Council Study Session

MINUTES OF THE GILBERT TOWN COUNCIL, IN SPECIAL MEETING FOR A STUDY SESSION, TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2024, AT 3:00 PM, MUNICIPAL BUILDING I, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 50 E. CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, GILBERT, ARIZONA COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Brigette Peterson, Vice Mayor Scott Anderson, Councilmembers Chuck Bongiovanni, Bobbi Buchli, Yung Koprowski, Kathy Tilque, and Jim Torgeson COUNCIL ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Town Manager Patrick Banger, Town Attorney Chris Payne, Town Clerk Chaveli Herrera, Office of Management and Budget Director Kelly Pfost, Intergovernmental Relations Director Rob Bohr, Parks and Recreation Manager Lane Gram, Parks and Recreation Director Robert Carmona, and Police Chief Michael Soelberg CALL TO ORDER OF SPECIAL MEETING Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. AGENDA ITEM 1. Discussion of FY 2025 Preliminary Budget. Office of Management and Budget Director Pfost provided a brief overview of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 budget including some of Gilbert’s accolades and rankings. She provided background, stating there would be a loss of Residential Rental from Sales Tax with an impact of about $8 million per year starting in January 2025. She also noted the State Shared Income Tax Reduction. She said FY 2024 had about $73 million in revenue, with $59 million in FY 2025, and likely $48-$52 million in FY 2026. She said inflation and supply chain issues were not yet fully resolved, then noted growth and aging infrastructure would continue to provide budget pressure leading to a tight budget year ahead. Director Pfost discussed the budget process leading to the final adoption in June 2024. She said the requested versus recommended budget was different from most other years; the requested budget was about $70 million, but the recommended budget was around $38 million, only 54% recommended as opposed to a typical 75%. She said the General Fund was the largest fund and included costs to maintain service levels, followed by life cycle replacement, and other needs. She discussed the Town’s strategic initiatives, stating that most fund use was in the Exceptional Built Environment initiative. She said there were a total of 46 recommended positions in the budget, noting the Council was provided information with the justification for those positions. Director Pfost said the bulk of the budget was allocated in Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects and provided the CIP project categories, totaling about $1.6 billion. She noted the North Water Treatment Plant was Gilbert’s largest CIP project and one of the largest projects in the state, one-third of the CIP budget alone. She noted the full amount of each CIP project was budgeted up front to ensure sufficient funding would be available to finish the project. She provided a FY2024 and FY2025 comparison showing the difference was an increase in $294 million in CIP investment. She discussed secondary property tax which could only be used to pay for voter-approved debt; she discussed repaying principle and interest payments. She said the proposed levy was not enough, and they would have to dip into the reserves in order to make all payments. She said that was the purpose of the reserves, to be able to pay that 5% minimum while maintaining the 0.9800 rate per $100 of assessed value. She said the upcoming milestones were the preliminary budget adoption and CIP review on May 21, 2024 and the final adoptions for budget, CIP, and tax levy on June 4, 2024. Councilmember Bongiovanni asked which department had the most items not recommended in the budget; Director Pfost said the data was not calculated by department, but she could get that information. Vice Mayor Anderson asked for a summary of why residents would see an increase on their tax bills, despite the rate not going up. Director Pfost stated it was a rate based on property values; if the value of someone’s property increased the dollar amount of what that person paid would also increase. Director Pfost said there was a cap of how much property values could increase per year, and it usually did not go up more than 5%. Vice Mayor Anderson said when the values went into the negative, that was the time to worry. Mayor Peterson added that those rates were based on the full cash value, not the limited cash value; the Assessor’s Office was in charge of that and the 5% cap fell under State law. Councilmember Torgeson confirmed it would likely be a reduction of about $14 million from State shared revenue and $8 million in rental tax; he asked how the Town would make up for that. Director Pfost said they knew the loss from the State-shared income tax was coming so they built in about $15 million when they built FY 2024. Director Pfost said the residential rental was decreasing the amount of sales tax but growth had offset