Gilbert approves light rail prohibition ordinance 5-1-1 after contentious three-ordinance standoff
GILBERT, ARIZONA — March 8, 2023

Gilbert approves light rail prohibition ordinance 5-1-1 after contentious three-ordinance standoff

Gilbert Town Council meeting featuring high-profile controversy over light rail/commuter rail policy with three competing ordinances creating internal division, approval of light rail prohibition, and public comments on recovery home facility and road widening concerns.

Gilbert Council Approves Light Rail Ban After Divisive Three-Ordinance Showdown; Process Criticized as "Insane"

The Gilbert Town Council approved a light rail prohibition ordinance (Item 15A) by a 5-1-1 margin on March 7, 2023, after a nearly two-hour debate that exposed deep fissures within the council and prompted public criticism of the legislative process itself. Two companion ordinances addressing commuter rail policy were tabled, pending a promised collaborative study session. The vote capped a governance debacle in which three council members—Jim Torgeson, Bobbi Buchli, and Chuck Bongiovanni—submitted three separate ordinances on rail policy without prior discussion with the broader council, citing state open meeting law restrictions that prevent informal coordination among more than two council members on agendized items.

The meeting also featured emotional public testimony on a behavioral recovery home operating adjacent to a community park and two school bus stops, with residents reporting monthly police interactions, alleged assaults, sex offender housing violations, and park closure—a complaint that prompted Vice Mayor Kathy Tilkey to promise an internal review with Chuck Bongiovanni expertise.

Key Speeches

"I don't want to go into the difference between our ability regarding Light Rail or commuter rail... what I'm opposed to is bringing multiple ordinances back and forth to this dais without a working group without us sitting down and really talking about what can we agree on. We're talking, which is good... but to continue it in the form that we're doing is insane. It is definitely insane." — Vice Mayor Kathy Tilkey

"I separated out light rail because I heard every single person up here say they were against Light Rail and I did it so that we could have at least one piece of clarity if everybody's truly against that then we don't allow staff to push that agenda forward whatsoever." — Council Member Jim Torgeson

"I will never be embarrassed for representing the people that elected me... the residents of Gilbert do not want Light Rail commuter rail and it has come and it's gone and it's back and none of us want that to happen." — Council Member Bobbi Buchli

"We certainly can if Amtrak decides to run a line from Tucson through Phoenix and over to the west side we can wave as it goes by in Gilbert that is bad policy and will be criticized in the future by Future residents because we didn't take the opportunity to at least study whether or not we wanted to benefit economically from having that line come through Gilbert." — Council Member Scott Anderson

Timeline

Opposition

Number of speakers against Items 15, 15A, or 15B: 3 (Maureen Hops, Bruce Levich, Virginia Morrison); Virginia Morrison spoke against 15A specifically.

Main concerns:

  1. Light rail as a false issue: Maureen Hops and Bruce Levich argued that light rail has never been part of Gilbert's plan and should not consume council time; Hops characterized the repeated cycle as "insanity."

  2. Lessons from Phoenix: Bruce Levich, a retired 24-year Maricopa County Sheriff's Office veteran with direct experience on Phoenix's light rail, warned that it brings crime, homelessness, and police resource drain; he stated: "It's a cesspool it's a waste of taxpayer money it's a burden on our police our fire and ambulance."

  3. Property value risk: Multiple speakers cited concern over property devaluation and deterioration of established neighborhoods.

  4. Fiscal prioritization: Levich and Hops argued that spending on rail feasibility studies diverts funds better spent on police, fire, parks, and rehabilitation services.

  5. Public vote demand: Hops and Levich called for direct voter approval rather than council fiat on major infrastructure decisions.

  6. Commuter rail as legitimate option: Virginia Morrison opposed 15A because she believed the ordinance inappropriately restricts the town's ability to study and plan for commuter rail—a multimodal transit option that could ease congestion and support anticipated population growth to 300,000+ residents by 2030.

Most compelling argument: Bruce Levich's 24-year law enforcement background and firsthand experience with light rail crime and disorder lent credibility to warnings about negative impacts; his rhetorical contrast ("I chose to live here in Gilbert... I don't want to have Gilbert turn into a phoenix or a Chandler or a Tempe") resonated with council's stated preference for Gilbert's low-density suburban character.

Organized groups: None identified in transcript.

Support

Number of speakers supporting 15A: None explicitly stated they supported the ordinance during public comment, though Jim Torgeson, Buckley, and Chuck Bongiovanni offered extended remarks defending the three-ordinance approach during council discussion.

Council member positions (supporting 15A or the light rail ban):

  1. Jim Torgeson argued that separating light rail into its own ordinance provides clarity and accountability; he framed it as protecting public trust against "wildly important goals"—a deliberate management technique to keep rail on the agenda covertly—which he claimed appeared 128,000 times in Gilbert emails.

  2. Council Member Buckley declared: "I will never be embarrassed for representing the people that elected me" and endorsed Items 15A and 15B as fulfilling constituent demands to kill light rail permanently.

