Council Regular/Special Meeting

MINUTES OF THE GILBERT TOWN COUNCIL, IN SPECIAL MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2023 AT 8:00 AM, GILBERT UNIVERSITY BUILDING ASSEMBLY ROOM, 92 W. VAUGHN AVENUE, GILBERT, ARIZONA 85233 COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Brigette Peterson, Vice Mayor Kathy Tilque, Councilmembers Scott Anderson, Chuck Bongiovanni, Bobbi Buchli, Yung Koprowski, and Jim Torgeson COUNCIL ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Town Manager Patrick Banger, Town Attorney Christopher Payne, Deputy Town Clerk Judy Martinez, Economic Development Director Dan Henderson, Economic Development Deputy Director Jennifer Graves, Redevelopment Program Manager Amanda Elliott, Redevelopment Project Manager Sydney Bethel Price, Police Chief Michael Soelberg, Assistant Town Manager Mary Goodman, Assistant Town Manager Leah Rhineheimer, Assistant Town Manager Dawn Prince, Principal Planner Ashlee MacDonald, Development Services Director Kyle Mieras, Assistant to Town Manager Jennika Horta, and Project Supervisor Jack Gierak AGENDA ITEM CALL TO ORDER Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. and welcomed everyone. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 1 1. Presentation, dialogue and direction about current status of Redevelopment Plan, downtown operations and Heritage District project catalog. Economic Development Director Henderson welcomed everyone and spoke of the downtown area tours of various cities that the Councilmembers had recently visited. He reminded them that the Town was at the five year mark of a 10 year redevelopment plan. He said the mid- point was a time to plan a day to pause and learn about operations and details like height, density, parking, and other elements that made both initial and lasting impressions. He spoke of facilitators Amy Malloy and Neil Calfee who would be leading the workshop. Amy Malloy of Evolve Ventures, LLC, spoke of the tours the Council attended the previous day and said Gilbert already had something wonderful and could focus on maintaining it. She said one tour takeaway was how important trees and green space were. She also noted that safety was important, particularly with growth, and how important it was to have identity at the Heritage District. She said it was interesting to compare downtown areas that had city-owned property and those that did not. She spoke of the importance of art and culture and wayfinding. She added that when looking to build a downtown, it was important to think of scale, setbacks, and stepbacks. She spoke of Gilbert’s connection to the water tower and leveraging opportunities with key partnerships. She also noted that a Councilmember spoke to her about creative living spaces and co-living spaces, adding other cities could also benefit from visiting Gilbert’s Heritage District. Neil Calfee of The Calfee Group noted that during the downtown Mesa tour that it was mentioned that the merchants did the business development. He said the City of Mesa did not set out to be known for microbrewing, but it worked as it evolved and created its own ecosystem, then spun off in different directions. He said some things would happen organically if you planted the seed and got the right business to start and grow. He spoke of the importance of having someone to help small and new businesses through the process. The facilitators asked for feedback on what they liked and disliked from the tours of other downtown areas. 2 Police Chief Soelberg said in Phoenix he liked the scramble type of crosswalk that went in different directions. He said in Scottsdale he loved how one location called Optima in Scottsdale incorporated greenery and plants into the design, then discussed using landscaping for safety between setbacks and streets. He said Scottsdale had an advantage that their entertainment district was a “U” shape and could be blocked off. He noted he liked how Scottsdale held meetings with law enforcement and bars/ restaurants to be both business-friendly and safety-minded. Town Manager Banger said that Gilbert’s Heritage District was more compact, which had limits, but also value and advantages. He noted in Gilbert you did not have to drive to get to multiple destinations within it, that it was one cohesive area. Councilmember Bongiovanni spoke of co-living environments and an ambassador program, adding he liked murals, but there could also be too many of them. Councilmember Anderson stated he liked the use of an ombudsman to help get them through the process and thought it would be important to consider that. Amy Malloy noted that it was common for parking and cleaning to be outsourced. Councilmember Koprowski said she liked The Churchill in Phoenix that housed various small businesses. She noted that Scottsdale had the “Ale Trail” and said that Gilbert could have an ice cream trail, then added that Scottsdale’s cultural improvement program led to interesting and varied artwork. She said that Mesa had the same type of artwork everywhere but that it did not have connection to neighboring properties. She said she liked that some cities had other cultural activity centers like concert venues and museums. Amy Malloy said that The Churchill was a failure in some