Council Study Session

MINUTES OF THE GILBERT TOWN COUNCIL IN SPECIAL MEETING FOR A STUDY SESSION, TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 2021, AT 5:15 P.M., GILBERT PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING FACILITY, ATLAS AUDITORIUM, 6860 SOUTH POWER ROAD, GILBERT, ARIZONA COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Brigette Peterson, Vice Mayor Yung Koprowski, Councilmembers Scott Anderson, Laurin Hendrix, Scott September, Kathy Tilque, and Aimee Yentes COUNCIL ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Town Manager Patrick Banger, Town Clerk Chaveli Herrera, Town Attorney Chris Payne, Intergovernmental Affairs Director Rob Bohr, Assistant Town Attorney Alena Jorquez, Code Inspections Supervisor Lorrie DeOrio, and Assistant Police Chief Michael Angstead CALL TO ORDER OF SPECIAL MEETING Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 5:22 p.m. AGENDA ITEM 1. Discussion on Regional Transportation Tax Intergovernmental Affairs Director Bohr provided a presentation on Regional Transportation Tax, currently known as the Proposition 400 Extension, stating it would be the potential extension of the half-cent regional sales tax for transportation. He summarized the history, process, draft scenario, and Gilbert’s projects and priorities. Director Bohr stated Proposition 300 from 1986-2005 was for freeways and highways, with a total revenue of $3,770,000,000. He stated Proposition 400 was currently being worked under, which added arterials and transit, and the total revenue would likely be $8,750,000,000, noting it was during the recession. He shared an overall timeline from 2018-present and identified Gilbert’s priorities in 2019-2020. He stated Maricopa Association Governments (MAG) and its working groups took those submittals and did scoring to create a list of projects and scoring, noting Gilbert’s list of priorities. He stated the next steps were legislative approval scheduled for Spring 2022, County Board of Supervisors Approval in Spring/Summer 2022, and voter approval scheduled for November 2022. Director Bohr discussed public participation and polling and reviewed scenario-building, noted considerations of half-cent and full-cent options, and discussed legislative requirements for ballot proposals. He stated the half-cent option was being considered more, but noted some key priorities did not make it through and were being considered beyond 20 years. He stated under the proposed scenario the projected revenue would be $19,540,000,000, with a 25-year term at a half-cent rate, with no buckets or firewalls, and rail transit asset management funded. He highlighted other key observations and regional programs such as air quality and arterial widening. He discussed regional balance and compared the east, central and west regions. He summarized Gilbert’s projects in the preferred scenario with the first seven being arterials and the bottom three with freeway and highway. He discussed what was known in transit funding including regional bus operating assistance, bus lanes, Americans with Disabilities (ADA) costs, and that circulators had limited eligibility for regional bus operating assistance. Councilmember Yentes asked what was the line of polling and if it was from actual maps, polling legislative and ballot language, or conceptual half-cent tax. Director Bohr stated the polling touched on many different areas and he would share the results, adding it focused on how willing people would be to increase or extend the tax and how much they thought transportation was worth funding and then into specific priorities in transportation. Councilmember Yentes said she would assume there was work done to meet with legislators and committees to weigh in. Director Bohr stated yes, there was outreach but it would ramp up exponentially going forward. Councilmember Yentes discussed hesitation from certain law makers and asked what measures were taken to make it different than past bills. Director Bohr stated past efforts were done from outside this process or outside of Maricopa Association of Government’s (MAG’s) efforts with other stakeholder groups. Councilmember Yentes requested to flag one issue from back in 2003, stating the formulas used were contentious and were wanted to be stripped. She voiced the past requests for more oversight rather than the direction of fewer firewalls, adding there should be a robust policy debate regarding how regional money was spent, adding if they remove that ceiling of 33% that more money would go to regional projects like the light rail. Director Bohr noted having a cap on the light rail was a common request and noted her concerns and said there were some parameters build in. Councilmember Yentes noted her cap suggestion would be zero and discussed tax codes, stating the transportation statutes were a bit of a mess. She asked about any effort or discussion to clean it up or introduce a new statute. Director Bohr stated there would be a shift to discuss those types of projects and include those concerns in their efforts. Councilmember Tilque thanked Councilmember Yentes for her comments, adding she agreed that not having the limits or buckets did set the Town up for failure. She discussed transparency for voters and what needed to happen with legislature, noting efforts needed to be clearly defined to show where the money was going and how it would be invested in the infrastructure. Director Bohr discussed infrastructure in Gilbert and Councilmember Tilque’s concerns. Councilmember