Council Study Session

MINUTES OF THE GILBERT TOWN COUNCIL, IN SPECIAL MEETING FOR A STUDY SESSION, TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2022, 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 Aimee Yentes, Councilmembers Scott Anderson, Yung Koprowski, Laurin Hendrix, Scott September, and Kathy Tilque COUNCIL ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Town Manager Dawn Prince, Town Clerk Chaveli Herrera, Town Attorney Chris Payne, Deputy Clerk Judy Martinez, Intergovernmental Relations Director Rob Bohr, and Development Services Director Kyle Mieras CALL TO ORDER OF SPECIAL MEETING Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 6:20 p.m. AGENDA ITEM 1. Discussion on history and current and future status of rail in Gilbert, including a related ordinance. Development Services Director Mieras provided a background on the history of rail in Gilbert. He stated that the study spanned about 20-30 years and the intent was to provide information to the Council. He stated that there was no ask and was simply informative. Director Mieras said in 2019 a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) project was created to identify opportunities for future high-capacity transit use in the Heritage District and Cooley Station. He said a consultant was selected in 2020 but was placed on hold when COVID started, adding in 2022, a consultant was selected for the Integrated Transit Center Development Plan and a contract was brought to the Council on April 26, 2022. He said after discussion with the Council about the Integrated Transit Center Development Plan and questions regarding rail, the Council voted to continue the item to August 23, 2022 agenda for a Study Session on this topic. Director Mieras discussed three different types of rail, explaining light rail typically served trips to and within central business districts, commuter rail typically served daily work trips between primary employment centers, and intercity/passenger rail typically served longer distance travel between metropolitan areas. He spoke of the history of the discussion and plans for the rail, stating that there had been 20-30 years of state, regional and local planning efforts. He said that the intention that night was to provide the Council with as much information as possible to make decisions regarding the subject. He stated that the Town of Gilbert, Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Region had a long-documented history of interest in commuter rail and intercity passenger rail transportation options beginning in 1993 to present. He shared information on the studies of the Phoenix/Tucson Intercity Rail Corridor studies (1993), the Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study (2011-2016), Town of Gilbert Passenger Rail Analysis (2016), MAG Commuter Rail Update (2018) and Town of Gilbert Transit Framework Study (2018). He shared information on two Resolutions that supported ADOT’s Passenger Rail Study; Resolution No. 3157, which was approved by the Council in 2013, and Resolution No. 3245, which was approved by the Council in 2014. He discussed the Cooley Station and Heritage District Transit Center locations and adopted documents. He shared a segment of the 2010 General Plan and 2020 General Plan showing the commuter line, passenger rail line and proposed station locations in Gilbert. He also shared excerpts of the Heritage District Redevelopment Plan. He thanked the Council for the opportunity to provide the overview of the rail. He stated that currently there were no plans in place for rail to come to Gilbert. He also said that the commuter rail and passenger rail had been studied but light rail had not even been a discussion. He said the contract was the next planning step in analyzing and designing multi-mode transit centers. Intergovernmental Relations Director Bohr thanked Director Mieras for explaining the history of the different studies. He discussed current information related to intercity passenger rail. He said that the studies had not translated to any organized efforts or plans for development of an intercity passenger rail corridor in Arizona. He also said that there were no proposals related to new rails planned to come to the Council for consideration. He mentioned the Federal Infrastructure Investment Jobs Act (IIJA), passed by Congress in November 2021, included a significant number of programs and available funds for intercity passenger rail, adding all funding through those programs would be available through an open and competitive process and there had not been any corridors identified at that point. He discussed the Federal Rail Administration’s (FRA) Corridor Identification and Development Program, or Corridor ID Program, as a first step in identifying those corridors which would likely take a decade of discussion, coordination, and planning. He stated that Amtrak identified and expressed interest in an Arizona corridor that would run from Tucson to Phoenix to Buckeye, but there had not been any activity or efforts to fund or develop an Arizona corridor. He stated that the Town of Gilbert was not applying for any Federal funds for anything related to rail. He expressed that it was possible that the prospect of an Arizona corridor may