Council Regular/Special Meeting

MINUTES OF THE GILBERT TOWN COUNCIL, IN SPECIAL MEETING, COMMUNITY INVESTMENT WORKSHOP, OF MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2023 AT 8:30 AM, GILBERT UNIVERSITY BUILDING, ASSEMBLY ROOM, 92 W. VAUGHN AVENUE, GILBERT, ARIZONA 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, Town Clerk Chaveli Herrera, Deputy Clerk Judy Martinez, , Assistant Town Manager Mary Goodman, Assistant Town Manager Dawn Prince, Assistant Town Manager Leah Rhineheimer, Office of Management and Budget Director Kelly Pfost, Fire Chief Rob Duggan, Police Chief Michael Soelberg, and Capital Improvement Projects Supervisor Jack Gierak OTHERS PRESENT: Facilitator Jim Lehrman AGENDA ITEM CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 8:39 a.m. AGENDA ITEMS 1. Welcome and Overview 1 Town Manager Banger welcomed everyone, reviewed some basic items about the purpose of the Workshop, and said that Matt Lehrman would be facilitating. Facilitator Lehrman asked the participants at each table to discuss a decision from the past that was made by someone from the Town of Gilbert that they were grateful for now. He discussed the need to put community first, recognize needs and responsibilities of the Town and to do so without distraction, and to keep the conversations future-focused. He noted the need to find consensus to a point where the Council could set forth the motions and processes to move forward. He said he would be looking for clarity by asking the Council to indicate a red, yellow, and green response; he noted green did not mean that it was perfect, but was agreeable to proceed; yellow meant to proceed with caution but they may need more information, but they were okay to proceed for now; and red indicated a strong opposition or concern that needed to be addressed before going forward. He said red was an opportunity to slow down and discuss it through as a way to reach consensus. He discussed the expected behaviors of the group, noting the Workshop provided the Council an opportunity to provide comments directly to staff. 2. Quality of Life Investments Town Manager Banger discussed a presentation provided to the Council previously by Joe Minicozzi of Urban 3 with an emphasis on the assessed valuation of the community. Town Manager Banger noted the importance and impact of investments. He provided some quality of life indicators and accolades, including Gilbert being the # 2 Safest Cities in America, # 1 Place to Live in Arizona, #1 Median Household Income, and # 2 Fastest Rising Cities. He highlighted other quality of life factors including Cactus Yards receiving the United States Specialty Sports Association (USSSA) National Park of the Year for four years in a row and Gilbert Fire and Rescue earning an Insurance Services Office Class I and Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) Accreditation. He highlighted key decisions in Gilbert’s history including Gilbert expanding from one square mile to 67 square miles; adding a curve to the Loop 202 which allowed for more business and commercial development; and the land acquisition of the Heritage District. He noted the decisions made regarding Shade and 2 Streetscape Standards, the implementation of Impact Fees, the Heritage Resource Center conversion, additions of the University Building and Public Safety Training Facility (PSTF), and receiving the Certificate of Necessity (CON) and Ambulance Service. He also discussed the 2021 Transportation Ballot Issue, North Water Treatment Plant reconstruction and expansion, Arizona Department of Water Resources Resilient Water Supply, the 99 year easement for Gilbert Regional Park, the Rivulon Development Agreement, and the Town’s decision to not annex up to Baseline Road, which he said cost the Town millions of dollars in revenue. He noted decisions had consequences, good and bad. He discussed timing considerations with operational and program impacts and reconstruction phases. He spoke of infrastructure reconstruction needs and repairs, adding decisions would need to be made soon and that infrastructure did not always last as long as it should. 3. Comparative Revenue Analysis Office of Management and Budget Director Pfost said she was asked to provide local and national comparisons, then discussed the importance of having a healthy balance of revenue coming from distinct places; she used the analogy of a stool with three legs for stability. She said 68% of Gilbert’s revenue came from sales tax, and the Town had grown more dependent on sales tax over time, then provided a chart showing General Fund Revenue from 2006- 2023. She highlighted a comparison with Gilbert, Mesa and Chandler, stating that Mesa was a bit more varied because they did transfers from Enterprise Funds, but Chandler was becoming less diversified as well. She discussed a revenue mix for United States cities with populations over 250,000, noting that revenues had unique restrictions on how they were used. She said municipal revenues varied between cities within the same state, and types of revenues differed between states as