Study Session - 6/24/2025 5:00:00 PM

I think we're going to go ahead and get
started with the study session so we can
stay on time.
What happened to everybody?
I'll call the meeting to order. Let's
start with a roll call.
Mayor Scott Anderson here. Vice Mayor
Bobby Buckley
here. Council member Chuck Boniovani
here. Member Kenny Buckland here.
Council member Monty Lions here. Council
member Jim Toruson here. A quorum is
present. Thank you. Council member
Kapowski will be here at about 5:30. So
you know we have three items on the
agenda for study session tonight. First
is a presentation and discussion from
development services on text amendments
related to the definition of habitable
adaptive reuse and construction during
summertime hours. That's quite a broad
spectrum of things to talk about.
Mayor Council, yes it is. Um a lot of
this is due directly well it all is due
directly to legislation that has been
passed. So, I will start and go over the
construction noise. Uh, mine is the
shortest part. Ashley and Veronica will
follow me with the um more detailed and
knowledgeable part. Um, the request is
to amend Gilbert's MUN code. Our our
noise section is in the MUN code to
align with the state statute by allowing
concrete pouring to start one hour prior
to construction activities. The way the
amendment reads now um is we allow um uh
construction between the hours of 5:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m. year round. With the
new legislation, uh cities and towns
must now allow concrete pouring to begin
1 hour before general construction. So
the entire change to our MUN code would
just be to allow concrete pouring to
shift from 5:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. Um
that is really the extent of uh PEX
amendment uh when it comes to the
construction noise.
Oops. Any questions uh from the council?
Just have to conform. Yes, we don't have
a choice. So thank you. Yeah. Told you I
had the easy one. Let's move on to the
next one we have to do.
Uh thank you, mayor. Uh so this is Z2507
and it's related to our definition for
uh the word habitable essentially. So
we're seeking to amend section 2.0 of
the land development code. Just to
update that definition, um it really
relates to the amendment that we did
last year for accessory dwelling units.
So, I'll walk through that really
quickly. So, House Bill 2720 from 2024
required that municipalities adopt uh
regulations that allowed for accessory
dwelling units and we had to adopt those
regulations by January 1st of 2025,
which the town did complete. Uh we did
that in 2020 in December of 2024. Um, we
amended the code to allow for accessory
dwelling units. Um, and what that
legislation uh said was that accessory
dwelling units that is 75% of the gross
floor area of the single family dwelling
on the same lot or parcel um would be
allowed or 1,000 square feet, whichever
is less. And so what really hung us up
with our existing definition is that
gross floor area because the legislation
also defined what gross floor or it also
provided a definition of gross floor
area. um and it states that it means the
interior habitable area of a single
family dwelling unit or accessory
dwelling unit. Uh and so we um amended
our code to allow for accessory dwelling
units but did not update our definition
of habitable. Um prior to this update,
the definition of habitable was
primarily used for commercial
businesses. We used the term livable um
as it related to residential. Uh this is
my clicker is no longer advancing me.
There we go.
I went way too far and now I'm in
Veronica's presentation. So, I'm going
to slowly click backwards.
Okay, so our existing definition of
habitable is the one on the top. It's a
space in a building for living,
sleeping, eating, or cooking. bathrooms,
toilet rooms, closets, halls, storage or
utility spacers are not considered
habitable. So, it excludes a number of
things that it that are in residential
dwelling units. Um, and so, as we've
started to implement this, it's it's
really impacted um our calculations for
how large these accessory dwelling units
can be because we're having to um accept
out the square footage for bathrooms,
closets, halls, and storage. And so we
simply want to update that definition to
include those spaces. So the new
definition would be space in a building
used for the purposes including living,
working, sleeping, sanitation, eating,
cooking. Um and then condition, storage,
uh recreation or any combination of the
the above. Um and so that aligns a
little bit better as we start to
implement the accessory dwelling units
and the square footage requirements from
the legislature. So, this uh went did go
to planning commission last month. They
did recommend approval of this and so uh
council will see this on an upcoming um
council meeting for action, but tonight
we wanted to make sure that we had an
opportunity to address any questions
that you may have.
Council member Bonjivani. Thank you,
Mayor. Um can you go back one slide?
Okay. Cooking.
um know that good amount of people use
the these um units for their elderly
parents which may or may not because of
dementia or so may not want to have
these stoves on. Um
what's the criteria for that? Do they
have to have a stove but have it
unplugged or can they not have that at
all? Nope. That's a that's a great
question. The accessory dwelling unit
text amendment that we adopted in
December of last year actually does not
require cooking facilities. This is just
saying if you have it, we're going to
count it towards the square footage.
Perfect. Thank you.
Other questions?
Thank you, Ashley. Thank you.