respects, that with the site you lost visibility of tenants. She said Gilbert was in an enviable position, adding that what Gilbert had accomplished was done thoughtfully, deliberately, and well. 3 Assistant Town Manager Goodman said she loved the ice cream trail idea. She said she also loved what they shared about Optima in Scottsdale and the materials used to accommodate landscaping on various levels, adding it was a great example of setbacks. She said the height of buildings in Phoenix was approached well and was not overwhelming. She discussed the value of an art component and the importance of a district being managed and maintained. Vice Mayor Tilque said that growth development and massing through a transitional period was a catalyst for growth in Mesa. She also liked the Optima property in Scottsdale. She said she liked the downtown management association piece, but understood there had to be an agreement with what was wanted and to work with the property owners. She said she liked the kiosks with Quick Response (QR) codes and wayfinding in Mesa and that the Goldwater bypass in Scottsdale opened up a different opportunity for business growth and created districts within districts. She noted that Gilbert had the Vaughn Ventilator, which was originally for emergency exits but was also an opportunity to create a new area, and if not utilized that way, it would be a missed opportunity. She discussed how creating a streetscape with landscaping and trees could make people feel safe. She noted that Phoenix had adaptive-use features that Gilbert could learn from. Councilmember Buchli said she liked the retail partnership that some of the communities had that worked with land owners as well as business owners, managers, and those running businesses. She said she liked all of the arts and culture in Phoenix and would like to see more arts and culture in Gilbert. She noted that Gilbert had The Hale Theater but she would like to see something larger than the Higley Center for the Arts in Gilbert. She said Gilbert needed more retail in the Heritage District, then noted that downtown Phoenix was struggling with retail and questioned why. She said her feeling was that the cost to rent was high. She added she would like to see some boutique shops created in downtown Gilbert and that they could be utilized by people waiting for restaurants. She said she liked the idea of using retired police officers to monitor the area. Councilmember Torgeson discussed the downtown Phoenix area and said he thought Gilbert should probably go in that direction with the way the setbacks and heights were, adding 4 multi-use and heights would bring down costs. He said The Churchill was a great idea, adding that Gilbert once had The Union Store which was now The Porch Restaurant, adding that idea originally was to bring in 8-12 small retailers and create more frontage on Vaughn Avenue and other side streets. He said there was still developable land and it would have more of a business presence. He spoke of how other cities had crime problems in their downtown areas, like Mesa and Phoenix. He said Gilbert was trying to move away from bar use, then spoke of encouraging more retail and trying to expand to the north in a meaningful way. Amy Malloy asked the Council to think about what they liked and what could be improved, then spoke of the value of the Heritage District and how to grow retail. Redevelopment Program Manager Elliott spoke of how employment and residential were key factors for retail. She said things were not always perfect but spoke of the importance of moving forward from what did not work. Redevelopment Project Manager Bethel Price provided an overview of what was accomplished in the first five years of the plan and where it stood today, noting that a Redevelopment Plan was required. She summarized the 2018 Redevelopment Plan, adding it was designated as a redevelopment area in 1989 and adopted in 1991. She provided examples of projects that were included like the Master Plan component, Heritage Park (or North Anchor), The South Anchor, The Paseo, and the Vaughn Ventilator. She provided a 2023 overview stating it was designated an entertainment district, had 23% Town-owned land, the median Heritage District resident age was 33, there were 750 or more university students, and the resident population in the district was 1,139. She said through a utilization tool from Laser AI, they projected from 2017-2022 there were about 32 million visitors to the district and 5.7 million visitors in 2022 alone. She said there were at least 155 business in the Heritage District, with a 7.5% office vacancy rate, a 2.74% retail vacancy rate, and a 4.28% multi-family vacancy rate. She discussed rates for Return on Investment (ROI), full cash value per acre, and sales tax revenue figures, adding it was a large impact for a limited space. She discussed achievements that were completed in the five years, including eight 5 new developments constructed, like OHSO and TOPO, and eight major capital improvement projects constructed, like improvements to Vaughn Avenue and parking structures. Redevelopment Project Manager Bethel Price provided visuals for comparison that also illustrated Town-owned versus privately-owned property. She