Extracted text (via pymupdf)
50466 characters
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
COUNCIL MINUTES
March 26, 2026
The City Council of the City of Mesa met in the Study Session room at City Hall, 20 East Main Street, on
March 26, 2026, at 7:45 a.m.
COUNCIL PRESENT
COUNCIL ABSENT
OFFICERS PRESENT
Mark Freeman
Scott Somers
Rich Adams
Jennifer Duff
Alicia Goforth
Francisco Heredia
Dorean Taylor
None
Scott Butler
Holly Moseley
Jim Smith
Mayor Freeman conducted a roll call.
1-a.
Hear a presentation and discuss proposed programs to support redevelopment priorities and
initiatives.
Downtown Transformation Manager Jeff McVay introduced Senior Economic Development
Project Manager Jeff Robbins, Code Compliance Director Angelica Guevara, Economic
Development Director Jaye O’Donnell, and Development Services Director Nana Appiah, and
displayed a PowerPoint presentation. (See Attachment 1)
Mr. McVay noted that, since presenting the Redevelopment Program Toolkit framework to the
Council in January, staff have refined the program to eight useful tools to assist with
redevelopment. He stated that, with Council direction, staff would complete the remaining
development, including application materials and program guidelines. (See Page 2 of Attachment
1)
Ms. O’Donnell explained that in response to Council’s direction, staff sought feedback from private
companies, small businesses, developers, and property owners to ensure the proposed
redevelopment tools were aligned with market needs. She stated that the feedback was positive
and emphasized the importance of strong marketing and outreach to the right developments, a
streamlined process with reasonable reporting requirements, and clear project timelines. (See
Page 3 of Attachment 1)
Ms. O’Donnell presented the proposed Demolition and Remediation Program. She confirmed that
the purpose of the program is to improve neighborhood confidence and market perception for
certain parcels or neighborhoods. She stated that the program would target properties within
Redevelopment Areas (RDA) that are determined to be hazardous or functionally obsolete. She
mentioned that the program would provide a maximum award of $75,000 for eligible demolition
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Page 2
costs and would require a match from the developer. She noted that the funding would be
provided as a reimbursable grant, with the property owner responsible for paying the costs upfront
and requesting reimbursement afterward. (See Page 4 of Attachment 1)
Discussion ensued regarding potential partnerships to assist property owners with buildings
involving asbestos or other environmental concerns.
In response to a question from Councilmember Taylor, Mr. Robbins explained that the program
was intended to aid and incentivize redevelopment, while avoiding full public funding of demolition
costs on private property. He added that staff sought to balance those considerations and noted
that the award amount could be adjusted in the future.
City Manager Scott Butler pointed out that the program is intended to operate as a pilot program
and may be adjusted annually based on results and experience gained through implementation.
Discussion ensued regarding redevelopment areas and incentives, potential remediation options,
and assistance opportunities.
Ms. Guevara presented the proposed Compliance Revitalization Grant Program which is intended
to help property owners and small businesses address blight and code-related issues that may
discourage redevelopment. She stated that the grant would provide a one-to-one match, with a
maximum award of $25,000, for eligible improvements visible from the street. She added that
properties with open code cases or other blight conditions may qualify if located within an RDA
and that improvements not visible from the street would be excluded. (See Page 5 of Attachment
1)
Ms. Guevara discussed the proposed Vacant Property Registration Program and clarified that the
program would require property owners to register vacant properties with the COM within 90 days
of vacancy and provide a local contact for code compliance, police, and other COM staff. She
stated that the program would help staff more quickly address violations. She advised that
registered properties could participate in the Police Department’s no-trespassing program which
would help the City connect property owners with resources, potential tenants, and
redevelopment opportunities. She noted that registration would initially be free, with annual
renewal fees increasing over time to offset the additional staff and public safety resources
required for long-term vacant properties. (See Page 6 of Attachment 1)
In response to a question from Councilmember Taylor, Ms. Guevara stated that if a vacant
property owner failed to register, the initial approach would focus on education and voluntary
compliance. She explained police authority on trespassing enforcement and stated that the
registration program would help expedite that process. She noted that approximately 7.7% of
buildings in the COM are currently vacant.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposed Vacancy Registration Program.