So again, we're having to do something
for the geniuses at the legislature.
Sorry, got to get it in for the record.
Good evening, mayor, council members.
Um, as you may recall, last year at the
last legislative session, there was
House Bill 2297, which was the adaptive
reuse of multif family development um,
bill. Um what it did require is that all
cities and towns with a population of
150,000 people or more are required to
um update their codes to allow multif
family or adaptive reuse on all parcels
that are between 1 acre and 20 acres in
size that are commercial office or mixed
use um type of development. Um we did
process the text amendment. It was
approved in December of last year. Um in
this current legislative session they
have gone back to um make some changes
to that bill. Um most of the bill most
of those um changes were clarifying um
changes. Um I have listed here some of
those items that have remained the same.
Again applies to all cities and towns
that are 150,000 with a population of
150,000 or more. Um it applies to
parcels that are between 1 and 20 acres
that are commercial office mixeduse
developments. Um the heights and
setbacks of the buildings are considered
non-conforming and they may uh de
demolition portions of the building. Um
what have changed with this particular
bill is that previously we were looking
or we were counting the number of
buildings that would be eligible for um
development under under this bill. We
are now looking at the number of
parcels. So, we'd be looking at parcels
versus buildings. Um, and we're also
looking at um before there was a cap uh
and now it's sort of a a floor uh where
we would be looking we would have to
allow at least 10% of all parcels that
meet that criteria to be able to develop
as multif family or adaptive reuse
without a public hearing or a use
permit.
As you might recall, there were three
10% provisions in the previous bill and
those have remained the same. Those
provisions were um at least 10% of the
uh commercial office mixeduse buildings
would be eligible. Um we may exclude up
to 10% of those um if they if we have
determined they are in commercial or
employment hubs. And then if a developer
decides to move forward with the
adaptive reuse or multif family, they'd
have to designate at least 10% of those
dwelling units for low income, moderate
income, or some combination of the two
for 20 years from the date of initial
occupation.
So we went back and we took a look at um
all of the parcels that would be um
eligible under the new um requirements
going from buildings to parcels. And um
this is a little snapshot here of what
that would look like. We found there to
be 781 parcels within the town that met
that criteria, which means that uh we
would have to allow at least 78 parcels
within the town to develop under those
criteria that I just went over.
Um again, we are still allowed to exempt
uh certain areas, certain commercial and
employment areas within the town. Um we
had actually designated these four areas
last year when we adopted the
amendments. Um what we have done here
though is we've taken a look at the
number of parcels within those areas and
have found that we um are still within
the maximum 10% exemption and um we can
exempt up to 78 parcels and we are still
able to maintain um those commercial and
employment hub areas as exemptions.
That concludes my presentation and I'd
be happy to answer any questions you
might have. Oh, I'm sorry. I do want to
let you know that this is this
particular text amendment is on your
agenda for the public hearing later on
tonight.
Council member Torus, just because
technicalities are what they are, if 10%
is 78.1,
are we rounding up to 10%, are we
allowed to do that or are we going to
find ourselves one shy somewhere?
Uh, Mayor, Council Member Torus. Um,
that's actually a really good question.
Um, and that's something that we did
think about as we were looking at it and
we opted in this case because it's 781.
10% would be 78.1.
Um, we opted to round down to 78.
My question though is technically that's
not 10%.
Are we going to find ourselves at odds
with the state legislature again? That's
that's my concern. Maybe that's a Chris
question.
A couple of things if I could. Um, so
when it comes to the exempt areas is a
max of 10%. So going with 78, we're
still in compliance with that because
Gio had noted it's maybe just under 10%.
So, we're good in terms of the exempt
areas. Um, as far as the eligible areas,
um, that is a minimum of 10%. So, if we
say we're starting at 78, we can go up
from there because it is a minimum.
Understood. Thank you for clarifying for
me. Yeah, I'm inhibited today.
Just today, that's it. Okay. Any other
questions?
Thank you. Thank you.
Item number two tonight is discussion
concerning the Arizona Supreme Court
case entitled in respons.
Chris
Good evening, Mayor and Council. We're
here to talk about the the impacts of a
recent Arizona Supreme Court case that
it will have on our prosecutor's office
like every other prosecuting agency
across the state. Um, we've just got one
slide here. I can figure out how to do
it. So, I'm going to turn it over to
Jeff Wolf who is who is our town
prosecutor. I'm going to in do a quick
introduction of the case and I'll turn
over to him to talk about what the
impacts of this case mean for our office
and what our request will be for the
council. So, this is a decision that was
issued just last month by the Arizona
Supreme Court. It was a disciplinary
decision um involving a former Maropa
County prosecutor and she was
disciplined for violations of the
Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct.