well. She noted in Arizona there was no individual or corporate income tax. She discussed how each city or town had separate funds, like checking accounts, and each fund had a budget with unique restrictions and different funding sources. She discussed types of revenues including Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) and Vehicle License Tax (VLT), noting that VLT went to Streets in Gilbert, not the General Fund. She noted Gilbert did not have a primary property tax. She summarized other revenues and where those were allocated including grants, utility bills, and user fees (recreation programs, building permits, etc.). She discussed what levers would need to be moved that 3 Gilbert had control over locally and how taxes could be used, then noted that sales tax was volatile. She provided a sales tax comparison with Gilbert, Chandler, Mesa, Queen Creek, Scottsdale, and Tempe with figures for hotel sales and additional tax, retail tax, phone bill, utilities, and wastewater utility service. She said Gilbert was almost comparable with other cities in retail, but was still in the lowest group with Chandler. She said within the sales tax rate there were sometimes specific taxes for specific purposes, but it was not set up that way in Gilbert. She provided some examples from other Phoenix-area cities and a property tax comparison, stating Gilbert only charged a secondary property tax. She then discussed unique revenue options from other cities and how all were grappling with how to maintain quality of life and fund infrastructure. She provided a listing of how Chandler, Peoria and Scottsdale were handling the issue including infusing additional one-time funding, delaying projects, exploring partnering options, changing scope, eliminating projects entirely, rate increases, potentially bonding against transportation sales tax instead of pay-go, and using higher General Fund revenues to cover most of the cost increases. Vice Mayor Tilque stated the presentation mentioned that sales tax changes had to go to voters, then asked when that changed. Director Pfost referenced Proposition 126 that passed in 2016 or 2017, stating it did not specifically require it, but the most conservative approach was to get it approved by voters. Councilmember Torgeson asked if the hotel tax had to go to voters, since it was part of the sales tax. Director Pfost said she would seek the opinion of the Town Attorney’s Office, but it was likely. Town Manager Banger said when Director Pfost discussed potential scenarios for funding later in the day to keep in mind that the comparison cities that had a secondary property tax also had sales tax revenue directly tied to funds for capital projects, or two sources of revenue, versus only using secondary property tax. Facilitator Lehrman noted that a chart showed some comparison cities were considering eliminating projects; he asked if a city could just select not to fund certain things if they were 4 approved by voters. Director Pfost answered that most projects were not approved by voters and provided examples. 4. Facility and Space Needs Analysis Parks and Recreation Director Carmona discussed the Space Needs Assessment and Facilities Master Plan beginning with a 2023 inventory including 60 total facilities and $1.5 billion in assets. He discussed why a space needs assessment and Master Plan was important, noting it provided a comprehensive roadmap for developing, maintaining, and improving public spaces and facilities; ensured funds were directed towards projects with the most significant impact; and the assessments and plans promoted transparency to the community on funding and business cases. He highlighted the guiding principles of project prioritization and funding strategies, flexibility of workspace and adapting to our workface, resiliency and sustainability, safety and technology, energy efficiency, and noting the average age Gilbert’s facilities was 24 years old. He discussed vehicle accommodations and feet services, facility landscaping and public access, business delivery methods and efficiency, security and technology, and storage needs. He highlighted some sustainability efforts, noting there was a pilot program at the PTSF with 283,000 kilowatt-hours and $24,975 saved, and discussed the use of building energy-use dashboards and 9,000 pounds of paper savings with towel dispensers. He discussed phases of the plan including the facilities condition assessment and knowing all of the different assets, their condition, and lifecycle assessments. He discussed the 2019 assessment, renewal needs and deferred maintenance, and current replacement value. He summarized the space needs assessment of how they were utilizing areas, department interviews, benchmarking and best practices, and understanding staffing projections. He noted the Space Needs Program and the Facilities Master Plan with a gap analysis, develop alternatives, and cost estimates. He discussed immediate needs and prioritization, stating cost estimates were not just about space needs, but about maintaining them. He highlighted next steps including vision sessions with stakeholders, a contract to the Council expected in January 2024, a 10-month kickoff process working with Stantec, and report findings and recommendations to be completed Fall of 2024. 