Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-04-05 City Council Regular MinutesCITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING APRIL 5,1994 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona,was held on April 5,1994,at the Apache Junction City Council Chambers pursuant to the notice required by law. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Perkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. INVOCATION Councilman Coleman gave the Invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilman Hendricks led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Councilmen Present: Staff Present: Others Present: Mayor Perkins Vice Mayor Barker Councilwoman Richmond Councilman Hendricks Councilman Coleman Councilwoman Surra (Councilman Perkins was absent.) City Manager Michael R.Lee City Clerk Kathleen Connelly City Attorney Glenn Gimbut Assistant City Manager George Hoffman Acting Public Safety Dir.Capt.Dan Scott City Engineer Gordon Grandy Parks & Rec.Dir.Jeff Bell Finance Director Keith Lewis Public Works Supt.Doug Dobson Development Services Acting Dir./Planning Manager/Jim Nakagawa Associate Planner Rudy Esquivias Library Director Pam Loui .Meridian #13, Apache Junction .,Phoenix Corwin Brundrett,Sr.,2151 N. Apache Junction Barry Sutter,1960 S.Cactus, Harvey M.Yee,4407 N.7th St REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 1 OF 47 Jim Brinkman,635 E.Canyon,Apache Junction Francis Fahey,322 W.Foothill St.,Apache Junction Richard A.Reed,5883 E.Eastridge,Apache Junction Leonard Larson,3500 S.Tomahawk,Apache Junction Jimmy Eidson,Apache Junction ACCEPTANCE OF CONSENT AGENDA )Councilman Coleman MOVED THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED;AND THAT RESIGNATIONS OF CINDY SELVY AND JIMMY GRIFFING FROM THE LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES BE ACCEPTED WITH REGRETS;AND THAT RESIGNATIONS OF KENNETH BLUNTSCHLY AND ELDON COX FROM THE MUNICIPAL PROPERTY CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS BE ACCEPTED WITH REGRETS. Councilwoman Surra SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. AWARDS,PRESENTATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS None. CALL TO THE PUBLIC Mr.Barry Sutter,representing the Chamber of Commerce,thanked the Council and City staff for the support shown and work performed during Lost Dutchman Days. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Mike Lee gave a financial report update.He reported that Cortez Road paving was completed and Cactus Road is almost completely paved, which would make it two miles of paving done for this fiscal year.He informed the Council that the next trash pickup would be advertised for May 16-20;that city crews have begun cleaning alleys and they will begin work on the drainage for the Police building;that the city bought a used tree -spade truck which will be used by Public Works and Parks in a landscaping project; and that Public Works and Parks are going to buy a 100 -gallon herbicide sprayer which will be used for controlling the weeds on medians as well as parks. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 2 OF 47 Mayor Perkins commended the Parks crews for their work at the Gazebo. PUBLIC HEARINGS LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR COBB'S COUNTRY RESTAURANT AND J..OUNGE )Mayor Perkins asked the applicant to speak on this item. Mr.Warren Savage,4944 N.Valley Drive,stated he owned the restaurant and the reason for the change was that the corporation's name changed. Councilwoman Surra stated that the report that was received from the Fire District on this matter indicates that the restaurant "is working towards compliance of the fire code."She asked if that means they are currently not in compliance. Mr.Savage answered that he has not receive a report from the Fire District at all. Mayor Perkins stated the Council just received the letter from the Fire District. Councilwoman Surra replied that the Fire District stated "This business is working towards compliance of the fire code"and she wanted to know if that meant that compliance was not complete. Mayor Perkins stated she did not know if she had received that letter. Councilwoman Surra answered yes and that is why she was reading it and had a question on that.She asked Mr.Savage if he had been cited yet. Mr.Savage answered no. Mayor Perkins asked if anyone else had any questions;there being no one wishing to speak,she closed the public hearing.She asked the city clerk to speak on this item. City Clerk Kathy Connelly stated she did not have anything further to say. Councilman Coleman MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR A PERSON TRANSFER,SERIES 6,LIQUOR LICENSE SUBMITTED FOR COBB'S COUNTRY RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE,BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR LICENSES AND CONTROL. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 3 OF 47 Vice Mayor Barker SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR JAKE'S -O -MINE )Mayor Perkins asked the applicant or a representative to speak to the Council on this item. Mr.Harvey Lee,attorney,stated he was here on behalf of Thorstan Corporation who has applied for the license; that its agent was Marguerite Young who met the qualifications;and he requested that this be approved. Mayor Perkins asked if the Council or members from the public had any questions;there being no one wishing to speak,she closed the public hearing.She asked the city clerk to speak on this item. City Clerk Kathy Connelly stated she did not have anything further to say. Vice Mayor Barker MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR A PERSON TRANSFER,SERIES 6,LIQUOR LICENSE,SUBMITTED FOR JAKE'S -O -MINE,BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR LICENSES AND CONTROL. MOTION. VOTE:In favor: Opposed: The motion carried. Councilwoman Richmond SECONDED THE Councilwoman Richmond,Vice Mayor Barker, Councilman Coleman,Councilman Hendricks,Mayor Perkins. Councilwoman Surra. ORDINANCE NO.890,PZ-12-93,REZONING REQUEST BY CHRIS AND ATHENA HANSON )Mayor Perkins called the applicant to speak on this item. Ms.Athena Hanson,1875 E.Junction Drive,stated that their lot is surrounded by mobile homes and although their REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 4 OF 47 lot is zoned for a conventional house,they would rather like to put in a new mobile home. Mayor Perkins asked if the Council or anyone else from the public had any questions;there being no one else wishing to speak,she closed the public hearing. Planning Division Mgr.Jim Nakagawa stated that on February 22,the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this rezoning and staff concurs with that recommendation.He stataed the ordinance included the commission's stipulations. Vice Mayor Barker MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.890 BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE WAIVED. Councilman Hendricks SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. City Clerk Kathy Connelly read:"AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA,AMENDING THE APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA,ZONING ORDINANCE,BY AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP,CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA,CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION IN REZONING CASE PZ-12-93 FROM CR-1 (CONVENTIONAL SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON 20,000 SQ.FT.MINIMUM LOTS)TO CR-1 (MH)(CONVENTIONAL OR MANUFACTURED SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON 20,000 SQ.FT.MINIMUM LOTS);REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY." Vice Mayor Barker MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.890,AS READ BY THE CITY CLERK,BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Councilman Hendricks SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. ORDINANCE NO.891,PZ-13-93,REZONING REQUEST BY BURKINSHAW AND BRINKMAN )Mayor Perkins called the applicants to speak on this item. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 5 OF 47 Mr.Jim Brinkman,635 E.Canyon, stated they bought this property with the notion to split it because it fits the city's General Plan. Mayor Perkins asked if the Council or members from the public had any questions;there being no one wishing to speak,he closed the public hearing. Planning Division Mgr.Jim Nakagawa stated that on February 22,Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this case;that their stipulations are included in the ordinance, and staff concurred with that. Councilwoman Richmond MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.891 BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE WAIVED. Councilman Coleman SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. City Clerk Kathy Connelly read,"AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA,AMENDING THE APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA,ZONING ORDINANCE,BY AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP,CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA,CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION IN REZONING CASE PZ-13-93 FROM R1-43(MH)(CONVENTIONAL OR MANUFACTURED SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON 1.25 -ACRE MINIMUM LOTS)TO CR-1(MH) (CONVENTIONAL IN MANUFACTURED SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON 20,000 SQ.FT.MINIMUM LOTS);REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY." Councilwoman Richmond MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.891,AS READ BY THE CITY CLERK,BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Councilman Coleman SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. ORDINANCE NO.894,AMENDING CH.4 OF THE CITY CODE TO ESTABLISH A FEE FOR FEDERAL BRADY BILL HANDGUN BACKGROUND CHECKS ) )Mayor Perkins opened the public hearing;there being no one wishing to speak on this item,she closed the public hearing. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 6 OF 47 City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated that on February 28,1994,the Federal Brady Bill Handgun Violance Prevention Act went into effect;that this requires of us to make reasonable efforts to ascertain within five business days,after being notified,whether or not the receipt or possession of a:handgun would be a violation of the law;that pursuant to the mandates of federal law,we are currently conducting those checks.He stated that the purpose of this ordinance would be to establish a fee to conduct those checks;that research has indicated that other cities and towns in Arizona,most notably Phoenix and Tucson,are charging $10 to conduct those checks.He asked the Council to amend Chapter -4 of the City Code to establish a fee for conducting the background checks in order to be in line with other municipalities in our state.He added this ordinance included the emergency clause because we are currently conducting the checks and want to be able to collect the fee for doing that. Councilwoman Surra asked if there was a method in place for collecting that fee. Mr.Gimbut answered he was not sure if the police department had one method but the ability to set up a method is very simple. Capt.Dan Scoot,Acting Chief of Police,stated that the business selling the gun will charge the fee and it will come back to the City;that the exact mechanics of that have not worked out,but i t is a very simple process. Mr.Gimbut further explained the process for collecting the fee. Councilwoman Surra asked if there would not be an additional cost for collecting this fee. Mr.Gimbut answered that was correct. Vice Mayor Barker commended staff for their quick response to this bill and in seeking this small revenue. Councilman Hendricks MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.894 BE READ BY TITLE ONLY WITH THE EMERGENCY CLAUSE AND THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE WAIVED. Vice Mayor Barker SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 7 OF 47 City Clerk Kathy Connelly read,"AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA,RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF BACKGROUND CHECKS BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF PURCHASERS OF HANDGUNS,AS REQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL BRADY HANDGUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT;PRESCRIBING A FEE;AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF THE APACHE JUNCTION CITY CODE TO ADD NEW ARTICLE 4-2:PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY." Councilwoman Surra MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.894,AS READ BY THE CITY CLERK,BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Councilman Hendricks SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. ORDINANCE NO.892,AMENDING THE CITY CODE TO RESTRICT THE PLACEMENT OF TIRES )Mayor Perkins opened the public hearing. Mr.Frank Fahey,322 W.Foothill St.,spoke against the excessive use of tires for landscaping. Planning Division Mgr.Jim Nakagawa stated that on March 1st,the Council heard this item and directed staff to draft an ordinance restricting the placement of tires.He further briefed the Council on staff research in drafting this ordinance. Vice Mayor Barker pointed out that the ordinance states that "tires not mounted on vehicles and not litter as otherwise provided in this section shall either be screened from public view or comply with the restrictions..."She referred to those restrictions and asked what else would apply to screening. Mr.Nakagawa answered what they had in mind a solid fence,perhaps six feet high,and that any other articles behind the fence would not be considered violation of the litter ordinance, where they would under this ordinance. Mr.Gimbut further explained what Mr.Nakagawa stated. Vice Mayor Barker stated that according to this ordinance,people can have tires if in fact they comply with the restrictions provided in there. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 8 OF 47 Mr.Gimbut added if the tires are also screened and are not litter. Vice Mayor Barker asked if the screening should not allow to be seen through. Mr.Gimbut affirmed that. Vice Mayor Barker asked if in other words,people could not just put a wooden fence or a chain -linked fence and call it a screen.She asked if that was defined in the ordinance. Mr.Gimbut answered he would defer that to Mr.Nakagawa. Vice Mayor Barker stated that a "fence"could be anything and asked if that could be addressed in the ordinance. Mr.Nakagawa answered they have a provision for that in the Zoning Ordinance and in this case it would be under health and sanitation.He added that basically,you could almost apply common sense definition in this case and consider that screening is something that is opaque. The Council was opposed to the implication of a common sense interpretation. Councilwoman Surra stated that i f this issue has to do with health and safety,she did not understand how the screening would make something healthier or safer. Mr.Gimbut stated that it does not. Vice Mayor Barker stated she did not have a problem with a couple of tires being stacked in someone's backyard,but she had problems with a chain -linked fence that is acting as a screen,because someone can pile up stuff behind it;and that common sense would give different interpretations to the fence term. Councilman Coleman asked if the planters made with tractor tires before this ordinance,would be grandfathered. Staff members answered no. Mr.Gimbut added "If they are screened from view." REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 9 OF 47 Ms.Connelly replied,"But not from a neighbor looking over a fence," which is one of the potential problems. Councilman Coleman asked if someone had a tractor tire on a playground,that would be no good under this ordinance. Vice Mayor Barker answered that i f i t is 25 feet away from a structure and 25 feet apart,there would not be a problem according to this ordinance. Ms.Connelly replied she is not sure that they defined the structure. Mr.Gimbut stated that "structure" is a definition under the Uniform Building Code and has some clear definition throughout other sections of the City Code. Vice Mayor Barker stated it seems that Councilman Coleman's scenarios are valid. Councilman Coleman asked if there is a tire filled with cement and a pole for a volley ball net,that would not be good.He stated he understood the issue,but he was not sure that this is the way to go about alleviating the problem. Councilman Hendricks stated that at the last meeting he requested Council members to go and look at the problem. Councilman Coleman replied he saw the picture in the newspaper. Councilman Hendricks replied that a picture does not do justice,that they needed to drive by it. Vice Mayor Barker stated that the problem with that was,in order to fix that problem which is a major one,she would not like to create more problems like the ones Councilman Coleman brought up,which are legitimate concerns.She stated there has to be a method of addressing the problem of misuse of tires as opposed to recreational purposes on a playground,or a single tire in a yard which does not meet the 25 -feet -away -from -structure requirement. Ms.Connelly stated that one of their biggest concerns is the idea that someone could have a tire behind a six -feet block wall in the backyard completely screened from public view, however if a neighbor is able to see the tire over that fence,then there would be a litter problem. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 10 OF 47 Mr.Gimbut replied that was not necessarily true;if someone has already a problem with litter,then that is the problem.He stated that when screening was included,there was the concern that what is currently litter,would now be permitted,but when they refer to "not litter"as otherwise provided in this section,what they are trying to do is preserve the status quo;in other words,if a tire is litter, it is already litter. Mr.Nakagawa stated that the issue was whether or not this litter was visible;that in Gilbert they do not treat something that is screened as litter;but in this case Officer Rick Williams would prefer that the City treat tires behind a fence as litter. Vice Mayor Barker stated she is not comfortable with this ordinance the way it is written. Councilman Hendricks agreed with Vice Mayor Barker. Mr.Gimbut replied he did not have the time to work on this because he had so many projects on his desk.He asked the Council to give this to some other staff member. Mr.Nakagawa asked that staff needed to know if the Council wished to treat something that is screened,either behind a fence or enclosed in a garage,as potential litter. Vice Mayor Barker stated they were creating a massive mountain with this problem;that now they are saying that anything that anyone keeps behind their fence is now open to that kind of scrutiny;that what is litter today may not be litter tomorrow and what is litter tomorrow may not be litter today.She stated this is a case where a property is being a nuisance with the overuse of tires and this is the problem they are trying to resolve. Ms.Connelly stated that the question was,"Do you or don't you want to allow tires in any way,shape or form,to be used in landscaping." Vice Mayor Barker replied that was ludicrous because there are so many tires in this community already being used in landscaping. Councilwoman Surra asked if the City could enforce that kind of ordinance;if the City had the money to put people out there on the street to enforce it.She stated they needed to address this problem differently than making an ordinance;if we had many problems of the same kind,perhaps an ordinance might be necessary.She suggested that this REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 11 OF 47 individual could be called upon to do something voluntary for the beautification process of the city and for the common good of the community. Mayor Perkins asked if they could prohibit planting on tractor tires. Councilwoman Richmond asked if they could insist that something be planted in the tires;if there is a way they could distinguish between decorative and playground equipment;decorative tires meant to plant something in them other than filling them with manure. Ms.Connelly replied that becomes a case where "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Mr.Nakagawa stated that the problem at the Smoketree ranch with 26 tires in the front yard would have not arose if those tires were not visible but were placed behind a fence;that is why he brought up the issue of whether they wished to treat litter as something that is visible or not. Vice Mayor Barker stated that the word "visible"creates a problem. Mr.Gimbut stated that the Council needed to address if they wished to regulate in this area and what is it that they wished to regulate;that it appears they have not come to grips with the basic concept. Mayor Perkins asked if the tires at Smoketree can be construed as something unhealthy or a danger to the public. Councilwoman Surra reminded her that Officer Williams had checked on that and the tires passed those things. Vice Mayor Barker asked if they could control the aesthetics. Mr.Nakagawa answered maybe they could. Councilwoman Surra asked if they are going to draft an ordinance every time somebody thinks something is not aesthetically pleasing.She did not agree that was the Council's function. Assistant City Manager George Hoffman asked Mr.Nakagawa if they pursued the Attorney General's office mediation effort for this particular situation with the neighbors. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 12 OF 47 Mr.Nakagawa answered no,they did not utilize the mediation group process. Mr.Hoffman stated that the Attorney General's office has a volunteer group of mediators whose function is to help neighbors in situations such as this,in hearing each other's point of view and seek friendly,amicable solution to a problem;that if it is a household type situation,this might be an alternative solution. Vice Mayor Barker stated that at this point that is what this problem appears to be:that anything is worth trying peacefully before it becomes a war. Councilman Coleman stated he did not have a problem if the tires are screened from view behind a fence or enclosed in a garage. Mr.Nakagawa stated that if that is the desire of the Council,that provision can be easily made in this ordinance by striking out the clause "...and not litter as otherwise provided in this section...";then tires that are behind a fence or otherwise screened would not be in violation of the litter ordinance;and that it would be similar to Gilbert's provision. Mayor Perkins stated that when the Council enacts an ordinance,some freedom is taken away from people;that she agreed with Councilwoman Surra that it is bad when neighbors cannot settle their differences over something like that it has to come to the Council. Councilwoman Surra replied this ordinance does not even answer the problem. Mayor Perkins added that it does not appear to address the problem specifically. Councilwoman Surra stated it will just eliminate a few of the tires. Mr.Gimbut added that it will actually eliminate about two-thirds or three-quarters of them. Councilwoman Surra asked if that would be because of the 25 feet apart. Mr.Gimbut affirmed that. Councilwoman Surra stated that because they decided it was a health and safety issue,they did not want them closer then that. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 13 OF 47 Mr.Hoffman added that i t is presumed that the tires would remain on the road. Mr.Gimbut stated that according to Mr.Nakagawa,if the tires exceed more than one hundred pounds all together, which is three or four tires,people would have to get a permit. Mr.Nakagawa replied he mentioned that earlier in his presentation because the Fire District had a similar provision in the fire code,but he has since been told that their restrictions are under a different section. Councilman Hendricks stated that in this case 25 feet was not enough. Vice Mayor Barker commented that this ordinance would eliminate the only one tire that some people in her neighborhood use as a planter,which looks nice with the flowers. Councilwoman Surra stated that i t seems like the plants would obliterate the ugly tires,so maybe that is what the Council should require. Mayor Perkins agreed with that. Ms.Connelly stated that they would then get into the definition of plants which could be weeds. Councilwoman Surra stated she wished there was something the Council could do to assist the people on that street in beautifying the area;that this ordinance does not address their need but it would rather create more problems;and that the Council should do something to encourage the mediation among those neighbors with some Council members present,if necessary. Councilwoman Richmond asked that i f that was a motion,she will second it. Councilwoman Surra replied she would make it a motion. Mayor Perkins asked the City Clerk if she understood Councilwoman Surra's motion. Ms.Connelly answered it was THAT PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF THIS ORDINANCE,SHE WANTED THE MEDIATION PROCESS TO BE USED TO TRY TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 14 OF 47 Vice Mayor Barker AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THAT AT THE SAME TIME THE MEDIATION PROCESS IS BEING SOUGHT,THAT MR.NAKAGAWA LOOK AT THIS TO SEE IF THERE IS A WAY TO STRAIGHTEN IT OUT TO MEET OUR NEEDS,SO THAT IF WE DO NOT HAVE LUCK ON ONE SIDE,WE MAY HAVE LUCK ON THE OTHER SIDE. Councilwoman Surra. replied that Council should work towards anything constructive and she agreed with the amendment. Ms.Connelly asked if they were inclined to look at something similar to what Gilbert has. Vice Mayor Barker answered that maybe. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. Ms.Connelly stated she was assuming the Council also wanted to postpone this ordinance. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS RESOLUTION NO.94-10,SUPPORT FOR MODIFI- CATION OF ARIZONA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE II, SECTION 31;ARTICLE XVIII,SECTION 5; AND ARTICLE XVIII,SECTION 6 )City Clerk Kathy Connelly briefed the Council on this item.She introduced Christian Sumner to speak to the Council on this item. Ms.Christian Sumner of People For a FAIR Legal System organization,stated that this organization is trying to deal with some of the problems we currently have in the legal system in Arizona;that i t is not only ridiculous but unfair that prisoners,drunk drivers,and criminals are able to file suit with considerable ease,while organizations that make up the basis of our community such as police and fire department,city and town structures,public schools systems,and non-profit organization have no immunity whatsoever from civil liability lawsuits.She stated they believe that the problem we encounter in the legal system could be directly tied to the Constitution,so they are offering a constitutional amendment for the general election on November 1994 in an attempt to change REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 15 OF 47 the system.She further explained those sections of the constitution and the changes they are proposing. City Manager Mike Lee stated that Arizona is one of two states which do not have a limit on liability. Ms.Sumner replied that Arizona and Oklahoma do not constitutionally provide for any kind of limitations whatsoever in the types of liability lawsuits that are filed.She further explained the problems we currently face with the way those sections of the constitution are being interpreted. Mayor Perkins asked if the Council had any questions;there being none,she asked for a motion. Councilman Coleman MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO.94-10,SUPPORTING THE MODIFICATION OF ARTICLE II,SECTION 31; ARTICLE XVIII,SECTION 5;AND ARTICLE XVIII,SECTION 6 OF THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION TO BE PLACED ON THE NOVEMBER 1994 BALLOT THAT WILL BRING ABOUT LASTING LAWSUIT REFORM AND FAIRNESS BACK TO THE ARIZONA LEGAL SYSTEM BE APPROVED. Councilman Hendricks SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. AMENDMENT NO.1 TO WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT -MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION )City Manager Mike Lee stated there was a provision in the original IGA Group that required a six-month waiting period for any member of the Group to withdraw;that Apache Junction along with Chandler have requested they amend that and allow for the immediate withdrawal of each of the entities as soon as the amendment is approved, instead of waiting for six months;the reason for this was to avoid potential liability and additional cost that may be incurred during that waiting period. Councilman Hendricks MOVED THAT AMENDMENT NO.1 TO WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE -MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BE APPROVED. Councilwoman Richmond SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 16 OF 47 The motion carried. PAYMENT TO JAMES R.HUSTAD FOR LEGAL SERVICES RENDERED TO JUDGE BRUNDRETT )City Clerk Kathy Connelly stated that as a signer on city checks,on November 1993,she was presented with a check for payment of legal services to Mr.Hustad;that because she was not familiar with the circumstances regarding this payment,she communicated with Judge Brundrett which resulted in a series of communications that took place after that,all of which were included in the agenda packet.She stated that after speaking with the city attorney and since this was a professional service,she decided this should be brought before the City Council. Councilwoman Surra asked the judge if the time when this bill was sent through the city clerk for payment,that was the first time the City was made aware that the debt had been incurred. Judge Brundrett answered there was not an explanation in its entirety as to how the bill was incurred and the request for an explanation was made at that time. Councilwoman Surra asked if that was the first time that the City was aware that the debt had been incurred. Judge Brundrett answered yes. Councilwoman Surra asked if prior to that he had not requested that professional services be made available to the court. Judge Brundrett answered no and that he had a little presentation as to how it came about,if she wished that he explained that. Councilwoman Surra replied the Council would like to know. Judge Brundrett stated there was a letter he would like to refer the Council to that would help explain part of this matter;a letter to City Manager Mike Lee dated December 16,1993.He stated that as presiding judge,he is in charged with the independence of the judiciary;that as he explained to the Council back in July,Presiding Justice of the Supreme Court Judge Frank Gordon appointed the judges of each county to control the lower courts in each county in 1990,which includes Justice of the Peace and city courts;that this was also explained by Mr.Bob Wininger of the Supreme Court at the time he made his presentation to the Council that Judge Bean is the presiding judge of Pinal County.He stated he would like to read some excerpts from the letter to Mr.Lee from Judge Bean. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 17 OF 47 Judge Brundrett read "...this will confirm that I did advise Judge Brundrett to seek private counsel.At the time,is very apparent that Judge Brundrett was in need of independent legal assistance.The City Attorney,who is legally designated advisor to the Court,obviously was not available to him for advise in that Mr.Gimbut,the City Attorney,was in an adversarial position with the Judge in that he was representing the interests of the Mayor,Council and/City Administration."He commended Mr.Gimbut for representing him in other issues that have come up in the court.He continued "It was perceived by Judge Brundrett,and rightfully so in my estimation,that the independence of the judiciary of the City of Apache Junction was in jeopardy by a series of challenges to his independence, as evidenced by a file I have kept on materials furnished to me by the Judge covering several different matters...Judge Brundrett has and continues to seek not only my advice as Presiding Judge in such matters,but also the services of the Administrative Office of the Supreme Court.It was my opinion and remains so that,under the circumstances then existing,Judge Brundrett exhausted all avenues available to him for all available resources and that he had no choice but to seek independent legal representation.I am not his legal advisor,and,therefore,cannot act as his advocate;but,as Presiding Judge,I am in a position as his supervisor in the Judicial system of Pinal County and am available for him for consultation;and he is been diligent keeping me abreast of and has discussed with me all matters related to the issues in dispute." Judge Brundrett stated that on June 1993,at a conference in Tempe,he conferred with Judge Bean and David Withey of the Supreme Court in relation to seeking advice,and Mr.Hustad was recommended due to the fact that he was familiar with the Supreme Court,he worked there,and he is the author of the Bullhead City report;that one of the reasons he was picked was that he would not have to do research and expend additional monies researching the statutes and rules and regulations of the court because he was very familiar with those;that he was very helpful and very quick with the information any time Judge Brundrett has called him in relation to this matter. Judge Brundrett further read "The use of public funds for payment to Mr.Hustad,in my opinion,was necessary." Councilwoman Surra asked if he was drawing a salary from the City. Judge Brundrett answered yes,he is on a contract. Councilwoman Surra asked if he is also participating in the employees'eligibility for benefits such as health, insurance,etc. Judge Brundrett answered yes. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 18 OF 47 Councilwoman Surra asked if he was sworn in stating he would abide by the State Constitution and the City policies and procedures. Judge Brundrett answered yes. Councilwoman Surra asked if in those policies and procedures it is not stated that if he requires money to expend in his department,that has to be approved prior to incurring the debt. Judge Brundrett answered that at the time this occurred,he was not sure exactly if in fact this debt was going to be incurred;that when this started,Mr.Hustad was there in an advisory position and they did not go into that part until a later date. Councilwoman Surra asked i f Mr.Hustad was going to give him advice for free. Judge Brundrett answered that when he first started,it appeared that he was doing it. Councilwoman Surra asked when was that changed. Judge Brundrett answered they later determined that it looked like Mr.Hustad was going to need to advise and represent him if needed. Councilwoman Surra asked if Mr.Hustad was ever required to represent him in some litigation. Judge Brundrett answered no. Councilwoman Surra asked if Mr.Hustad only advised him on personal issues dealing with his employment with the City. Judge Brundrett answered no, Mr.Hustad advised him on issues relating to the court in the past. Councilwoman Surra asked what did he not understand about that. Judge Brundrett answered that basically that was explained throughout the agenda material that was given to the Council and it goes into detail and there is also a letter of explanation. Councilwoman Surra asked what area of independence the City was encroaching upon. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 19 OF 47 Judge Brundrett answered there are several issues involved and he was not sure if the Council had the opportunity to read about. Councilwoman Surra replied she read it all and she still had that question. Judge Brundrett answered that the first issue was relating to the Court Administrator. Councilwoman Surra asked if the City was encroaching upon that and if they made a hard and fast decision that he needed to have set aside. Judge Brundrett answered that "basically,it was determined that it was a judicial matter for the court to determine if a..."(interrupted) Councilwoman Surra asked if the decision was made that the City withdraw from that position. Judge Brundrett answered that at a later time they did. Councilwoman Surra asked if that was because Mr.Hustad managed to step in and show them the error of their way. Judge Brundrett answered he was not sure if Mr.Hustad had anything to do with that at all. Councilwoman Surra asked if Mr.Hustad did not represent him on any issues with the City about that:i f Mr.Hustad ever represented him with the City about any issues where they needed to find the error of their way or did they find that out in the natural course of getting more information from other sources. Judge Brundrett answered that it was in fact pretty much handled by the Council as time went along. Councilwoman Surra stated she had a hard time figuring out why he would incur an expense of that amount when it is not budgeted in his department. Judge Brundrett answered he did not anticipate doing this. Councilwoman Surra asked if it was not anticipated,why did he not apply to some fiscal agency within the City to ask for bids going out,or if there was someone else that was willing to act REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 20 OF 47 on his behalf free of charge to the City,or if he tried any other method or means to find someone who would not be quite as expensive. Judge Brundrett answered that he explained that he conferred with Judge Bean,who is the presiding judge and who has the overall control of the court system,and that it was his recommendation. Councilwoman Surra replied that Judge Bean's recommendation was for him to seek personal advice about his situation,but she did not believe that it meant he could have not gotten through regular sources to fund it,since Judge Bean was not going to pay it. Judge Brundrett stated he did not know that Judge Bean would pay it. Councilwoman Surra replied she did not think so and that she did not want to pay it either. Vice Mayor Barker asked Judge Brundrett if Judge Bean advised him,as the presiding judge and his supervisor,to seek legal advice and therefore he did so. Judge Brundrett answered yes.He stated that in the second paragraph of that letter,Judge Bean confirmed that he did advise him to seek private counsel. Vice Mayor Barker asked if Judge Bean recommended he seek legal advice and bill the City. Judge Brundrett answered that at that point,he did not mention the billing of the City,however he does cover that in the last paragraph of the letter. Vice Mayor Barker asked if Judge Bean has the final say as to how the City expends its money. Judge Brundrett answered he did not know that Judge Bean has that authority. Vice Mayor Barker stated that he was basing this issue on the fact that Judge Bean had said so,therefore,we must pay it. Judge Brundrett replied it is not necessarily so,except that it is Judge Bean's opinion and recommendation that the City pay it;that Judge Bean refers to several cases and one is attached to this document. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 21 OF 47 Vice Mayor Barker replied she read that.She stated that he did not consider the City's policy of going out to bid for legal services at all. Judge Brundrett replied that was due to the fact that Judge Bean is the presiding judge and it is related to court activities and it was not a personal matter. Vice Mayor Barker asked who did he feel would pay for this,if maybe Judge Bean. Judge Brundrett answered no,he did not expect Judge Bean to do that. Vice Mayor Barker asked if without even letting the City or anyone in the City know that he was going to incur this cost and because Judge Bean said he should do this,then he did it. Judge Brundrett answered yes, because he is under Judge Bean's direction and he is his superior in the court system. Vice Mayor Barker replied they were talking about money also,not just direction.She asked if Judge Bean recommended him to enlarge his office by two -hundred square feet because it would be better for the court,that he would do it without saying anything to anybody and then bill the City. Judge Brundrett answered no,he would not do that. Vice Mayor Barker stated that what has happened here is that Judge Bean said he should get an outside consultant and he did it without letting the City know about it.She stated there was the possibility of setting a precedent,if the City paid for this,with the other three contracted,full-time employees;that one of them has already sought personal legal advice and paid for it himself and she was concerned that if the City paid for this,that other employee might come back and ask the City to pay for his.She stated she understood that Judge Bean was his boss and that he was following direction from Judge Bean,but there was another step to go further;that the City hired him and contracted him, therefore,when it comes to spending public dollars,she does not know that Judge Bean has the power to expend City's funds like this. Judge Brundrett replied that in defense of that,he would say that Mr.Hustad was going to be here tonight but he cancelled at the last minute;and that Mr.Hustad could probably explain things better to the Council than he can. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 22 OF 47 Councilwoman Surra replied that i t would probably be too expensive to listen to Mr.Hustad. Judge Brundrett stated that Judge Bean did in fact referred to a lot of the Supreme Court cases that are included in the packet. Councilwoman Surra quoted Judge Bean as follows:"The power to obtain necessary services,however,is limited and should be exercised only when there is no established method for obtaining needed personnel or when a reasonable,good faith,diligent effort to utilize such methods has been attempted and has failed.She stated this was on page 5 of the facts of procedural history to back up why it was okay to bill the City,because evidently the judge and the court are one and the same and we must support all of those litigations that happen with the representative of the court.She stated that Judge Brundrett does not seem to fit that statement.She continued reading:"Thus,there are two factors that determine whether judge properly obtained independent counsel to represent him in this special action." Councilwoman Surra stated there was no action by the Council to take a look at that before action was necessary; that first we must establish the need to litigate and there was no litigation;second,we must decide whether as a matter of law there is not an established method for obtaining legal services and she believed there is one in the City Code;that she finds that Judge Brundrett fails on all of those points and that she would not vote to pay this bill,unless he proves he made the effort to obtain reasonable counsel within the provisions of the City's bid process.She further stated that the City has counsel available and she would like to know how anyone can incur this kind of debt and expect the Council not question it. Councilwoman Surra asked Judge Brundrett what made him think he had the right to incur this debt and expect the City to pay it,and to get the bill after the fact;that was the first time the City heard about it;perhaps he should have come half way through and informed the City he was incurring a lot of money and ask the City for direction;perhaps the City could have help him achieve the goals he had set himself to accomplish;and that Mr.Hustad never had to talk to the Council but he did. Judge Brundrett replied he did not charge anything either. Councilwoman Surra replied that he would have done this without Mr.Hustad,because what he was asking was reasonable and the Council saw that. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 23 OF 47 Judge Brundrett stated he could not answer that. Councilwoman Surra replied she knew he could not answer that and that was a real problem. Councilman Hendricks stated he did not understand why the cost went from $750 to $13,000. Judge Brundrett answered there is a letter from Mr.Hustad explaining that. Councilman Hendricks replied he read all of that information,but he still does not understand that. Judge Brundrett stated Mr.Hustad's letter was dated March 2,1994. Vice Mayor Barker replied the date was February 28,1994;that the letter states that Mr.Hustad had spent thirteen and one-half hours in this matter and not seven and one-half as it was originally billed;and that there is no paper with it showing where that discrepancy has been found or an itemized list of events. Councilwoman Surra asked Judge Brundrett if he kept a log of his contacts with Mr.Hustad. Judge Brundrett answered no. Councilwoman Surra asked how did he know Mr.Hustad was billing them correctly. Judge Brundrett answered he assumed that Mr.Hustad kept a record of that and that he could not answer for him. Councilwoman Richmond asked if attorneys charge in terms of approximate figures,because everything was in approximate figures.She asked if attorneys do not generally document when they are charging an hourly rate so that they know how much time they spend on their cases. Judge Brundrett answered he has seen bills come in both ways where some of them were very accurate in detail and others were approximate in that manner. Councilwoman Richmond stated she wished Mr.Hustad would have talked approximately two times on the phone instead of twenty-two or maybe the Council could approximate this bill more to their liking. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 24 OF 47 Judge Brundrett stated that when he spoke with Mr.Hustad,he said he had spoken with Mr.Gimbut about this issue. Mr.Gimbut stated that Mr.Hustad indicated that if meeting with him would make a difference in the Council's decision,he would talk to them about this at the next meeting,and that he would be willing to settle this matter to the amount of $1,000;that he indicated to Mr.Hustad that Judge Brundrett mentioned that the reason for the increase between $750 and $1,350 was because of time spent on the itemization in the letter of February 28;that Mr.Hustad disagreed with that and stated that the reason was time spent on the issue of whether or not the new appointed judge would be the presiding judge,which was incurred after his bill of $750;and the chronology was not correct,which he mentioned to Mr.Hustad who disagreed.He stated that the bill of $750 is reflected in Mr. Hustad's letter sent to Mr.Hoffman on that very issue.He stated there are some conflicting pieces of information that do not match;that any information Judge Brundrett can supply to clarify those points would be helpful. Vice Mayor Barker explained that her problem is not that Judge Brundrett needed to seek legal advice,nor is it a problem that Judge Bean advised him that was the way to go;but her problem was that Judge Brundrett did not inform the City;that the Council should not pay for this and Mr.Hustad may even be a victim in this because he may have felt that the City was behind this issue or that Judge Brundrett was going to pay it. Judge Brundrett stated it would be best if Mr.Hustad would be here. Vice Mayor Barker replied she did not feel Mr.Hustad had anything to do with the way he did this;that he had no obligation to inform the City,but that the judge did. Mr.Gimbut asked if there was a reason why Judge Brundrett could not have posted the request for legal services for the forty-eight hours. Judge Brundrett answered he did not see a reason why they could have not done it that way but he was following the advice of the presiding judge,and he recommended that this attorney was best suited to give advice relating to the occurrences that were happening. Councilwoman Richmond asked if Judge Bean suggested to him to contact Mr.Hustad. Judge Brundrett pointed out the letter where Judge Bean said that Mr.Hustad would be the person that would give him the best advice relating to the situation that was occurring,due to REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 25 OF 47 the fact that he had been in the Supreme Court and was very familiar with the rules and regulations of the court. Vice Mayor Barker replied that should have not prevented him from going through the normal procedures, because the City has a provision for when a certain department needs the assistance of professional services. Councilman Hendricks asked if Mr.Hustad did some personal work for him. Judge Brundrett answered no,he did not:everything Mr.Hustad did was relating to the court itself. Councilman Hendricks asked about his contract. Judge Brundrett answered that Mr.Hustad reviewed his contract in relation to the court of whether or not he would still be the presiding judge,but it is court -related. Councilman Hendricks asked how much time Mr.Hustad spent on that,because there seems to be a discrepancy on that. Judge Brundrett stated he talked to Mr.Lee earlier and offered to pay for that part of the bill. Councilman Hendricks asked if it was one hour and one-half or one-half hour. Mr.Gimbut stated that according to a memo from Judge Brundrett to the City Manager Mike Lee,dated March 2,1994, he agreed to pay the amount related to his contract and it appears to be thirty minutes on that issue according to paragraph B,last sentence:but when Mr.Gimbut spoke with Mr.Hustad last Friday he disagreed with that and he remembered it was approximately one hour and one-half;and that Mr.Hustad's itemized list is not clear as to the exact time. Judge Brundrett replied he would have no problem paying for either time. Mayor Perkins stated she did not think the Council would have had any problem with this contract had he gone through the proper channels:that there has been discussion about the City's limited jurisdiction in the court,however the City has to pay this bill:and that he owed the Council the courtesy of discussing this with them before he went forward with it. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 26 OF 47 Councilman Coleman stated he understands why Judge Brundrett could have gone through the Council for this; however,other staff might have done the same thing in this instance,because he was asking legal advice concerning a Council -initiated action,and so he might have had a problem in coming to the Council about it. Councilwoman Surra replied she would take exception to that because he had no problem bringing the bill to the City. Vice Mayor Barker added that if he had gone through the normal procedures on this,he did not have to come before the Council,unless these services exceeded $10,000. Councilwoman Surra pointed out that in Mr.Hustad's letter,dated February 28,it was stated "additionally,I reviewed Judge Brundrett two prior contracts as City Magistrate."She stated that did not have anything to do with the issue of the presiding judge that Judge Brundrett was talking about and the total time in reviewing these documents was five and three-quarter hours;that he spent an hour and one-half on some personal things;and he is also billing the City for talking one and one-half hour with the city manager concerning the payment of this bill. Councilman Coleman replied he did not disagree with that,but he is saying that he understands Judge Brundrett's frame of mind on this. Councilwoman Surra stated she understands that too,but she does not want to pay this bill;that it does not preclude the fact that we have rules and regulations to abide by in order to reach goals;and that this needs to be reinforced on everybody else who works for the City. Councilman Coleman replied he did not disagree on that. Councilwoman Surra MOVED THAT THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION BE GIVEN TO STAFF REGARDING JUDGE BRUNDRETT'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF LEGAL SERVICES RENDERED TO HIM BY JAMES R.HUSTAD;THAT WE DENY THAT PAYMENT;AND IF HE WISHES TO SEEK SOME OTHER RECOURSE,HE NEEDS TO CONTACT THE CITY COUNCIL. Vice Mayor Barker SECONDED THAT. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 27 OF 47 CONTRACT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH PDS TECHNICAL SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES )Acting Development Servs. Dir./Planning Div.Mgr.Jim Nakagawa briefed the Council on this item. Vice Mayor Barker asked what would be the financial outlay for this. Mr.Nakagawa answered it would be $95,136 and that includes the money set aside for benefit package such as health,etc. Vice Mayor Barker asked what would be the difference in cost if the City hired the people. Mr.Nakagawa answered that the figure he quoted was basically the authorized budget amount of less than the $95,000 cap,but he could not guarantee it.He explained that the City is having problems attracting building inspectors;that he asked PDS if they could find qualified Arizona building inspectors but they could not find any; that the surplus of building inspectors is coming from California at $14/hour or more. Vice Mayor Barker asked if the figure he quoted is what we have budgeted for salaries for those positions which include health benefits,etc.;so that includes all those things he indicated as advantages;that some companies provide benefits such as health, holidays,vacations,but these salaries include those things also. Mr.Nakagawa answered that is correct,and some companies do provide some of those benefits. Vice Mayor Barker asked that if we are looking at expending that kind of money,why are we not hiring somebody instead of using a company. Mr.Nakagawa answered that Mr.Hoffman may want to discuss that,but one of the advantages is the simplicity with which PDS recruits people and they incur that expense and also the simplicity with which we may terminate their services;but if they are regular City employees,they have to go through the process in the personnel procedures,which he explained. Vice Mayor Barker asked if he is saying that is more advantageous for us to put out the same amount of dollars that it would take to hire people,in getting temporary people because we can lay them off fast. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 28 OF 47 Mr.Nakagawa answered that was probably the key issue. City Manager Mike Lee added that another important point is the flexibility of the time;if you hire a full- time employee,you are going to pay him 40 hours a week and maybe there is not that much work to do;and when you contract,you are going to get someone to work 30 hours a week and you only pay him for that time. Councilwoman Surra replied it also means that we may not be spending less than $95,000. Mr.Lee agreed on that. Vice Mayor Barker stated that they have budgeted the $95,000. Mr.Lee stated that because it is budgeted we do not have to spend it. Vice Mayor Barker replied she understood that and she asked the Personnel Officer to clarify this issue. Personnel Officer George Hoffman stated he would recommend to look at other alternatives than the traditional hiring solution of a full-time,permanent employee;that he would encourage to look at the current positions,at contracting,and at professional services first;that other organizations are trying to adapt and becoming more flexible in changing circumstances in the work place environment,revenues,and needs for projects;that he would like to see some department directors try some experimentation to find out if some of these techniques which seem to work for the City of Scottsdale might not have some applicability here;that permanent, full-time employees are a good solution but with the budget circumstances we ought to be constantly challenging ourselves to see if there is a better way of doing it;that he is not pushing for this item,but he recommends looking at other alternatives,and if the Council does not want them to do so,then they will not do it. Vice Mayor Barker asked if he anticipates the clerk for Development Services to be only a part-time job. Mr.Nakagawa answered no. Vice Mayor Barker asked if he is a week.anticipating using a clerk 40 hours explained that when their secretary REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 29 OF 47 Mr.Nakagawa answered yes and resigned this position was not filled. Vice Mayor Barker asked if they are looking at a full-time job. Mr.Nakagawa answered yes. Vice Mayor Barker asked if the Inspector/Plans Examiner was not needed full time. Mr.Nakagawa answered that may be the case but they only have one Inspector/Plans Examiner and when he is gone for medical tests,they have to ask for temporary help at $45 an hour:and that it will be $17 an hour for this. Mr.Nakagawa further explained the Planner position and what duties this position would be responsible for. The Council further discussed the proposal. Vice Mayor Barker commented that she had no problem with the reasoning for the Inspector/Plans Examiner and Planner positions,but she did not agree with the clerical position being contracted. Councilwoman Surra commented that temporary positions may be acceptable for short -time projects in technical areas,but for other positions it is better to have a permanent employee who has a vested interest in the position. Mayor Perkins called for the motion. Vice Mayor Barker MOVED THAT AUTHORIZATION BE GIVEN TO STAFF TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH PDS TECHNICAL SERVICES FOR BUILDING INSPECTOR/PLANS EXAMINER,ASSISTANT/ASSOCIATE PLANNER AND A TEMPORARY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CLERK UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THE NEED FOR A FULL-TIME POSITION. Councilwoman Surra SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION OR ACTIONS LANDFILL STUDY COMPLETED MARCH 7,1994 ) )Mayor Perkins asked Mr.Lee to brief the Council on this item. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 30 OF 47 Mr.Lee explained the history of the landfill study and why they were bringing this issue back before the Council. He asked Public Works Operations Supt.Doug Dobson to update the Council. Mr.Dobson explained that they had previously done a community survey regarding the landfill and Council had asked them to study it further based on the responses.He explained where the Regional Landfill Siting Committee was at in their process and what proposals they were considering.It appeared that the Siting Committee had eliminated the Apache Junction site. Pinal County Supervisor Sandie Smith,a member of the Siting Committee,explained their process and the steps that led to the elimination of various sites including Siphon Draw site.She reminded the Council that any sites not in the city limits would be under County jurisdiction. Mr.Gimbut explained that it was not necessarily true if Apache Junction owned the site. Mrs.Smith stated the City could purchase the land and would have jurisdiction over it. Vice Mayor Barker replied that was the same as Buckeye's. Mr.Gimbut stated that Buckeye reached twelve miles outside of their city for their site and,as a result, that was considered under Buckeye jurisdiction for the southwest regional landfill. Mrs.Smith stated that one citizen suggested a site. Vice Mayor Barker joked she thought that a site between UDC and Gold Canyon might be considered. Mrs.Smith stated she had in her possession a lot of petitions and she could present them to the Council also. Vice Mayor Barker stated: they were talking about buying state land that was not within the city limits and a reasonable distance from a lot of people. Mrs.Smith stated that the County's General Plan has the growth pattern coming down in that area for not only Apache Junction but Pinal County as a whole;that they are considering that and they ask the Council to consider that in their plans also,because there is no other way for Apache Junction to grow except that way. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 31 OF 47 City Manager Mike Lee stated that one of the reasons they were here was that staff was given direction by the Council to determine the level of community support and proceed with studying the feasibility of having the landfill in here and that was done. Public Works Operations Supt.Doug Dobson stated that 800 questionnaires went out and 800 came back and that 59% responses were in favor. Mr.Lee stated added that included those people outside the city limits.He stated that city residents are also county residents and there has been a lot of interest expressed in proceeding along these lines and he does not agree that there has been a loud voice saying "we don't want a landfill." Mrs.Smith replied she referred to the Siphon Draw site;that the questionnaire asked to indicate if you were a city resident or not,so people outside the city felt that this was for city residents only;that if they are locating a landfill inside the city limits, the questionnaire if valid;but if they are going to locate it outside into Pinal County,then the citizens out there should have the same chance to have a say;that the County has not said they do not want a landfill,but they are working on that. Mr.Lee stated that the reason they wanted to distinguish between city residents and out -of -city residents was because at the County's previous public hearing that was held at the high school,there was an overwhelming number of people from outside the area. Mrs.Smith asked if he was talking about the meeting of 1,200 people. Mr.Lee answered yes. Mrs.Smith stated they intended for everyone to come in. Mr.Lee replied that the majority of those people were not from the city;that the City wanted to know what city residents felt about this issue,besides winter visitors or people who live in mobile homes outside the city;and that the City found that out. Mrs.Smith stated she did not know that they did a poll to find out who was a city resident,a winter resident or not;that she thought it was a mixture of people;that if the landfill is going to be inside Apache Junction and you do not want people outside the city telling you what to do,that is fine;but if you are planning to put i t outside the city,then you would want to know what people outside the city feel. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 32 OF 47 account that Apache Junction residents residents outside the city forget that residents. Mr.Lee agreed with that. Mrs.Smith stated she takes into are also county residents. Mr.Lee stated that some times the city residents are also county Mrs.Smith stated that both County and City have to provide services for the people;that the County recognizes that fact and they are trying to be able to maybe offer the opportunity to do a transfer station with them and the City has to decide if it is worth the cost to have 90% of anybody's solid waste come in to Pinal County;if the City and its residents feel that the answer is no,then the County is going to have to an alternative;that is what the County is trying to do,to provide all that information for the City and the County to make that decision. Mayor Perkins allowed :a member of the public to speak. Mr.Leonard Larson,3500 S.Tomahawk Rd.,Apache Estates Park,Space 116,spoke opposing the operation of the landfill in Apache Junction. were going to put a hold on hiring a put a hold on that. Councilman consultant. Mr.Dobson Coleman asked if they answered yes,they can Councilman Coleman asked if he is asking the Council if they were interested in looking at that. Mr.Dobson answered yes. Councilwoman Surra added they are also interested in gathering data about it. Mr.Dobson replied that would be done now. Councilwoman Surra stated we do not want to take ourselves out of the picture but we do not want to spend any money to do it. Councilman Coleman stated he would second that. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 33 OF 47 Mr.Dobson states he will continue attending the Southeast Landfill Regional meetings. City Clerk Kathy Connelly asked if the Council wanted the City to remain involved but they do not want to hire a consultant at this time;and if it is true that Councilman Perkins needs some kind of authorization from the Council at this time. Mr.Dobson stated that Councilman Perkins is the Council's representative. Councilwoman Surra stated that Councilman Perkins should continue as their representative and to bring information back to the Council would be a good direction. Mr.Lee clarified that it does not mean because Councilman Perkins is involved,Apache Junction would be the site. The Council agreed with that. Mrs.Smith stated Councilman Perkins could not vote for the site. Mr.Lee stated that has to come back to the Council if we wanted to have the landfill here. Council was not ready to do that information. Mr.Dobson agreed with that. Councilwoman Surra stated the but they are willing to get all the Mr.Dobson stated that even if they said yes on the consultant fees,he would have to bring it back to the Council for their approval. Councilman Coleman replied we may not be able to hold that meeting in the council chambers,because of the multitude that it might attract. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. staff from the meeting REGULAR MEETING OF THE APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 34 OF 47 Mayor Perkins asked for roll call. The Council excused some members of because of the late hour (10:28 p.m.). CITY COUNCIL IMPLEMENTATION OF FEDERAL BRADY BILL HANDGUN BACKGROUND CHECKS )City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated that the Pinal County sheriff asked if the City would be willing to enter into an intergovernmental agreement for handgun background checks by the City for a charge;that the police department is interested in such an arrangement;that Phoenix is also providing this service for many of the neighboring cities in Maricopa County;that they have not drafted a formal IGA and when they do Mr. Gimbut will get a copy;and that they have used letters of understanding which eventually will lead to an IGA. Mr.Gimbut stated that he has drafted a letter of understanding which Mr.McLean of the Pinal County Attorney's staff has reviewed;that this draft is modeled after the one Tucson and Phoenix use and their draft included the phrase that the entity they are providing the service for will indemnify them from any litigation;but the County Attorney's office has asked that it be reversed,because if the city is going to be providing the service and collecting a fee,then the City should indemnify the County from liability.He further explained that the Brady Bill itself provides immunity and if we behave reasonably on this process,i t is the universal legal opinion that absolute immunity applies;so,in his opinion,the risk of lawsuit is low and he does not have a problem with Mr. McLean's request. Acting Police Chief Capt.Dan Scott stated the matter of how they intend to combine it with another program which could be brought back to the Council at their next meeting,but whatever work comes in will be covered with the cost for the service. Mr.Gimbut stated that they will combining the work for Pinal County and the work that involves the citizens of this community;that the fee of $10 that will be generated will cover the cost for doing that and will be more than sufficient;and that both Mr.Scott and himself recommend to go forward with this intergovernmental agreement with Pinal County. Councilwoman Surra asked if we would be able to comply with the time frame for those handgun background checks. Mr.Gimbut answered yes.He explained that their guess is that there are about 1000 to 1500 handguns for citizen in Apache Junction;that considering that the County's population in the unincorporated areas is three times our size there are 4000 to 6000 guns, which would generate about $40,000 to $60,000 a year;and that would cover the half-time person and equipment needed to do the work. Vice Mayor Barker MOVED THAT THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION BE GIVEN TO STAFF REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FEDERAL BRADY HANDGUN VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT:THAT THEY GO FORWARD WITH THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 35 OF 47 NEGOTIATIONS AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS THAT THEY NEED IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THIS. Councilman Hendricks SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. CHANGES TO CITY CODE CH.10 BY BARRING THE USE OF STEEL -JAW TRAPS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND CHANGES TO CITY CODE CH.6,CH.4,AND ANIMAL CONTROL PROCEDURE MANUAL )City Clerk Kathy Connelly briefed the Council on both of these items according to her memos in the packet. Councilwoman Surra made the motion for Item No.17:THAT STAFF PROCEED WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO CITY CODE CHAPTER 10 "OFFENSES,"BY BARRING THE USE OF STEEL -JAW TRAPS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. Vice Mayor Barker SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. Vice Mayor Barker made the motion on Item No.18:THAT STAFF PROCEED REGARDING THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO CITY CODE CHAPTER 6 "ANIMALS";CHAPTER 4 "FEES";AND ANIMAL CONTROL PROCEDURE MANUAL. Ms.Connelly further briefed the Council on the restrictions involving the number of animals per owner. Vice Mayor Barker agreed that the - City Code needed to be revamped in this particular area. Councilwoman Surra stated asked if they must just stop at dogs and if they could also include cats. Councilman Hendricks stated three dogs is too many. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 36 OF 47 Council members discussed the suggested changes. Ms.Connelly asked them to be more specific on what they want staff to do. Vice Mayor Barker stated she would like for staff to come back with a copy of this consolidated the way they did with the towing policy. Ms.Connelly asked if she meant the Animal Control Policies and Procedures or the City Code,because they were talking about two different things here. Vice Mayor Barker replied she was talking about animals. Ms.Connelly explained that the pages that are numbered with a six and a dash are part of an actual chapter of the City Code,and at the end there is a document labeled City of Apache Junction Police Department Animal Control Procedure Manual. Vice Mayor Barker asked if staff could start with one and then move onto the other,or if they wanted to do it all under the same direction. Ms.Connelly replied that was fine. Vice Mayor Barker stated those things go hand in hand;if they update one,they have to update the other. Asst.City Manager George Hoffman asked if there was merit to indicate that these fees are related to some changes and they will adjust automatically,so that it does not have to come back to the Council again in five years. Vice Mayor Barker asked if he meant to attach it to inflation and other changes. Mr.Hoffman confirmed that. Ms.Connelly replied they might run into a problem with Council asking "How did you make this determination on the fee." Vice Mayor Barker added that in five years from now there will be another Council asking about it. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 37 OF 47 Mr.Hoffman stated he was just brainstorming the issue. Councilwoman Surra stated that i f staff wanted to prepare something saying that the fees are relating to the cost of running the department,as far as a percentage,they could do it. Vice Mayor Barker replied that would mean that the fees will go down because we have asked them to cut their department by ten percent. Councilwoman Surra replied that would not happen because first we are going to do a new fees schedule to be in line with today's market value;that they can put the restriction on for a three-year period,so that you do not have to do it every year. Councilwoman Surra suggested to build it into their motion that those fees would stay in place for a minimum of three years so that you do not feel that you have to wait fourteen years for the next time to do this. Councilman Hendricks asked if limiting the number of animals would include horses. Vice Mayor Barker answered that actually they were talking the opposite and explained the current restrictions on horses. Ms.Connelly stated that horses are part of the livestock and they are briefly addressed in this chapter concerning sanitation. Vice Mayor Barker stated that horses are according to the type of zoning. Ms.Connelly stated that this chapter of the code deals with dogs;cats are considered differently and not considered to be domesticated animals. Sgt.Bosell and Capt.Scott stated that Arizona still considers cats as predatory animals. Ms.Connelly stated that Arizona was looking at a mandate to licensing cats but she did not know what the status of that was. Councilwoman Richmond stated she would like to see that. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 38 OF 47 Councilman Coleman asked if the Council was going to do something about horses at one time. Ms.Connelly answered that a former councilmember suggested that. Mr.Hoffman commented on some of the discussion about that with the horsemen's association. Ms.Connelly stated that one part of the motion was that staff should do the City Code first and bring it back as a draft. Vice Mayor Barker stated that once they begin with the code the procedures book has to match that. Ms.Connelly added that as they start going through that,they will find more things that need some work. Councilwoman Richmond stated that Animal Control needs that. they needed a second on the motion. MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. Ms.Connelly reminded the Council Councilman Coleman SECONDED THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A TRANSIENT RENTAL TAX ) )Mayor Perkins stated that if the sewer comes in,as we are anticipating,we are going to have hotels and before that happened we needed to put this in place. Councilwoman Surra stated her recollection on this was that this would be for people staying in the city for under thirty days,for those who use bed and board and the like;that the recommendation then was to get it into place before a developer comes in, because if we did it after that,it would look discriminatory.She concurred with that and saw no reason to delay it any more. Mayor Perkins asked if they needed to determine what percentage would go on this. City Clerk Kathy Connelly answered that information was provided in November 1991:that the structure of the REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 39 OF 47 ordinance has not changed and they will be seeing basically the same thing; that the Council can decide on a percentage at this point in time or they can decide that at the time they consider the actual ordinance.She indicated a an effective date that would have to be included because the state needs some lead time to change their form and get the word out,and they would like it to be sixty days. Councilwoman Surra asked if the Council directed staff to find a good percentage,if that would be based on the area that was more competitive;then they would follow the guidelines of the State. Ms.Connelly answered yes;that Ordinance 809 fulfills all the statutory and Model Tax Code requirements,so that will virtually remain unchanged,but staff has not checked on what other cities are doing and the League of Cities has a publication about that. Mayor Perkins stated she would like to designate the proceeds of this tax for economic development. Councilwoman Surra asked if it is allowed to designate it. know that. know. Mayor Perkins answered she did not Ms.Connelly stated she also did not Mr.Hoffman stated that maybe we can but perhaps Mr.Lewis is concerned about keeping track about this;but to put that tax into the local economy,in his opinion,was a good gesture. Councilwoman Surra asked if they could designate the tax for those things that will help support tourism and the citizens such as trails,rodeo grounds,and those things that draw people to come here. Mayor Perkins replied she thought those things are considered under economic development. Mr.Hoffman cautioned the Council about what economic development is;that quality of life is a real component of a good economic development effort but also more policemen and lower crime could be that also;that if they too loosely construe the concept of economic development,they could put almost anything in there.He asked if the Council had any interest in working with our economic development partners on this issue. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 40 OF 47 Councilwoman Surra asked if that means as far as defining where the funds would be allocated. Mr.Hoffman reminded the Council that at the work session,they directed the Economic Development Commission to work on putting together an economic development plan,and that would come back the first week in June and perhaps the Council would like to mix this into that. Councilwoman Surra stated they needed to look in that direction because if they decided to use that tax to create more money,it would be a good idea. Mr.Hoffman agreed on that. Councilwoman Surra stated the Council could take recommendation from the commission and not necessarily use what they say,but they should not have control of the fund. Mayor Perkins asked Ms.Connelly if she had the motion and the second. Ms.Connelly answered that her understanding is that before the Council wants this brought back in ordinance form,there is going to be•some attempt to meet with Main Street and Chamber of Commerce to get some answers as to how the funds could be used.She added they needed to put that allocation into the ordinance. The Council agreed on that. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. PERFORMANCE/COMPLIANCE AUDIT OF THE MAGISTRATE COURT )Councilman Hendricks stated that since Judge Brundrett is retiring and we are in the process of finding a new judge,maybe we should audit the court so that the new judge knows exactly where he stands. Mayor Perkins added the audit would also protect Judge Brundrett. Judge Brundrett agreed with an audit of the court but was not clear as to the type.of audit.He reminded the Council of the Supreme Court audit that was done in August 1993 and briefed the Council on it 'and some of the changes the court has made following the recommendations of the audit.He stated the court is now doing a test program REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 41 OF 47 for the Supreme Court which is called "The Debt Off Set Program,"which is for collecting money from the Arizona Dept.of Revenue and from unclaimed lottery tickets.He explained that the court can actually be audited for all of its activities continually through a computer system that is tied in with the Supreme Court.He further briefed the Council on some other changes implemented in the court including the home -arrest program which was the only one successfully being in the state.He stated he contacted Mr.Wininger of the Supreme Court in reference to another audit of the court and he stated it would be difficult to do another complete audit soon because there are other courts in line waiting for that too. Councilwoman Surra stated she thought the audit would be a status report on where everything would be by June,but not to evaluate how well everything was done. Vice Mayor Barker agreed with Councilwoman Surra. Councilwoman Surra stated it should have been called a status report rather than an audit. City Clerk Kathy Connelly stated there were some things that were not covered in the audit by the Supreme Court;that the question came up earlier in the meeting of contract compliance,but it was up to the Council however they wanted to look at that; that from the treasurer's stand point,she thought it was something that procedurally we should be doing,out of courtesy to both Judge Brundrett and to the new judge. Vice Mayor Barker stated that at the same time the Council needs to consider that one other department will be having a new head eventually,so the Council should also consider doing something like this for that department,so it would be done for everybody else. Ms.Connelly replied she was not sure what the Council would be looking at in some of the other cases. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut agreed that the type of audit should be defined;that he and Ms.Connelly came up with some possible tasks about the audit and they were reflected in Ms.Connelly's memo;that the Supreme Court audit was an operational review but did not cover what actually has happened with money in the past as well as other areas which are listed in the memo.He stated that Judge Brundrett has been with the city for ten years;so this is a major change for the city getting a new judge and maybe it is time,for everybody's benefit,to conduct an audit. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 42 OF 47 Judge Brundrett stated that page 13 of the Supreme Court report shows how the financial management was handled but it did not give actual figures;that the money is delivered to Finance daily with the tape,so those check and balance every day. Ms.Connelly asked for specific direction on what the Council wanted to look at,because that would be part of the requested proposal if this is not something that staff is capable of doing. Councilwoman Surra asked if the Council wanted to audit the financial records of any department,staff would not be able to do it;if we would have to bring in an accountant to do it. Ms.Connelly answered that i f Council wanted to look at checks and balances,Mr.Lewis would probably have that information available,but she was not sure if they wanted something more than that. Vice Mayor Barker asked Ms.Connelly if she brought this issue up because of the turnover in a major department that deals with money and what did she have in mind. Ms.Connelly answered to make sure that there is a sound financial picture,that everything that came in matches everything that went to Finance,that court personnel was appropriately credited with compensatory time,overtime and the like;that those records would be available in the Finance Department,but she could not answer for Mr.Lewis as to his ability to say they are correct.She added she does not see a lot of purchases,for instance,so she does not know if every purchase has been appropriately posted or not. Councilwoman Surra stated that maybe the court itself would be able to provide that purchasing information. Ms.Connelly stated that one thing that happens when somebody leaves,is to say "so and so did that." Councilwoman Surra added that if the judge indicated the things he was responsible for,then we would know what did not come from him. Mr.Brundrett stated that all documentation of everything that has been purchased and the money spent is run through Finance and the court keeps a duplicate copy. Councilwoman Surra stated that at this time the Council just wanted to know the status of everything at the REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 43 OF 47 court and see that everything balanced,so that the next judge would know exactly where they are and make adjustments,if necessary. Judge Brundrett stated that also all office equipment at the court is inventoried. Councilwoman Surra stated that an evaluation of how those things were accomplished was a point in this matter. Ms.Connelly stated that could be done by Finance since they have all those records;that they also match up the serial number on the inventory list;and they review them often. Councilwoman Surra added that i f there is something missing that was on the list,it would have to be answered for. Judge Brundrett agreed on that and added that there might be some items in the court that he donated. Councilwoman Richmond asked if the review on the comp time and overtime would be done to have an idea on how much has been needed by the court. Asst.City Manager George Hoffman answered that was just a periodic check to make sure that we are in compliance. Councilwoman Surra added that the next presiding judge who has to supervise that will know where he is at. Mr.Hoffman asked if,basically,we are looking at an internal audit/review/function and that collectively,among the internal resources,it cannot be achieved,and it would require a level of technical review expertise that we do not posses,then we would draft a Request for Proposal accordingly and bring it back to the Council. Councilwoman Surra affirmed that. Vice Mayor Barker stated that in dealing with comp time and overtime we needed to do the pro -tern hours as well to give the next judge an idea of what would be necessary to adjust. Mr.Hoffman agreed on that. Judge Brundrett stated that he did not have a copy of when the judge has worked weekends on search warrants, which is time he donated. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 44 OF 47 that. would second that. first yet. Mr.Hoffman stated we needed to communicate that to the new judge so that he or she has a clear expectation of what this job is going to amount to. Judge Brundrett stated that on search warrants he did not keep track of time,because he felt it was part of his obligation to do so and,for the most part,they may take fifteen to forty five minutes to an hour. an exempt position. contract position. contract and exempt position. Councilwoman Surra asked if this was Ms.Connelly answered it is a Mr.Hoffman added it is both a Judge Brundrett offered some figures to give an idea that this was a job over forty hours a week. Mr.Hoffman replied they will do Councilwoman Richmond stated she Ms.Connelly replied there was no Councilwoman Richmond stated she saw Ms.Connelly writing something,so she thought that was it. Ms.Connelly replied she was waiting to hear someone say "that is my motion." Councilman Hendricks indicated that was his motion. Councilwoman Richmond stated she would move that we adopt what Kathy wrote. Ms.Connelly stated Councilman Hendricks had just made the first on the motion. Councilwoman Richmond answered she would second that. Mayor Perkins asked for roll call. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 45 OF 47 VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. SELECTION OF MEETING DATES,TIMES.LOCATIONS.AND PURPOSES Vice Mayor Barker MOVED THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 6:00 P.M.AND A WORK SESSION AT 7:00 P.M.BE HELD ON MONDAY,APRIL 18,1994,IN THE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM AND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS RESPECTIVELY;AND THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 6:00 P.M.BE HELD ON TUESDAY,APRIL 19,1994,IN THE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM. INFORMATION AND REPORTS None. ADJOURNMENT )Mayor Perkins adjourned the meeting at 11:25 p.m. Consent Agenda Items are as follows: 1.Acceptance of Agenda. 2.Acceptance of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 1,1994. 3.Acceptance of resignations of Cindy Selvy and Jimmy Griffing from the Library Board of Trustees. 4.Acceptance of resignations of Kenneth Bluntschly and Eldon Cox from the Municipal Property Corporation Board of Directors. ACCEPTED THIS 19TH DAY OF APRIL ,1994,BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA. SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO THIS 20TH DAY OF APRIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 46 OF 47 ,1994. ATTEST: KATHLEEN CONNELL City Clerk CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Apache Junction,Arizona,held on the 5th day of April,1994.I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 15h day of April,1994. KATHLEEN CONNELL City Clerk REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5,1994 PAGE 47 OF 47