some of that; she said the decreases were impacting the budget but it mostly affected the one-time side, due to preparation. Town Manager Banger spoke of the need to address impacts in the new fiscal year and find new revenue streams. Councilmember Tilque emphasized that the $1.6 billion was on CIP projects, not the operating budget. She said she did not see an item budgeted for an enhancement of software for the 311 program. She said she was told that was being evaluated, and though not budgeted yet, that piece had not been lost. Councilmember Buchli thanked Director Pfost for making the information easy to understand and said she was thankful that the tax levy rate remained the same. Councilmember Torgeson asked how much the new hire packet total was this year. Director Pfost replied about $3.5 million in the General Fund. Councilmember Koprowski asked if there would likely need to be a mid-year evaluation of budget based on built-in gates if certain revenues were not coming in strong. Director Pfost discussed how sales tax was projected and the delta. Councilmember Bongiovanni asked for comparisons in terms of supply chain issues and inflation. Town Manager Banger said it depended on the service line and gave examples, then said there was some normalization in certain areas. Councilmember Torgeson asked when was the proper time to bring up issues he had with the budget. Director Pfost said during the Study Session or during the Council’s one-on- one meetings with Town Manager Banger , but the sooner, the better. Mayor Peterson spoke in favor of removing the Council’s discretionary funding and allowing it to be used to help fund nonprofits. Councilmember Buchli said she did not have an issue with that recommendation, but she said the Council was adjusting their budgets as well. They discussed the nonprofit application process. Mayor Peterson noted any changes would have to go through Director Pfost before the budget was voted on by the Council. Councilmember Tilque said she was confused about whether conferences were part of the discretionary fund or separate; she said she would like to see how the new process played out before making changes, but did support adding to funding for nonprofits. They discussed use of that funding, noting most had not been used in the past. Town Manager Banger stated any unspent funds would roll into the General Fund and the same amount of money would be allocated to those line items for the following year. Mayor Peterson also noted that a State of the Town was required in Code for the Mayor, yet there was no budget for it; Director Pfost said contingency could be provided for that if needed. Councilmember Koprowski supported increasing the amounts given to nonprofits but would want the staff to give direction on where that budget should come from. Mayor Peterson spoke of the work of nonprofits and the benefits of supporting them. Vice Mayor Anderson discussed the expectation for staff to look closely at whether to target more nonprofits or spread it out more. Assistant Town Manager Prince discussed the process of assessing the needs of the nonprofits and determining how the funding was distributed. Councilmember Tilque suggested giving staff a specific amount to increase for nonprofits. Intergovernmental Relations Director Bohr provided clarification about the budget allotted for the Council’s training or discretionary funds. Mayor Peterson discussed paying out of pocket for much of her own travel for trips including Sister Cities and the USS Arizona trip. The consensus of the Council was to keep the budget for conferences at $3,000 for the Council and $6,000 for the Mayor and to find an additional $70,000, or a total of $500,000 for nonprofit funding. 2. Discussion and presentation on Gilbert Parks and Recreation Master Plan Executive Summary. Parks and Recreation Manager Gram stated the Master Plan was for 10 years and could potentially guide Gilbert through its buildout from 2024-2034. She said the development of the plan started in November of 2022 and J2 Design, Design Lab and BerryDunn were selected as consultants. She noted the community outreach included 60,000 touchpoints, an unprecedented number. Jason Genck of BerryDunn acknowledged the work of the Parks and Recreation Department. He provided a plan overview with key highlights stating “Plan Where You Play” was the theme of the 10-year plan to be a flexible road map and provide long-term direction. He discussed key project milestones and how Gilbert achieved unprecedented levels of engagement, then thanked the many focus groups. He discussed how the information was developed into the Strategic Initiatives of Preserve Existing Assets, Excel Though Innovation, Create a Connected Community, Share Our Story, Ensure Equitable Service, and Develop Our Team. He discussed Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) high priority recommendations, then said the next step would be to take feedback from the Study Session to adopt a plan and