Responding to a concern raised by Councilmember Goforth, Mr. Butler noted that the proposed
program would require a code change and is intended to encourage good stewards without code
violations. He indicated that staff should continue reviewing the concept and return for future
consideration.
Mr. Robbins clarified that the proposed program is not intended to address widespread vacancy
or penalize property owners who are actively maintaining and trying to lease their buildings. He
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Page 3
stated that the program is intended to address problem properties, particularly those owned by
out-of-state or large real estate entities that require significant COM resources. He explained that
the program would help the COM obtain local contact information more quickly, reduce staff time
spent locating property owners, and prevent the burden of property upkeep from shifting to
taxpayers and surrounding businesses.
Additional discussion ensued regarding the parameters of the Vacancy Registration Program.
Mr. McVay explained that the Reuse Ready Program is intended to address conditions that
contribute to long-term vacancies, particularly costly building improvements that can make reuse
difficult for small businesses. He stated that the program would help the COM connect property
owners with available tools that address barriers to occupancy with the goal of returning vacant
buildings to active use before they become larger problems. (See Page 7 of Attachment 1)
In response to questions from Councilmember Goforth, Mr. McVay explained that property
owners’ ability to fund improvements varies, and significant upfront costs are sometimes passed
on to small business tenants, creating a barrier to occupancy. He stated that staff would continue
reviewing ownership patterns, noting that some challenging blighted properties may involve local
owners who could benefit from the proposed assistance.
Mr. McVay presented the proposed Strategic Acquisition and Analysis tool and stated that certain
properties may have a significant impact on redevelopment goals due to their location or
condition. He pointed out that some properties are bypassed by the market because developers
are unwilling to invest in the area, and in limited cases, COM ownership may be necessary to
help ensure redevelopment aligns with the COM’s goals and vision. He remarked that the tool
would help determine appropriate next steps for acquired properties, including reuse,
redevelopment, or reconstruction to support broader economic benefits. (See Page 8 of
Attachment1)
Mr. Appiah outlined the Placemaking tool. He explained that the urban landscape strategy is
intended to identify opportunities for the COM to support and participate in improvements to the
built environment, particularly in areas experiencing commercial development or redevelopment.
He listed examples of eligible uses and noted that the effort is intended to complement private
development while also identifying COM-led improvements that enhance the urban landscape
and support broader redevelopment goals. (See Page 9 of Attachment 1)
Mr. Robbins summarized the proposed Public Infrastructure tool. He reported on the effects that
public infrastructure can have on businesses and noted that utility and energy improvements often
require partnership and coordination, including determining responsibility for costs and the
appropriate process. He elaborated by saying that smaller projects may be handled more
efficiently by COM staff, while larger projects require additional evaluation to determine the public
benefit. He explained that projects above a certain threshold would likely require negotiation and
a public benefit agreement based on the type and extent of infrastructure improvements needed.
(See Page 10 of Attachment 1)
Mr. Robbins presented the proposed Economic Development Agency (EDA) Revolving Loan
Fund. He advised that revolving loan funds are commonly used to address funding gaps in
institutional lending, particularly for loans between $50,000 and $250,000, and identified the role
the COM would serve. He noted that the EDA could provide up to $2 million in seed funding and
that the federal interest in the funds may be released after seven years. He explained that the
program includes federal requirements which could affect construction-related projects. He
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Page 4
reported that the requirement for a 40% match and for an EDA-approved regional economic
development plan will be a challenge for most applicants. He noted that staff had begun
discussions with community development financial institutions and would continue exploring
potential solutions to bring back to Council. (See Pages 11 and 12 of Attachment 1)
Mr. Robbins provided an overview of the proposed administration process and emphasized the
importance of minimizing red tape by creating a simple, streamlined application process. He
explained that applicants would apply through a single portal for any applicable programs,
followed by an intake and review process to confirm completeness. He verified that the eligibility
determinations would be criteria based, allowing applicants to receive a clear and timely decision
on qualifications, which would allow staff more time to focus on supporting approved applicants.
