In the opening days of the campaign, Town Council candidate Ben Larrabee and mayoral candidate Gerry Friedel appear to be intent on supporting their candidacy by inciting anger and fueling toxic partisanship with lies.
In a recent post, Larrabee claims that “during the years that Democrats ran the council, NOTHING was saved” to replace the
Fountain Hills Park Lake liner. Larrabee attributes this lie to Gerry Friedel, who reportedly “revealed” this fictitious failure on the part of Mayor Dickey’s administration, during the March 24 meeting on the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
Larrabee made a major mistake by adopting Friedel’s lie as the opening salvo to his campaign because it is so easily disprovable.
The fact is that during the past two decades, registered Democrats held a majority on the Fountain Hills Town Council for only two years, December 2020-December 2022, during Ginny Dickey’s second term as mayor.
The fact is that during the two-year period, when Dickey was mayor and registered Democrats held a four-person majority, the Town Council enacted Resolution 2021-13, establishing the budget for the 2021-2022 fiscal year and formalizing the systemic transfer of funds into the capital reserve, identifying the lake liner as a primary long-term infrastructure project.
The fact is that beginning with the 2022 budget cycle and ending with the 2026 budget cycle, successive Town Councils (composed of registered Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) set aside approximately $5.5 million for the replacement of the lake liner. That’s more than a million dollars a year, roughly the same amount set aside under the first budget approved under the “new leadership.”
In his post Larrabee wasn’t content with one outright lie. Mirroring Friedel’s finely honed practice of taking credit for the actions and foresight of prior administrations, Larrabee claimed that “We already have saved nearly $7 million.”
If, by “we” Larrabee is referring to the Friedel administration, that statement is also patently false. As noted above, the first budget submitted by the “new leadership” was for the 2026 fiscal year, which ends in July. During the current fiscal year, approximately $1 million dollars was earmarked for the replacement of the lake liner.
Voters should not be distracted by this manufactured dispute over funding. Funding is not the only concern with the lake liner replacement. There are significant logistical considerations. Sales tax revenue generated by tourists will almost certainly decrease during the months the fountain is out of service. Planning to reduce the down time is essential to the Town’s economic well-being.
During Mayor Dickey’s term in office the Town Council adopted the 2022 Strategic Plan and the accompanying 10-year Capital Improvement Program that functions as the legal “placeholder” for the lake liner replacement project. Through this program the Town tracks the effect of inflation on the anticipated cost of the project (which has increased from $8 million to approximately $17 million).
In addition, during Mayor Dickey’s administration, the Town implemented a “Joint Work-Study” strategy with the Fountain Hills Sanitary District, the body charged with managing the use and treatment of the 100 million gallons of “reclaimed water” that fills the lake and flows through the fountain. The work-study group has been tasked with the responsibility for formulating a workable plan for draining and refilling the lake.
Since the major repair of the lake liner 25 years ago, Town Councils have been aware of the extraordinary expense and disruption associated with the replacement of the lake liner. Given the formidable budgetary challenges, over the past five years the Town Council has made significant strides in preparing for both the expense and the disruption. In the recent CIP meeting Fountain Hills CFO Paul Soldinger noted that the funds set aside were nearing the point where the Town could hire specialized engineers to begin drafting the replacement plan.
However, without regard to advance planning or the total amount set aside there is one obstacle that must be addressed by the Town Council: “the expenditure limit.”
The expenditure limit is the constitutional cap that controls how much an Arizona town or city can spend each year. The expenditure limit is established by reference to the “base limit,” a term used in Article IX, §20, of the Arizona Constitution’s expenditure limitation law. The “base limit” is the starting point for calculating how much a town or city will be allowed to spend from local revenue it collects.
The $4,100,000 “base limit” for Fountain Hill was established in the 1980s, before the town was incorporated and when the population was less than 3,000. Although the Town’s base limit is adjusted each year based on population and inflation, it remains disproportionately low compared to its current needs and the expense associated with infrastructure maintenance and improvement.
If future Town Councils continue to set aside more than $1million a year for the next 10-15 years and have the necessary cash in hand, they could not simply withdraw the funds and pay for replacement, without exceeding the expenditure limit. The limit doesn’t prevent the town from saving money, but it could prevent it from spending a large lump sum in a single year unless one of the following is put in place before that time:
The “Home Rule” option – with voter support, the Town would be allowed to set its own expenditure limit for a limited period of time;
The Voter-Approved Override option – either a “Permanent Base Adjustment” or a one-time override specifically for the lake liner project; or
The Voter-Approved Financing option – essentially a bond to pay for the lake liner.
During the recent CIP meeting the councilmembers appeared to be leaning toward the Home Rule option. But without regard to the option selected the Town Council will need broad community support to address the challenges that lie ahead.
Which leads us to the question we opened with. In Fountain Hills more than 50 percent of the voters are registered Democrats or Independents. Why, when nonpartisan support for the lake liner project is essential, would Ben and Gerry lie about its funding? Why would they invoke this “us versus them” campaign tactic on an issue so critical to our Town’s future? Are they attempting to deflect the criticism they anticipate receiving from ROT’s supporters when they are asked to vote in favor of one of the spending options?
A true leader would recognize that the public interest in thoughtful, truthful governance should always take precedence over partisan gamesmanship, whether it involves assessing blame for something that did not happen or taking credit for something you did not do. But then, look at Ben and Gerry. Are they true leaders?