5 Councilmember Bongiovanni asked about insurance products available to purchase. Director Carmona discussed how there were insurance options, but it would depend on the equipment and how long they were expected to last. Councilmember Koprowski discussed concerns with the Facilities Condition Index (FCI) scale, stating it went pretty quickly from good to poor; she asked if there was flexibility to have a larger portion that was “fair” on the scale. Director Carmona discussed average use and prioritization. Councilmember Koprowski stated she wanted to make sure they were thinking of functionality and not putting investments into something that may have a little more life and value to it. Director Carmona stated they looked at it holistically and tried to figure out the best approach. Vice Mayor Tilque discussed changing work environments and the hybrid model that was in place today; she asked if they were looking to understand how the workplace environment may change. Director Carmona stated they were excited to have Stantec on board, as they were private and public sector work experts. 5. Parks and Recreation Department Updates and Needs Parks and Recreation Director Carmona shared a video from his department and discussed recreation themes from the 2023 Fall Retreat including current conditions, quality of service, growth rates, and use. He shared data including that there was a 63% increase in aquatics attendance, 45% increase in special events, 55% increase in programming attendance, that 25% of residents cited programs were too full, 28% of residents cited the parks were too full, and that 93% of participants rated their experience with Gilbert Parks and Recreation as excellent or good. He discussed engagement with the 2024 Master Plan Update that included 60,000 valid engagements; 275,978 social media impressions; 55,548 emails via the school district; and 6,646 website visits. He discussed resident prioritization efforts including lower registration fees and earlier registration dates available for residents than for non-residents. He noted the Youth Sports Coalition being at maximum capacity, stating it was utilizing just 85% of the outdoor field reservations in 2023 with 24,862 hours reserved out of 29,232 total hours reserved. He highlighted resident engagement and support by the 6 numbers. He showed what was not favorable in the department, including that the system was currently at capacity and underproviding per national benchmarks. He said there were 5.3 million visits to parks, recreation facilities, and trails in 2022; he compared that number to Arizona professional sports teams and the Grand Canyon National Park. He said per the 2023 ParkScore, Gilbert was ranked last amongst park systems across the top 100 most- populated cities in the country and shared other low-scoring amenities. He said communities understood the importance of investment in parks and recreation and discussed what happened when communities did not invest in it, including decreased physical and mental health, lock of social connection, increased childhood obesity, and increased crime. He discussed the benefits and impact of parks and recreation facilities including that it attracted homebuyers and increased tourism. Director Carmona reviewed the development history of parks and recreation in Gilbert from 1988 when the population was around 47,000 people; to 2002-2008 when the population soared to 207,000 people and many facilities were added; and then to 2019 when the population grew to 254,000 and Gilbert Regional Park, Desert Sky Park, and Cactus Yards were added. He discussed Gilbert Regional Park and how it currently featured 50 developed areas, but had 185 acres remaining, then discussed public/private partnerships and potential amenities. He highlighted Desert Sky Park and its potential amenities. He summarized the Riparian Education Center, which he said would begin design as an extension in January 2024, noting it was a global attraction as a sustainability and education program. He spoke of popular requests including recreation and aquatics centers in southeast Gilbert, trail system lighting, and multi-use path projects. Lastly, he provided a development timeline leading toward 2030 with a projected 330,000 population at buildout. Councilmember Koprowski stated parks and recreation was an important piece of quality of life, then asked if cost recovery was incorporated in the models. Director Carmona stated it was tracked closely and discussed comparisons with benchmark cities in the country; he noted that Cactus Yards was at 80% cost recovery, which he said did not exist elsewhere and was setting the standard. Councilmember Koprowski asked about providing spaces for tenants, vendors, and food truck opportunities. Director Carmona discussed how the old concessions model was not in place any longer; he spoke