Yentes asked if what was proposed passed, would collection start after the expiration of the current in 2024. Director Bohr stated it would not go into effect until 2026. Mayor Peterson thanked Director Bohr and past efforts by members of the Council. Councilmember Yentes asked if the Council would have an opportunity to vote on the subject after bill language was available, adding it was an important discussion to have as community from a policy standpoint. Director Bohr stated it can be discussed to provide information and get Council input at another time. 2. Discussion on Noise Ordinance Assistant Town Attorney Jorquez provided a broad overview of the noise ordinance in reference to recent questions. She provided a history of the noise ordinance, which was adopted in 2000, amended in 2002, reviewed to address the difficulty of enforcing the decibel base in 2017, and was amended again in 2018. She reviewed the objective and more subjective areas on the noise ordinances. She stated it was codified in Code Section 42-61 (e)(1). She reviewed standards of Section 42-64 and the fourteen factors to be considered if a noise violation existed. She summarized the history of Sections 42-61 and 42-64. She stated in 2018 the first draft was largely replaced with a subjective standard and postponed, adding more feedback was then requested and gathered. She said it addressed stakeholder concerns to avoid overly broad or subjective noise regulations that resulted in unintended consequences. She discussed the application and enforcement procedures including the number of complaints received and processed with noise meters. Code Inspections Supervisor DeOrio and Assistant Police Chief Angstead demonstrated code compliance decibels and discussed how noise complaints were handled using noise meter model no. TES 1350. Supervisor DeOrio demonstrated the sound of 55 decibels at a residential home reading during the day. She discussed different noise variables, adding the noise ordinance, adding the ordinance was very sensitive and did consider the noise decibels. Vice Mayor Koprowski asked how other areas like public right-of-way, parks, or schools were addressed in the Code. Supervisor DeOrio stated when staff is taking a reading, the lower threshold would be used. Vice Mayor Koprowski asked if there were other considerations for special events, such as fireworks. Supervisor DeOrio stated there had not been a problem before and measures to remediate those concerns were taken into consideration. Assistant Town Attorney Jorquez provided clarification on the provisions in the noise ordinance to use the lower reading and discussed provisions for special events. Town Attorney Payne discussed the fourteen exceptions listed in Section 42-61, noting that Town-approved special events would be an exception. Councilmember September discussed the history of how the Town Code was adopted and asked how Gilbert chose the decibel reading inside a residence, rather than at the property line as a measurement standard. He said there seemed to be more interest at property line in other cities’ ordinances. Assistant Town Attorney Jorquez stated she did not find any specific information that spoke to that but her understanding was that it did run the gambit and that property lines vary, adding she could do some more research. Councilmember September asked Supervisor DeOrio about her experience working with the City of Phoenix and how they measured decibels. Supervisor DeOrio stated though it had been a while since she worked for Phoenix, she said at that time it was measured at the property line but may have changed. Councilmember Anderson asked what the Council’s plan was. Mayor Peterson stated discussed Council’s objective and the need to do more research. There was discussion regarding the need to do research first and then consider stakeholder groups. Councilmember September asked for staff to present comparisons with other jurisdictions and information on how it was enforced. Councilmember Tilque stated she had no problem with looking at what others were doing but she was not prepared to create a stakeholder group. She discussed being cautious of the impacts to the business community and the need to have provisions there were enforceable based on good measures. Councilmember Yentes stated perhaps some of the investigation would include how many complaints were received in a period of time and if they circled around specific areas or reoccurring issues. She stated any potential changes should be made to the subjective standards. Councilmember Anderson stated minor adjustments would not likely need a stakeholder group. Mayor Peterson stated staff would do some investigated and bring back to the Council before any changes were made. Councilmember Hendrix cautioned finding a solution to a problem that did not exist. He discussed common decibel levels of appliances and the current Code, adding a malfunctioning refrigerator could violate the Town Code. Mayor Peterson thanked Town staff for the presentations. ADJOURN Mayor Peterson adjourned the meeting at 6:34 p.m. ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________________ Brigette Peterson, Mayor Chaveli Herrera, MMC, Town Clerk CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Study Session of the Town Council of the Town of Gilbert held on the 3rd day of August, 2021. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this __________ day of _______________, 2021. ___________________________________ Chaveli Herrera, MMC, Town Clerk