Extracted text (via pymupdf)
42085 characters
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
COUNCIL MINUTES
May 21, 2026
The City Council of the City of Mesa met in the Study Session room at City Hall, 20 East Main Street, on
May 21, 2026, at 7:46 a.m.
COUNCIL PRESENT
COUNCIL ABSENT
OFFICERS PRESENT
Mark Freeman
Scott Somers
Rich Adams*
Jennifer Duff
Francisco Heredia
Dorean Taylor
Alicia Goforth
Lisa Anderson
Scott Butler
Jim Smith
(*Participated in the meeting through the use of video conference equipment.)
Mayor Freeman conducted a roll call.
Mayor Freeman excused Councilmember Goforth from the entire meeting.
Mayor Freeman excused Councilmember Adams from the beginning of the meeting; he arrived
at 8:00 a.m.
1.
Review and discuss items on the agenda for the June 1, 2026, regular Council meeting, and June
1, 2026 Special Council Meeting.
All of the items on the agenda were reviewed among Council and staff and the following was
noted:
Conflict of interest: None
Items removed from the consent agenda: None
Responding to a request from City Manager Scott Butler regarding agenda Item 6-p, (Adopting
a pension funding policy and accepting the employer’s share of assets and liabilities under
the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System as required by A.R.S. §38-863.01.
(Citywide)), on the Regular Council meeting agenda, Office of Management and Budget
Assistant Director Samuel Schultz displayed a PowerPoint Presentation. (See Attachment 1)
Mr. Schultz presented the annual pension funding policy for the Public Safety Personnel
Retirement System (PSPRS). He explained that PSPRS was established by the State in 1968
and includes three tiers, with the presentation focused on Tier 1 and Tier 2. He stated that, under
state law, Council is required to adopt a pension funding policy and formally accept the actuarial
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Page 2
reports identifying the City of Mesa (COM) retirement plan assets and liabilities when the plans
are not 100% funded. He reviewed the three main objectives of the City’s pension funding policy
with a goal of reaching a 100% funded status by June 30, 2042. He noted that the COM
established a pension stability fund in Fiscal Year (FY) 2018/19 to help manage market
fluctuations, investment return changes, and assumption changes. He reported that the fund is
expected to reach $20 million by the end of this fiscal year, adding that the COM remains on track
to meet its 2042 funding goal through continued annual required contributions and a 25-year
amortization schedule. (See Pages 2 through 4 of Attachment 1)
Mr. Schultz clarified that, in 2022, the COM determined that the annual required contributions
identified in the actuarial reports were not sufficient to meet the COM’s investment and funding
goals. He explained that investment returns and payroll growth assumptions had not performed
as expected, therefore a concerted effort was made to increase contributions and stabilize
payments. He reported that the FY 2026/27 budget includes approximately $107 million to $109
million in total PSPRS contributions for all tiers. He stated that the increase includes $3 million for
the public safety benchmark and the redirection of $2 million from the pension stabilization fund,
which has reached its $20 million target, toward the PSPRS contribution. (See Page 5 of
Attachment 1)
Mr. Schultz said that the COM has made progress in addressing the negative amortization and
the funded percentage increased while the unfunded liability also continued to grow. He reported
that the actuarial report dated June 30, 2025, revealed that the funded status increased and the
unfunded liability decreased by approximately $60 million. He attributed the improvement to
continued additional contributions, stronger-than-expected investment returns, and the PSPRS
method of amortizing gains and losses over seven years. (See Pages 6 and 7 of Attachment 1)
Mr. Schultz reviewed the funded status over the past 10 years and stated that the additional
contributions had helped reverse the prior negative trend and supported progress toward the 2042
funding goal. He confirmed that the COM will continue to monitor market conditions and liability
growth. He stated that PSPRS had exceeded its investment return assumption and returns
continue to show growth, noting that stronger-than-expected returns could help the COM reach
100% funded status before 2042. (See Pages 8 through 10 of Attachment 1)
Mr. Schultz pointed out that the recommendation for adoption will be considered at the June 1,
2026, Regular City Council meeting. (See Page 11 of Attachment 1)
Mr. Butler added that when the COM adopted the 25-year amortization plan to reach 100% funded
status, it was anticipated that the unfunded liability would worsen before improving. He pointed
out that the unfunded liability is now beginning to decrease and that the COM remains on track to
meet its 25-year funding goal.