(See Pages 13 and 14 of Attachment 1)
Mr. Robbins explained that the four existing RDA plans currently cover approximately 4.5% of the
COM and noted that additional properties may also benefit from the proposed tools. He stated
that, if approved, one of the first tasks would be to evaluate the creation of a fifth RDA plan, which
would potentially extend the current RDA territory to the east. He indicated that portions of District
2 and properties near Power Road would be included, subject to further analysis and compliance
with State statutory requirements. (See Page 15 of Attachment 1)
Ms. O’Donnell reiterated that marketing would be critical to ensuring participation in the proposed
programs and highlighted ideas for outreach. She confirmed that a dedicated webpage would be
developed to explain the programs, promote available opportunities, provide contact information,
and include an online application process. She recalled that the new programs would also provide
an opportunity to form relationships with architects, engineers, developers, and other partners
who may not have previously been engaged.
Mr. McVay confirmed that the proposed Redevelopment Program would be implemented as a
three-year pilot program. He clarified the design of the funding structure to direct funding toward
the tools with the greatest impact with caps established to help ensure funding is not exhausted
in one area. He explained that program outcomes would be continually evaluated, including the
amount of private investment generated in relation to public dollars invested, and that staff would
return annually to provide reporting on program expenditures and outcomes. (See Page 17 of
Attachment 1)
Mr. Robbins stated that the goal of the program is to increase tax revenue and activate vacant
properties while ensuring that any COM participation in economic development provides a clear
public benefit. He emphasized that program impact would be evaluated based on whether the
program is achieving its intended outcomes, how efficiently it is being administered, and whether
projects produce long-term benefits for the COM. He further explained that evaluation measures
may include the amount of private capital leveraged, increased tax base, blight remediation, job
creation and retention, the number of properties and businesses assisted, program utilization,
and the effectiveness of fund distribution. (See Pages 18 and 19 of Attachment 1)
Responding to a question from Councilmember Adams, Mr. McVay identified that the proposed
approach is new in Arizona and combines best practices from programs across the country. He
stated that the first year may serve as a learning and adaptation period.
In response to a question from Councilmember Taylor, Ms. O’Donnell listed potential participants
of the focus groups, approximately 17 participants total, providing a range of perspectives on the
proposed programs.
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Page 5
Responding to a question from Councilmember Taylor, Mr. Appiah commented on the importance
of placemaking and ways the COM can be more aggressive in implementing placemaking
strategies, including improved identification, signage, and public space enhancements.
Additional discussion ensued regarding additional placemaking opportunities in the COM.
Mayor Freeman advised that if successful, the program would support small businesses,
encourage redevelopment, create jobs, and increase sales tax revenue. He stated that the
proposed project aligns with the COM’s strategic goal of reinvesting and supporting continued
growth.
Mr. Butler expressed appreciation for the feedback and stated that staff would tailor the proposed
programs based on the suggestions and accountability measures discussed. He characterized
the effort as a pilot program and noted that staff would track results, report back to Council, and
adjust the programs based on participation and feedback. He stated that staff currently have
capacity to administer the pilot program; however, if the programs are successful, future staffing
needs may need to be evaluated. He confirmed that funding options would be brought back as
part of the budget process and noted that some flexibility may be available within the General
Fund.
Councilmember Duff emphasized that redevelopment tools are needed to help small businesses
overcome barriers that can prevent older commercial spaces from being reused successfully. She
explained that unexpected costs, code requirements, financing limitations, and property
conditions can make it difficult for small businesses to open, expand, or remain in business,
particularly in older areas of the COM. She stated that staff has reviewed best practices and
developed a range of tools to help identify needs, connect property owners and businesses with
resources, and encourage reinvestment. She commented that one successful project can create
momentum, attract additional investment, and support broader redevelopment activity.
Mayor Freeman thanked staff for the presentation.
(Mayor Freeman declared a recess at 9:19 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:29 a.m.)
1-b.
Hear a presentation, discuss, and provide direction on funding recommendations for the FY
2026/2027 and prior years’ available funding for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG),
HOME investment Partnership Program (HOME), Emergency solution Grant (EDG), Human
Services Programs, and the Off the Streets Program.
