Gilbert staff flags $1.5 billion transportation funding gap; council urges visible progress before new bond ask

Gilbert staff told council that the town faces a large unfunded gap for transportation projects and outlined a timetable for several future bond issuances; some council members said they will not support a new bond question until residents can see completed projects from prior bond proceeds.

Staff briefed council on the fiscal‑year‑22 transportation bond package voters approved in 2021 and the town’s current issuance and spend status. The original authorization was $515 million; staff said the town has issued about $200 million so far and that, as design and construction continue, additional debt will be necessary to keep projects moving. Planner Susanna and CIP staff described a working list of roughly 59 candidate projects in a potential November 2026 bond question and estimated about a $1.5 billion unfunded need when accounting for escalated costs and added projects.

Why it matters: staff said some projects require cash flow to start design and construction; without additional bond authority the town could re-enter a long design-only period with limited visible construction activity. Staff said municipal-property-corporation (MPC) bonds for quality-of-life, water and wastewater work are likely in 2027 and that general-obligation (GO) reimbursements or additional GO issuance may be needed in 2027–28 depending on spenddown and market conditions.

Council concerns and staff response

Several council members asked that staff delay a public bond ask until residents can see more completed projects funded by the 2021 GO package. Council member Leah Young said, "I don't feel like we've shown enough progress on the previous I presenting these together," and urged consideration of a later election, possibly 2028, to allow greater visible progress. Council member Jim said, "I'm not willing to put my name behind anything unless I can show deliverables," and called for demonstrable outcomes before advancing another bond.

Staff said the timeline is tentative and committed to returning with more detail at the fall council retreat, including a timeline for expenditures and completion, options to alter phasing, and outreach plans designed to show residents where prior bond dollars were spent. Staff also noted external market and federal policy risks — for example, the administration-level discussion about potentially eliminating municipal tax-exempt bond status — and said staff is watching interest-rate trends to time issuance.

What staff will deliver next

Staff listed several follow-ups for council: a project-by-project timeline showing when funds will be spent and when residents should see construction; a joint parks-and-transportation timing analysis in case council wants to combine measures in a future election; a survey of other jurisdictions’ ballot schedules (to avoid crowded ballots); and a communication plan to show completed projects and impacts from the 2021 bond. No formal motion or vote was taken; staff said it will return to council for a fuller workshop at the fall retreat and will factor council feedback into the election-timing decision.

Ending

Council asked staff to prioritize visible evidence of progress and to present options — including a possible later election — at the fall retreat. Staff said it will continue detailed project prioritization, cash-flow analysis and outreach planning.