken into consideration.The development fee is the difference between the cost to the school district and what is generated from the property tax.It is not a tax and it is not applicable to anyone that already lives here. Mr.Jim Rees,a representative of the apartment dwelling industry,addressed the council.They also oppose the development fees for policy and legal reasons.He added he wanted to clear up a misconception that the developer would pay the development fees.The end result will be the people living in the town will be the ones to pay the fee. He commented that whereas earlier the consultant stated this is an evolution, the developers feel this is a revolution as school costs were previously covered by bonding and property taxes in the past.This is a fundamental shift that will disrupt the funding mechanism on both sides. Mr.Chuck Bauman,32 S.Barkley #30, Mesa,a representative of Taxbusters,addressed the council a second time.He wanted to rebut a few things stated in the last few minutes.One is that the fee would not be fair because it is assessed against people without children. He commented that is also the case of property tax,and it is also the whole point of public education.Taxing only those people with kids would be private education,or tuition.To him,it sounded more like a statement against public education than a statement against impact fees.He added that someone had encouraged the council to work more with the state,and in his opinion they are if they adopt this as they are taking a stronger leadership role than the legislature will,even with the courts prompting.He did agree with the idea of Mr.Eidson as the city and district limits are different.He agreed that this is not double taxation as the presentation showed that the current bond issue is factored in very well and it clearly shows it will help replace a future additional bond,not the existing one.He commented that if he was a homebuyer,he would be much more invited to move out here and pay a finite fee than an infinite tax that would continue to come back and go up with each bond issue.He believes the homebuyers would be more attracted to SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24,1997 PAGE 8 OF 15 this and the developers need to look at that;it should be to their advantage. This should help those people on a fixed income by preventing higher and higher property taxes. Mayor Coleman closed the public hearing and opened the item to discussion by the council. Councilmember Eck asked if someone could explain about the money being kept inside the city. Special Counsel William Farrell stated it will be difficult to determine what funds would get spent outside the city limits as the district and city boundaries are different.However, the council had directed staff to reach a system whereby the school children of Apache Junction would be the ones to benefit.There are two provisions in the ordinance and agreement that would hopefully do that;the ordinance specifically says that the funds are to be expended on capital projects that will be constructed inside the city limits as they exist now or as they may be amended in the future;and the second is the elected school board must come up with a list of capital projects that would qualify for council consideration. The superintendent would present the list to the council at a public hearing where citizens can attend and comment on the list.Council would then determine what funds,if any,would be allocated on any or all of those projects.This would prevent something being built in a vacant area near the city limits that might not benefit the city residents.This will give the public and council some control over the process. Dr.Barry Sutter stated Mr.Eidson's concerns were legitimate concerns and they have been looking into solving them.He believes the intergovernmental agreement will handle it fair and equitably,and they are having discussions with the county supervisors who are interested in moving forward with this. Councilmember McClain asked what would happen if a mobile home was removed and another was put back on. Special Counsel William Farrell stated they had some concerns in that area of the final draft of the ordinance with staff.They do not have a definitive answer this evening but they would like some direction from the council as to whether it is a new individual or the same individual.If a park model is upgraded by an owner for a renter, then he believes the fee should be assessed.If an existing individual upgrading their living standards wants to substitute a model,then an exception may be entertained.They have put a petition process in the ordinance for those individuals who feel they may be an exception to the rule. The development community can also bypass the impact through donation, negotiation or other alternatives to enhance their developments and make them more saleable.He reiterated they would like some direction on the SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24,1997 PAGE 9 OF 15 substitution of park models in order to meet the majority's approval on December 10. manufactured going to pay lot of case Generally,i replacement it is a mobi not have to asked Counci Councilmember Durbala asked if a home moved next to a lot with a stick -constructed building is the smaller fee. Mr.James Duncan stated there is a law on impact fees,especially regarding equity and fairness. f something exists and it burns down,you do not pay the value,as the old unit had the right to the facilities