Housing and Community Development Director Michelle Albanese introduced Housing and
Community Development Administrator Justin Boyd and displayed PowerPoint presentation. (See
Attachment 2)
Ms. Albanese provided an overview of the CDBG program, noting that it is one of the COM’s most
flexible federal funding sources, but includes significant reporting and regulatory requirements.
She explained the requirements and eligible uses of CDBG funds. She confirmed that public
service activities are limited to 15% of the annual allocation and generally support services that
stabilize vulnerable populations, including people experiencing homelessness. She stated that
non-public service activities make up a larger portion of the allocation and typically include capital
projects, housing rehabilitation, and public facility improvements. (See Pages 2 through 6 of
Attachment 2)
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Page 6
Ms. Albanese advised that CDBG activities are evaluated based on risk, project timeline, and
applicable cross-cutting federal requirements, which can significantly affect project timelines. She
discussed higher-risk CDBG non-public service activities, noting that economic development is
one of the more complex eligible uses and reviewed the parameters of the program. (See Pages
7 and 8 of Attachment 2)
In response to a question from Councilmember Taylor, Ms. Albanese explained that certain
federally funded activities may trigger additional requirements, including Davis-Bacon and Section
3, and listed reasons it is important to select timely projects and maintain flexibility to reallocate
funds if needed.
Ms. Albanese reviewed the estimated Fiscal Year (FY) 2026/27 CDBG funding and noted that the
anticipated HUD allocation is approximately $3.6 million, based on the prior year’s allocation
because HUD had not yet released final amounts. She explained that CDBG funding includes a
20% allowance for program administration, a minimum of 65% for non-public service activities,
and a maximum of 15% for public service activities. She noted that program income increased
the public services funding available to $573,240. (See Page 9 of Attachment 2)
Ms. Albanese stated that six public service requests were received, with funding recommended
for City navigation services, Family Promise, Child Crisis Arizona, CASS, and A New Leaf to
support housing stability and access to critical services. She noted that $2.3 million is
recommended for the City’s Emergency Rehabilitation Program, which assisted 165 homeowners
in the prior fiscal year, including numerous air conditioning repairs and replacements, and
primarily served elderly, disabled, very low-income, female-headed, and mobile home
households. (See Page 10 of Attachment 2)
Ms. Albanese explained that the HOME Investment Partnerships Program is HUD’s primary tool
for creating and preserving affordable housing. She reviewed the eligible activities including new
construction of affordable housing, rehabilitation of rental housing, and rental and deposit
assistance. She confirmed that the estimated FY 2026/27 HOME entitlement is approximately
$1.29 million, with 10% available for program administration and 15% required to be set aside for
Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs), which are nonprofit organizations
focused on developing and owning affordable housing. (See Pages 11 and 12 of Attachment 2)
In response to a question from Vice Mayor Somers, Assistant City Manager Candace Cannistraro
confirmed that this is one of the few programs that allows funds to be used for mobile homes built
before 1975.
Ms. Albanese stated that approximately $3 million is available through the HOME program,
including a $400,000 set-aside for the City’s rental and utility deposit program. She stated that
funding is also recommended for A New Leaf’s new construction project, which would complete
the final phase of the development and provide 54 units of senior and veteran housing. She
explained that HOME funds would serve as gap funding and that the award would be contingent
upon A New Leaf receiving low-income housing tax credits. (See Page 13 of Attachment 2)
In response to a question from Mayor Freeman, Ms. Cannistraro explained that several projects
are currently going through the tax credit process, including A New Leaf, COPA Health, and
Commonwealth, and stated that if a project is unsuccessful over multiple years, staff would
reassess and redirect the funds to other productive projects.
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Page 7
In response to questions from Councilmember Adams, Ms. Cannistraro pointed out that the low-
income housing tax credit process is highly competitive, state administered and based on a
scoring matrix.
(At 9:49 a.m., Mayor Freeman excused Councilmember Goforth from the remainder of the
meeting.)
Ms. Albanese summarized the Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) and explained that the program
supports homelessness-related activities, including shelter operations, rapid rehousing,
homelessness prevention, and community navigation services. She stated that the COM received
approximately $340,000, with 7.5% allowed for program administration, leaving approximately
$314,515 available for activities. She pointed out that shelter operations are limited to no more
than 60% of the allocation. (See Pages 14 and 15 of Attachment 2)
In response to a question from Councilmember Taylor, Ms. Albanese confirmed that the HUD
federal funds must be awarded through a competitive process, and the Phoenix Rescue Mission
could be added to the COM’s interested parties list to receive future funding notifications.