  3. Chuck Bongiovanni echoed the same themes and explained that the three-ordinance approach, though unconventional, became necessary because open meeting law prevented the three of them from discussing the issue with the broader council in advance. He stated: "You know that's why I think we're here because we have three different ordinances here that same kind of different things... we needed to separate the light rail from commuter rail... there's so much confusion."

Project Details

Vote Breakdown

Item 15A – Light Rail Prohibition Ordinance

Amendment to Table Motion (excluding 15A from tabled items)

Motion to Table Items 15 and 15B

Outcome & Next Steps

Item 15A, the light rail prohibition ordinance, was approved and will become law. It prohibits the town from expending money, personnel, equipment, or other resources on light rail feasibility studies, design, construction, operations, maintenance, or inclusion in transportation plans within Gilbert's jurisdiction. The ordinance permits town officials to participate in regional or state planning bodies that address light rail but does nothing to prevent such participation—it simply prohibits the town from funding or actively advancing light rail projects.

Items 15 and 15B, addressing commuter rail fee/tax restrictions and permitting town participation in commuter rail studies subject to council approval, were tabled indefinitely pending a collaborative study session. Vice Mayor Tilkey, Council Member Yung Koprowski, and Mayor Scott Anderson all expressed a preference for returning to the drawing board with all seven council members present to develop a single, unified ordinance rather than the three competing versions currently before the body. Chuck Bongiovanni acknowledged that a study session would be preferable and stated: "Unfortunately it got to this but I think these three different ordinances makes it a little bit more clearer." The town manager and council attorney will coordinate scheduling of the study session.

A commitment was made that Items 15 and 15B will not come to a vote until the council has had an opportunity to discuss the issue in a less adversarial format. No specific date for the study session was set, though it is expected prior to the next regular council meeting in April.

Controversies & Context

The Three-Ordinance Standoff and Open Meeting Law Constraints

The primary controversy stemmed from Jim Torgeson, Buckley, and Chuck Bongiovanni submitting three separate ordinances—Items 15, 15A, and 15B—without prior notification to or discussion with the other four council members. Jim Torgeson and Chuck Bongiovanni both explained that Arizona's open meeting law (ARS § 38-431.02) prohibits more than two council members from discussing a matter off the record or in an informal setting; any discussion of a pending item among three or more council members must comply with notice and public-meeting requirements, effectively preventing the kind of quiet coalition-building or pre-negotiation that precedes most legislative votes.

Jim Torgeson stated: "You know something that a lot of people don't know and I didn't know it before I got on the council is open meeting laws which means that I can't give young a call and talk to this issue and then give Kathy a call then the mayor of the call sorry vice mayor call Jim I can't call I can't speak to more than two people about this."

However, Vice Mayor Tilkey criticized the three-ordinance approach as a procedural failure, calling the situation "insane" and "embarrassing." She said: "To continue it in the form that we're doing is insane... it also represents that this Council has no intention of working together to find Solutions... when you keep signing things to bring things up here and nobody gets to talk about them except for in a format that looks like we're a divided Council that's the that's what people see out there now." She noted that at orientation, all council members had stated a desire to work collaboratively and suggested that collaborative problem-solving should be possible despite open meeting law constraints—for example, through a study session where all members could discuss the issue publicly.

Chuck Bongiovanni, in a more conciliatory tone, acknowledged the frustration and stated: "Unfortunately it got to this but I think these three different ordinances makes it a little bit more clearer uh to everyone out there because there is so much disinformation and misinformation out there about the two."

Scott Anderson and Council Member Yung Koprowski both expressed a strong preference for using the town's existing financial policies and planning processes to address rail concerns, rather than adding new ordinances. Yung Koprowski stated: "I do feel that our current processes and procedures would allow us to make decisions on rail any issues any major issues would come to counsel and require our Direction and approval it doesn't require the ordinance to be in place for that to already happen." She also noted that planning studies, advisory boards, or amendments to the town's comprehensive plan might be more effective and transparent tools than ordinances.

Substance: Light Rail vs. Commuter Rail

A secondary source of confusion and tension was the distinction between light rail and commuter rail. Public speakers and some council members used the terms interchangeably, though they refer to fundamentally different systems. Light rail is typically an electrified urban transit system running in dedicated rights-of-way or mixed traffic; commuter rail is a longer-distance passenger service (such as Amtrak) running on existing freight lines and serving regional markets.

Scott Anderson emphasized that Gilbert has no plans for light rail and likely never will, as the light rail system on Main Street (which was studied and partially built years ago) stopped at Gilbert Road and did not extend south into Gilbert proper. However, he was concerned that the ordinances under discussion might preemptively foreclose the town's ability to negotiate with private operators (such as Amtrak) should they propose using existing rail corridors that pass through Gilbert. He stated: "We certainly can if Amtrak decides to run a line from Tucson through Phoenix and over to the west side we can wave as it goes by in Gilbert that is bad policy and will be criticized in the future by Future residents because we didn't take the opportunity to at least study whether or not we wanted to benefit economically from having that line come through Gilbert."