summarized the 2018 Redevelopment Plan anticipated build out, which included the 2028 District development yield. She reviewed the master planning component with key projects demonstrating that the North and South Anchors were completed, that The Commons, Vaughn Ventilator, and several water tower projects were in progress, and The Living Room Plaza and Neighborhood Park were slated for the future. She covered the Redevelopment Plan areas of focus, including the number of special events and public safety efforts that were completed or added. She noted the efforts that were in process like public parking, circulation, district branding, wayfinding, tourism, district management, and flood control, then added future areas were public art and neighborhood revitalization. She highlighted the Heritage District Project Catalog FY 2023, stating it was a coordination and tracking tool that included the next 10 years of projects; she discussed how Gilbert would utilize that document. She spoke about the three key roles of clean, green and safe and explained the responsibilities of Public Works, Development Services, Parks and Recreation, Police, Fire and the property owners for the district operations. She discussed options for future district operations such as a taxing mechanism to provide enhanced municipal services, district operations being managed by one singular contract and provided by private company, and exploring other financing tools to fund operations. She discussed the timeline for the 2028 Redevelopment Plan, stating research and outreach would begin in 2023 and plan kick off in 2026. Redevelopment Program Manager Elliott stated that the catalog document was meant to be used as an internal tool, Redevelopment Project Manager Bethel Price added that the document was a supplementary resource and not a replacement of existing documents. Councilmember Torgeson commented that the document was well put together. Mayor Peterson asked about sidewalk cleaning and stated one of the most common complaints she heard was in regard to the cleaning of sidewalks. Redevelopment Project Manager Bethel Price stated that restaurants were cleaned daily, and different merchants 6 completed their own cleaning. Redevelopment Program Manager Elliott added that it was the business owner’s responsibility to clean in front of their business, unless it was a biohazard, and stated the Town performed deep cleaning of the sidewalks twice a month. Assistant Town Manager Rhineheimer stated she would like to see an opportunity for uniform set standards for business to adhere to. She said providing those services from a municipality were more expensive than when provided by another entity and that it was beneficial for businesses not to rely on local government to provide these services. 2. Presentation, dialogue and direction regarding current design and development standards for the Heritage District. Principal Planner MacDonald provided an overview of development standards and design guidelines including the roles of the Town, the internal process before public hearings, and an overview of planning cases and next steps. She discussed the types of documents used for The Heritage District (HD) included the General Plan and Redevelopment Plan for vision; the Land Development Code, Code of Gilbert, HD Design Guidelines, and Public Works and Engineering Standards for implementation; and the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Plan, Infrastructure Improvement Plan, and current and future studies and plans. She said the General Plan created a vision of the Town for 20 years, the land use for Village Center was where they expected higher density and intensity, and noted it was a growth and character area. She said it had specific parking and sign regulations and that the Heritage District was the only area that allowed rooftop signs, with the exception of Agritopia, which was unique. She discussed more of the Land Development Code and maximum height requirements, noting the other ways that the area had unique specifications. She said the Heritage District Design Guidelines were critical to create character within the district. She played a short video demonstrating the importance of the Heritage District and how the Plan was created and organized. She noted case types for public hearing items that included General Plan amendments, rezoning, design review, conditional use permits, preliminary plats, and Heritage Sign Plan. She stated there were some administrative actions as well. 7 Principal Planner MacDonald discussed the scope, role, and powers of the Redevelopment Commission (RDC), adding that they also acted as the design review board for projects in the Heritage District Overlay District and other redevelopment areas designated by the Town Council. She spoke of the internal review process before public hearings including that General Plan and Rezoning cases had a neighborhood meeting, noting staff attended those meetings but they were ran by the applicants. She said there was a pre-application meeting and initial review that included multiple departments and comparison with Town documents and Codes, then other departments reviewed it as well, such as planning, engineering, and traffic. She stated after