begin implementation workshops. He restated that the work of Gilbert’s leadership, Parks and Recreation Department, and community engagement was unprecedented. Mayor Peterson echoed the sentiment about staff and thanked Jason for the presentation. Councilmember Koprowski supported finding a way to inform the youth who participated in the engagement efforts what changes were implemented and how they were a part of it. Councilmember Tilque discussed setting high expectations for community engagement, then discussed limited resources in parks and recreation. She said there had been so much investment in streets and water infrastructure, now it was time to recognize the Parks and Recreation Department’s efforts. She said she knew an aquatics center was a popular request but the Council had agreed the Town should not go into the aquatics business; she said the Town should continue examining potential partnerships to add those amenities. She said there were amazing things happening in South Gilbert and they were seeing aging facilities in North Gilbert. Parks and Recreation Director Carmona said they wrote the Master Plan without anything that would lock the Council into any decisions. Councilmember Bongiovanni acknowledged staff and engagement levels. Vice Mayor Anderson expressed concerns about the amount of space in the Master Plan under the idea of “Opportunities for All”, stating he hoped it was not an indication of engaging in discriminatory practices as a Town. He said other people called that “DE&I” and he hoped they were not going down that path. He supported showing the value in parks and recreation, such as health benefits and economic values. Parks and Recreation Director Carmona stated they tried to touch on all of the designated topics; he said when they addressed “Opportunities for all” in the department they were focusing on diversity of programming for items like adaptive recreation, classes for seniors, shaded playgrounds, etc., and travel to reach classes. Vice Mayor Anderson said it would be less toxic to state that they want everyone to have access. Vice Mayor Anderson asked about the Riparian Education Center in the Master Plan. Director Carmona stated it was at the top of mind for the department and community, and there was a request for proposal (RFP) for that project; he said they could look at adding it as a priority in the document. Councilmember Buchli said she would continue to be an advocate for a recreation center and possible pool in South Gilbert. She said she believed it would still be included in the plan so it could still be discussed in the future. Director Carmona stated it was left in the document because it came from feedback received from the public, but the Council would continue to determine priorities from the community’s requests. Councilmember Tilque stated she understood it was left in because of the public’s feedback, but she did not want to give a false impression to the public that the Council was in agreement to go into the aquatics business; she was supportive of public private partnerships. Councilmember Torgeson said the Town should be hiring based on content of their character, not the color of their skin, and should provide services for people regardless; he added anytime he heard terms like DE&I that he was less receptive to it. He said the Town should look at being inclusive to everyone. Mayor Peterson said when it came to parks and recreation services, she never thought of it the way it was expressed by Vice Mayor Anderson and Councilmember Torgeson. She said she thought of Gilbert Regional Park specifically in terms of different types of activities for people with different abilities, as well as events like Truck-a-Palooza with the first hour being quiet, or efforts with the Gilbert Symphony for those with sensory sensitivity. She discussed certain departments being autism certified and efforts to make Gilbert dementia friendly. Director Carmona said they appreciated all of the comments and would take a look at the topic again to make sure they were meeting the expectations of the Council. Councilmember Tilque said “Opportunities for All” was just a way of saying they provided a community for all abilities and ages; she said there may be a few words that could be taken the wrong way to those sensitive to it. Vice Mayor Anderson said although he believed that was the intent with the programming that was offered, the full master plan discussed internal needs with staff and he was concerned that should be addressed. Councilmember Torgeson agreed with Vice Mayor Anderson, adding he would like people looked at as individuals and not as classes. Mayor Peterson thanked Town Manager Banger, Town Attorney Payne, Attorney Bob Grasso, and the rest of the team who were part of taking Cactus Yards back under the Town’s leadership; she said they had seen so many rewards from that facility in that time of five years. She thanked Jason Genck, Lane Gram, and all those involved in the Master Plan and community engagement efforts. 