The Times will be asking the two candidates for mayor and six candidates for Town Council a series of questions over the coming weeks leading up to the Aug. 28 primary election in Fountain Hills.

The first question being posed is the following: Citizens have said “we don’t want to develop a regional attraction as a revenue generator (i.e.: Crystal Lagoon protests).

Citizens have said we don’t want a primary property tax as a revenue source for town government.

Do you believe these positions can be balanced to maintain a sustainable quality of life for Fountain Hills?

Ginny Dickey: The premise of a regional attraction as a revenue generator… at least one that would truly make a difference in funding infrastructure and public safety needs…is flawed. As noted in the past, it takes $40M worth of taxable activity to generate $1M in revenue.

The ill-conceived lagoon idea to draw tourists into town was pursued, discussed, acted on and paid for in virtual secrecy. The certain outcome of abandoning the concept, indeed, occurred. We didn’t need the $39K study to tell us a $9M lagoon with huge operating costs would not generate enough – if any – revenue.

I don’t take the rejection of the lagoon as a sign we don’t want to continue to be a destination for visitors, only that cooler heads prevailed in defeating such an out-of-touch suggestion. And again, any attraction, no matter how successful, will not make the math work out for our long-term needs.

The election outcome didn’t change those needs, but will influence our priorities. Recent questionable council decisions affected people’s votes; there was an insurmountable disconnect.

If elected mayor, I will work with Council, staff and residents, taxpayers and business owners to identify actions that can address Fountain Hills’ asset protection requirements along with quality of life issues. I will recommend a citizen commission to advise on maintaining our current commitments and provide cost-effective options, and I will do everything in my power to identify a path forward that meets community expectations within our financial limitations.

Cecil Yates: Yes, the economic desires of Fountain Hills’ residents can be balanced to maintain the quality of life in our community. Smart Development is a campaign platform. A modern economy is needed to balance the budget without bringing in a regional attraction.

Presently resident demand for “stuff” exceeds the supply of “stuff” by $230M, ($500M within a 5 miles radius from the center of town). This is a retail opportunity gap ready for new business. The existing 2.6 percent sales tax on the $230M gap is almost $6 million. That alone would be enough to balance the budget.

Unfortunately, businesses do not simply act upon the opportunity gap. We need additional population. This is where developing the state trust land becomes so important. I have been working with the land trust department and council to position the property ready for acquisition. We have several builders that can build the affordable starter homes needed to attract young families.

Their children would go to our schools. Our school system can accommodate almost 1,000 new students within existing capacity. The state pays $5,000 average per student. That could add $5M to the school budget.

The additional population will create market opportunities for new businesses which will keep resident spending in town. Within a modern economy, businesses no longer need to be in downtown corridors, like Phoenix. We will streamline our zoning and permit process in order to help companies move and build in Fountain Hills. These companies will provide jobs for the new residents.

Marcus Bulow von Dennewitz: I don’t agree residents voted against a regional revenue generator. Residents rejected a lagoon which was an unwanted esthetic and ambient change. Citizens rejected a property tax increase as it would increase their cost of housing. I voted to reject the tax.

Yes, these positions can be maintained to sustain the town’s quality of life. There are many revenue generating ideas which would not only increase our sales tax collections, but also, be a town-sponsored event whereby 100 percent of the net income is earmarked for a specific need. Example, Montreal and San Diego host various music festivals. Why not leverage our beautiful park to host a town fundraiser? I think residents would fully support an initiative like this if it aligned with the town’s strategic plan and celebrated our commitment to the arts.

A lot of literature and studies exist on how other cities and towns have raised revenue without raising property taxes. Many offered new services such as “expedited building permits” helping to increase fee and service revenue. An area I’d like to work with the new mayor on is advertising. We have a lot of fixed assets which could be used for advertising income.

I’m running for council to generate new solutions. My response offers some suggestions. I believe residents are seeking a council that not only lives within their means, but also, exhibits an entrepreneurial spirit: one that helps to generate revenue and new business to our community.

Gerry Friedel: I think it is always important to listen to what the citizens’ needs and wants are. They spoke loud and clear about the lagoon project. But they did not say they were against a regional draw and may very well be open to new or other ideas especially if they are deemed appropriate. I believe the residents were against the lagoon project from the start because of its cost, impracticality, and the lack of economic feasibility.

