Gilbert Town Council reversed course from its preliminary adoption last month of the budget and property tax levy, cutting the secondary property tax rate by a penny and passing the budget on a divided vote.
The actions came during a final public hearing June 6, part of the council’s regular business meeting. The final adoption cannot by law increase the budget or property tax levy from the preliminary adoption, which happened May 2.
The levy was reduced by $265,000 from $31.6 million to $31.335 million, enough to drop the secondary property tax rate from $0.99 per $100 assessed valuation to $0.98. The vote was 4-3 on an amendment to change the levy amount, with Council Member Yung Koprowski, Vice Mayor Kathy Tilque and Mayor Brigette Peterson dissenting.
The vote on the amended motion to pass the levy was 5-2 with Peterson voting in support.
The $2.05 billion budget, which passed unanimously on preliminary adoption last month, passed 4-3 at final adoption, with new council members Jim Torgeson, Chuck Bongiovanni and Bobbi Buchli voting in dissent this time.
In their comments from the dais, the trio said as new members coming into their jobs in the middle of the budget cycle, they did not feel they had adequate input into the budget process to support the budget now.
Since the new members joined the council in January, the town has had a financial retreat for council members, a study session and the preliminary adoption meeting about the budget, as well as council members having access to staff to ask questions. In fact, the three praised staff for their work and accessibility.
“How my vote will probably go has nothing to do with you (Budget Director Kelly Pfost) or how you’ve handled your job,” Buchli said. “You’ve been fantastic. (Town Manager) Patrick (Banger)’s done great. I’ve gotten budget information from other people as well. 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. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with it, but that’s where I am on this budget.”
Their stance drew fire from Koprowski, who had to vote on her first budget in 2020 a month after joining council.
“I’m extremely frustrated and disappointed at the comments I’m hearing tonight from the new council members,” she said. “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 and what goes into it.”
Koprowski praised Gilbert’s budgeting process and noted that more than 60% of the budget is money set aside for capital improvement projects over five years, so that the town can continue doing needed projects whatever the economic conditions are.
She added that they had opportunities to ask their questions at the financial retreat, noting that council sets policy on the level of service and staff presents their needs to meet that level of service.
“We provide an extremely high quality of life in Gilbert at an excellent value,” she said. “I just implore you to take another consideration and understand this is an important vote tonight. It’s not something that just can be dismissed easily.”
Peterson said she was “bewildered” that after voting for the budget last month without asking questions or bringing up concerns that the new members would now take this stance at final adoption, which generally has been more routine than the preliminary adoption.
“I’m disappointed that this is where we’re sitting tonight,” she said. “We have gone through quite a long process, and I’ve heard that you’ve asked questions, and your questions have been answered, and I don’t understand why we’re sitting here at this point in time. We have a responsibility to this community to pass a budget, and if it passes 4-3, it passes 4-3. But I know the public is going to be wondering how it passed 7-0 at a preliminary meeting, and now not at the regular meeting.”
In regard to the levy, the preliminary vote had been 6-1 with Torgeson dissenting. He had asked for a “tiny victory” for residents by reducing the rate to $0.98 per $100 assessed valuation, but no one voted with him and little support for the notion was expressed.
Budget Director Kelly Pfost subsequently emailed council members that such a reduction would amount $265,000 less on the levy, which is set to cover the debt service on voter-approved bonds.
The state allows entities to collect enough to have a reserve up to 10% on those funds as a buffer against reduced valuations or lower than anticipated collections. Council policy has been to keep between 5% to 10% in reserve.
In response to a question from Torgeson, Pfost said the town had enough in reserves to make its debt service payments for the coming year.
“If we change and have a lower rate going on forward, it does change the amount we have available for debt into the future,” she said.
Council Member Scott Anderson said he believed it would be great for the optics to town residents to make a small cut.
But other council members noted the small cut will not result in residents seeing a reduction in their property tax bill as valuations continue to rise at 5% annually, the maximum allowed under state law as market rates generally have far outstripped that increase.
In turn, they argued, the short-term measure could begin to chart a course that could hurt the town’s finances, including its bond rating, if the town did not have sufficient reserves or could not cover its debt service on its bonds.
“It always sounds great to reduce a tax for somebody,” Tilque said. “But when you talk about $2 per year (average property owner savings) and the impact that has on our streets and all of these other things we’re providing … I feel like it’s not enough money, $2 per year, to put ourselves in a financial situation that we fall below our financial policy — limits that we have to ensure that if people don’t pay their taxes, we can still pay our debt.”
Tilque and Peterson said the budgeting process could be revised in future years so council members feel they have had adequate input into it.
In wrapup comments, Banger said staff would do that and thanked council members for the civil discourse on the issues.
Tom Blodgett can be reached by email at tblodgett@iniusa.org or follow him @sp_blodgett on Twitter. We would like to invite our readers to submit their civil comments, pro or con, on this issue. Email AZOpinions@iniusa.org.
Tom Blodgett Senior News Editor | Gilbert @sp_blodgett
Meet Tom Tom Blodgett joined Independent Newsmedia, Inc., USA, in 2022, when the company acquired Community Impact Newspaper's Phoenix-area properties. Raised in Arizona, he has spent more than 35 years in journalism in the state.
Community: He has served as an instructional professional in the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication since 2005, and is editorial adviser to The State Press, the university's independent student media outlet. He also is director of operations for an 18U girls fastpitch softball team from Gilbert.
Education: Arizona State University with a BS in Journalism.
Random Fact: He lived in Belgium during his freshman year of high school.
Hobbies: Tweeting enthusiastically about ASU softball (season-ticket holder) and grumpily about other local sports (pessimistic fan).
By 
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here