of advantages with vendors doing 7 pop-ups and pull-ups, then said they were exploring options. Councilmember Koprowski discussed a cafeteria-style restaurant at the Riparian Education Center and seating with views. Director Carmona stated they would be looking at options with the design, or to include a food truck and viewing area. Vice Mayor Tilque said on a map of Gilbert Regional Park it looked like there was nothing going on there, even though there was. She said to keep an eye on smaller projects, as they held Gilbert together and added connectivity; she said she would like to see the smaller projects moved up, including the multi-trail paths. She said the total was a big number, noting it was not just “to buildout” but “being at buildout” and to keep that in mind. She said when they thought about packaging for bonding to perhaps package the high priorities now knowing they would have to go out later, adding it would be a lot to capture now, especially with public safety included. She said she would prefer the aquatics and recreation center pushed out to different bond in the future and take care of some of the other things including expanding and finishing out Gilbert Regional Park. She said it stuck with her how understaffed the department was, and said she preferred to focus on being fully staffed and on what Gilbert does now, versus adding to what it offered. Facilitator Lehrman asked what was needed for feedback. Director Carmona said any feedback was helpful, particularly to know which priorities should be moved up or down; he added Gilbert Regional Park was big and they could discuss phasing options later. Councilmember Torgeson discussed cost recovery, then said public-private partnerships (PPPs) would be easier with upkeep; he advocated for starting with PPPs and then looking at bonding. He said it was a capital investment and a losing proposition financially, adding he supported less-intrusive options. Director Carmona discussed itemizing and the need to look into it; he discussed where PPPs may be favorable and not. Facilitator Lehrman asked if there was a way that PPPs could relieve some it before making the Town pay for it. Town Manager Banger discussed how historically Gilbert was innovative at those types of PPPs, using the examples of AZ Ice and the surf park; he said they would continue to look for PPPs, but that some projects did not lend to those types of partnerships. 8 Councilmember Buchli noted she wanted to advocate for south Gilbert, stating they had been ignored for a long time and she would like to see the aquatics and recreation centers there. Councilmember Bongiovanni discussed cost recovery, events such as concerts, and how it impacted revenue. Mayor Peterson discussed how a prior Council decided not to focus on aquatics, as it was very expensive and required lots of maintenance; she said the new Council would need to decide on priorities. She said if they were to build a pool for southeast Gilbert the residents would expect a pool at Freestone as well. She discussed phasing projects according to what residents wanted, and said she saw the most important items as parks and fields, lighting of trails, and pickleball courts at Freestone Recreation Center. She said it may seem that southeast Gilbert was ignored but the Gilbert Regional Park Project did not start until about five years ago and then there was the pandemic. Facilitator Lehrman confirmed with Mayor Peterson that there was not an interest in Gilbert being in the aquatics business; Mayor Peterson stated there was no interest from her. Councilmember Torgeson asked about buildings that could be turned into a recreation center. Director Carmona discussed vacant park land for Gilbert Regional and Desert Sky Parks, then said there had not been a conversation yet because it crossed many departments, but they could look into it at a later date. Councilmember Koprowski stated she agreed with the past Council’s decision since aquatic centers were expensive. She said the private sector tried to score that up and gave examples. She discussed subsidies and getting cost recovery in alignment with market conditions. Councilmember Bongiovanni stated he would like more data on cost recovery before making a recommendation. Vice Mayor Tilque stated she appreciated the comments about aquatics and was on the side of “no” in terms of Gilbert being in the aquatics business, then spoke of expense and cost recovery. Councilmember Buchli stated that south Gilbert would be a good place for one as there was more land available, then said that not only south Gilbert residents would be using it and she was not just advocating for south-Gilbert residents. 9 Councilmember Anderson stated the private sector would fill the needs that the Town was not able to make a priority; others would do it, if there was a market. 