Ms. Albanese stated that the ESG funding recommendations include awards to three agencies,
with Tempe Community Action and A New Leaf recommended for shelter operations and Save
the Family recommended for rapid rehousing, for a total of $314,515. (See Page 16 of Attachment
2)
Ms. Cannistraro provided an overview of A Better Community (ABC) and Human Services
funding. She explained that ABC funds are donated by residents and may be used for crisis
services, prevention and early intervention, transitional services, and long-term support. She
confirmed that the anticipated ABC funding available for FY 2026/27 is $104,500 and stated that
the recommended ABC awards include Valley of the Sun YMCA, House of Refuge, and Arizona
Brainfood. She reported that Human Services funding is a General Fund allocation totaling
$547,163 and noted that, because these funds are not subject to HUD requirements, they are
often more accessible to smaller nonprofit organizations that may not have the administrative
capacity to manage federal reporting requirements. She added that the Human Services funds
are being held for the Off the Streets program while staff continues to evaluate other possible
funding sources, with the option to return to Council for reallocation if needed. (See Pages 17
through 21 of Attachment 2)
Responding to a question from Mayor Freeman, Ms. Cannistraro clarified that the funding would
support the Off the Streets program regardless of whether services are provided to Windemere
or Sunaire. She explained that this is a new allocation that has not yet been funded and noted
that Windemere was previously supported with ARPA and General Fund dollars. She confirmed
that the current year’s budget included approximately $900,000 in General Fund dollars for the
program.
Ms. Cannistraro explained that staff is seeking direction from Council, after which a 30-day public
notice period would occur before returning to Council with a resolution. She stated that changes
may be made after submission to HUD, but HUD would need to be notified if the funding use
changes. (See Page 22 of Attachment 2)
In response to a question from Councilmember Adams, Mr. Boyd explained the application
process for agencies and the scoring process. He added that 70% of the overall score is based
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Page 8
on staff review, including demonstrated capacity, prior-year expenditure of funds, completion of
the approved scope of work, and whether the agency met its proposed service goals.
Mr. Butler reiterated that the current funding cycle began in August of the prior year through the
COM’s traditional annual notice and application process. He explained that the process includes
consideration of Council priorities, risk analysis, performance, and HUD criteria. He stated that
staff heard Council’s comments and could explore additional options before the next funding
cycle, including ways to maximize funding alignment with Council priorities and clarify
expectations for funds available to external entities. He noted that changing the funding approach
at this stage would be challenging, but staff could evaluate potential adjustments moving forward.
Mayor Freeman commented that there is a learning curve with the funding process and
emphasized the need to ensure that federal funds are aligned with Council priorities and the City’s
broader goal of elevating Mesa to its full potential. He noted that CDBG non-public service funds
may also be used by COM departments and suggested that staff further evaluate how
departments can be positioned to use eligible funds for lower-risk, place-based activities,
particularly in low- to moderate-income census tracts. He listed possible considerations for future
funding strategies that offer greater alignment with priorities. He emphasized that while significant
investment is made in human services, additional focus should be given to visible neighborhood
and place-based improvements and other efforts that help stabilize areas and support safer,
stronger neighborhoods. He requested greater clarity and transparency regarding the various
funding sources, including which funding buckets are available, so Council can better understand
and evaluate funding options moving forward.
Discussion ensued regarding the approved use of ABC funds.
Councilmember Duff expressed concern with shifting funds away from human services,
emphasizing that current economic conditions have increased the need for human services
beyond the capacity of churches and nonprofit organizations, and that reducing support could
further destabilize vulnerable residents. She said that while economic development may be
addressed through redevelopment programs, the COM should not lose focus on addressing
immediate human needs.
Councilmember Adams stated that social service needs must be addressed, but consideration
should be given to how those services are funded and whether opportunities exist to reduce
reliance on taxpayer dollars. He expressed support for continuing to evaluate non-public service
funding options and working with community organizations to address needs in a sustainable
manner. He expressed some hesitation regarding expanded code enforcement authority,
emphasizing the importance of consistent and equitable enforcement.