So, this was an appeal to the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court upheld that
discipline, which was, I believe, a
two-year suspension. And in that there
was a lot of language in that decision
that addressed the ethical obligations
of prosecutors in charging criminal
cases under the Arizona rules of
professional conduct. And now Jeff Wolf,
our town prosecutor, will talk more
about that impact.
Thank you, Chris. Uh good morning, mayor
and council. Uh so yes, this decision
really emphasized with some of their
language in the case decision from the
Supreme Court itself the importance of
reviewing video. Now uh as the body warn
camera and and fleet program here in
Gilbert have grown, the amount of video
that we have to review has grown
significantly over the last couple of
years. And the way that this uh decision
impacts our community and really all
prosecutors is that there needs to be
significant time moving forward invested
in reviewing all of this evidence and
reviewing all of this video. Uh that of
course brings into question resources
and our request so I don't bury the lead
here. The request is that the council
approve two FTAs, two FTEEs, two new
prosecutors for our office. The reason
for that is that we need more time to be
reviewing all of this evidence and the
prosecutors need to spend more time in
the cases. There of course are some
alternatives. The resources lack of
resources is certainly an issue for all
of the offices in the community and
different offices are handling it
different ways. But some of the
alternatives involve not prosecuting
certain types of crimes. There are some
agencies that have gone with that route
and some have chosen not to go to
certain court hearings, have the state
not be represented at all court hearings
in their jurisdictions. That is a a way
to get time and resources back for the
prosecutor's office. But the reason for
my recommendation is that I don't
believe that is what we should expect. I
don't think that's what our community
expects. I believe that it is be justice
is best served if we are addressing all
types of cases and that we do appear at
all court hearings. Uh that is the
reason for my recommendation and I'm
certainly happy to answer any questions
about the case or my recommendation.
Questions
member Bonjiovani. Thank you mayor. Um,
so let's say there's a video camera in a
police car and for the first hour it's
just completely empty. No one's in the
back seat. Did some can someone else
look at the video until the point where
the suspect gets in the car or does the
attorney have to sit there for the whole
hour? The uh beauty of Axon is that at
least the attorney can put it on double
speed, maybe even quadruple speed and uh
zoom through that. But the reality is
that everything that happens in the
office falls under the prosecutor's
license, falls under mine, and in fact
Chris's license. We would ultimately
have to be the ones who review that and
sign off on it that everything had been
done correctly. So, it really wouldn't
be feasible to have someone else take up
that time because the attorney would
still have to review it. Thank you,
Council Member Lions. Thank you, Mayor.
Um,
it's my understanding that in this
particular case that the defense used
the argument that a lack of resources
was one of the reasons that they did not
look at all the film. Correct. That is
correct. And the Supreme Court rejected
that argument. Is that correct? Fair to
say. That is fair to say. Thank you,
council member. Uh, and just to give a
little bit more detail on that. They
specifically pointed to if time and
resources were at issue then it fell to
the head of the office myself and then
by extension Chris to manage that
workload and find a place for the work
to be appropriately done. It simply in
layman's terms wasn't an excuse that
there wasn't the time and resources. And
in addition to that in our particular
municipality we actually utilize more
cameras in our fieldwork than maybe
typically expected across the metro
area. Is that correct? That is correct.
Uh I obviously I've had some
conversations with other agencies after
this decision came out. Um as well as
APAC, which is our our legislative uh
board that advises prosecutor agencies
all over the state. And at least in the
East Valley, we are the only agency that
uh uses a fleet camera. And what I say
when I say fleet, what I mean is that we
have three cameras on every police car.
We have one on the front, one in the
back, and one in the cage. I think this
is a great resource for PD and it's a
great resource for us as prosecutors
because everything is captured. This is
good information and good evidence to
have, but it does mean that we have more
to review than most of the neighboring
agencies. So, in in addition to this,
part of this arose from an overcharging
or a an ethical lapse on that
prosecutor's part, is that correct?
Absolutely. And so, uh, do you have in
place within our office the ability to
address and mitigate that type of
overreach if a situation like that came
up? Yes, absolutely. And uh the
presentation from our office and from
myself and Chris on this is focused on
the ability to review all of that
evidence specifically because although
those other issues that you just brought
up were a major point in this case and
other rules that she violated, I do not
believe that we are in danger of
violating those rules because we do have
mechanisms in place and I don't believe
that's a concern with our office at this
time. Thank you. Thank you.
other items. Vice Mayor,
um I I just want to confirm, and we
chatted about this, I think earlier,
that the two new prosecutors that will
be in charge of reviewing all of these
videos that need to be reviewed,
they are um
they're prosecutors. they're educated
just like you are and they'll be
reporting to you, correct? And uh where
you won't have to be doing all the
reviewing. I just want to confirm that
you know that that you are they're
they're relaying to you, but they're
authorized to be doing that by you.