6. Public Safety – Police Department Updates and Needs Police Chief Soelberg discussed the Capital Project Needs of the Police Department. He said Gilbert was ranked # 2 Safest Cities and Gilbert was synonymous with safety and he wanted that to continue. He discussed how streets, shadescapes, and other features also added to the feeling of safety. He highlighted the upcoming advocacy center, noting that violent crimes were increasing, as well as domestic violence and sex offenses. He said they wanted to keep the resources focused to make sure they were addressing the rise in crime, especially violent crime which would be helped by the center. He said without it, victims would have to go to different places and relive trauma. He said the advocacy center approach was victim-focused and they would be working on collaboration with a multi-disciplinary team (MDT), law enforcement, victim advocates, medical professionals, mental health and counseling services, forensics services, prosecution, law enforcement, and other areas. He discussed visiting the Children’s Advocacy Center of Collin County (CACC) in Texas, which they used as example; he added that their team-approach resulted in 98% conviction rate. He provided tragic examples of domestic violence-rated homicide cases, adding sometimes there was a long history and sometimes not. He said with a focus on the investigation side it would help survivors move through the judicial process with dignity and provide streamlined services. He said they looked at Collin County and what they would do the same and what they would do differently, trying to find a schematic design vision with dedicated forensic interviewers, counseling/therapy services, nonprofit partners space, employee wellness, and nonprofits partnerships. He discussed the timeline and budget escalation, program development and phases, then said Phase 1 included advocacy and counseling that was already budgeted; Phase 2 was estimated at $42 million and included all employees and workload locations; Phase 3 was estimated at $13.8 million, totaling $55.8 million combined. He noted Phase 3 would require more parking per Code. Police Chief Soelberg discussed the consequences of inadequate crime lab services where mistakes led to revictimization or cases not prosecuted. He provided the history of Gilbert 10 crime lab services beginning with an agreement with Mesa Police Department crime lab in 2012. He discussed crime lab services and how the costs increased by 26% in addition to turnaround time continuing to rise, then highlighted concerns, limitations, and vulnerabilities with the current approach. He discussed crime lab options and benefits of a crime lab, noting that PPPs were not an option based on cost and issues. He discussed potential crime lab partnerships, noting the most viable would be with Queen Creek or Apache Junction. He showed the estimate for the crime lab at $81 million. He said assuming a bond election was held next year and it was approved, it would take about five years, then discussed other bond election options, project costs, and staff needed. Police Chief Soelberg discussed the Public Safety Building Expansion and the growth of staff from 2003 to 2024 with different locations combined. He discussed consequences to community and police staff when communities failed to fund police facilities, then discussed finding areas to accommodate lack of room. He noted the building expansion estimate at $41.6 million. He then discussed the San Tan Police Station Building Expansion at $92.4 million and the Police Heritage District Community Office at $18.6 million, for a department total of $289.4 million. Councilmember Torgeson stated the total presented was an overwhelming number. He said with the Advocacy Center Phase 3, it was $2,300 a square foot and asked how that figure was calculated. Police Chief Soelberg stated it was budgeted as a stand-alone item and included contract services, but he thought they could bring that down by merging it with other projects; he asked to keep in mind cost escalation. Councilmember Torgeson discussed the Police Heritage District Community Office number listed of $18.6 million, which was also high per square foot. Police Chief Soelberg said to keep in mind cost escalation and it could come down if incorporated with other projects. Councilmember Torgeson discussed “ghost buildings” or offices leased but not used. Facilitator Lehrman asked if it was an acceptable range. Councilmember Torgeson stated it was hard to say without knowing what was going in there; he discussed costs per square foot for homes and schools. Capital Improvement Projects Supervisor Gierak said the Advocacy Center Phase 3 was listed as a stand-alone item, which they would never do, as 11 it would be incorporated with others; he then discussed efforts for efficiency. Assistant Town Manager Rhineheimer stated these projects were fundamentally different than regular construction. Councilmember Torgeson said he understood it needed more than a home or a school, but said he needed to understand how it occurred and have that frame of reference. Vice Mayor Tilque asked if it was determined where the crime lab would be located. Police Chief Soelberg said it had not yet been determined, but near the fire station on Williams Field, east of the Loop 202, there