never materialize, but could happen through regional, statewide and/or Federal entities and with or without the involvement or active participation of Gilbert at all. Mayor Peterson asked the Council if they had questions for Directors Bohr and Mieras. Councilmember Tilque thanked Directors Bohr and Mieras for their presentation. She said she wanted to clarify a previous agenda item from the April 2022 Council meeting because she believed some people had a misunderstanding about the item. She wanted to clarify that the prior agenda item was to fund an integrated transit feasibility study which evaluated the usefulness of land currently designated for some sort of a transit station or hub, and it was not clearly identified as a commuter rail transit station, but rather all options for transit. Director Mieras stated the item that Councilmember Tilque discussed was on the April 26, 2022 Council agenda and confirmed that the item was an integrated transit center development plan to study different modes of transportation. Councilmember Tilque responded that at that meeting there was not enough information and were concerns about the piece identified as a commuter rail transit station and the Council needed more information before approving a transit study; therefore, the item was continued to the August 2022 meeting. Director Mieras confirmed that was correct. Councilmember Tilque asked if the Council was asked to vote or consider bringing a light rail to Gilbert. Director Mieras responded with no, that had not been on an agenda. Councilmember Tilque asked if the Council was asked to vote or consider funding for a commuter rail coming to Gilbert. Director Mieras answered no. Councilmember Tilque stated that she wanted to clarify because she had received emails and comments from public that people felt that the Town was bringing and funding a commuter rail to Gilbert. She wanted to clarify that the conversation was to talk about future transportation modes in Gilbert, what was feasible and not, including a community conversation during that study that would give people the opportunity to say that they did not want a commuter rail transit stop in Gilbert. She asked Director Mieras if that was correct. Director Mieras answered yes. Councilmember Tilque said she was confused how it went from looking at the total picture of future modes of transportation, with two pieces of land designated that could accommodate whatever that future may look like, to “Town of Gilbert is going to use your taxpayer money to bring commuter rail to Gilbert.” She asked Vice Mayor Yentes about a public meeting she held with residents to discuss commuter rail. Councilmember Tilque asked if any Councilmembers or staff members were invited to participate in this community meeting. Vice Mayor Yentes answered no, that she was there as a representative of the Council and disseminated information to the public. Councilmember Tilque asked if it was a public meeting or by invitation only. Vice Mayor Yentes responded that it was a public meeting. Councilmember Tilque asked how people were invited. Vice Mayor Yentes said it was organized by neighbors and other members of the community that were concerned about the item. Councilmember Tilque asked if it was a group that had concerns and heard the conversation at a Council meeting and got together and wanted to have a meeting. Vice Mayor Yentes responded that was correct. Councilmember Tilque said she understood that there was some social media information that was shared. She asked if there was a social media account that shared information to concerned citizens, some type of “Freedom Press”. Vice Mayor Yentes responded that there were many social platforms that shared information. Councilmember Tilque asked if there was a social media platform used for this particular item. Vice Mayor Yentes said she was sure there were all kinds of platforms used. She said if Councilmember Tilque wanted clarity of why people were concerned, then stopped and said it felt like a lot of “double speak”. Councilmember Tilque said she was trying to figure out how there were so many upset people thinking Gilbert was spending taxpayer money to bring commuter rail here, and wanted to understand where they got the information. She stated that she did not want to go by hearsay but she was told that during those meetings people were told the Town was bringing light rail to Gilbert and she asked if that had ever been said. Vice Mayor Yentes responded that she had never couched it as light rail and she had been very factual. She stated that the day after she held that public meeting, Director Bohr disseminated an email to the Council and it was consistent with what was presented at the meeting. She said the study was the impetus, and if the Town was positioning itself and planning for the prospect of commuter rail, then the citizens should be aware so they could also plan their opposition. She said she understood it was not the sole discretion of the Town, but decisions like subsidizing and building stations were, then discussed the company AECOM designing commuter rail. She said she appreciated Councilmember Tilque being honest about how she saw the situation, but asked the Council to see it from the position