the staff review stage there would be a Redevelopment Commission Study Session. She discussed case types, noting that rezoning and General Plan amendments required Council action. She said they had to consider if a project made sense in that location, was it consistent with the General Plan, and noted they could not limit permitted uses or modify development standards. She discussed the purview of the hearing body and which actions were allowable. Principal Planner MacDonald provided examples of documents at work, adding the tools for documents applied to both large and small scale projects. She discussed conditional use permits and how they made sure they would not have negative impacts on surrounding business. She noted the question to consider was would the use be detrimental to health, safety, general welfare. She noted once an application decision was made, there was an appeal process if denied, but a neighbor could also appeal if they were concerned about an approval. She said the decision of the Redevelopment Commission and Planning Commission could be appealed with Town Council but there was a 10 day appeal window, and the appeal hearings had to be heard within 60 days of the filing. She summarized what happened after a project was approved and next steps. Lastly, she noted she wanting the Council to have an understanding of the process, how they tried to balance the ROI, and to maintain character so that people wanted to be in the district. Assistant Town Manager Goodman discussed the visuals of one project that was presented, highlighting the first iteration to the final project, and how it was a powerful image of seeing how the staff worked with developers to achieve an outcome that everyone would be proud of. Principal Planner MacDonald said one of best compliments came from that applicant 8 stating that the Town pushed them and made them create a better project from their eyes as well. Development Services Director Mieras said there were a lot of steps and different tools that all did different things. He added their rules came from Code, statute, and other references, but they did try to streamline and simplify wherever possible. They discussed Gilbert’s program for small businesses and a specific review group that helped and complied concerns for businesses to help them through the process. Mayor Peterson noted an example of a multi-family project in Phoenix where you residents had to enter and exit from a garage, stating it did not have access to sidewalks and surrounding businesses. She said if those residents had to get in their cars, they would leave the area. She also noted that with an appeal, the Council could only review the items that were approved initially; she gave the example that if a design review was appealed, only the design could be discussed, not the use. Amy Malloy discussed development standards and design guidelines. She said when you had good design with stepbacks and setbacks, you created a better design. She said there were limitations to creating a good design and you also had to consider cost-effectiveness. She discussed height differences and their importance, noting it was important to have variety. Neil Calfee noted they would modify the agenda slightly and do the Lego exercise after a break. After a short break, the teams split up into groups to complete a Lego exercise of creating a mixed-use development for an assigned site within the Heritage District based on the provided standards for the activity. The different colors of Legos represented different sizes in the development. Each team shared their Lego model and explained why they chose the designs and specifications of their projects. One team said they tried to consider parking and green space in their models, and they offered justification for why they went vertical in design. Another team discussed ingress and egress, access points, and mixed-use, 9 commercial, and residential use in their model. The last group noted they had a big lot assigned to them and how they focused on a specific intersection to mirror what was happening in the South Anchor; they discussed stepbacks, underground parking, and going beyond the requirements for greenspace. 3. Presentation and dialogue regarding return on investment of the Heritage District. Joe Minicozzi of Urban 3 described his background and projects he assisted with in Asheville, North Carolina. He discussed the importance of asking the right question or phrasing it the correct way. He defined “incorporate” and said Gilbert was incorporated, then he defined a city. He discussed the importance of using data and being informed, adding he looked at land as a product. He then discussed how design choices increased the value of land and how it would affect taxes as well. He discussed how vehicles had different tanks and efficiency was tracked by miles per gallon; he asked why land was not thought of in the same way. He discussed total taxable value and value per acre, using examples, then discussed local taxation on the city and county level. He said that at the state level most revenue was from property tax, but in cities and towns it was mostly from sales tax, adding it was impossible to run a city from sales tax. He provided examples of how