Mayor Freeman confirmed that the consensus of the Council was to move forward with the
recommended funding direction and bring the item back for consideration at the May 4, 2026,
Council meeting.
2.
Acknowledge receipt of minutes of various boards and committees.
2-a.
Economic Development Advisory Board meeting held on November 4, 2025.
It was moved by Vice Mayor Somers, seconded by Councilmember Taylor, that receipt of the
above listed minutes be acknowledged.
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Page 9
Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:
AYES – Freeman–Somers–Adams–Duff–Heredia–Taylor
NAYS – None
ABSENT – Goforth
Mayor Freeman declared the motion carried unanimously by those present.
(At 10:33 a.m., Mayor Freeman excused Councilmembers Duff and Heredia from the remainder
of the meeting.)
3.
Current events summary including meetings and conferences attended.
There were no reports on meetings and/or conferences attended.
4.
Scheduling of meetings.
City Manager Scott Butler stated that the schedule of meetings is as follows:
Thursday, April 2, 2026, 7:30 a.m. – Study Session
5.
Adjournment.
Without objection, the Study Session adjourned at 10:36 a.m.
____________________________________
MARK FREEMAN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
HOLLY MOSELEY, 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 26th day of March 2026. I further certify that the meeting
was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.
_______________________________
HOLLY MOSELEY, CITY CLERK
sr
(Attachments – 2)
Redevelopment
Program Toolkit
City Council Study Session
Jeff McVay
Manager of Urban Transformation
Angelica Guevara
Code Compliance Director
Nana Appiah
Development Services Director
Jeff Robbins
Redevelopment Administrator
Jaye O'Donnell
Economic Development Director
March 26, 2026
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 21
The Redevelopment Toolkit
Public
Infrastructure
Utility Assistance
Code Compliance
Revitalization Grant
Blight Removal
Demolition &
Remediation
Blight Removal
Reuse Ready
Access + Life Safety
Vacant Property
Registration
Fill Vacant Spaces
Placemaking
Public Interventions
EDA Revolving
Loan Fund
Gap Financing
Strategic Acquisition
and Analysis
Studies and Purchases
2
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 21
Description
The Mechanics
STAKEHOLDER FOCUS GROUPS
Developer + Property Owner
Small Business
Strong marketing plan
Reasonable reporting
requirements
Simple application process
Fast approval or denial
Strong support for the
infrastructure tool
Published, clear timelines
3
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 3 of 21
Description
The Mechanics
DEMOLITION AND REMEDIATION
Improves neighborhood
confidence and market perception
Catalyzes private investment in
underperforming areas
Requirements:
Must be located within an
RDA
Determined to be hazardous
or functionally obsolete
Maximum Award: Lesser of
50% of costs or $75,000
Match: 1:1
Other:
Reimbursement
Three bids required
Explore ADEQ partnership for
remediation support
Assists in removing obsolete or
unsafe structures to reduce blight
and prepare sites for reinvestment
Why
4
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 4 of 21
Description
The Mechanics
CODE COMPLIANCE REVITALIZATION GRANT
Code issues may deter investment
in surrounding properties, reduce
business activity, impact health
and safety, and negatively
contribute to areas with struggling
economic activity
Why
Eligibility:
Must be located within a
Redevelopment Area OR
property has conditions of
blight
Small business and property
owners only
Only improvements visible
from the street
Documented code case or
administrative determination of
blight
Legal non-conforming
structures
Exclusions: Non-fixed assets
and improvements not visible
from the street
Maximum Award: $25,000
Match: 1:1
A grant that helps property and
small business owners have
greater impact when remediating
blight and beautifying their
property
5
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 5 of 21
Description
The Mechanics
VACANCY REGISTRATION
Code Compliance expends resources
tracking down owner information for