was a dirt lot that could be big enough with a two-story building and it would allow for simple movement of evidence. Vice Mayor Tilque discussed the opportunity to phase some of the other projects to help spread the costs. Councilmember Koprowski discussed potential with Heritage North and neighborhood offices, or trying to integrate with other development. She said she was fully supportive of the advocacy center but discussed looking at other areas or using other municipal buildings to their full potential. Mayor Peterson said she was on board with the Advocacy Center Phase 2, but was shocked by the cost of the San Tan Police Station, asking why was the cost more to build on land the Town already owned than what the crime lab would cost. She asked if the Town needed the Public Safety Expansion or could it be merged into something, that would be her preference. She said she saw the need for the crime lab but to make sure the fees were in line. Supervisor Gierak stated the San Tan Police Station was for a 4,500 square foot facility with office space, some safety and security features, a 6.3 acre development with drainage, utilities, parking for 300 vehicles, canopies, and other features. It was asked if they had a cost comparison if the PSTF was built today. Police Chief Soelberg said it would cost about three times as much. Mayor Peterson stated that $92 million for the San Tan Police Station Project seemed excessive. She said she agreed with the order of the priorities, but said to look at the San Tan Station costs. Councilmember Bongiovanni stated he was in total agreement and that 12 the cost of the San Tan Station seemed excessive. He said with Item # 6, the Police Heritage District Community Office, he liked the idea of partnering with someone on that. Councilmember Torgeson discussed the costs per square feet and said one could buy an empty office building for less, adding the Town needed to look at different construction companies and that coming in that high on land we own was unacceptable; he said he wanted people to go back to drawing board. Facilitator Lehrman summarized that none of the projects were bad and there was no opposition, only concerns about the relative costs. The Council agreed, but Councilmember Torgeson stated he was “red”, not over the priorities but over the excessive cost. Facilitator Lehrman restated that the priorities resonated with everyone, but the cost was of concern and needed more work. Councilmember Koprowski asked about cost recovery with the existing PSTF, was the Town getting cost recovery that could be leveraged. Police Chief Soelberg said it was extremely minimal and gave examples, adding they had not generated a lot of revenue and that was not their intent. 7. Public Safety – Fire Department Updates and Needs Fire Chief Duggan discussed the fundamentals of mainlining service levels, protecting people and community, and impacts to the community. He provided an example from Arizona Wilderness Brewing Co. where department efforts allowed the company to open the next morning after an incident, then thanked Gilbert Digital for helping to share the message to the community. He discussed what would happen when service levels were not maintained and noted some areas of Phoenix had 9-minute response times. He discussed the difference in 4.5 minute response times versus 9 minute ones. He summarized projects including the Fire Administration Remodel and how the social unrest and pandemic in 2020 highlighted the ineffectiveness of responding to incidents. He discussed how the Fire Administration staff had to leave the PSTF but had nowhere to go, then discussed other reasons the current Fire Administration building did not work well for the needs. He spoke of need for space for critical staff positions and room to support advancing technology. He discussed the building 13 could be a place for community support where people could come for training and classes such as safety and balance, autism and dementia awareness, and other uses. He said that project was estimated at $15.6 million. Fire Chief Duggan highlighted the Fire Station 4 Rebuild, noting it was built in 1999 without build-out in mind. He said there was not enough space to accommodate needs, then discussed Station 4 response times and response density with the examples of 4, 6, and 8 minute targets. He discussed ambulance transportation a provided a “heat map”, adding that the Town could not risk losing its Certificate of Necessity (CON). He noted the Fire Station 4 Rebuild was estimated at $20.6 million. He then discussed the Fire Fleet Building Project and shortfalls with the current fleet building setup including staff working on trucks outside in the elements and having fleet in the front and rear bays. He said that project was estimated at $23.8 million. He then discussed six more fire station renovations for a total of $19.3 million, then the Fire Station 11 Renovation and Remodel with a total of $20.5 million. The full Fire Department projects totaled $79.3 million. Councilmember Torgeson discussed the cost of the remodel for