In response to a question from Mayor Freeman, Mr. Schultz confirmed that while $20 million is
relatively small compared to the overall PSPRS pension liability of more than $1 billion, the
reserve helps reduce payment volatility by allowing the COM to gradually adjust contributions as
gains and losses are amortized over time.
Responding to a question from Councilmember Taylor, Mr. Schultz explained that the unfunded
liability was caused by several factors, including investment losses during the Great Recession,
changes in state legislation that added benefits to PSPRS when the system had a higher funded
status, and court cases in 2014 that resulted in additional costs being passed on to cities. He
added that these compounding issues were largely outside the COM’s control.
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Page 3
In response to a question from Vice Mayor Somers regarding agenda Item 6-a, (Approving and
authorizing the City Manager to enter into an Amendment No. 2 to the Intergovernmental
Agreement (IGA) with the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) for the
design and construction of drainage improvements within City right-of-way on a portion
of Baseline Road located east of Signal Butte Road and west of Meridian Road under
FCDMC’s Small Project Assistant Program (SPAP), to extend the project completion date
and update the estimated project costs. The estimated total fiscal impact of this IGA is
$1,040,901, and 75% of this estimated total, up to $500,000 is eligible for reimbursement
through SPAP, meaning the estimated fiscal impact on the City is $540,901. This project is
funded by Local Streets, HURF and Transportation Funds. (Districts 5 and 6)), on the
Regular Council meeting agenda, Transportation Director Erik Guderian stated that the item is
part of an engineering project intended to address flooding on Baseline Road during substantial
rain events. He explained that Engineering has been working with the Flood Control District to
secure additional funding, which would reduce the COM’s overall cost for the project.
Responding to a question from Mayor Freeman regarding agenda Item 6-n, (Designating the
General Election date as November 3, 2026, and the purposes of the General Election,
including submitting to the voters two bond questions and two Mesa City Charter
amendments, providing for the issuance of a publicity pamphlet, deadline for filing
arguments for and against ballot measures, deadline for voter registration, and times polls
will be open. (Citywide)), on the Regular Council meeting agenda, Deputy City Clerk Lisa
Anderson confirmed that the proposed item is to call the General Election and finalize the ballot
measures.
In response to a question from Councilmember Taylor regarding agenda Item 6-I, (Modifying
and adding new fees and charges for the Code Compliance Department. (Citywide)), on the
Regular Council meeting agenda, Mr. Butler verified that the COM reviews its fees and charges
annually and presents any updates or additions to the Audit, Finance and Enterprise Committee
and described the process.
Responding to a request from Mr. Butler regarding agenda Item 1-a, (A public hearing on the
proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget, and the proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 Secondary
Property Tax Levy), and 1-b, (A resolution approving the budget for the Fiscal Year ending
June 30, 2027), on the Special Council Meeting agenda, City Treasurer Mark Hute displayed a
PowerPoint presentation. (See Attachment 2)
Mr. Hute discussed the proposed FY 2026-27 Secondary Property Tax Levy and explained that
the funds would be used to pay debt service on General Obligation bonds authorized by voters
beginning with the 2008 bond election. He confirmed that remaining bond authorizations still exist
from the 2020, 2022, and 2024 bond elections. (See Page 2 of Attachment 2)
Mr. Hute reviewed the COM’s total property values over the past decade, reporting that the full
cash value surpassed $100 billion for the first time. He explained that full cash value is like market
value, while limited property value is used to calculate taxable value. He stated that a parcel’s
limited property value may not exceed its full cash value, and annual increases to limited property
value are limited to 5%. He verified that the proposed levy would decrease the secondary property
tax rate by approximately 1%, resulting in a rate of $0.85 per $100 of taxable property value and
would generate approximately $46.4 million. He added that the cost to the median homeowner
would be approximately $166 for the year. He clarified that the median limited property value for
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Page 4
a Mesa homeowner is approximately $194,000, while the median full cash value is approximately
$375,000. (See Pages 3 and 4 of Attachment 2)
Mr. Hute reported that the COM’s total taxable property value increased from $5.2 billion to $5.5
billion. He explained that approximately one-third of the increase was attributed to new property
being added to the tax roll, while two-thirds were attributed to appreciation of existing property
values. (See Page 5 of Attachment 2)
Discussion ensued regarding the importance of ensuring growth pays for the costs associated
with continued development.