taxes worked in various states and of market and assessed valuation. He discussed how the cities and citizens had no control of supplies, such as asphalt, and the assessment ratios for commercial and residential. He discussed who received property tax dollars in Arizona, stating the majority went to schools, then provided a visual of revenues for Gilbert and taxable value per acre in Maricopa County. He discussed taxable and nontaxable for properties and how the various uses could help an area, noting there was often nontaxable land. He then summarized value productivity for Gilbert with region and city for taxable area and taxable value. He asked to consider what Maricopa County did for Gilbert in return and provided samples of ratios, stating a city could ask a county do things such as helping with a sidewalk. He provided examples of a Walmart being about $900,000 per acre, stating a single family home average was $880,000 per acre, then said garden apartments were $1.8 million per acre and three- story large scale apartments were $4.8 million per acre. He said though he would not say everyone needed to live in an apartment that they had their value. He then discussed the value per acre for commercial, adding that parking lots lost value. He then discussed how 10 land was used with average square feet per person with buildings, roads, and parking categories, then provided examples. He asked cities to consider what they wanted in their community, how it would benefit them, and if they wanted to make those projects easier to be approved. He asked if the water tower would be more important to Gilbert than its wealth. He broke down Gilbert’s sales tax, stating that retail and restaurant made up 61% which was land-use related, then described sales privilege revenue data. He then provided examples to compare financial productivity with land consumption, county property tax per acre, city retail tax per acre, and jobs per acre. He then discussed daily commuting patterns for Gilbert, noting that many residents drove elsewhere to work and asked how that could be changed. He discussed assets and liabilities, using roads as an example of what happened to them over time and what the costs and lifestyles were. He discussed how most cities and towns paid for roads through bonds, then discussed road budgets, liabilities, and the real cost. He discussed how cities utilized their money in a development pattern that was not beneficial. Amy Malloy discussed what she learned from the presentation and asked the group to bring forth questions and comments. Councilmember Torgeson said the takeaways were increasing the density and vertical nature of things and saving some of the commercial and to compare and try to catch up to the other half of the roads (the deficit) and to do this soon. Councilmember Koprowski appreciated the information and visuals and noted that one slide showed the funding of roads, adding that and said that the Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) was gas tax and the rest was subsidized and not paid for by user with the gas tax. She spoke of the importance of bridging that gap. Vice Mayor Tilque discussed parking and said Arizona was known for everyone driving their own car. She asked how investing less in parking could be connected to so many people driving their own vehicles. Mr. Minicozzi discussed land consumption and parking ratios in other cities, then discussed how all carried the burden of roads and parking, even those who did not own cars. 11 Town Manager Banger discussed how most cities grew after wards and expanded, then asked if some citizens did a better job with managing these issues. Mr. Minicozzi discussed Canada and New Zealand and how they turned things around, versus how the others were hesitant to change from how things were always done. He then provided county comparisons of total value per acre. Assistant Town Manager Goodman discussed how some residents wanted certain developments that were not planned, but explained that by adding other developments, it lowered the tax burden. She spoke of the importance of sharing the why behind those developments. Amy Malloy spoke of resiliency, volatility, and how certain aspects could support each other better long-term. She said to look at what kind of resiliency could be built with a variety of uses and said Gilbert’s building stock was great. She spoke of moving challenges to opportunities, then of visitors and their impact on infrastructure. She discussed Town- owned land and parking and how to increase the productivity of the land in the HD. Neil Calfee walked through scenarios and said Town Manager Banger previously noted that it was a compact area in Gilbert, which could be an advantage. He said retail was tough, but there was opportunity to build in office workers and jobs; the more density and productivity they could bring in, the better, that it could feed on its own. He discussed trends of how larger parking lot areas, such as San Tan Village, had been turned into apartment complexes, or how commercial centers were made into mixed-use zones. Amy Malloy discussed how Gilbert already had the water tower, and said everything done should be done with authenticity and relevancy to that area. There was