before.If le home lot with a unit on it at the time of adoption,they would pay.If it is a new lot,there would be a one-time payment.He lmember Durbala for his question again. Councilmember Durbala questioned about a manufacured home moving onto a lot next to a stick -built home,not in a park,paying a small amount for the development fee.To him it does not seem fair if it is not in a park. Mr.James Duncan stated they did some research and found in many instances it would be considered a stick -built home if it is on a residential lot.They could not find studies to show how to differentiate between them,but they have found that if a manufactured home is put on a regular,platted residential lot,it should be treated as a stick- built home.If it is in a park,it would be treated as a mobile home.That would be their recommendation at this time. Councilmember Eck asked if someone was graduating to a larger manufactured home,would they pay a fee. Mr.James Duncan stated that would be a policy issue.He stated that if the use is there,it is a residential unit.There are some communities that increase the fee if bedrooms are added, but he does not recommend that.Most communities waive it.The same premise can be used for a larger manufactured home,and he believes it should be waived.He asked Larry Harmer what has been the city policy if they have been adding to a unit. Development Services Director Larry Harmer stated they generally do not assess anything to residential units. Mr.James Duncan agreed they were only talking residential units.Commercial units would not affect the school district.Other fees would be assessed for commercial. Development Services Director Larry Harmer stated if he appeared distracted it is because they are taking down notes for alternative wordings to add to the draft of the ordinance and code SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24,1997 PAGE 10 OF 15 amendment that they would be looking at in the next couple of weeks.This is the input they were looking for tonight. Councilmember Durbala agreed with Councilmember Eck that someone upgrading a manufactured home should not be charged a second time,or if someone's house burns down over 50%.There should be a provision in there stating there would not be a reinitiation of fees. Councilmember Eck stated he did not think there should be an initial fee. Councilmember Durbala believes there should be an initial fee. Councilmember Eck does not think there should be an initial fee if they presently live there. Councilmember Durbala stated if they were existing they would not be paying the development fee,nor should they be paying the fee if they were upgrading.In addition,if it burns down over 50%,it should not be charged.It should be a one-time fee,not for continuous use. think there should be an initial fee. should be an initial fee. Vice Mayor Surra wanted to address the issue of housing put in place for those people who do not have children. She stated she impacted the school district when she bought her home as she had three children to the seller's one.It does not make any difference who owns the property the first time,as the impact fees will be put into a fund for the future growth and need of the school district.She finds it equitable that everyone pays their share towards that.She commented that while some people who may build homes may not have children this year,five years down the road there may be a family with children who buy the home and there is no impact fee for the transfer of title.It is a one-time fee. Mayor Coleman commented that he disagreed with Mr.Rees when he said that it would really be the people who are living here,and not the developers,who would pay this impact fee.The people who will actually be paying for it is the people who will live here in the future as those units have not been bought yet.This is what they have to plan for,and those people will want to have adequate schools in the community they move into.He added the city would continue to look for a solution at the state level as Mr.Butler had suggested.He stated he realized this is not a cure-all for education funding,but it can contribute greatly to our community.He does not believe the one-time fee of $267 even compares to the jump in property taxes when a bond is needed for new school construction.In response to questions from staff on how the ordinance should be drafted,he believes the city has taken a conservative approach on the fees to be imposed, he is comfortable with the fees and in asking for the full fee to be charged SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24,1997 PAGE 11 OF 15 from the effective date of the ordinance.He agrees with the appeal process of homeowners filing for an exemption and having it placed on an agenda by the city clerk.He requested to hear from the rest of the council on the ordinance. Councilmember Eck asked if the exemption process would be used for reconstruction. Development Services Director Larry Harmer stated an example of the appeal process under the current impact fees is the Careage -Merrill Gardens facility.They requested an exemption to fees regarding the streets and roads as the people who will be residing there will not own automobiles;they are people in a full assisted living scenario. They will not be able to drive.The traffic generated per dwelling unit is much less than an apartment building,as their study showed,which was agreed upon by the city engineer and James Duncan and Associates.Currently the