Gilbert approves $2.049 billion FY2024 budget 4-3 despite new council members' procedural protests
GILBERT, ARIZONA — June 7, 2023

Gilbert approves $2.049 billion FY2024 budget 4-3 despite new council members' procedural protests

Gilbert Town Council held contentious budget hearing passing $2.049B FY2024 budget 4-3 after new council members criticized lack of input in process, also approved three rezoning cases and modified property tax levy despite procedural disputes.

Council Approves $2.049B Budget 4-3 After New Members Challenge "Take It or Leave It" Process

Gilbert Town Council approved the $2.049 billion FY2024 budget on a 4-3 vote on June 6, 2023—a sharp reversal from the 7-0 preliminary adoption on May 2nd—after three newly elected council members expressed frustration over their inability to shape the budget despite being seated nearly five months prior. The contentious session also included passage of three zoning cases and a surprise amendment reducing the secondary property tax levy, exposing process-management tensions and raising questions about how the council integrates new members into long-standing institutional practices.

Timeline

Opposition to Final Approval

Three council members voted no:

  1. Council Member Bobbi Buchli objected that his five-month tenure had not afforded him meaningful input on a $2.1 billion budget. He stated: "I've struggled with voting for a budget that I've had no input on" and "I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it but that's just where I am on this budget." Buckley emphasized the disconnect between staff competence (which he praised) and process access: "It's not due to you not doing your job properly... it's just I can't justify in my heart to vote for a budget in this amount that I've had no input on."

  2. Council Member Jim Torgeson charged that the process lacked clear pathways for council influence. He said: "There is no clear path and to feel that I've had any impact whatsoever other than 265 thousand dollars five minutes ago I've had no impact zero it's because of process." Jim Torgeson noted that previous council members he consulted "consistently five out of the six very much felt that the budget was presented as take it or leave it they didn't feel that they had enough input yet they felt bound to move forward."

  3. Council Member Chuck Bongiovanni agreed the issue was procedural, not substantive. He stated: "My qualm there's no qualm at the budget at all there's nothing nefarious about the budget... it's just my feeling about the process of it and not being involved in it." Chuck Bongiovanni added: "I felt like I didn't have a voice to make any kind of suggestions for the people I represent."

Main concerns (numbered):

  1. No clear notification of when budget input windows opened or closed; study session and preliminary meeting were not identified as final decision points until afterward.
  2. Lack of a formal mechanism to raise questions mid-process; council members described learning by accident or email whether consensus existed for changes.
  3. Three-month learning curve on unfamiliar departmental structures and budget line items without designated mentorship from veteran council members.
  4. Perception that budget was presented as final product rather than draft open to policy-level council guidance.
  5. Inability to influence Public Safety staffing reductions (FTE cuts in police/fire from prior year) without knowing trade-offs in advance.
  6. Frustration that preliminary 7-0 vote was presented as pro forma but was actually the final substantive discussion.
  7. Sense of exclusion despite staff and town manager availability for one-on-one meetings (which three new members did not fully utilize).

Most compelling argument: Council Member Yung Koprowski, defending the process, pointed out that the preliminary budget meeting on May 2nd passed 7-0 with "hardly no conversation, hardly no questions, hardly no nothing" — suggesting that if new council members had substantive concerns, they could have raised them then. She argued: "To come in here this evening is very disappointing from my perspective."

Support for Final Approval

Four council members voted yes:

  1. Mayor Bridget Peterson defended the multi-step process and criticized the eleventh-hour objections. She stated: "I'm extremely frustrated and disappointed at the comments that I'm hearing tonight from the new council members you were elected into this position to do a duty to serve in this role." Peterson noted that Gilbert budgets its full five-year capital improvement plan upfront—a practice distinguishing it from peer municipalities—and that the budget reflected established council policy on service levels. She emphasized: "The town staff determines the needs the council sets policy on the level of service that we provide to our citizens... the town staff identifies the resources needed to provide that level of service."

  2. Vice Mayor Kathy Tilkey highlighted the state law requirement to adopt a budget and reframed the dispute as separate from the budget's substance. She said: "Not passing a budget is not an option it's against the law." Tilkey proposed that the council separate the discussion of process improvements (for FY2025) from the obligation to pass the current budget, noting: "everybody up here and staff is very open to that so if maybe we could close that conversation saying yes let's look at the process for the future."