of the residents at a disadvantage when it happened through the different planning mechanisms that they did not get to participate in. She advocated for people to stay ahead of it and express their opposition. Councilmember Tilque expressed appreciation for Vice Mayor Yentes’ comments and said she wanted community input. She said she was concerned about people being upset about something the Council was not talking about. She said that she believed if Gilbert did a study and organized community input opportunities, the study would show that the citizens did not want a rail stop in Gilbert and she was confident the study would portray what the residents wanted. She said that her concern was people were rightfully upset about the topic because they got misinformation somewhere. She said she wanted to make sure that if people were concerned that they understood what was being discussed. She said she did not understand who would put up a sign stating the Council was voting on commuter rail on August 9th when they were not. She said transit opportunities like electric bikes and rideshare were lost because people were worried about a commuter rail that would probably not ever happen. She reiterated that the item had been only for a study on land use. Vice Mayor Yentes said the intention was to put off the agenda item until the next Council meeting. Mayor Peterson said the Study Session was the Council’s opportunity to discuss the subject openly with no voting. She said the Town was trying to get the real information to the public. She stated that there had never been a light rail or commuter rail planned in Gilbert. She said that there had been studies regionally and asked Director Bohr to explain MAG, Valley Metro and ADOT, which were separate from the Town. Director Bohr explained the involvement of ADOT and MAG. He explained that ADOT was responsible for construction of all transportation facilities throughout the state and responsible for statewide studies and planning documents. He also explained MAG was a regional planning authority for Maricopa County that did a lot of planning and studies on transportation outlook specific to Maricopa County. Mayor Peterson said Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) was a separate organization that dealt with transportation in this region. Director Bohr responded that Valley Metro had two boards of directors, one was Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) and the other was Rail Authority. He said Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe and Chandler were the only cities that belonged to that Board. He stated that the reason Gilbert and other cities did not belong on the Board was because they had no plans or intentions of extending light rail to their communities. Mayor Peterson said she asked Transportation staff member Nathan Williams to look into any light rail plans there may have been over the years. Mayor Peterson stated that the staff member could not find any documents or record for any light rail plans in Gilbert. Mayor Peterson asked Director Bohr if that was accurate. Director Bohr responded that to his knowledge that was correct. Mayor Peterson said the discussions for transit stations were not for commuter rail specifically but for multimodal transportation. She said that the transit stations happened to be located on the railway in case someday possibly rail came to Gilbert, but said none of them really expected that to happen. She asked if this was correct. Director Bohr responded that he would not want to speculate, but it would be a lot of steps and a long time from now. Mayor Peterson said they were receiving requests to ban commuter rail in Gilbert but any rail that would come would be on the current Union Pacific Railway that was private property and owned by Union Pacific Railway. She said if the rail decided to come through Gilbert on those rail lines, the Town would have no say. Director Bohr responded that it could happen with or without Gilbert’s involvement, whether or not if they were in favor of it. Mayor Peterson responded that it could include public comment and that agencies, cities, and towns around the rail would be able to comment whether they wanted the rail or not, but because rail lines were not owned by any of them, they could be used in a different format. Director Bohr responded that was correct and because of how long of a process it was, the steps along the way would include significant public participation and outreach. He affirmed that it could still come through because the rail lines did not belong to Gilbert. Vice Mayor Yentes spoke of “double speak” again and said she could understand the confusion from the public’s perspective. She stated that some of the studies were cooperative studies between Gilbert and Valley Metro and along the way had put pieces in place to accommodate and plan for commuter rail and light rail. She stated that the contract that precipitated the topic included a rail analysis and discussed language in the document. She said the frustration was seeing all the information presented and then hearing that there were no plans for those things. Councilmember Tilque stated that perhaps the conversation from the April 26, 2022 agenda item should have