exemption is a staff presentation,but he believes it should be under council consideration as the school impact fee appeal process is presented.It should be simpler. Mayor Coleman stated he agrees with the proposal that this be a district -wide fee with no zones. Development Services Director Larry Harmer stated he has discussed this with Mr.Duncan prior to the adoption of the development fees.They believe at some point the community should look at establishing zones for the collection and reallocation of the expenditure of funds for the development fees.Due to the size and configuration of the city,at this time they should be able to be considered one zone.As development occurs south of the freeway,it would be reasonable to establish two zones with the freeway being the boundary and each of them having individual accounts. Councilmember Durbala asked if any money should be set aside now as that area begins to develop.He believes the money collected from subdivisions going up on the south side of the freeway should be used to build an elementary school there,though there will be busing to begin with.He then requested a break as Councilmember Surra had to leave the room and he wanted her involved in this discussion. Mayor Coleman stated she had an emergency phone call. Development Services Director Larry Harmer stated they already have that capability based on the presentation. Mayor Coleman stated he assumed the school district would propose that if the population in that area warranted SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24,1997 PAGE 12 OF 15 it.He added he is comfortable leaving this like the other impact fees the city has in effect. Harmer added since they would be able along,they would have the capability to do a separate accounting function. formalize it with separate accounting for ten minutes. Development Services Director Larry to review the expenditures as they came to zone the expenditure without having In the future they may have to functions and spreadsheets. Mayor Coleman recessed the meeting Mayor Coleman reconvened the meeting.He asked for any further questions for staff or the consultants or any other comments by the council. Councilmember Urich commented she wanted it on the record that she does not have children,nor does she intend to have children,but she personally feels i t is the obligation of citizens to pay for the education of our youth.Someone paid for her to have an education and she thinks i t is the community's obligation to pay for other youth to have an education.On this basis,she would be opposed to any exemption that the citizen does not have children nor expect to have children. Mayor Coleman asked if there were any other comments.There being none,he reminded everyone that the school development fees will be on the agenda for the December 10th meeting.There will be an additional public hearing with the possible adoption of the ordinance. Councilmember McClain asked when they would receive the draft. Councilmember Durbala asked to have the draft as soon as possible. Development Services Director Larry Harmer stated Mr.Farrell will be preparing a plan based on the discussion and suggestions that came out of this evening as part of the potential code amendment and/or adoptive ordinance.They will be distributed as soon as possible and will be available to the public.There is no time frame but i t will be forwarded to the city as soon as i t is finished.The public hearing on December 10 is for council to hear any additional input and discuss whether they wish to adopt the ordinance to establish development fees for schools and the form the ordinance and/or its amendments will take. Mayor Coleman asked if they would be voting to adopt the ordinance at that time. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24,1997 PAGE 13 OF 15 Development Services Director Larry Harmer stated i t is scheduled for adoption at that meeting.They have already been provided with the draft ordinance for the record.They would only be bringing back some alternatives based on tonight's discussion. Councilmember Durbala asked how soon the minutes would be available from tonight. City Manager Curtis Shook stated they would be done as soon as possible.He requested Councilmember Durbala to call him tomorrow morning for a better answer. Councilmember Durbala stated he wanted to make sure he would have them at least 3-4 days in advance of December 10. that should be certain. City Manager Curtis Shook stated Vice Mayor Surra remarked that since this would be a one-time only fee,she could see where there may be a big boom on resale homes. with no more comment ADJOURNMENT meeting at 9:05 p.m. ACCEPTED THIS 10TH S. COUNCIL OF THE CITY SIGNED AND ATTESTED Mayor Coleman closed the discussion )Mayor Coleman adjourned the DAY OF DECEMBER ,1997,BY THE MAYOR AND CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA. TO THIS 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER ,1997. Mayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN CONNELLY G7 City Clerk SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24,1997 PAGE 14 OF 15 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the special meeting of the City Council of the City of Apache Junction,Arizona,held on the 24th day of November,1997.I further certify that the meeting was duly calle and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this L54J day of A-(2),1997. City Clerk SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24,1997 PAGE 15 OF 15