Fire Administration, stating it was $1,560 a square foot. He said he wanted to see every possible person who would bid on it and all options, plus a guarantee that they would perform at that level. Fire Chief Duggan said he would work with the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Team to prepare for those discussions with the Council. Councilmember Koprowski asked about the Fire Station 4 Rebuild, stating she was surprised they would tear down a fire station and rebuild it, though she said the map was more compelling. Councilmember Anderson asked how they missed not adding the correct number of beds in the past. Fire Chief Duggan said they did a good job at the time; they were 90% there, but would have a better idea now that Gilbert was close to buildout. Mayor Peterson and Fire Chief Duggan discussed what they would do with the crew when they closed down Station 4. Mayor Peterson said she understood the cost of remodels and not going from ground up, but would caution not doing a low build; she said she had seen that happen before and then they had to go in and fix things. 14 Vice Mayor Tilque asked where the Fire Fleet Building would be. Fire Chief Duggan said the location had not yet been identified but he was confident that the Space Needs Analysis would identify that. Vice Mayor Tilque added she would like to see that project moved closer to the top. Councilmember Bongiovanni asked about the different materials and aspects that made those projects costs more. Fire Chief Duggan stated they were different from the ground up, including the concrete, fibers in extra feet to support apparatus, then noted different bricks, bay doors, and other features. Facilitator Lehrman affirmed that most of the Council was in the green category of identifying the needs, but not necessarily in the priority order. Vice Mayor Tilque restated that the Fleet Building should be a higher priority. 8. Funding Strategies Office of Management and Budget Director Pfost gave a presentation on funding strategies. She talked about the importance of planning for the future and the direction of the Council. She outlined the infrastructure needs and said the total was around $1 billion dollars. She talked about the fewer revenue sources with Gilbert and about options for funding to include General Obligation Bonds, Municipal Property Corporation Bonds, reduced scope, delaying project timing, or pursuing grants/other funding. She provided an overview of the property tax Valley comparisons. She said in order to only use property tax they would need a target tax rate of $2.10, which would provide $1 billion of funding for projects. She added if the Council wanted a tax rate of $1.50, it would provide about $615 million for funding; for $1.25, it would provide $450 million for projects. She provided an overview of a sales tax Valley comparison and outlined the different options with various rates of sales tax. She talked about a hybrid solution utilizing sales tax and property tax then asked for feedback. Vice Mayor Tilque asked for clarification on the sales tax approximations. Director Pfost said 15 sales tax would be ongoing revenue for 20 years to pay for 20-year debt, or could ask for perpetuity or a specified period of time. Councilmember Anderson asked if she had looked at any specialty taxes or bed tax. Director Pfost said the numbers would turn out the same, but it could be packaged as the Council would like to see it. Facilitator Lehrman asked to clarify what a specialty tax would be. Director Pfost said it would be telling voters what it would be used for and it being regulated for that specific purpose. Councilmember Torgeson asked if anything in Parks and Recreation qualified for bed tax. Director Pfost said they could look at the restrictions more. Councilmember Torgeson asked how much was brought in from sales tax; Director Pfost elaborated on the bases and talked about the impacts. Councilmember Torgeson asked how much revenue Gilbert was getting; Director Pfost said she did not know that figure off top of her head. Councilmember Torgeson elaborated on revenue aspect. Mayor Peterson asked if Councilmember Torgeson meant that every category that stated $1.5 would be changed. Facilitator Lehrman asked if it was meant that if you did not have to change all the rates at the same time, which was the most “bang for the buck”; Councilmember Torgeson confirmed. Director Pfost said she would do the calculations on the various tax rates and provide them later. Councilmember Koprowski stated that sales tax was where there was leverage and she liked the idea that it was paid by both residents and visitors, so it would not to be too large an impact to the residents. She talked about it being more equitable and said the burden would fall on those with disposable income. She said she would not ask for the full capacity, but work with different combinations of sales tax and other strategies. Vice Mayor Tilque said she knew it would be a high number but still needed time to absorb the information. She asked about the differences in going out