Correct. That's absolutely correct. Yes.
Okay, that's it. Thank you. Thank you
for your time. I appreciate it. Thank
you, Kelly. Could we have Kelly come up
and talk about the financial impact of
what we're talking about?
Again, just to to emphasize again, this
is like we were talking about with the
state legislature. These are mandates
that we don't have any control over, but
you you're going to hear the impact.
Yes, mayor and council. As you're aware,
the fiscal 26 budget is extremely tight
with our ongoing funding, and so there
is not at this time ongoing funding to
be able to hire two full-time employees.
Uh, as an alternative, what will be
coming to you uh at a future meeting is
authorization for contingency to hire
two limited term agreement employees or
LTAs. Those use one-time funding. It's
not ideal, but it will give us the
opportunity to have some time um to
evaluate what the budget needs to look
like in fiscal 27, where the resources
need to be best used, and also some time
to be able to see what our sales tax
looks like, if there's been enough
growth to be able to have additional
ongoing funding for those priorities.
Thank you. Questions, comments?
Council member Torres,
if I'm getting this right, basically one
officer is equal to four cameras because
there's three on the vehicle, one on
him.
So, they've got to go through four times
the hours.
We find a little bit of tech here to
help out. So, maybe they've got a screen
with four things going on. And as you
said, two or three exits. So, because
we're doing what we're doing is we're
actually spending attorney time, an
actual attorney at an actual attorney's
thing, uh, salary to review something
that'll be a lot of dead space in. And I
don't want to, you know, take away
somebody's something might exonerate
them. Forget making him guilty. It might
exonerate them. Uh, I want them to have
that opportunity. But can we do
something to AI is not there yet, but
can we do something to expediate the
process because it's 4 to one hours
wise.
Mayor and Council Member Toruson, uh you
are correct that on most cases there are
four cameras at least while you're in
route. So, our officers when they're on
route to a call, they will activate the
camera. Um, and but once they arrive,
unless it's in the street, they'll turn
off the uh camera cars at that point,
it's our body cam only. Um, also keep in
mind, um, on some cases, we may have our
drone footage as well, if it's an aerial
deployment of our drone, where we may
have camera footage from that. Uh, so
there are multiple uh, camera sources.
We do our best to manage that and when
it's not needed for recording, we will
deactivate it. Sometimes they may forget
to turn off the camera um and it may run
for an hour. Um a lot of those times
it's administrative and they don't
belong in evidence and they doesn't
belong to a case. But if it's in a crime
scene and the camera's running, you may
have an hour of dead time. Um I'll refer
to Chris on the use of AI. there are
some tools that we can utilize um
because there's two things you're
looking at both audio and video um that
they've got to attest that they've
reviewed that audio-wise there are some
features that make it very easy um but I
don't know the court stance on AI use of
the audio side but then you also have
the video side where if I have dead air
so to speak I've got a video there's no
sound we can see a transcription on the
video to see if there's any sound if So
it'll pick it up in the transcription,
but they still have to account for
visually seeing did anything happen, did
anything occur.
That answer your question. So I think
that as far as using AI, that's
something between us and the courts and
um potential future cases. We'll see
what they allow us to do because there
are a lot of tools out there that can
synthesize and highlight action,
movement, voice, and it's a matter of
what the courts will allow us to uh
utilize.
Council member Lions, do you have a
question? I did. I just need some
clarification, please. Mayor,
um Chris, I think think this might be
for you or it may be for Kelly, both of
you. My my concern with this is that um
I want to make sure for prosecuting the
things that come before our town. You
know, we have a reputation for law and
order. I want to ensure that's
maintained. Um, you are requesting two
heads. Uh, don't know how you arrived at
that. Um, and wanted to know if you
could give me a little background. Do
you think that's adequate for what
you're requesting given the breadth of
what you may have to review? Thank you,
Council Member Blinds. I'm going to
defer to Jeff on this because this is
number that he kind of sat down and
calculated and determined it's not
ideal. Ideal would be more but we think
we can make it work and I'll explain
why. Okay.
Thank you councel and Chris just alluded
to it but that's correct. So in
reviewing this um I was trying to take
into account everything that is expected
of us as prosecutors andly
fiscal responsibility and what we can
realistically do as Chris referred to
ideally it would be more but we kind of
came to the conclusion that with two
although it may slow down some of our
process it may have to continue a case
in extra time so we have more time to
look at something we believe that we can
maintain service levels so it was about
finding a balance where it was maybe not
ideal, but we could still really address
everything in our community and keep up
everything that we currently do, even if
it did slow it down a little bit rather
than reaching the extremes like I spoke
about earlier that some agencies are
doing where they're just stopping
certain kinds of thing certain crimes
altogether. This seemed to be the middle
ground that I believe we can do it with
two even if it's a little slower. Okay.