Jim Torgeson countered that Item 15B (commuter rail study restrictions) was intentionally drafted to allow town participation in regional planning discussions while prohibiting unilateral town expenditures on studies or infrastructure. He framed this as a means of maintaining transparency and accountability: any study would require an explicit council vote, preventing staff from undertaking expensive feasibility work without council knowledge. He emphasized that subsection (e) of Item 15B should read: "no further expenses other than those permitted by this article shall be incurred by or on behalf of the town without Express Council approval," though the final version in the packet omitted this language.

The Development Agreement Question

Jim Torgeson also raised concerns about a development agreement with a third party (likely related to a planned transit-oriented development) that includes language permitting the town to develop "light rail or commuter rail" stations. He argued that Item 15B, by allowing the town to study commuter rail options, would not breach that agreement—the agreement permits but does not mandate any rail development, so merely considering the option does not constitute a breach. He noted: "Commuter rail may never come through Gilbert but the other ordinances could open us up to a costly lawsuit if we pass this past those versions and I'm concerned about that." Conversely, Scott Anderson worried that an outright prohibition on commuter rail studies (Item 15 or 15B without amendment) could be construed as a deliberate disavowal of an option contemplated in the development agreement, potentially exposing the town to breach claims if the developer later sought to enforce that language.

"Wildly Important Goals" and Accountability Concerns

Jim Torgeson introduced an unusual allegation regarding a management technique called "wildly important goals" (WIG), originally developed by management theorists and popularized by Sean Covey. According to Jim Torgeson, the term appears in Gilbert's internal email system in connection with commuter rail planning. He stated: "it's a term that's used and it was used and how this was caught was a term called wildly important goals and it was stuck into uh the budget and fared it out and it regarded money spent for looking at commuter and commuter rail specifically." He claimed the technique is designed to keep a goal alive on the agenda even when council members oppose it, eventually forcing it into the open for a vote. Jim Torgeson said: "it's some it's a method to keep something on the table even when everybody else at the table is against it you use your wildly important goal is put on the side of the table until it's time to just throw it down Throw Down The Gauntlet and get it done and it was done by a socialist Professor from Harvard." He alleged the term appeared approximately 128,000 times in Gilbert emails (though he acknowledged uncertainty about whether he was reading the count correctly: "I could be maybe I'm missing a comma somewhere"). While this allegation was not verified in the transcript or analyzed by the council, it underscored Jim Torgeson concern that staff or council members sympathetic to rail planning might pursue rail projects through incremental budget items and planning initiatives, rather than explicit council votes.

Behavioral Recovery Home Public Safety Crisis

A third major issue raised during public comment and briefly addressed by the council was an unlicensed behavioral recovery facility operating adjacent to a community park and near two Gilbert Public School bus stops. James DeBerry and Casey Kendall, neighbors, described repeated police incidents including aggravated assault, suicide threats, warrants served, knife fights, gang graffiti, animal welfare violations, and indecent exposure. Kendall stated: "Since the introduction in November these incidents have not stopped or even slowed with an average of five police interactions a month or roughly one a week." He also alleged that "two different sex offenders [are] being shuffled between two different properties with the same business owner." Kendall requested that the council honor a previous commitment to conduct an executive session on the issue and invoke code enforcement to address the problems.

Vice Mayor Tilkey responded: "I know that council member Bon Jovani was going to lend his expertise but maybe if we could get an update on a on the agenda coming up soon we actually have been working on that internally and plan on bringing something back to Council in April." Jim Torgeson also acknowledged the issue and thanked DeBerry and Kendall for their persistence. However, no formal motion was made and no detailed discussion of the recovery home followed during the regular council meeting, suggesting the matter will be addressed through the internal review process and an April agenda item. This commitment, though informal, represents a significant concession to a vocal constituency facing a genuine public safety concern.

Duration

Other Notable Items

Item 7A – Lead and Copper Compliance Study Contract (Approved 7-0)

Town Water Manager Rebecca Hamel briefed the council on a water system study contract to comply with EPA lead and copper rule revisions required by 2024. Jim Torgeson initially questioned whether hydrofluoroacetic acid (a byproduct of fluoride production) was responsible for lead leaching, but Hamel clarified that fluoride is added to water by voter mandate and is separate from corrosion-control treatment (pH management) at the two treatment plants. Jim Torgeson noted: "Fluoride was added to the Water by voter approval and now we have to deal with the after effects of that and it is expensive to do." The contract passed unanimously.

Item 14 – Liquor License (Approved 7-0)

A routine liquor license application with no public opposition; passed unanimously on consent agenda.

Item 16 – LDC Text Amendment: Irregular Lot Front Yard Criteria (Approved 7-0)

Planning staff presented amendments clarifying front-yard setback determination for "irregular lots" (those with multiple frontages or unusual configurations) in the town's Land Development Code. The amendment adds an asterisk to the irregular lot category on the diagram and cross-references language directing property owners to contact the planning department for individualized setback determination. Council Member Yung Koprowski requested clarification that the new language aligns with criteria for determining which side of a multi-frontage lot is the "front" (based on front door placement, subdivision plat, harmony with surrounding lots, and street classification). Planner Ava Cutro confirmed consistency. Passed unanimously.