for a bond versus sales tax; Director Pfost clarified the ways to ask, with or without restrictions and the clarification of proposed uses and timelines. Councilmember Anderson said he wished to simplify as much as possible and asked what was realistic. He discussed gaining a pulse of the community and getting to a number that 16 had support from the community and being intentional and specific about how it was used. Facilitator Lehrman confirmed that Councilmember Anderson was indicating that residents may only have a certain appetite and it was important to understand that against overall needs, to which Councilmember Anderson confirmed. Councilmember Bongiovanni spoke in agreement and talked about a defined number and looking towards opportunities with private public partnerships. Councilmember Torgeson stated the amount needed to be really specific; he talked about the importance of education to the community and showing the need. Councilmember Buchli said she understood what was said but needed to think about the information more. Mayor Peterson said she did not believe there was any appetite from the community to vote for a bond of any magnitude; shhe talked about other bond elections within the community and said she did not feel a bond would pass, then talked about the importance to prioritize and find ways to make those commitments and continue to look for other options. Director Pfost outlined the various options and restrictions and detailed the few revenue funds within the Town. Mayor Peterson stated the Town was also losing funding and talked about the importance of remembering the Town was losing revenue as they continued to look for ways to pay for projects. Councilmember Torgeson asked about the increase in System Development Fees (SDFs) and asked how much that would offset costs. Director Pfost clarified the restrictions on use of SDFs. Councilmember Buchli spoke in agreement with Mayor Peterson on the climate for bonds but talked about not giving up on the option and educating the public. Town Manager Banger talked about the failed bond elections within school districts but said municipal bonds across the valley had generally been successful. Vice Mayor Tilque said she knew how hard staff had worked to bring the projects forward and talked about the difficulty in balancing the investment in the community against what 17 the residents were willing to pay. She asked if there were any opportunities to conduct outreach before a decision was made. Town Manager Banger stated a lot of the material presented was from engagement, then spoke in support of finetuning the approach and understanding where the voters were. He said the majority of engagement was understanding what was wanted but now work to find out how it would be paid. Mayor Peterson asked about the recent survey on bonding and the results; Town Manager Banger said the results would be shared with the Council the following week. Facilitator Lehrman asked the Council to provide direction to staff on next steps. Vice Mayor Tilque said she would like to explore the hybrid approach with restrictions. Facilitator Lehrman asked for clarification that those would be considered specialty taxes, to which Director Pfost confirmed. Mayor Peterson talked about not putting all eggs into one basket and asked for options and priorities. Councilmember Koprowski said she would like to see the majority in the sales tax realm and expressed her interest in the way Peoria had structured their taxes; she discussed flexibility and being able to prioritize projects. Councilmember Torgeson said he preferred to see it more on the sales tax end with that being more volunteer driven; he did not like the idea of property tax being considered. Councilmember Bongiovanni was also in support of sales tax and asked staff to get creative with partnerships and break down the numbers with other options. Councilmember Anderson also spoke in support of changes to the sales tax and talked about the need to identify specific projects over a specific amount of time and when it would sunset. Councilmember Buchli stated she was not a fan of changes to property tax but would be okay with sales tax and would continue to research. Facilitator Lehrman asked staff if they needed additional direction, to which they did not. 9. Recap and Discussion Town Manager Bange provided a recap of the discussion and thanked staff for their hard work. He talked about the information and needs of the community and about the process 18 in understanding the Council’s proprieties and guidance, noting the need to continue to look for funding strategies and what opportunities could look like. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned meeting at 4:43 p.m. ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________________ Brigette Peterson, Mayor Chaveli Herrera, 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 11th day of December, 2023. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this ____ day of ____________________. ___________________________________ Chaveli Herrera, MMC, Town Clerk 19