So,
if I understand what you're saying, you
you basically took a look at the
workload and figured that um may slow
some things down, but this would be
adequate to do it without lowering the
threshold of the things that you pursue
to prosecute. For instance, like
shoplifting or something like that
where, you know, some municipalities are
are not going forward and prosecuting
those things because they don't have the
time to do it. you're not getting the
bang for the buck. Is that fair to say?
Correct. That's exactly correct. All
right. Um I would just ask that you guys
take a hard look at this because I
understand you're developing this for
Kelly for next year's budget. Let's make
sure that we don't sell ourselves short
moving forward that you do have the
adequate amount of heads that you have
so that we don't decrease our amount of
prosecution of the items that we need to
to ensure the community safe. Okay.
Certainly. Thank you, Council Member Bon
Giovani. Thank you, Mayor. Um,
I hate comparing us to other cities
because I know we're we're the best, but
what are some of the other cities around
us doing? I mean, the ones that don't
want to that that do want to continue to
prosecute um crimes. I mean, what are
they doing? Do we know?
So
most of the other agencies that I spoke
to, which is pretty much the entire East
Valley, have something that they don't
do. Uh it's either certain types of
crimes, suspended license, some some
shoplifting or certain drug offenses
that they just do not prosecute for
resource reasons. The other thing that
is common is that they do not go to
every court date. Uh I don't believe
there was a single agency I reached out
to that does everything that we do.
Everybody gave up something. Now, some
of them are still looking to hire, but
they would concede going to arraignments
at the very least. Well, that means a
case starts without the state having a
voice, without the victim having a
voice. And they say, "Well, if they
don't resolve it early, then we'll at
least get to it later." And that weeds
out some of the cases because they'll
either resolve them or the person
doesn't show up and then we'll deal with
it when they come back on a warrant.
Everybody found some balance, but I
didn't find anyone who has and certainly
nobody with fleet, but that goes to
every court date the way that we do. Uh
there's not a single docket that our
court has that we don't have a state
representative at or you know a
representative, state representative,
not to get back to the legislature, but
a representative from the safe from our
office at and we prosecute every single
type of crime that comes into our
office. So, are these just cases that
we're prosecuting or what about cases
that other municipalities are
prosecuting but Gilbert police are
involved? Do they who's watching those
videos? Is it our attorneys or is it the
other city attorneys? So just for
clarification, so if Gilbert officers
pull over somebody in Chandler, is that
the or if there's uh something happening
in Chandler, but it it started in
Gilbert and they crossed lines and who's
watching those videos or do those videos
have to be watched? So those videos have
to be watched, but wherever the case is
being prosecuted, that's whose
responsibility it is to to review all
those that evidence. Thank you.
Absolutely,
Council Member Buckland. Thank you,
mayor.
So, I I trust that um you will you'll
heed Council Member Lion's advice and
make sure before you do submit, you're
actually asking for what we need to not
slip prosecution of crimes. Uh very
important. Uh Gilbert, like you said,
has always been known for prosecution.
It's a very safe city because of the
partnerships we have with the community,
with the prosecutor's office, and we get
it done right. We we don't reject things
Enough said there. My question for you,
and I don't know if you have the answer
or not, our felony cases that are going
over to Maropa County Attorney's Office,
you're not prosecuting. They are. Do we
know if there's an impact to uh or a
risk to our cases at MCSO for those
felonies?
So MCSO, and forgive me for using a bit
of a uh a sports analogy, college
football program programs who get in
trouble often self-sanction. Maricopa
County kind of did that since April
Sponsel was their employee put policies
in place sort of as a precursor to the
case, hoping that it might for some of
the some of the blowback. And so they
have redaction policies saying that the
prosecutors have to review all of this.
Now,
one reason that I don't think that it my
my opinion is it doesn't fix it just to
put a policy in place is that unless you
have the resources and put people in
place to actually comply with those
policies, it's in language only. I don't
know who they've hired. I don't know how
I don't know their ability to comply
with that policy, but they have put a
policy in place that all of that
information needs to be reviewed.
Thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions,
comments?
Thank you, Jeff. Chris, did you have
something more to add?