Mr. Hute reviewed the five-year history of the COM’s levy and tax rate, noting that the tax rate
has either decreased or remained the same, while the levy has increased in recent years due to
General Obligation bond issuances and rising taxable property values. (See Page 6 of Attachment
2)
Mr. Hute stated that a public hearing on the budget and property tax levy, along with final adoption
of the budget, is scheduled for June 1, and that Council consideration of the secondary property
tax levy is scheduled for July 20.
Councilmember Taylor explained that limited property value helps create more stability for
taxpayers because property taxes are calculated on limited property value rather than full cash
value, which can fluctuate more significantly with the real estate market. She noted that the
assessment ratio is 10% for residential property and 15.5% for commercial property. She
discussed the hypothetical possibility of implementing a primary property tax and eliminating the
utility transfer and pointed out that while a primary property tax would still require Council
consideration and public input, the COM would still pay for infrastructure costs and General
Obligation bond debt. She continued saying that tax-exempt entities, such as government
buildings, churches, and schools, would not pay a primary property tax but would still use COM
utilities, including water, wastewater, and electricity. She reiterated that using utility revenues to
offset costs, while maintaining only a secondary property tax, helps reduce the overall property
tax burden on residents.
Councilmember Duff added that the COM has an upcoming bond election and commented that
the COM’s utility rates remain competitive compared to other utility providers while generating
revenue, which reduces the need for a primary property tax. She reiterated that continuing to use
utility revenues helps spread costs among utility users and may help protect residents, including
senior citizens, from higher property tax burdens.
Mayor Freeman thanked staff for the presentation.
(Mayor Freeman declared a recess at 8:19 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:28 a.m.)
2-a.
Hear a presentation, discuss, and provide direction regarding the Off the Streets program.
Deputy City Manager Candace Cannistraro introduced Deputy Director of Community Services
Lindsey Balinkie, and Human Services Administrator Jussane Goodman and displayed a
PowerPoint presentation. (See Attachment 3)
Ms. Cannistraro provided an overview of the Off the Streets Program, including how the program
fits within the COM’s overall approach to homelessness and diversion services, the benefits of
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Page 5
the program, and additional diversion programs offered. (See Pages 2 through 5 of Attachment
3)
Ms. Cannistraro referenced Council’s previous direction to evaluate whether a nonprofit or faith-
based organization could assume operation of the Off the Streets program, reporting that the
COM issued a request for information process as an accessible way to begin conversations and
does not require extensive financial information or qualifications. She stated that the COM was
seeking a nonprofit partner that could assume both the financial obligations and operational
responsibilities of the Off the Streets program and confirmed that only one response had been
received. She recalled that the responding nonprofit indicated it would require approximately $2.5
million per year in COM support to operate the program, which is consistent with the current
program budget and was not the intent of the request. She reported that follow-up with
nonresponsive nonprofits confirmed they could not independently fund the program, although
some may be willing to operate the program with City financial support. (See Page 6 of Attachment
3)
Councilmember Duff referenced the City’s Balanced Housing Plan, noting that the plan was used
to help guide decisions related to housing needs. She stated that the plan identifies a shortage of
affordable places to live which contributes to the growing homelessness issue.
Ms. Cannistraro provided an update on the location and number of shelter beds physically located
within the COM with the program. She clarified that there are 105 beds for single men at the East
Valley Men’s Shelter which is located within the COM planning area but is technically located in
the County. She pointed out program participation over the past 12 months and identified federal
funds and related interest earnings as potential funding sources, with additional details to follow.
(See Pages 7 through 9 of Attachment 3)
Ms. Cannistraro reported that the Sunaire property is complete, a certificate of occupancy has
been issued, and the COM has possession of the improved property. She stated that the COM
recently issued a notice of intent to Mercy House to provide services at the location, contingent
on funding and contract negotiations, and clarified that the notice does not obligate the COM. She
explained that the notice of intent enabled Mercy House to apply for grants on behalf of the Off
the Streets program and confirmed that, in partnership with the COM, it had applied for an Arizona
Department of Housing grant of up to $1 million to help address the previously identified property
maintenance funding gap. (See Page 10 of Attachment 3)
In response to a question from Councilmember Duff, Ms. Cannistraro recalled that if the Off the
Streets program continues but does not operate at the Sunaire location, staff would need to
consult with the Arizona Department of Housing to determine whether the grant funds received
could be moved or used for the program at a different location.