3. Discussion on an Ordinance related to brass knuckles. Police Chief Soelberg summarized the proposed ordinance stating the State did not have any prohibition on brass knuckles, but if they were used in an assault, it would be considered a weapon; however, possession of brass knuckles was not illegal. He said in Phoenix it was unlawful to sell, give away, or possess brass knuckles for the purpose of sale or giving away, and unlawful for any person, except a police officer, to carry brass knuckles concealed (criminal); there was no age restriction. In Yuma, it was unlawful for any person to sell, give away, or possess brass knuckles for the purpose of sale or giving away, except for resale to a law enforcement officer or licensed security guard (criminal); there was also no age restriction. He provided statistics in Gilbert since 2021 when brass knuckles were mentioned in the police report; some of which were with no crimes found, some were possession only, others with assaults. He reviewed the proposed ordinance stating it was the same as what Chandler was proposing and was age-based. He said the ordinance would prohibit the sale to, or the supply of, and possession of brass knuckles by a person under 18 years of age; possible penalties were a Class 1 misdemeanor with up to six months in jail, up to three years’ probation, and a fine up to $2,500. Councilmember Torgeson questioned why police officers were allowed to carry brass knuckles in Yuma; he added he did not see a self-defense issue. Police Chief Soelberg said it may be an antiquated law, but they were never allowed in Gilbert. Councilmember Buchli said she would like to see brass knuckles prohibited for individuals 21 years of age and under, not 18 years of age. Police Chief Soelberg said there was no legal prohibition for brass knuckles to be purchased, sold, or possessed, and it was the Council’s discretion if there should be an age limit; he said the use of brass knuckles made it illegal, but the possession did not. Councilmember Koprowski said she recalled data on Gilbert violence cases indicating incidents were not limited to teens. She echoed the concerns of Councilmember Buchli and said she supported a total ban. Police Chief Soelberg said he agreed, adding it was easier to enforce a total ban on possession; though he had heard of brass knuckles kept as collector items, he was in favor of a total ban. Councilmember Koprowski asked if there should be something added if they were held in a secure location as collectibles. Police Chief Soelberg discussed the difference of possession by being in someone’s home versus possession of it being on a person; he described different scenarios. Councilmember Koprowski stated she would support a total ban. Councilmember Bongiovanni said he would support either a total ban or a ban for anyone under the age of 21. Councilmember Torgeson it was an issue of trying to mitigate teen violence and the numbers showed there were only a few incidents. He supported a ban for 18 years of age and under, not impeding adult rights. Mayor Peterson voiced agreement with Councilmember Torgeson; Councilmember Tilque voiced the preference for consistency among cities. Town Attorney Payne stated he could let Chandler know of the direction of the Council from Gilbert. Councilmember Tilque discussed the differences with juveniles and minors. Vice Mayor Anderson also supported the ban for 18 years of age or under. Councilmember Bongiovanni said he was fine with the decision of the Council, but wanted an ordinance to pass. Councilmember Koprowski supported being sensitive to the data on the current cases, again noting that the individuals in the recent incidents were not juveniles. Councilmember Tilque discussed cases when a minor would be investigated as an adult. Police Chief Soelberg said for adjudication, if the individual was 17 years of age or under, it would go to Maricopa County Juvenile Court. He added if the individual was near 18 years of age, it would be deferred back to the Town in misdemeanor cases. Town Attorney Payne stated that the juvenile court typically prosecuted State law, so if it was regarding violating a Town ordinance, it would likely come back to Gilbert anyway, unless there were other charges and State law violations that would be processed by the County in one bundle. The Council discussed whether the ban should be for those 18 years of age and under, or 21 years of age and under. The majority of the Council supported the ordinance written with the ban for 18 years of age and under. The proposed ordinance would come before the Council for consideration on May 21, 2024. Mayor Peterson reiterated the preference of consistency with Chandler and other areas. 