The ROT majority invokes the Arizona Constitution to justify the ouster of the River of Time Museum, but ignores it to protect Gerry Friedel.
In January the members of the board of directors of the River of Time Museum were advised that they had eight months to come up with $75,000 or be prepared to vacate the space they and their predecessors had lovingly curated and maintained for decades.
The board was aware that on August 1, 2026, its 25-year lease with the Town was scheduled to expire, but they could not have anticipated that the Friedel administration would increase the rent they would be charged by 900 percent.
In a subsequent letter to the board, explaining its determination that the Museum must “pay or go,” the Town relied on the “Gift Clause” found in Article 9, Section 7 of the Arizona Constitution, that states: “Neither the state, nor any county, city, town, municipality, or other subdivision of the state shall ever give or loan its credit in the aid of, or make any donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise, to any individual, association, or corporation….”
The Gift Clause as interpreted and applied by the Arizona Supreme Court does not support the Town’s demand that the Museum pay the full fair market value for a lease of the property. A lease payment for less than the fair market value is valid if it serves a public purpose and the benefit received by the public is not so inequitable and unreasonable that it amounts to an abuse of discretion.
The Gift Clause is designed and intended to prevent the use or diversion of public funds or resources where the public receives little or no real benefit. How can the Friedel administration credibly contend that for the past decades the Museum has provided no benefit to the residents of Fountain Hills? Is it the administration position that prior town councils violated the Constitution by not demanding that the Museum pay the full market value for the use of the space? Or did the new Town Attorney, aware that the administration coveted this prime space steps away from the Dark Sky Discovery Center, come up the idea of invoking the Gift Clause as a justification for constructively evicting the Museum?
The Gift Clause prohibits below market rental transactions only where the government effectively gifts space it owns without receiving a corresponding public benefit in return. The public benefit that can be provided received in lieu of dollars includes intangibles like providing cultural enrichment, educational opportunities, and supporting community identity.
The Museum is not a commercial tenant. It is a cultural institution dedicated to preserving the history of Fountain Hills, attracting visitors, and providing educational opportunities for our residents and our schools. These benefits may be difficult to quantify but they are real and must be taken into account. The fact that the Town issued its notice without giving any consideration to these benefits indicates that its decision was motivated by a desire to take over the space – not by any concern that in continuing to subsidize the museum it was violating the Gift Clause.
This interpretation of the Friedel administration’s true motivation for ousting the Museum is supported by its similarly self-serving decision to use public funds to pay for Friedel’s defense and release him from personal liability in the personal liability action that was brought against him.
The lawsuit, brought against Friedel solely in his individual capacity, was based on social media posts, published on his personal Facebook pages. In these posts Friedel falsely and repeatedly accused a resident of committing a federal crime. Friedel also falsely accused the resident of impersonating him on social media and publishing crude and offensive posts under his name.
The Town had no obligation or legal right to use public funds to defend or indemnify Friedel in that action. No benefit was received by the public when the Town provided its mayor with the gift of a defense and a release from personal liability.
The free ride given to Gerry Friedel, and not the continued support of a beloved institution, is the violation of the Gift Clause that our Town Council should be concerned with.