Ms. Cannistraro reviewed proposed operating funding for the Off the Streets program and
identified funding sources that would cover Years 1 through 3 without using COM local sales tax
revenues. She stated that the identified sources include one-time HOME-ARP funds through HUD
and one-time American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) interest income. She explained that the original
intent for the HOME-ARP funds was to support brick-and-mortar bridge housing; however, due to
construction costs and the inability to secure development partners, staff shifted the proposed
use to supportive services. She confirmed that the HOME-ARP funds would be eligible for case
management, food, and other wraparound services, but would not cover property maintenance
or leased rooms, regardless of the operating model selected. She verified that the identified
funding would fully offset General Fund costs for the program for three years. She explained that
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Page 6
for Year 4 and beyond, the COM would continue pursuing Federal and State grants, including
opportunities like the Arizona Department of Housing grant. She pointed out that any additional
grants or fundraising received during the first three years could help extend the availability of the
identified one-time funds. She continued by saying that staff are exploring the creation of a City-
managed 501(c)(3), which could open additional grant opportunities that are not directly available
to municipalities. (See Page 11 of Attachment 3)
Councilmember Duff discussed the financial challenges facing nonprofits and identified federal
funds, grants, sponsorships, fundraising, and other sources as potential options for continuing the
Off the Streets program without relying on local funding. She emphasized the program’s cost-
effectiveness, accountability, and flexibility, adding that nonprofits and faith-based organizations
generally cannot independently fund large-scale social service programs.
Ms. Cannistraro reviewed options for the Off the Streets program, including the Windemere and
Sunaire sites, and outlined the number of available rooms and beds, along with the estimated
monthly costs for each. (See Page 12 of Attachment 3)
Ms. Cannistraro requested Council direction regarding the proposed funding for the Off the
Streets program and the preferred location for administering the program.
In response to a request from Councilmember Duff related to how other cities are handling
homeless services and shelter beds, Ms. Cannistraro shared the regional efforts from neighboring
communities. (See Page 15 of Attachment 3)
Councilmember Duff commented that some members of the public may question whether cities
should be involved in homeless services; however, cities across the United States commonly
participate in homeless services and shelter operations. She referenced examples from nearby
cities, noting that other cities provide or support shelter beds in different ways. She confirmed that
the COM represents approximately 10% to 11% of Maricopa County’s population but has
approximately 5% of the city-owned shelter beds, therefore providing a smaller share of shelter
beds compared to its share of the county population.
Responding to a question from Councilmember Heredia, Ms. Cannistraro explained that while the
number of rooms at Sunaire may be similar to the Windemere option, the furniture at Sunaire
would allow for more efficient use of space and potentially serve more individuals. She pointed
out that both options would continue to serve the same populations, including families, seniors,
single women, and domestic violence survivors, and that the program would remain focused on
Mesa residents. She stated that currently 17 families are in the program, and 17 families and 109
individuals are on the waitlist for the Off the Streets program.
In response to a question from Councilmember Taylor, Ms. Cannistraro clarified that the proposed
program would remain the same regardless of location. She explained that the dusk-to-dawn
rooms previously offered at Windemere had been discontinued to reduce costs and align the
program with a $2.5 million budget, with the remaining 65 rooms prioritized for families and
seniors. She pointed out that program funding would be the same at either location.
Discussion ensued regarding alternate funding and programming to meet the needs of the citizens
utilizing the Off the Streets program.
In response to a question from Councilmember Heredia, Mesa Police Department (MPD)
Lieutenant Dennis Thomas explained that the Off the Streets program gives officers another
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Page 7
option beyond enforcement by connecting individuals with services after citations or court
referrals. He noted that MPD views the program as a valuable resource for officers in the field
and supports its continuation.
Councilmember Duff spoke in support of the Sunaire location, pointing out that significant
investment has been made to the building, a qualified provider has been identified, and three
years of funding has been secured without new taxes or additional General Fund support. She
stated that the Windemere option would cost approximately $50,000 more per year while
providing fewer beds in a facility not designed for that purpose. She reiterated that the City’s
formal solicitation received only one response and that the responding provider also requested
$2.5 million in City funding. She expressed concern that reversing several years of prior Council
and staff work would send the wrong message about the durability of Council decisions. She
referenced current shelter demand for children, seniors, domestic violence survivors, as well as
an existing waitlist, and urged the Council to recognize the work already completed and the needs
of residents seeking assistance.
Councilmember Taylor stated that she had received emails and feedback from residents
expressing concerns not only about cost, but also about precedent and process. She noted that
residents expect government to act with their consent and expressed concern that ARPA funds
were used to purchase and convert the property into a long-term operation without voter approval.