4. Discussion on an Ordinance related to parenting responsibility. Police Chief Soelberg provided a review of other jurisdictions, noting Chandler had an existing ordinance but was looking to update it. He summarized similar ordinances in Tempe, Glendale, Scottsdale, Goodyear, Flagstaff, Tucson, and Prescott Valley. He said the proposed Gilbert ordinance for unruly gatherings defined juvenile as any person under 18 years of age, minor as someone under the age of 21 years of age, and owner as the owner of property or any agent of an owner acting on behalf of the owner to control or otherwise regulate the occupancy or use of the property. He said it included a definition of property, owner, and who would be responsible. He said an unruly gathering was a party, gathering, or event on any public or private property, including property used to conduct business, in a manner which caused a disturbance of the reasonable enjoyment of private or public property by any person or persons. He added disturbances included but were not limited to excessive noise or traffic; obstruction of sidewalks or streets by crowds or vehicles; drinking in public; the use or possession of illegal drugs; the possession or consumption of alcohol or marijuana by minors; and fighting, violence, serious disruptive behavior, disturbing the peace, and/or littering. Police Chief Soelberg stated it shall be unlawful for a responsible person to permit an unruly gathering and shall be unlawful for any person to engage in any conduct causing a gathering to be unruly. He said there was an abatement clause, that a police officer may abate an unruly gathering by reasonable means including, but not limited to, citation of violators under applicable ordinances or State statutes, and dispersal of the persons attending the gathering. He said it would hold the property owner responsible, making it unlawful for a responsible person to intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly permit an unruly gathering and subsequent unlawful gathering that occurred on the property within one-hundred eighty (180) days of the prior unlawful gathering notice. He discussed the option of liability for expense of emergency responses, stating in addition to any penalty imposed, a person convicted or found responsible for a violation of the ordinance shall be responsible for the expense of an emergency response, whether Police, Fire, or other Town department. He said it could include hourly wages, equipment, etc. and that a maximum amount could be a decision for the Council to make, or it could be based on the amount of actual expenses incurred. He said penalties would be another item for the Council to consider, that civil penalties could be set at escalating amounts based on additional violations. He said there could also be criminal penalties, such as a misdemeanor or crime on the first incident, or a hybrid approach with a civil penalty for the first offense and then a criminal offense if it occurred within 180 days. He said if they were still waiting on adjudication on the first incident, they would treat the second as civil until they had confirmation that the first had been adjudicated. He discussed other remedy options including disorderly conduct and assault. Councilmember Koprowski said in examples from other communities, it was notable that the host plus attendees had responsibility. She said it appeared the Town was focusing more on the property owner. Police Chief Soelberg stated the intent was the same as the others, the homeowner or host would be the responsible party; he added if it was a rental or tenant, they would also be held accountable. Town Attorney Payne confirmed that the responsible person would be owner, landlord, or tenant, or the sponsor host or organizer of the unlawful organizer or event; if it was a minor, the parent would be the responsible party whether or not they knew about it. Town Attorney Payne said the only exception would be illegal entry or trespassing, such as a party at a vacant building with illegal entry. Councilmember Koprowski said under unruly gatherings, excessive noise or traffic was objective . Police Chief Soelberg stated examples were listed, but they had other things they would take into consideration, such as time of day; he said they would need to document why they felt it was unruly, that if it were only excessive noise or traffic, it would not necessarily mean it was an unruly gathering. Town Attorney Payne stated Chandler had a very similar ordinance that noted impeding traffic, rather than just cars; he said that would be something that could be added. Mayor Peterson asked if impeding traffic would be cars parked up and down both sides of the street; Chief Soelberg said yes, but also bounce houses, people, or anything impeding traffic. Town Attorney Payne discussed an exception for owners, landlords, or tenants and spoke of liability if they were present or had knowledge of an unruly gathering but did not take reasonable action to stop it. Mayor Peterson asked about cameras in rentals; Town Attorney Payne stated there could be liability if they could show that they knew and did nothing about it. Councilmember Tilque asked if there were any other differences with Chandler’s