properties with code issues
City connects owners to resources,
potentially reducing duration of
vacancy
Trespass enforcement registration
Requirements:
All commercial properties
citywide
Undeveloped parcels in RDAs
Industrial properties in RDA
Revenue Neutral
90 Days: Must register within 90
days of a vacancy
7.7% of commercial buildings
are vacant (2025)
Annual Fees For Vacancy
(may waive if no code violations)
Fines for non-registration will
match commercial civil
violation fines
Enforced through existing civil
code compliance process with
appeal rights. Can become a lien
Requires owners of vacant
commercial buildings to register the
property with the City, maintain safe
conditions, and provide reliable
contact information
Why
6
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 6 of 21
Description
The Mechanics
REUSE READY
Lower barriers for tenant occupancy
Support small business and long-
term tax revenue
Enhance accessibility and safety of
older buildings
Upgrades existing commercial
spaces with life-safety and
accessibility improvements such
as fire suppression systems and
ADA compliance enhancements
Why
Requirements:
Must be located within an
RDA
Signed lease
Maximum Award: Lesser of 50%
of costs or $75,000
Match: 1:1
Other: Reimbursement
Eligible Uses
Fire sprinklers or equivalent
alternative
Structural issues
Demolition of hazardous or
unpermitted structures inside
the property
Improvements to unsafe
infrastructure (electrical,
plumbing)
Interior and exterior
improvements to meet ADA
compliance, including upgrades
to doorways, entryways, and
restroom accessibility
7
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 7 of 21
Description
The Mechanics
STRATEGIC ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS
Why
Shape outcomes in high-impact
locations
Accelerate catalytic private
investment
Reduce uncertainty before major
capital decisions
Funds property acquisition by the
City and feasibility studies that
position key sites for catalytic
redevelopment aligned with the
City’s long-term economic strategy
Guidelines For Public
Acquisition
Strategic location
Blighted
Public purpose alignment
Bypassed parcels
First in to prove the market to
lending institutions
Compatibility:
Compatible with plans
(General, RDA, sub-area)
Other:
Acquisition requires Council
approval
May be used to supplement
other funds for acquisitions
May be paired with
demolition and remediation
tool
8
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 8 of 21
Description
The Mechanics
PLACEMAKING
Why
Strengthens and differentiates key
areas of Mesa by creating
distinctive, high-quality public
environments that attract private
investment, support local
businesses, increase foot traffic,
and enhance overall economic
vitality and community pride
Funds strategic investments in
people-centered public space
improvements within targeted
areas
Requirements
Located within a commercial
business district
Located in public ROW or public
easement
City or public-private
partnership
Compatibility: Compatible with
plans (General, RDA, sub-area)
Identification of Needs
CIP
Transportation, Arts and
Culture, etc.
Goals identified in Council
adopted plans
Eligible Uses
Capital improvements,
activation projects and
enhancement projects for
public spaces
Includes art, lighting, signage
landscaping, seating, etc. for
programs that include, but are
not limited to:
Gateway monumentation
Wayfinding
Streetscape and
alley enhancements
Public realm improvements
Canal enhancements
Temporary installations
(pianos, parklets)
9
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 9 of 21
Description
The Mechanics
PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
Provides funding to offset the cost
of upgrading public utilities
needed for infill, adaptive reuse,
and redevelopment projects
Infrastructure is a prerequisite for
private capital investment that
generates tax revenue, create
jobs, places for people to live, and
improves resident’s quality of life
Why
Target: Infill, adaptive reuse,
redevelopment, and blight
remediation citywide
Two Tiers: Improvements $50k
or less (small business support)
with rapid review and approvals.