She explained that she could not support an ongoing program that may rely on General Fund
support in future years and questioned whether shelter operations should be considered a core
government service. She confirmed that she would vote no in response to concerns raised by
residents in her district and Mesa taxpayers.
Councilmember Adams said that the funding sources being discussed are public funds and
shared his concern for the amount already invested in the Sunaire property. He referenced the
property appraisal valuation when the purchase was made and stated that the current value does
not justify the investment. He continued saying that a prior Council decision to invest public funds
does not necessarily make the project a good ongoing decision, particularly if additional public
funds may be needed to operate the facility and that he would not support moving forward with
Sunaire.
Mayor Freeman declared that the consensus of the Council was to continue the Off the Streets
program at the Windermere location.
Mayor Freeman thanked staff for the presentation.
3.
Acknowledge receipt of minutes of various boards and committees.
3-a.
Board of Adjustment Public Hearing meeting held on January 7, 2026.
3-b.
Board of Adjustment Study Session meeting held on January 7, 2026.
3-c.
Education and Workforce Development Roundtable meeting held on February 11, 2026.
3-d.
Board of Adjustment Study Session meeting held on April 1, 2026.
3-e.
Board of Adjustment Public Hearing meeting held on April 1, 2026.
3-f.
Design Review Board meeting held on April 14, 2026.
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Page 8
It was moved by Vice Mayor Somers, seconded by Councilmember Heredia, that receipt of the
above listed minutes be acknowledged.
Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:
AYES – Freeman–Somers–Adams–Duff–Heredia–Taylor
NAYS – None
ABSENT– Goforth
Mayor Freeman declared the motion passed unanimously by those present.
4.
Current events summary including meetings and conferences attended.
There were no reports on meetings and/or conferences attended.
5.
Scheduling of meetings.
City Manager Scott Butler stated that the schedule of meetings is as follows:
Thursday, May 28, 2026, 7:30 a.m. – Strategic Planning Session
6.
Adjournment.
Without objection, the Study Session adjourned at 9:40 a.m.
____________________________________
MARK FREEMAN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________
LISA ANDERSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Study Session
of the City Council of Mesa, Arizona, held on the 21st day of May 2026. I further certify that the meeting
was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.
______________________________________
LISA ANDERSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
sr
(Attachments – 3)
Public Safety Personnel
Retirement System
(PSPRS)
Presented by:
Samuel Schultz
Office of Management and Budget
– Assistant Director
Date: May 21, 2026
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 11
2
PSPRS
Supporting Arizona’s Public Safety Personnel
• A rizon a Revised S tat u te - sec t ion 3 8 -8 4 1 , estab lish ed PS PRS in 1 9 6 8 to
p rovid e a u n if ied an d eq u itab le retirem ent p ro gram fo r th e state’s
f iref ighte rs an d p o lic e o f f ic ers
• A rizon a Revised S tat u te - sec t ion 3 8 -8 4 8 , estab lis h ed a n in e-m em b er B o ard
o f Tru stees , wh ic h is ent ru sted wit h t h e f id u c iar y resp on sib ilit y to ser ve its
memb ers an d b est p rotec t t h e f in an c ial h ealt h of PS PRS , CO R P ( Correc t ion s
O ff ic er Retirement Plan ) , an d EO R P ( E lec ted O ff ic ials’ Retirement Plan )
• PRS PS is mad e u p of 3 t iers:
• - Tier 1 : A ny sworn emp loyee h ired on or b efore Ju n e 3 0 , 2 0 1 2
• - Tier 2 : A ny sworn emp loyee h ired b etween Ju ly 1 , 2 0 1 2 to Ju n e 3 0 , 2 0 1 7
• - Tier 3 : A ny sworn emp loyee h ired on or af ter Ju ly 1 , 2 0 1 7
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 11
3
Pension Funding Policy
As per state requirement (ARS 38-863.01), beginning on or
before each fiscal year, the governing body of an employer
shall:
– Adopt a pension funding policy for the public safety personnel
retirement system for employees who were hired before July 1, 2017
– Formally accept the employer's share of the assets and liabilities
under the system based on the system's actuarial valuation report
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 3 of 11
4
Pension Policy Required Objectives:
The pension funding policy includes
funding objectives that address at least
the following:
Maintain stability of contributions
Meet minimum funding requirements
Funding ratio target and timeline
PSPRS Supporting Arizona’s Public Safety Personnel
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 4 of 11
5
City Funding Strategies
Stabilized Investment
Forecasted at approximately $107M-$109M in the future for annual
contributions
- additional contributions for public safety benchmark
Pension Stabilization Fund
-$20M in FY 25/26
Increased Range Boundaries
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 5 of 11
6
Current Status
Tier 1 and 2 (Pension + Health)
Plan
(As of June 30, 2024)
Assets
Liability
Unfunded
Liability
Funded
Status
Fire and Medical
$ 313
$ 582
$ 268
53.8%
Police
$ 568
$ 1,086
$ 518
52.3%
Total
$ 881
$ 1,668
$ 786
Plan
(As of June 30, 2025)
Assets
Liability
Unfunded
Liability
Funded
Status
Fire and Medical
$ 336
$ 585
$ 249
57.5%
Police
$ 617
$ 1,095
$ 478
56.4%
Total
$ 953
$ 1,680
$ 727
Dollars in Millions
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 6 of 11
7
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 7 of 11
8
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 8 of 11
9
Mesa’s Outlook
Continue to monitor market conditions and liability growth.