It’s a tough call but I believe we can find a balance between an attraction that would be a sustainable draw and no new primary property tax. Again we spoke loud and clear about the primary property tax because it was too big and there was an issue with trust in what would be done with the funds. This is not the first tax proposal to be rejected by the residents and we as their representatives must listen to them. They are telling us that any future taxes or fees must be clearly justified and the residents, need to see that the numbers make sense, and believe in them and the leadership!

Not to get too far ahead of ourselves but perhaps a review of our strategic partnerships could reveal a draw that would make economic sense and add vitality and the economic resources necessary to help sustain our town.

Sharron Grzybowski: Yes. The voters have spoken. That’s not the path they want to take. To honor this vote, we need to get creative. For example, work with our economic development staff to ensure the existing business needs are met and that businesses want to stay. It’s important to maintain our current businesses, not just for the revenue. We count on these businesses BEING in town.

The Council will need to work together and come up with a plan to generate additional revenue. We should also minimize unnecessary expenses, just like we do for our family budgets. No matter where the council discussions go, public trust is important. The council will need to ensure transparency to regain their trust.

Alan Magazine: The real question is how can the town effectively manage our government with limited resources?

Regional attractions aren’t much of a revenue generator. The study of the lagoon (which I opposed) indicated that construction would cost several million dollars. The first two years’ operations would lose thousands of dollars.

We must be attentive to the real needs of our citizens. It is clear that we want the small town charm that brought us here in the first place. But, even if we hosted a regional attraction, with all its traffic problems etc., the resulting sales tax revenue wouldn’t make a dent in our financial picture.

We now realize about $10 mil/year in sales tax. We would have to generate about $38 million in sales annually to produce just $1 million in sales tax. It would be impossible to satisfy the needs for maintaining public safety and improving our roads, regardless of how many new business, regional attractions, or increases in population we have. Also there is no free lunch.

More people result in significant costs to the town e.g. road maintenance, police and fire protection.

How to maintain a sustainable quality of life for our citizens? Let’s be perfectly honest: It’s going to be tough. To do so we must scrub the budget as much as feasible and set priorities.

There will not be a primary property tax. Our citizens have spoken. We must honor that position.

Mike Scharnow: Some think it’s possible to have their cake AND eat it, too, but when it comes to “quality of life” the low-calorie facts show otherwise. We’ll always have sponge cake, but that tasty frosting is slowly dripping away…

Clearly voters don’t want a property tax or a “major attraction.” Now what? Some would have you believe the town has millions lying around in obscure accounts just waiting to be spent, but that’s not the case. If there is no new revenue the next four years, budget cuts would appear inevitable.

Main priorities will always be the “must haves” – police and fire protection, emergency medical service and major infrastructure maintenance and repairs such as streets, washes, town-owned buildings, etc. Should we cut these?

The “nice to haves” fall under the quality of life category – things as superb park maintenance, ongoing Fountain operation, certain recreation programs, Senior Services, tourism promotions, etc.

I believe many quality of life issues will NOT be sustainable and they will suffer if the current budget model doesn’t change. The “must have” costs keep going up, but our projected revenues will not match that pace. Something will have to give. More money will need to be shifted to the “must haves,” such as street maintenance.

The town has to live within its means. That’s the law. Sponge cake is good, but the enemy of great is good. Seems a majority of folks right now are satisfied with sponge cake and don’t want “nice to have” frosting.

David Spelich: Fountain Hills residents have found their voice and are speaking loud and clear. They have become engaged like never before. What lit this fire—that made residents vote with the highest recorded turnout? The origins can be traced to the Crystal Lagoon debacle. The flame was further fanned by the overreach of government with the primary property tax. Yet still more fuel to the fire with a resulting groundswell of support against the assisted living center.

A balanced portfolio of diverse revenue streams is key to the success of our town.

As I look around our community, I see the closed doors of small business owners. We have an opportunity to enhance the services offered to Fountain Hills residents by supporting the revitalization and growth of small business. Doing so would keep dollars in our town.

Residents, I believe would vote in favor of a tax, if it was clearly justified and well defined; and they were confident their dollars would be spent carefully.

Residents, I believe would welcome a regional attraction as a revenue generator, if it made sense. The mayor and council should not tell the residents what makes sense. I trust in them to figure it out.

We have opportunities to enhance our partnerships with neighboring communities and other entities to create efficiencies that would contribute to the revenue stream for this city.

Our success will be based on a careful balance of thoughtful spending, enhanced revenue and community partnerships--with everyone working for the same goal.