been to express not being comfortable with the contractor and the desire to have further study on the scope. She said that was a different conversation than telling people that they were funding commuter rail. Vice Mayor Yentes said that was a symptom, not the problem. She stated that it was building a path to execute an agenda. She said that she believed because Gilbert had entered into private contracts to lay the foundation, that it was evident it did not matter who was sitting on the Council or what the public thought. She said binding through contracts was a template to make policymakers and public discussion irrelevant. She said there were a number of public policy issues that could deprive the Council of deliberating on or public having input on if they were not proactive, then discussed bureaucrats affecting policy. She said her concern was a genuine one and she was not trying to twist facts or rile people. Councilmember Tilque said she appreciated all of Vice Mayor Yentes’ comments. She expressed concerns that instead of being proactive and looking at all opportunities, the Town would not do anything, because they were concerns about funding commuter or light rail. She said she had taken the feedback to heart, but there should be a community-wide discussion, though she thought the same outcome would come from it. She said the entire community had the right to weigh in and she did not want to lose being proactive in understanding the future modes of transportation in Gilbert, like electric charge stations. Councilmember Anderson commented that he hoped he was not represented at the meeting that he had his own agenda on the subject. Vice Mayor Yentes said that she did not mention anyone from the Council and that the discussions at the meeting were from her own perspective. Councilmember Anderson said that we had to get a grip in this community. He said that there were 269,000 people in this community and maybe 100 people in the audience and who spoke for the others. He said he agreed with Councilmember Tilque and wanted to hear the other people too. He said that further discussion was needed with further outreach, because all the people who were at the meeting seemed to be the ones who were opposed to it. He said he would like to talk to other people that also had an interest in the topic. He said it was not a joke and it was serious. He said he got the public’s input and understood where they were coming from. He asked for statistics to show that commuter rail brought homelessness, drugs and crime. He said he understood about light rail and was thankful to have the public’s opinions. He asked the public to please try to see eye to eye. Mayor Peterson said she understood the public’s frustration but some of the Council felt there was misinformation supplied to the public . She said that when they had tried to provide accurate information, the Council was being disrespected on a regular basis. She said the Study Session was to bring information and the discussion to the public, then noted the different perspectives of the Council. She said she saw the development agreement and the plans that had been done over the years as a responsible method for planning what could potentially happen in the community. She said it was the same process that Gilbert had been using for about 22 years. She said the Council was active with MAG and Valley Metro to keep an eye on what was happening and possibly what was coming by Gilbert in the future. She stated that the Council before them did what they believed was right with the information they had at the time. She said that the current Council was trying to do what was right with the information they had now. She said the public had been provided a lot of misinformation and provided examples. She stated that there were no plans to build light rail or commuter rail by the current Council. She stated that they were looking at two pieces of land and how they could be used. She discussed considering and voting on future contracts at the time they were on an agenda, then discussed her experience and items that were decided on by prior Council. She said that she heard from the public that they wanted the study to be tabled and she was there to do that during the meeting. She said they needed to find a way to move the community forward. Town Attorney Payne shared a draft Ordinance for discussion that was prepared at the request of three Councilmembers. He stated that there would be no vote on the Ordinance during that meeting, but said it was planned to be on the September 6, 2022 Council agenda. He said the proposed Ordinance would create a new section in the Town Code, Article 4, Chapter 62, titled Commuter Rail and Light Rail. He said the purpose of the Ordinance would be to prohibit the spending of Town resources for coordination, construction, operation, or maintenance of a commuter rail or light rail system. He discussed the definitions of terms in the proposal. He discussed the sections and the prohibitions therein. Mayor Peterson asked Town Attorney Payne if the Ordinance would stop the commuter rail from using the rail tracks that were already in Gilbert. Town Attorney Payne answered no, that it would only prohibit the Town from spending money to do