• Model includes forecasted investment losses
Account for state and federal impacts:
• PSPRS considering an experience study in FY 2026/27
• Reduction of wage growth to 0%
• Already implemented in Mesa
• Reduction of the discount rate from 7.2% to 7% (2028-2031)
for Tiers 1 and 2
Account for salary, overtime, and FTE growth
Monitor Tier 3 population and salary growth
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 9 of 11
10
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 10 of 11
11
Next Steps
Council to take action on adopting
the PSPRS funding policy on:
June 1, 2026
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 11 of 11
FY 2026/27 Secondary
Property Tax Levy
May 21, 2026
Mark Hute, Treasurer
1
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 1 of 7
Past Bond Elections
2
Purpose
Bond Elections
2008
2012
2013
2018
2020
2022
2024
Streets
Public Safety
Parks – Culture – Library
• Secondary property taxes levied to pay for GO bonds authorized since 2008 election
• Voter authorizations still available from bond elections held in 2020, 2022, & 2024
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 2 of 7
Total Property Values
3
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
17/18
18/19
19/20
20/21
21/22
22/23
23/24
24/25
25/26
26/27
Billions
Fiscal Year
Limited Property Value*
Full Cash Value
*Used to calculate taxable value
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 3 of 7
Highlights of Proposed Tax Rate and Levy
4
• Secondary property tax rate to decrease by 1%
• Annual cost to median homeowner is $166
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 4 of 7
Proposed Tax Rate and Levy
5
FY25/26
FY26/27
Proposed
$ Change
% Change
Taxable Property Value
$5.2 billion
$5.5 billion
+ $0.3 billion
+ 5.6%
Tax Rate (per $100 of
taxable property value)
$0.8582
$0.8500
- $0.0082
- 1.0%
Tax Levy (rounded)
$44.3 million
$46.4 million
+ $2.1 million
+ 4.6%
Annual Cost to Median
Homeowner
$160
$166
+ $6
+ 3.6%
Taxable Property Value * Tax Rate = Tax Levy
New Property +1.9%
Existing Property +3.7%
(Appreciation)
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 5 of 7
History of Tax Rate and Levy
6
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
$1.20
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
$50
21/22
22/23
23/24
24/25
25/26
26/27
Proposed
Tax Rate
Tax Levy (Millions)
Fiscal Year
Tax Levy (left axis)
Tax Rate (right axis)
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 6 of 7
Timeline
7
June 1
Public hearing on annual budget and secondary property tax levy
Final adoption of annual budget
July 20
Adoption of secondary property tax levy
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 7 of 7
Staff Update
May 3, 2023
May 21, 2026
Candace Cannistraro, Deputy City Manager
Lindsey Balinkie, Deputy Director Community Services
Jussane Goodman, Human Services Administrator
Off the Streets
Emergency Shelter Program
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 1 of 16
Mesa’s Crisis Response Model
Police
Fire & Medical
Street Outreach
Emergency Shelter
Mental/Behavioral Health
Physical safety of person and property
from immediate or threatened danger
Physical safety of person due to immediate
health or injury. Stabilization and referral
to relevant resources
Physical safety of person due to immediate
or threatened danger. Stabilization and
referral to relevant resources
Physical safety of person due to immediate
health. Stabilization and referral to
relevant resources
Physical safety of person due to immediate
or threatened danger. Referral to relevant
resources
2
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 2 of 16
Human Services Division
Office of Homeless Solutions Objective:
Create robust partnerships and
comprehensive services in addressing
homelessness to support a healthy and
safe community for all in Mesa.