new ordinance from Gilbert’s proposed ordinance, stating most east valley cities were interested in the ordinances being similar. She asked about the language regarding the use or possession of illegal drugs with minors. Police Chief Soelberg gave the example of use or possession of illegal drugs with marijuana being legal for adults, but still illegal for someone under 21 years of age; he said even a legal drug could be illegal based on age. Councilmember Tilque discussed penalties, stating it was usually two offenses, with a fine and then a higher fine. Police Chief Soelberg said he did not believe there was a standard protocol for one strike, two strike, then criminal, that it was up to the discretion of the Council to approve such things in an ordinance. Town Attorney Payne confirmed, stating Chandler was looking at the hybrid approach, not civil only. Councilmember Tilque liked the hybrid, progressive approach and said 18 months was a long period of time in between. Police Chief Soelberg said another difference between Gilbert’s proposed ordinance and Chandler’s was Chandler had 18 months, and Gilbert was considering 180 days or 6 months for repeat offenses. Councilmember Torgeson discussed cameras with AirBnB’s and excessive noise and traffic. Police Chief Soelberg said they could look at different ordinances in consideration of noise issues. Councilmember Torgeson asked if an Uber used a lane for a drop off, could that be considered impeding traffic. Police Chief Soelberg discussed how different scenarios could build the case for unruly gathering, but not one single issue. Councilmember Torgeson asked about drinking in public and if the front of someone’s property was considered public. Police Chief Soelberg said it got into the issue of curtilage. Town Attorney Payne said one issue in itself was not going to be considered an unruly gathering. They discussed different scenarios and police discretion. Councilmember Torgeson asked about the number of unruly gathering incidents in Gilbert. Police Chief Soelberg said roughly between 400-450 per year, but some were incidents like kids playing in a pool or a noise disturbance. Councilmember Bongiovanni stated he was agreeable to the 6 month term between offenses and with the hybrid approach when adults were involved. He said he was against a second chance when kids were involved and there was a party with drinking and drug usage. Police Chief Soelberg stated there could still be a civil penalty for an unruly gathering, but if they were contributing to the delinquency of a minor or underage drinking or drugs, those would still be criminal offenses. Councilmember Torgeson asked about noise mitigation software. Police Chief Soelberg said in Scottsdale they had monitoring software where it would send an alert when decibels were exceeded. Councilmember Buchli asked if there was a party and kids were fighting, could the parents be cited. Police Chief Soelberg said it would depend on the circumstance and provided examples. Councilmember Buchli supported having more consequences other than fines. Police Chief Soelberg discussed the duty of enforcing laws the same without considerations of age and economic status; he said the ordinance needed to be applicable to all, without different standards for minors. Councilmember Bongiovanni discussed liability for emergency response and said he would like to see full responsibility for payment. Police Chief Soelberg stated it was in the Council’s discretion to seek full cost-recovery; he added it needed to be broader than just the Police Department, as emergency response could include Fire and Public Works as well. Mayor Peterson asked about the process for determining full cost-recovery, then said she also liked the progressive hybrid approach; she also was in favor of the 180 day approach and the full penalties. Councilmember Tilque said she was in favor of adding the terms “excessive noise” and “impeding traffic”. Councilmember Tilque asked if the Council should provide a dollar figure for the civil penalties. Town Attorney Payne said they could do a not to exceed amount, but the judge could set zero as the amount; instead they could also do a minimum and a maximum. The Council discussed options for additional fines and if they wanted to consider either 180 days or 18 months for the period to be considered for secondary, separate offenses as habitual and guilty Class 1 misdemeanors. Town Attorney Payne noted that 18 months for a second violation was a longer, harsher penalty. The consensus of the Council was to have the ordinance state 18 months and to include full cost recovery for emergency responses to include any town department that required response. ADJOURN Mayor Peterson adjourned the meeting at 5:51 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 7th day of May, 2024. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this __________ day of ______________, 2024. ___________________________________ Chaveli Herrera, MMC, Town Clerk