any studies or build any infrastructure that would support a commuter rail stations. Councilmember September asked if the Ordinance would prohibit a private party, such as Amtrak, to spend funds to build a commuter station in Gilbert if they chose. Town Attorney Payne answered not if it was solely their money that was used for that purpose. Vice Mayor Yentes asked for the Council’s feedback and if there was a consensus on the Ordinance. She discussed Subsections B and C and provisions. Councilmember Koprowski said she would not support the Ordinance because of its limitations. She said that it was not timely and would like to get information in the future for the current and future Councils, if necessary. Councilmember Hendrix said he disagreed with the thought that commuter rail was too far out into the future not to be looked into now; he spoke of the need to plan for the future and look at what would happen. He said he would support limiting commuter rail or preventing any spending on commuter or light rail in the future. He discussed the study for various modes of transportation, the purpose of the study, and said he agreed with Councilmember Tilque’s belief that a study would show that residents did not want a commuter rail. He spoke of the costs of the studies and how much studying was needed, then spoke of his experience and said he felt the Town could leave the commuter rail portion out and not study it anymore. He spoke of the public comments he received, stated he did not want to fund commuter rail, and urged the public to vote and to encourage their friends to vote. Mayor Peterson asked Councilmember Anderson if he would like to answer Vice Mayor Yentes’ question about the Ordinance. Councilmember Anderson stated that it was the first time he saw the Ordinance and would like more time to review it and that he was not too opposed to it. He asked Director Mieras how in depth and valid the 2018 study was and if it could be used without doing another study. Director Mieras responded that the 2018 study was a transit framework study which looked at connecting current and future transit to locations already in place to the transit stations. He said the study did not look at the design or layout of what those station locations would handle. He said the new study would take into account different modes of transportation and was more programmatic of a transit center station. He said that the studies were a piece of the puzzle to look at in total. Councilmember Tilque stated that the issue she had with the Ordinance was that the Council was not able to obligate future Councils of how they shall or shall not use tax dollars. She said she feared that type of Ordinance mislead the public into believing that future Councils could not and would not look at this issue and would never vote to fund it; however, she stated that future Council had the option to rescind the Ordinance. She stated the reason she requested to bring an Ordinance forward was to have a public discussion as a Council. She discussed the statute that a Councilmember could not talk to more than two people on the Council about any issue and that she wanted to have a dialogue in public. She said she believed a lot of people were blindsided that it was the first time commuter rail was brought up, which is why the history was important to her. She stated that the issue she had with the particular Ordinance was that the ability to look at transit as a whole tended to be taken away by saying Gilbert could not use any funds to do a study. She stated that although it was written to identify commuter rail and light rail, she was concerned it would not always be interpreted that way when potentially doing a study in the future. She asked how the language could be changed to ensure that did not happen in the future. Vice Mayor Yentes responded that regarding the first point Councilmember Tilque mentioned, she stated there could be changes or updates made to any Code in the book. She said the current electorate would have that same authority. She said there was only an upside if the Council took their policy position by the authority granted to them to pass Ordinances to reflect those policy positions. She said she saw it as mitigating a risk and asked for consensus that they were not going to assess a local sales tax, for example, to fund commuter or light rail, then mentioned the City of Phoenix. Councilmember Tilque thanked Vice Mayor Yentes, stating it was important for Vice Mayor Yentes to acknowledge that the Ordinance could be changed in the future and that the public was not being misled. Vice Mayor Yentes said she believed people understood that they elected policymakers that may pass, repeal, change or amend Ordinances. She said it was the same with lawmakers and, though it could be overturned, it should be a reflection of policymakers at the current situation. Councilmember Tilque asked if the Phoenix City Council voted to pass sales tax or if it was by vote of a people. Vice Mayor Yentes responded that it was referred to the people. Councilmember Tilque stated that she believed if Gilbert were to create a tax for a specific use that the vote of the people would be important. She said that it sounded like “the Council shall”, asking