  3. Council Member Scott Anderson expressed openness to a modest tax reduction for optics but emphasized long-term fiscal responsibility: "It sounds really good and I'd love to say hey I reduced your taxes but in reality your taxes are most likely going to increase... if we don't do the maintenance and we don't do the projects that we have already scheduled through our CIP projects our community is going to deteriorate."

  4. Yung Koprowski voted yes but abstained from voting on the Capital Improvement Plan (Item 16) due to a conflict of interest as owner of an engineering company that provides Public Works projects.

Project Details

Gilbert Spectrum Office Building Rezoning (GP23-11, Z23-02)

Baseline Commercial Zoning Amendment (Z22-17)

DiBella Family Annexation and Development (A22-02, GP future, Z future)

Secondary Property Tax Levy Reduction

The most dramatic moment of the budget hearing involved the secondary property tax levy. Jim Torgeson moved to reduce the levy from $31.6 million (resulting in a 0.9883 rate) to $31.335 million (resulting in an approximate 0.98 rate), saving roughly $265,000 annually.

Context of the amendment:

According to Budget Director Kelly, after the study session (approximately two weeks prior), she sent an email to the entire council with an analysis showing that a reduction to a 0.98 rate would save approximately $265,000 and achieve an even 98-cent rate. However, at the preliminary budget meeting on May 2nd, the item was not discussed. Jim Torgeson indicated he had not received the information in advance of the study session and thus could not have raised it then; Kelly stated the information came in an email post-study-session but that no council member responded, which she interpreted as lack of consensus.

Arguments for reduction (Jim Torgeson, Chuck Bongiovanni, Scott Anderson):

Arguments against reduction (Peterson, Tilkey, Yung Koprowski):

Vote outcome: The amendment passed 5-2 (Jim Torgeson, Chuck Bongiovanni, Scott Anderson, and two others yes; Peterson and Tilkey no; Buckley's vote not individually recorded on the amendment tally).

Vote Breakdown

Item 28 (Secondary Property Tax Levy—Amended):

Item 29 (Final FY2024 Budget at $2,049,501,300):

Outcome & Next Steps

The FY2024 budget was approved with the amended secondary tax levy of $31.335 million (0.98 rate, rather than the original 0.9883 rate). The budget includes:

Process commitments:

Mayor Peterson and Vice Mayor Tilkey committed to reviewing the budget-input process for FY2025 to provide new council members earlier visibility and clearer decision-point notifications. Town Manager Patrick acknowledged the need to improve communication about when and how council can influence budget priorities. No formal policy changes were adopted in the June 6 meeting.

Immediate next steps:

Controversies & Context

Process Complaints and "Take It or Leave It" Perception

The three new council members (elected approximately five months prior to the June 6 meeting) alleged that the budget process offered insufficient opportunity for meaningful council influence despite multiple meetings. The key dispute centered on when input could be registered:

  1. Study session (early June): Described by staff as an opportunity to ask questions, but new members said they did not know this was the primary decision point.
  2. Preliminary budget adoption (May 2): Passed 7-0 with minimal discussion. Staff and veteran council members argued this was the substantive meeting; new members countered they were not alerted to its finality.
  3. Final adoption (June 6): Traditionally a formality, but three members treated it as their last opportunity, raising concerns only to find that the preliminary vote had foreclosed real debate.

Vice Mayor Tilkey articulated the institutional position: "It's pretty much the same presentation but at that point nobody else on the council said yes we should have that discussion" at the preliminary meeting. She argued that the three-step process (study session, preliminary, final) was standard and that the preliminary meeting was when substantive decisions were made. However, Chuck Bongiovanni responded: "I wish I had a time before that to know that was the last time we can ask questions." Council Member Buckley noted he was advised, before the preliminary meeting, that "this is our last time to ask questions" — implying the message was delivered in an executive session or informally, not on the public record.