Uh, no, just to answer Council Member
Torres's question or just to add on to
what Chief Soulberg said about emerging
technologies. That's something that
looking at across the town. We certainly
will with the prosecutor's office um
when they um not just are reviewing to
make charging decisions but also when
they have to cut body worn camera a
redact bodywn camera to provide to the
defendants as well as on the PD records
side they they have number of employees
all day long looking at body worn camera
for public records requests they're
looking at we're constantly looking at
is there AI technology that can help one
thing even if you've got you know a
bodyborn camera running in a vehicle say
it's a DUI. The uh the suspects outside
lot of times there might not be video,
but there's audio. There's always things
coming in on the radio. There's PII,
that type of information. So sometimes
if it's a dead video, you may think it's
easy to just do fast forward, but if
there is audio there, even something
that they've got to listen for and pay
attention, so that takes time. But we
are looking at technologies right now
with court rules and court cases, they
haven't caught up. So the question is,
would a court accept that? We don't we
don't know yet at least in Arizona, but
are looking at that and seeing what we
can do.
Council member Bonjivon. Thank you,
Mayor. Hearing that, um I want to pile
on with council member um Mayans and
Buckland. Let's find out exactly how
many you guys really need um and get
that for next budget. I appreciate that
and we we absolutely will do that. And
and just kind of um Jeff mentioned this
that we do prosecute in Gilbert all
cases that come before us. Um and I've
heard personally from defense attorneys
and I know our other pro our prosecutors
have as well that they tell their
clients not to commit crimes in Gilbert
because um we don't go easy on them. We
think all crimes should be prosecuted to
protect the community, to protect the
victims. We treat defendants fairly, but
that's the reputation we have for reason
by the community we have is is the way
it is.
Thank you.
Thanks, Chris, for the presentation.
Jeff,
our last presentation is presentation
and discussion from the town clerk's
office related to the application,
interview, and appointment process for
boards, commissions, and committees.
Who's going to lead this off?
Good evening, Mary Anderson Council. I
will be starting the presentation. Judy
Martinez, deputy town clerk, here with
Ashley Doring, our town clerk
specialist.
I'm just going to make sure there's not
a delay here.
Here we go. We have a habit of
overclicking. I apologize. This item is
coming to you at the request of council
members for an application and
evaluation process overhaul boards and
commission selection. And the purpose
this evening is to review the current
procedures, integrate council's
insights, and seek council feedback and
general direction.
As a reminder, per town code, the board
and commission members are appointed by
the council serving at its pleasure.
There is a note of commitment to diverse
recruitment in the town code. The
appointees must be town residents. They
must be sworn into office prior to
assumption of their duties, adhere to
open meeting law and other laws. Their
role is advisory in nature unless
specified otherwise in law.
Their duties are defined in town code,
bylaws, and sometimes in state statute
depending on the board. They receive no
compensation and there are attendance
requirements per code.
The specific process itself is not
defined in code and this allows for
adaptability um to use new software and
technology and also to incorporate the
guidance from the council.
Examples of recent changes in the last
few years um was that we went to a new
software program that the town was
already utilizing from another
department
during the CO 19 pandemic. We also
incorporated the one-way video
interviews and the council at that time
did decide to make those mandatory. They
really thought that they added value,
but they went from three questions down
to one just for efficiency.
And then we've also updated the um
application sets routinely.
Next, Ashley will summarize the current
application screening and appointment
process.
Good evening, mayor and council. Uh,
continuing where Judy left off, the
process begins two months before the
appointment date, which will be outlined
in the timeline timeline below. The
application typically takes 2 to 3
weeks. As mentioned before, a one-way
video interview with one general
question is required. The purpose of the
interview is to introduce to the council
the applicant in conjunction with their
online application.
The purpose I'm sorry after closing the
application, the interviews are shared
with the council for individual scoring
allowing two to three weeks for review.
The scores are then tallied by the
clerk's office. Interviews are scheduled
based on cumulative scores. Currently,
we schedule two times the number of
openings for interviews. For example, if
we have two openings, we will schedule
four interviews. Agendas are published
about 8 days prior to the meeting, and
we like to inform those being
interviewed and not selected for
interviews prior to publishing.
And these accounts for two, this
accounts for a two-monthlong process.
Thank you, Ashley.
The interviews are conducted in
executive session pursuant to the
statute referenced above and it's also
noted on the agendas.
The statute allows for discussion and
consideration of appointments of public
officers and appointees to be conducted
in executive session. The statute does
require the option to have the
interviews done in a public meeting
which is um offered to the applicants
but typically declined
during the executive session. Applicants
are interviewed then discussions and
considerations take place. However, the
appointments are made by a majority vote
of you the council during a public
meeting.
Unlike board and commission member
removals and resignations which are
added as consent items, appointments of
board and commission members are listed
in the administrative items section of
the agenda.
They can be added to the consent
calendar or voted on separately in the
administrative items section to allow
for discussion.