Core components
• Street Outreach
• Emergency Shelter
• Heat Safety
• Collaboration
• Support to first responders,
neighborhoods and businesses
Programs and Services
City Departments
Community Partners
3
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 3 of 16
City Involvement: Lessons Learned
4
Mesa pays for homelessness
with or without providing services.
City-led coordination is essential in meeting public
safety needs of entire community.
First Responder support is required.
Collaboration increase capacity to serve needs
better together.
City investment in services strengthens
accountability and aligns services with priorities.
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 4 of 16
Police Department
Fire & Medical
Court & Jails
Park Safety
Libraries
Hospitals
Street Outreach
Heat Relief
Services
Shelter Services
Case Management
Higher Cost
Lower Cost
Diverting from
Higher Cost Systems
Importance of Mesa’s Involvement
Homelessness touches nearly
every public system:
•
Police
•
Fire/medical
•
Behavioral health
•
Courts
•
Libraries
•
Code enforcement
•
Housing services
•
Neighborhoods
5
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 5 of 16
Emergency Shelter Demand
Mesa families are in crisis and are lacking basic needs to survive
•
In the last 12 months, we have provided emergency housing to 85 families with 235 children, and 100 seniors.
•
Today we are helping 17 families at Windermere with 17 families and 109 singles on waitlist, with a 6-week wait.
•
In the region, coordinated entry wait list requires 2-4 months before entering system.
•
There is a significant gap in housing availability and rental prices for those earning 50% of the Area Median Income.*
Non-profit and faith-based organizations provide services and some shelter support but cannot meet all
needs of the community
•
No organization is able/willing to fully fund an emergency shelter at this time. Agencies are willing to partner with us,
if we provide funding. (Request for Information solicitation April 2026)
•
Emergency shelter is a difficult service for a non-profit to provide as there are no program revenues to offset costs.
Recently emergency shelters have been turned into revenue models with transitional housing or affordable housing.
•
Alternative models may be possible with time and collaboration. Non-profits need time to develop revenue
campaigns and will need a partnership with the city during the transition
6
*Mesa’s Balanced Housing Master Plan
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 6 of 16
Emergency Shelter Availability
Family Emergency Shelter options in Mesa
are extremely limited:
7
4,846*
Shelter Beds
in Maricopa
County
244* Mesa
Shelter Beds
126 Shelter
Beds Lost in
Mesa in 2024-
2026
Homeless Shelter Beds
With our program:
111 or 156 beds (Windemere/Sunaire
location) for families, women, and seniors
28 additional family beds
105 beds for single men
Mesa's population makes up 11% of
Maricopa County. Mesa provides 5% of
emergency shelter beds in Maricopa County
Without our program:
28 beds for families
0 beds for all women without children
105 beds for single men
Mesa provides less than 3% of emergency
shelter beds in Maricopa County
Most cities are focused on serving their own residents, which places Mesa residents as a
lower priority and on long waiting lists when receiving shelter outside of the city.
*Single adult & family beds
County Shelter Beds Source: COC HIC
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 7 of 16
Off the Streets Current Program Data
458 Unique Individuals Assisted in
Last 12 months
235
Children
100
Seniors
202
Domestic
Violence
Survivors
8
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 8 of 16
Previous Off the Streets Council Direction
9
•
Council approved the use of CARES/ARPA federal funds to set-up and operate an emergency shelter program
through leased rooms at the Windermere Hotel
•
June 2022 Council allocated ARPA funds for a long-term solution. After multiple locations were considered, on
May 2023 Council approved the purchase of 6733 E Main St, previously known as the Grand Hotel, currently
known as Sunaire
•
As the ARPA funding was coming to an end, the need to transition to alternate funding was identified.
•
Original program called for moving the program to Sunaire while retaining some rooms and the dusk to
dawn room at Windemere to service single males. During the 25/26 budget process, Council approved
staff’s recommendation to discontinue all programming at Windemere once the program moved to
Sunaire. $2.5M in General Fund was identified to cover the annual budget, with an impact of $900K in
25/26 due to residual ARPA funding. Council requested staff look for alternate funding to help offset the
general fund in the future
•
Fall 2025, staff identified one-time funding through HOME ARP and ARPA interest income that can fully offset
General Fund for three years
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 9 of 16
Current Status of Sunaire
• Sunaire is Ready.