discussion on exploring public safety opportunities in the HD. Mayor Peterson and Chief Soelberg discussed the importance of crosswalk improvements and changes. Amy Malloy spoke of technology in safety and of smart lighting systems. Mayor Peterson discussed residents’ concerns with Smart Cities technology. Assistant Town Manager 12 Goodman discussed data privacy and principles in place with the application review process and checks and balances, noting anything that would come before the Council would have met the criteria and standards. The consensus of the Council was to explore public safety opportunities. Amy Malloy and Neil Calfee discussed the option to explore some form of business improvement and some type of downtown business management, whether done by the Town, an outside group, or hybrid. Vice Mayor Tilque said she was supportive of exploring it, but said to start with property owners and what was important to them. The consensus of the Council was to explore some form of business improvement and downtown business management. There was discussion on height and density and the limit of 55 feet. Redevelopment Program Manager Elliott discussed the Friends for Life site and how it came up in application four times to try to make it work with Gilbert’s standards and could not make it work; that they knew some modifications were needed, but needed to determine what those were. She spoke of some spots sitting vacant because of standards, advocated for exploring what some of those challenges were. Neil Calfee also spoke of exploring height and density and potential issues. Amy Malloy discussed retention and parking and to consider what develop standards to look at in terms of building long-term resiliency. The consensus of the Council was to explore height and density and possible options to increase height. Amy Malloy asked what format they would for updates to the Council. Assistant Town Manager Goodman said staff could evaluate the information first, then update the Council to determine the most appropriate delivery. Councilmember Koprowski said to determine which developments would be initiated from the Town versus private developers. 13 Councilmember Bongiovanni said to look at what they said no to in the past, should they have, and why with development projects. Councilmember Anderson said he would like to know what needed to be done now and what can wait for the development plan. Amy Malloy agreed that the timeline was important. Redevelopment Program Manager Elliott said there was a lot of discussion on arts and culture, which was a requirement in the 10 year plan. She noted if it was rising to a higher level of priority they could move it forward if requested. Councilmember Koprowski said she believed it should be incorporated sooner but should not be separated out, adding it should be incorporated into every CIP project. She stated that Scottsdale did 1% art in their projects, and said even a few aspects would bring the goal forward. Assistant Town Manager Goodman said incorporating it into the design phase was great and said one of the Town’s initiatives was higher education. She asked if there was any opportunity for the Town to have any sort of facility long-term not satisfied by private sector. Councilmember Buchli said it would be nice to break down what parcels of land the Town had and what it was zoned for, and then in HD what parcels were available for anything that could be developed. Neil Calfee said Town-owned land was orange on the map provided. Assistant Town Manager Goodman discussed analyzing what the existing strengths and constraints were with parcels. She said it was important to determine if a certain project worked better in a different parcel. 4. Presentation, dialogue and direction regarding the Parking Masterplan and future of Heritage District Parking. 14 The group defined the term “SWOT” as Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. The facilitators had the Council and staff break up into groups for an exercise of identifying things for each of those categories in the Heritage District, then the groups rotated stations. After the exercise, staff members listed the things identified for each category: Economic Development Director Henderson summarized the identified Strengths such as parking structures, close proximity to amenities, cleanliness, accessibility, character design that did not make it an eyesore, being compact and walkable, having pedestrian loading and ridesharing zones, valet flexibility that could also accommodate more valet opportunities, and on-street parking. Redevelopment Program Manager Elliott summarized the identified Weaknesses including lack of wayfinding and education, people thinking that parking structures had an associated fee, no teeth to enforce parking, no model to recoup costs when offsite parking was also allowed, that electrical vehicle charging was free but asked should it be, and not letting businesses know that staff should be parking in specific areas. She noted a parking garage pilot program in the past for employee parking, but said during that time the assigned employee parking floor remained empty. Economic Development Director Graves summarized the identified Opportunities including developing