After the request was re was received,
the clerk's office asked for individual
feedback from the council regarding
their general preferences. The results
were compiled and a summary of the
responses is being shared with you
tonight for the first time. We
appreciate your feedback and always
welcome the opportunity to improve the
process for both you and the applicants.
We will offer a brief summary of what we
learned based on the specific areas of
the process.
Regarding the process of interview
recommendation, the majority of the
council thought the current process was
sufficient with the entire council
having equal say and interviews being
based on cumulative scores.
Others indicated that staff and/or
council liaison recommended the
applicants for an in-person interview.
We learned that the entire council
thought that the staff liaison could
provide valuable insights when screening
applicants.
And with respect to the application
content, the majority of the council
found the application sufficient as is,
but it was noted that there would be or
could be potential gaps of not
addressing the needs of the open seats
specifically or the specific board's
needs and not considering diversity of
experience versus general skill sets.
We would like to emphasize that the
application questions can be updated at
any time. Our current application system
does have some limitations, especially
if we are opening two or three boards at
the same time. So, it gets a little
tricky with wording the application
questions for each um specific board.
And I can elaborate more on that if
you'd like, but one recommendation
is to incorporate more board specific
content into the video interviews. That
platform offers more flexibility and
it's configured separately for each
board. So that may be a helpful tool in
being able to ask more board specific
questions.
Regarding the video interview component,
most council members indicated that the
existing format with a single question
was adequate. However, several noted
that the video interview
did not add value or they could benefit
from additional questions.
And a reminder that the video interviews
are used along with the application to
determine who gets an in-person
interview. We learned that the majority
of you felt that we should continue the
current process of interviewing two
times the number of openings.
So again, if we had four openings, our
typical process would be to interview
the top eight ranked applicants based on
the council's cumulative scores.
Others indicated that more applicants
should be interviewed with longer
interview times.
There was a suggestion that the staff
and/or council leaison recommend the
appointments via an agenda packet.
And it was also suggested that there be
a cap for the number of interviews when
there were more than four openings. So a
cap of only an additional 50% versus a
100% um addition. So in other words, for
those four applicants, we would
typically now um interview the top
eight. It would be the top six versus
eight interviews.
The clerk's office is ready to
accommodate any council directives.
There are a few scheduling
considerations to keep in mind.
Expanding in-person interviews would
require additional meeting time with
longer video interviews extending the
review process.
It would be helpful to open the
application online earlier than two
months before the appointment dates to
allow for staff liaison review time
which requires a commitment from both
the council and staff leaison as well.
Based off the council's feedback, we
have a few general recommendations.
Since the council all agreed that staff
leaison's input was valuable, we would
recommend recommend adding staff liaison
review period before the information is
given for review.
We will also seek ways to reflect the
needs of each board based on specific
duties and or current membership needs.
Again, we would suggest adding
additional questions to the interview
portion as the program allows for more
flexibility.
We heard from you that there should be a
consistent clarity of interview and
executive session protocols for both
council and applicants. We also heard
that all council input should be equally
valued during the considerations. Again,
noting that all council members vote on
the applica applicants during a public
meeting if desired. We're happy to
provide you with some alternative
questions for your part of the interview
process and are happy to refine any
steps as required.
Thank you for the opportunity and we
look forward to your feedback.
Council input
member Buckling. Thank you, Mayor.
And thanks to you both for that
presentation. I um I had asked for this,
so I appreciate the due diligence
everybody put in, the council put in
doing the surveys. um think that the
recommendations are sufficient kind of
where I was with it
what I'm seeing in recommendations will
help and one is that it's our staff that
works with these boards and needs to be
able to collaborate with the boards. So
I think that that's highly valuable that
you guys have in to who's on the boards.
I also think that'll help build
relationships as we move along. Um, and
then secondly, the the video I I don't
want to create a tremendous amount more
work on our staff, but I do want to have
an integrous process that um because we
have citizens that are doing this,
they're volunteering to help us, and it
needs to really be a good solid process.
I think different questions in the
video. What I've noticed in my short
time on council is that ultimately they
give us a video that answers the
questions we ask and then they come to
the interview and we ask them the same
exact questions. So that's why I felt it
was just a bit of redundancy. I'll leave
it at that.
