Failed Leadership, Failing Pipes: How Neglect Led to a 95% Rate Hike

A town once lauded for its rapid growth and fiscal conservatism now finds itself grappling with an infrastructure nightmare. The Town Council’s recent decision to increase water rates by 95% has been met with outrage from former officials, but a deeper look into the records reveals a harsh reality: this crisis was not born overnight. Instead, it is the direct consequence of neglect and ideological governance by the 2012-2016 Gilbert Town Council.

Warnings Ignored, Consequences Realized

As early as August 2013, Assistant to the Manager Engeland warned the Gilbert Town Council about the impending collapse of the town’s water infrastructure. During a Special Council Meeting, he outlined the risks of failing pipes, emphasizing that:

• No budget had been allocated for pipe replacement in 2015.
• An estimated $5 million worth of pipes were expected to burst by 2020 if preventative action was not taken.
• The town relied on asset replacement rather than maintenance, increasing long-term costs.
• He recommended the establishment of a Water Replacement Fund and a structured pipeline replacement program.

In addition to Engeland’s warnings, Management and Budget Director Dawn Buckland also raised concerns during a June 5, 2014, meeting. She emphasized that past deferred maintenance had already created significant infrastructure challenges and that long-range planning was necessary to avoid further issues. Buckland highlighted that:

• Previous budget cuts had already deferred critical maintenance projects, creating a backlog of necessary repairs.
• Funding sources used for initial infrastructure development could not be used for maintenance, rehabilitation, or reconstruction, leaving a significant financial gap.
• Without a dedicated funding stream, Gilbert’s infrastructure would continue to deteriorate, eventually leading to increased costs for residents.

Rather than acting on these recommendations, council members—including Mayor John Lewis and Vice Mayor Jared Taylor—sidestepped the issue, instead focusing on tax cuts for developers and funding for parks and recreation projects. This diversion away from critical infrastructure needs laid the groundwork for today’s sewer system failures that now require increased utility rates to fix.

A Pattern of Neglect and Mismanagement

Between 2012 and 2016, multiple infrastructure-related decisions were deferred, ignored, or outright rejected by the council. Among the most egregious actions:

• No Infrastructure Replacement Plan: Maintenance was reactive, leading to frequent emergency repairs at higher costs.
• Ignored Sewer Inspection Recommendations: The council disregarded expert advice to expand CCTV pipeline inspections, force main exercises, and condition-based maintenance programs.
• Repeal of System Development Fees (2014): In May 2014, the council voted to eliminate system development fees meant to fund critical infrastructure, including the wastewater system. This removed a key funding source for long-term maintenance in favor of lower costs to developers.
•  Short Sighted Allocation of $12.48 Million in Contingency Funds: Instead of directing these funds to water and wastewater improvements, the council used them for early bond redemption.

The lack of investment in Gilbert’s water and wastewater infrastructure did not stop the 2016 council from approving high-density developments. In January 2016, the council unanimously overturned the Planning Commission’s denial of the Flats at SanTan, a four-story apartment complex. Every council member supported the project—despite the absence of infrastructure improvements to accommodate increased demand.

This decision is emblematic of a broader pattern: approving developments that strain public utilities while failing to invest in necessary upgrades. The town continued expanding, but its water system remained stuck in the past.

Failure of Leadership, Now Citizens Pay the Price

Fast forward to 2025, and Gilbert residents are literally paying the price. The town’s water infrastructure is in shambles, forcing the current council to take drastic action by raising rates 95% to cover the cost of overdue repairs. Those on fixed incomes and vulnerable citizens are hit the hardest, forced to make impossible choices between basic necessities like food, medication, and utilities just to afford their water bills. The skyrocketing costs have left many struggling, with some even facing the risk of losing their homes due to mounting expenses. The burden of years of neglect has now fallen on those least able to bear it.

Ironically, the same former officials who ignored infrastructure warnings and cut critical funding are now criticizing the current council for the rate increase in social media groups like Facebook’s GoGilbert. They have publicly opposed the hike while conveniently omitting their own role in creating the crisis.

The Cost of Part-Time Governance

One of the most glaring issues with the 2012-2016 council was its approach to governance. Rather than treating the town’s needs as a full-time responsibility, council members operated with a part-time mentality—At the Gilbert Town Council regular meeting on August 6, 2024, during public comment Jared Taylor advocated for elected officials to view their roles not as a job but part time duty performed out of public service and commitment to their oath. The result? A full-time disaster that today’s residents are being forced to fix.

A Lesson for the Future

The failures of the 2012-2016 Gilbert Town Council serve as a stark reminder of what happens when elected officials prioritize personal ideology over collective responsibility. Water and sewer systems are not political talking points—they are the foundation of a functioning community. Gilbert’s residents now face massive rate hikes not because of reckless spending by the current administration, but because their past leaders refused to make the tough decisions when it mattered most.

As Gilbert moves forward, one thing is clear: infrastructure is not a part-time issue. And the cost of neglect is far higher than the price of prevention.