more properties; using more technology; adding undergrounding parking to preserve more development areas on the surface; removing on-street parking to increase more walkable space; increasing cost recovery; exploring podium parking and other styles; using basins or service areas for recreation and for temporary parking and events; sharing stories about free parking; beautifying parking areas to make them more inviting; adding wayfinding, charging stations, and rideshare locations; increasing accessibility; and adding opportunities for crosswalks midblock. Assistant to Town Manager Horta summarized the identified Threats including time limits and not having any enforcement, keeping up with the changing market and innovation, wayfinding, perception of availability, safety concerns with pedestrians and vehicles, land 15 area available for parking, lack of investment and parking, ease of finding parking, and management and enforcement. Andrew Vidor of Walker Consultants said his group unlocked opportunities that helped to make communities vibrant. He said they dealt with parking often, which was the visitors’ first and last impression. He discussed Master Plan goals including proven management solutions, experience and data-driven analyses, and function and form. He said they engaged with Town staff and departments, did an online parking survey, and had a steering committee with stakeholders. He noted the key themes were that parking and mobility were heavily impacted by ridesharing and that people wanted to park close to their destination. He noted the report only focused on the Heritage District, then listed the existing parking supply of 978 on-street public spaces, 2,614 off-street public spaces, and 1,838 off-street private spaces. He provided peak utilization figures and discussed on-street parking turnover and duration. He said the Town needed about 2,100 new parking spaces in the future. He discussed what managed parking could do for the Heritage District including access for all parkers in the district, that it was easier for customers to access downtown businesses, that it increased merchant revenues, and that growth in sales tax could be used to reinvest in the district or other things. He noted customer access and business vitality options including reducing vehicle circulation trips with alternative mobility options, providing tools and technology for accessing parking and mobility, and managing turnover of vehicles on-street. He concluded that the key takeaways were there was plenty of parking today, future development would require more parking construction, and they were actively managing parking through trying to change behaviors and exploring funding methods. Amy Malloy discussed ways to increase relief for existing parking with options like earmarked rideshare locations and loading zones, but then to also reduce the growth percentage of cars. She said one way was to increase the number of people living in the district and walkability. Vice Mayor Tilque said that residents would have their own cars to accommodate. Amy Malloy said you could mitigate that with the live, work, and play philosophy of having more people live nearby and walk. Councilmember Koprowski discussed the parking map and compared parking structures 16 with surface lots. She said that based on the figures provided they may need to add two parking structures. Andrew Vidor discussed walkability and connectivity, noting that parking structures had double or triple the capacity by building vertically, adding to consider time of day usage needs. Amy Malloy spoke of not confusing congestion with lack of parking. She said the perception may be that there was no parking because of congestion, then said the use of loading zones and alleyways helped with that. Andrew Vidor stated he was looking for direction from the Council and would be asking three questions. Question 1: Confirm Council agrees that managed parking is a strategy for consideration in HD. He said the purpose was to provide access for all parker types, encourage on-street turnover, not inhibit economic development, inform the future planned parking structure, and provide areas for employee parking through permit zones. Vice Mayor Tilque asked to confirm that managed parking did not mean paid parking; Andrew Vidor said it was a strategy but he did not think it was a solution for Gilbert at this time. The consensus of the Council was yes, that some type of managed parking was a consideration in the Heritage District. Assistant Town Manager Goodman asked about other types of strategies. Andrew Vidor replied that there could be time limits for on-street parking and provided other examples. There was discussion on the cost to construct a parking garage. Andrew Vidor said just looking at face value it would be $8,000-$10,000 to build a paved parking lot, but the range would be higher for structures like they had at present day in the Heritage District and also depended on if they had the land. Mayor Peterson asked what would the cost be today for the parking garage that was built five years ago. Project Supervisor Gierak discussed the 17 amenities added to maximize land use and said it would be about $46,000,000 plus escalated costs now. Amy Malloy said if