Council member Bonjiovani. Thank you,
Mayor. Um,
we all have um boards that we are theons
to oversee. I I personally feel that we
know our boards and the needs of our
boards
and having to
be part of the process for other boards
I think is redundant to be very honest
with you. Um to have equal say on who is
on a board I think is not effective for
that board. Um, you know, I know on
parks and wreck who we're interviewing
and who would fit in that board just as
everyone here would also in the board
that that they're liaison to. You know,
if I have someone who the rest of the
council loves, but I know just wouldn't
fit personalitywise,
doesn't make sense to put them on that
board or commission. So I I would be for
and also I I like the idea of the staff
also participating. I'd rather see the
staff participating and then the liaison
um doing the interviews rather than
having the whole the whole council u
involved in all that. Now, the one
advantage of having the whole council
involved is if someone doesn't make it
on one board and we think that they
would do great on our board, we would at
least have a chance to meet them um
prior to. But I want I want to I want to
spare the time for the rest of the
council members to not have to sit
through three hours of interviews when
when in reality our say really doesn't
occur much. you know, it's really that
liaison because they know that they know
that board. I I would not want to
overstep my boundaries and say, "Hey,
council member Torxson, this guy is
perfect. He should be great for your
board and and he isn't." Or same for any
other council member we have here. So, I
I like to see the uh staff uh the
liaison and I do like the the the video
questions u but I do agree with council
member Buckland. They seem to be the
same questions. So maybe if there were
different questions, uh, it would it'd
be good to see because some people are
much more prepared for that interview
than others. And the ones that are
prepared more tend to do much much
better. But again, I'd like to just have
a little bit more um um I'd like to have
a little bit more say on who is uh on
those boards, especially if we're
liaison to them.
Thank you, council members Bucklin and
Van Giovani.
I can see doing that, but the only thing
that concerns me is the statute requires
that we vote in a public meeting here,
all seven of us. So, we need to all know
or have confidence in that leaison of
who's being uh put into that position.
May I, sir? Yes. Council member Torres,
the uh I just wanted to note a couple I
was going to say that if I've got a vote
on it, I should probably meet the
gentleman or lady that's uh asking for
the position. I do appreciate the idea
of having the staff liaison involved in
the process, maybe in the executive
session process, not separately
necessarily, but because there is a
history before and after uh any council
person and they're also working with us,
it might just they may see something and
they're involved in that process. So, I
actually for once do want to, you know,
that extra input. Uh, and the other
thing is is I don't want to cap that if
there's four to cap it at six because I
know that during this process that
somebody that would have been capped off
ended up being the best person
and uh we're talking 30 minutes of my
time. I'm willing to give 30 minutes to
get the best person. I'm not willing to
cut down just to save a couple minutes.
So, I really don't want to cap the the
number of people at more than twi or
less than twice, but having having,
let's say, for the RDC, having somebody
from Dan's office involved in the
process, I I would appreciate I think it
would be it would be good to be able to
have a another person that's involved
bounce off that. Thank you, Council
Member Torres. Vice Mayor.
Okay. I I agree with what council member
Toruson was saying. I I don't want to uh
cap that at six people if we should be
doing eight. I think I I like the
process that we're doing there.
I also,
you know, feel like the whole council
needs to be involved because if, you
know, if only the liaison
is the one that makes that full choice
when I come up here and I haven't had an
opinion in there, or maybe I did have an
opinion, but it didn't matter, then I'm
going to be voting no. And and I think
that that could happen more because if
we're not properly involved and I think
this is a team thing, it's for the
entire town. And I think we all need to
be involved in this process. And and I'm
I'm with Council Member Tores. If it
takes me an extra 30 minutes, an extra
hour, then that's what it takes. But um
I I just think that and I and I respect
each liaison's opinion of of who's there
and everything, but that is just that
it's it it's their opinion and they are
there. Then perhaps maybe uh the council
can be invited to a meeting and we can
come to one of those meetings and and
see how you know how how they're doing
and how the other the other um you know
liaison is interacting with everyone.
But um I I just I don't want to change
the the number of people we interview
cuz I and I agree with with definitely
agree that sometimes the very last
person we interview is is the perfect
person for for the job. So uh that
that's where I am on this. Thank you.
Thank you, Vice Mayor Bley.
Other comments, questions?
Just internally, I do know that a few
years ago this took a lot longer, at
least internally with the council. We've
streamlined it quite a bit over the last
couple of years and and I'm pretty happy
with the the results we've had the last
couple of years.
Thank you, Mayor Anderson. Um we're
definitely hearing um that the staff
liazison input would be valuable and
there is some redundancy um in the
questions um a need for some efficiency
and fine-tuning. Um, but we definitely
look forward if there are no other
questions, we definitely look forward to
bringing you some more suggestions in
the future and we really appreciate your
feedback.
Is this Ashley's first presentation?
Yeah, I don't think so. Did we get a
word? Great. She didn't have a challenge
word. Have a challenge word. The whole
thing was a challenge,
but I thank you for allowing me to
present to you this evening. A very good
job. Thank you.
Limu emu liu.
Thank you.
That concludes the uh study session
agenda. I'll take a motion to adjurnn.
I second.
Moved and seconded. We are adjourned.
How many minutes do we have? 6:30. 6:30.
Yeah.