It’s expected that a new Town Council would be eager to get to work tackling issues great and small for the betterment of the community. We’re excited to see this new council so eager to do exactly that. However, the first month of 2023 has felt like a few carts getting put in front of the horses, potentially creating new problems in the process.
Residents want to see work done quickly and efficiently, but the former is useless if the latter is not achieved. When it comes to policy changes, that typically takes the form of lots of conversations, the sharing of ideas and hammering out details until folks are comfortable with the end result and a compromise is met.
Watching a recommendation bounce from P&Z to the Council, to a citizen committee, to the Chamber, back to P&Z and then back to the Council can be time-intensive, but having all of those folks focused on the same goal is how you reach a well-informed, inclusive decision.
At the beginning of January, the Town Council axed portions of the sign ordinance and plan to circle back to address any issues created by this action at a later date. It was determined by a majority of members that some changes needed to be made and, while that’s understandable, that process would usually involve discussing and deciding upon those changes beforehand. Taking this action without a plan in place seems counterproductive and could even leave the Town (not to mention residents, business owners, etc.) with unnecessary headaches down the road.
A similar scenario has unfolded regarding the invocation. The Council realized last week that it would be a good idea to have some guidelines in place regarding an invocation, but only after the practice was reinstated at a previous meeting.
And then there was the firing of the Town lobbyist. If the Council determines that a lobbyist is not needed or that the money for their contract could be better spent elsewhere, that’s understandable. But once the lobbyist is out of the picture, who will tackle the tasks we previously paid for? Who is representing Fountain Hills’ interests at the state and national level? What guidelines/procedures are in place to make sure that work is done properly or at all? These questions should have been answered, or at least properly considered, before the contract was severed.
We’re not opposed to change. We’re just concerned when that change is carried out in a way that seems to sidestep procedure and thorough evaluation.