you had limited land area and were looking for resiliency, try to apply that thought to parking structures. She said to think about how it could be added to a Mixed-Use structure, adding there were opportunities to fund some of it. Question 2: Would Council like staff to explore add opportunities where developers may contribute additional parking: He said it would take about five year and the current zoning ordinances required developers to provide parking for new residential developments. He added all public parking in Heritage District had been constructed, operated, and maintained by Town with no option to capture money from development or visitors. Councilmember Buchli said they had not talked about how much parking would be needed at the time of buildout. Andrew Vidor noted if they were going to build up that infrastructure needs is part of next question. Redevelopment Program Manager Elliott noted they did regular parking counts and would continue to monitor and reevaluate that. Assistant Town Manager Rhineheimer said they would share the lead time that would be needed to implement any solution. Project Supervisor Gierak discussed the three phases needed and said it could take three or four years total. Neil Calfee discussed how parking could be added incrementally. Councilmember Koprowski noted that the projects were built to a higher level and standard, adding new ones needed to meet that standard as well. Andrew Vidor agreed that Gilbert had high standards and they needed to look at funding, asking if the Council wanted to explore developers contributing to developing parking. Vice Mayor Tilque said she did not have a have a problem with the concept, but was having a hard time with budget. She said when you considered the value of land and how you 18 increased value by going up vertically, how do you balance who pays and who benefits. She said she was open to exploring it, but had some concerns and wanted to make sure they came back with balanced information. Councilmember Torgeson spoke of his own personal businesses and parking spaces, adding that the surface areas cost a lot of money. He said they could find a good middle ground to look at how businesses provided parking. Amy Malloy discussed different ways to look at funding and ways to incorporate art and “living walls” on parking structures. The consensus of the Council was to get more information and explore opportunities for developers to contribute to additional parking. Mayor Peterson expressed concerns about changing the HD from how it had always been; the group noted balancing resiliency with integrity. Assistant Town Manager Goodman discussed the need to explore different strategies to maintain the integrity of the district. Andrew Vidor and staff noted funding for parking had traditionally been paid for with the General Fund, but discussed the need for funding sources to cover ongoing costs for the maintenance of existing parking infrastructure and new parking management systems; a list of strategies for funding a parking system was provided. Question 3: Does Council agree that new or additional funding sources need to be identified and considered for the parking system? Vice Mayor Tilque discussed the need to understand priorities and funding. She said the last thing she wanted was “nickel and diming” and how that was an irritant. She said changes should be all incorporated instead of adding from multiple things. 19 Councilmember Bongiovanni asked if the Town would be able to charge a tax to help pay for parking or an enhanced sales tax. Andrew Vidor said the discussion was if they wanted to consider more options. Councilmember Anderson said if the Town trusted the information provided earlier by Joe Minicozzi then they had no choice but to consider other revenue options. The consensus was to talk about other options and potential funding sources. Amy Malloy said that 48% was non-taxable land in The Heritage District, but that was an opportunity for change and could be a legacy for the Council. Town Manager Banger spoke of making decisions for the desired outcome, considering different lenses, and evaluating for The Heritage District and the community as a whole. He said the Town should have set aside more land for commercial opportunities, but now the goal was to maximize what it could. He said there needed to be a comprehensive evaluation of what was needed and priorities. Economic Development Director Henderson said there was not a department in the Town that did not touch the HD in some way. He thanked the Council, staff, and all those involved in the downtown area tours and the workshop. Lastly, he presented a video showing parts of The Heritage District with statistics and upcoming projects. ADJOURN Mayor Peterson adjourned the meeting at 3:37 p.m. 20  ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________________ Brigette Peterson, Mayor Judy Martinez, Deputy Town Clerk CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the special meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Gilbert held on the 23rd day of August, 2023. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this ____ day of ____________________2023. ___________________________________ Judy Martinez, Deputy Town Clerk 21