• Certificate of Occupancy issued, City has possession
• Notice of Intent to Award issued to Mercy House for emergency shelter
services pending funding*
•
Mercy House has been providing shelter services for 33 years
•
Operates 156-bed City of Tempe-owned emergency shelter
•
Mercy House applied for a $1.0M Arizona Department of Housing (ADOH) grant
on behalf of the Sunaire program. The results should be known by the end of
May.
•
If/when the program is operational, Mercy House will explore obtaining in-kind
support and other means of funding through grant applications.
•
The city will support fundraising efforts either through Mercy House or
independently through a new city administered 501(c)(3)
*A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued in Fall 2025 to provide emergency shelter
services at Sunaire. Seven proposals were received. Site visits were completed for
the top three applicants. Mercy House was deemed the top applicant based on cost
and quality. A notice of intent to award was issued in Spring 2026, which allows
Mercy House to apply for grants on behalf of the program.
10
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 10 of 16
Proposed Operating Funding
11
Years one through three:
• One-time funds from HOME ARP can fully offset the
programming/case management costs
• One-time ARPA interest income can fully offset the
property maintenance/leased room costs
Years four and beyond:
• General Fund
• Pursuit of federal/state funding
• Pursuit of fundraising opportunities
• Grants through a new city 501(c)(3)
• Corporate sponsorships
• Individual giving
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 11 of 16
Location Options for Off the Streets Program
12
Lease rooms at Windemere
or an alternate hotel
•
65 rooms – 111 beds
•
Monthly program cost $106,000 ($955/bed)
•
Monthly room cost $104,000
•
Monthly food cost $0
•
Annual budget $2,520,000
Utilize city-owned rooms at Sunaire
•
64 rooms – 158 beds
•
Monthly program cost $100,000 ($633/bed)
•
Monthly property maintenance cost $66,600
•
Monthly food cost $41,700
•
Annual budget $2,500,000
Discontinue program
•
Extremely limited options in Mesa
•
Phoenix Rescue Mission will need to refer Mesa families to
outside of the city to receive services
•
Limits support to Mesa PD/Fire
•
Current ARPA funds estimated to run out at the end of
August. A transition plan would need to be created
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 12 of 16
13
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 13 of 16
Sunaire Related Council Requests
14
Council Request
Result
Determine rental agreement
interest
Request for Information (RFI) to solicit interest in Sunaire rental
agreement, conducted in April 2026
•
Only one RFI response with request for city to provide 2.5M in
funding
•
Feedback from other agencies indicates city funding would be
needed to provide services
Real Estate Appraisal
2026 appraisal value: $6,300,000
•
Purchase price of property: $7,474,388
•
Improvement cost: $6,529,257
•
Total City ARPA related investment: $14,004,645
•
Total funds subject to repayment: $13,280,950
Seek Department of Treasury
Guidance
The city is still awaiting a response from the U.S. Department of
Treasury regarding payback requirements
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 14 of 16
Regional Government Efforts
Heat Safety
Street Outreach
Regional Homeless
Court
Heat Safety
Street Outreach
Shelter
Support Court
Heat Safety
Street Outreach
Shelter
Regional
Homeless Court
Heat Safety
Street Outreach
Community
Intervention Court
Heat Safety
Street Outreach
Shelter
Community Court
Heat Safety
Street Outreach
158/111 City-owned Shelter
Beds
Community Court
Heat Safety
Street Outreach
Regional Homeless
Court
Heat Safety
Street Outreach
53 Rented Shelter Beds
Support Court
Heat Safety
Street Outreach
240 City-owned
Shelter beds
Regional
Homeless Court
Heat Safety
Street Outreach
Community
Intervention Court
Heat Safety
Street Outreach
700 City -owned
Shelter Beds
Community Court
15
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 15 of 16
Family Promise
Bridge Housing
Up to 10 Families with Minor Children
Up-to 60 days length of stay
Funded by private donations, grants,
and 12% government funding.
Eden Village
Permanent Housing
Single Adults
No cap on length of stay
Funded by private donations and
grants.
The Other Side
Village (Utah)
Permanent Housing
Single Adults
No cap on length of stay
Funded by client rent, social enterprise,
private donations, and grants. City land
contribution and funding for capital.
Other Program Models
16
Study Session
May 21, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 16 of 16