if that was correct. Vice Mayor Yentes responded yes, that the citizens held their own referendum power under the Constitution and could collect signatures and qualify for the ballot and implement it democratically. Councilmember Tilque and Mayor Peterson asked if Section B of the proposed Ordinance would preclude the Council from referring it to a vote of the people. Town Attorney Payne responded that he did not think it would, because it was specific to purposes of design, planning, construction, operation and maintenance of rail. Vice Mayor Yentes asked if the Ordinance would prohibit Council of referring it to taxpayers to vote on directly. Town Attorney Payne answered that it would not. He stated that it was very specific, that it applied to actual design and construction of light rail line. Mayor Peterson asked if the food tax or sales tax could be increased for an item like that or if a new tax would need to be put in place. Town Attorney Payne responded that he was not sure and did not have the statutes to verify. Councilmember Tilque asked Vice Mayor Yentes if the Ordinance could include the statement that it must be referred to the voters. Vice Mayor Yentes responded that she was willing to reach a compromise. Mayor Peterson asked Councilmember September if he had any comments. Councilmember September asked Attorney Payne if future Council could unravel the Ordinance by a majority vote. Attorney Payne answered that was correct. Councilmember September discussed a congressional study of Amtrak and said he had shared it with some members of the audience. He spoke about a commuter rail system in New Mexico where he used to live. He stated he was not a big fan of commuter rail and that it would take a remarkably compelling argument to convince him that light rail would have benefits that would outweigh the downside. He spoke about the Ordinance and that it was his first time seeing it; he expressed his concern that it gave the public a false sense of security. Vice Mayor Yentes responded to that point that there would be another Council meeting, the Council would have to repeal it, and there would be another opportunity for people to discuss. Councilmember Tilque said the subject had taken a lot of time but was a big issue for the community. She said she was not saying she was willing to support it, but was willing to look at the definition of commuter rail so that it did not inhibit the ability for the Council to look at other transit opportunities at the stations. She said she would remove Sections A and B, and add that the “Town shall not assess a tax or fee without going to a vote of public”. She said she wanted to make sure that language such as “design, planning, construction, operation or maintenance” would not interfere with any of the other opportunities. She asked to see that language before the next meeting. Mayor Peterson commented that the definition of commuter rail concerned her because if decided to use the transit station in Cooley Station for other modes of transportation that would require onsite parking and repairs, such as electric vehicle charging, and if it was Town-owned, the Town would have to be able to repair and replace those items. She cautioned to watch how transit stations was worded. She stated she would remove Section A completely and she was okay with the comments by Councilmember Tilque regarding Section B, except she would be concerned about “not assess a tax or fee for the purpose of or in the aid of the design, planning, and construction of an operation…” because design was planned before money was asked for and the tax needed was determined before going to the voters. Councilmember Hendrix made a follow up to the comment that a future Council may change the proposed Ordinance being discussed. He said that the public should be aware that the entire Town Code could be changed by a future or current Council. He stated that essentially any decision made by the Council with the exception of third-party binding contracts could be changed. Mayor Peterson said comments made about bureaucrats putting policy forward by staff themselves was misleading, that policy always came to the Council, and the Council was the deciding body on whether or not policy was voted on and passed for future use. Vice Mayor Yentes responded that often times the conversations were the context for what became agreements that were not negotiated by the Council. She stated that it was the responsibility of the Council to know what they were voting on, said it was a biproduct of how city governments were, and said she appreciated the clarification. Mayor Peterson said she agreed and expressed that it was very important for Councilmembers and Mayors to pay attention to everything that was put forward in their packets and to understand what the ramifications of those votes were. Mayor Peterson announced that the Council would be taking a short break and returning for the Regular meeting. ADJOURN Mayor Peterson adjourned the meeting at 7:58 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 23rd day of August, 2022. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this __________ day of ______________, 2022. ___________________________________ Chaveli Herrera, MMC, Town Clerk