Historical context: Town Manager Patrick noted that he had served through "seven budgets" and new council members typically received little onboarding. He acknowledged frustration but defended the process as standard. Council Member Yung Koprowski (a veteran member) similarly noted she had been new in April and was required to approve a budget in May/June; she stated: "it's a lot to get up to speed on completely understand that."

New Member Integration and Institutional Knowledge

The dispute exposed a gap between the town's institutional assumption that council members would either come in with prior municipal budget experience or would self-educate, versus the expectation of the three new members that the council (as a body) would proactively integrate them. Jim Torgeson stated: "I don't know this budget and I can I can't justify voting for a budget that I had no input on." He expressed willingness to support next year's budget, suggesting the issue was not the budget itself but the process lag.

Mayor Peterson expressed disappointment at what she saw as a breach of implied responsibility: "You were elected into this position to do a duty to serve in this role you've had over two months to understand the budget process." However, Town Manager Patrick was more conciliatory, acknowledging that "the process of learning" and new members dealt with "unprecedented" challenges in their early tenure.

Secondary Tax Levy as Microcosm of Process Tension

The amendment to reduce the tax levy illustrated the underlying process complaint. Jim Torgeson claimed he was not provided the information in time to prepare for the preliminary meeting, while Budget Director Kelly stated the email was sent post-study-session and that no response indicated lack of council consensus. Vice Mayor Tilkey reframed the issue: even if a reduction were desirable, making it at the final adoption stage, after a 7-0 preliminary vote, reversed course without explaining the change to the public. She stated: "I think that needs to happen separately and not during this budget adoption and tax levy adoption process."

Public Comments on Unrelated Matters

During the public-comment portion, resident Mark Gaddis criticized the town's social media messaging, stating that Gilbert's public accounts promoted "cultural bullying" and "virtue signaling" through posts about George Floyd, BLM support, Target recommendations, and rainbow-lighting the water tower. Gaddis argued these messages reached "only select groups" and "marginalized" longtime residents: "You're dividing us far more than you're uniting us… Please stop speaking for us in this manner." The council listened but did not respond on the record.

In contrast, resident Casey Kendall praised the council's response to a recovery house placement that had generated crime and community-safety concerns. Kendall noted that Governor Hobbs and Attorney General Mayes had identified the issue as a "stunning failure of government" and cited 45 indictments for fraud, human trafficking, and kidnapping. Police Chief Solberg presented solutions, and the council indicated ongoing support.

Duration

Other Notable Items

Gilbert Spectrum Office Building (GP23-11, Z23-02): Approved 6-1; rezones 9-acre site at McQueen/Elliott from Community Commercial to Light Industrial to support 120,000 sq ft office building with Northrop Grumman as proposed tenant. Council Member Buckley's lone no vote reflected concern about proximity to elementary school and residential areas.

Baseline Commercial Zoning Amendment (Z22-17): Approved 7-0; amends Joe Porter PAD conditions to allow drive-through restaurant, oil change facility, and retail building on 2.8-acre parcel at Lindsay/Baseline. Removes restrictions from 1999/2006 conditions and permits parking within setback.

DiBella Family Annexation (A22-02): Public hearing only; no final vote. 74-acre site at Power/Williams Field Road; annexation and master plan in initiation phase. Conceptual plan includes single-family, multi-family, and village-center commercial at approximately 14–15 DUA. Next steps: property owner signatures and companion GP/zoning applications.

Secondary Property Tax Levy (Item 28): Amended 5-2 to reduce from $31.6M (0.9883 rate) to $31.335M (0.98 rate), saving approximately $265,000 annually. Debate centered on procedural propriety and long-term fiscal sustainability.

Final FY2024 Budget (Item 29): Approved 4-3 at $2,049,501,300. Three new council members (Buckley, Jim Torgeson, Chuck Bongiovanni) voted no, citing lack of input in planning process; four veteran/longer-tenured members (Peterson, Bobbi Buchli, Yung Koprowski, Scott Anderson) voted yes.

Gilbert Leadership Month Proclamation: Approved unanimously; June 2023 declared Gilbert Leadership Month recognizing 31-year program run by Gilbert Chamber of Commerce. Class 31 focused on mental health awareness and constructed hope walk trail and mural in Gilbert's riparian preserve.