Projects over $50k are
negotiated
Exclusions: Public
infrastructure only—no private
infrastructure
Maximum Award: Case-by-
case
Match: Negotiated. For small
business, match may not be
required
10
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 10 of 21
Description
The Mechanics
EDA REVOLVING LOAN FUND
Why
Fills the gap between microlenders
and commercial banks
Offers flexible, below-market
financing
Becomes a resource for Mesa
small businesses in perpetuity
A federally funded, locally managed
financing tool that provides gap
capital to small businesses that
cannot access traditional bank
financing
City Role:
Trustee of federal assets
Administration
Reporting
Establish a plan
Define objectives
Sets the interest rate (with
some limits)
Revolving
Loan
Fund
Cycle
11
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 11 of 21
Description
The Mechanics
EDA REVOLVING LOAN FUND
Why
Award Range: $50k-$150k
Interest Rate: Can be set by
City. Below prime rate
The Mechanics Continued
Small Business
EDA Requirements:
Must achieve certain job
ratios
Comply with federal
environmental review
(NEPA, NHPA)
Davis-Bacon
(construction)
Record keeping
Limit cash on hand
Other regulations
Portfolio must leverage $2
for every $1 of RLF
Money Matters:
Initial seed of ~500k
Up to $2M in EDA funds
EDA can release the
Federal interest after
seven years
50k-150k loans
(some flexibility)
City not responsible for
defaults
Obstacles:
40% match cannot
be paid by City
Comprehensive
Economic
Development
Strategy required
Alternative Paths:
Grants
Banks
Foundations
12
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 12 of 21
Budget and
Administration
13
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 13 of 21
Notice
Construct
Closeout
Reimburse
Reporting
Decision
Intake,
review, and
preparation
for decision
Formal
Application
Pre-
Application
Support
ADMINISTRATION AND PROCESS
Generalized. Process may vary slightly for different tools
Day-to-day administration by the Office of Urban Transformation (OUT)
14
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 14 of 21
REDEVELOPMENT AREA PLAN
Current Percentage of
City Covered by RDA
4.5%
Future Percentage of
City Covered by RDA
?
15
New Plan
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 15 of 21
MARKETING
• Partnerships
• Engage brokerages
• Annual event
• Direct marketing
• Collateral (digital/print)
• Earned and paid media
• Webpage
• Digital interactive map
• Non-traditional, direct marketing
• Property owners and developers
• Commercial real estate attorneys
• Lending institutions and capital
partners
• Architects and engineering firms
16
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 16 of 21
EXPENDITURE TARGETS
TOOL
TARGET EXPENDITURE CAP*
Demolition and Remediation
$1,500,000
Business and Property Enhancement
$250,000
Vacancy Registration
Revenue Neutral
Reuse Ready
$1,000,000
Strategic Acquisition and Analysis
$1,000,000
Placemaking
$1,000,000
Marketing and RDA Plan Development
$125,000
Public Infrastructure
$2,000,000
Revolving Loan Fund
Revenue Neutral
* Three-year pilot program with a total annual budget of $3M
* Expenditures per tool will not exceed total available program funding
17
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 17 of 21
PUBLIC BENEFIT
Negotiated Public Benefit Options
Job creation or retention
Volunteer with Mesa’s Citywide Volunteer Program
Attainable or reduced rent for a defined period of time
Enhanced improvements in the public right-of-way
Lien on property to be paid back at sale
Deed restriction
Other negotiated value
18
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 18 of 21
MEASURING IMPACT
Measuring Desired
Outcomes
Private capital
leveraged
Tax revenue generated
(one-time, ongoing)
Jobs created or
retained
Blight remediated
Economic activity as a
result of new housing
units
Measuring
Program Efficiency
Vacant spaces filled
Application turn around
times
Businesses and
projects supported
Annual and all-time
fund utilization ratio
(lent-to-total fund ratio)
Measuring Long-
term Impacts
2-3 year lookbacks on
funded projects
Qualitative data
Annual report to
Council
19
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 19 of 21
PROPOSED TOOLKIT LAUNCH SCHEDULE
Mid
2026
Late
2026
2027
•
Vacant Property Registration
•
Placemaking
•
Strategic Acquisition and Analysis
•
Public Infrastructure
•
Code Compliance
Revitalization Grant
•
Reuse Ready
•
Demolition and Remediation
•
Revolving Loan Fund
20
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 20 of 21
Questions and Discussion
21
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 21 of 21
FY 2026/2027
Annual Funding Recommendations
City Council Study Session
Michelle Albanese, Housing and Community Development Director
Justin Boyd, Housing and Community Development Administrator
March 26, 2026
1
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 1 of 24
HUD and Local
Funding Sources
Federal Programs: Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG)
HOME Investment Partnerships Program
(HOME)
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)
Local Programs: Human Services and A
Better Community (ABC)
2
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 2 of 24
Timeline
Aug.
NOFO Published
Funding Info Distributed
Sept.
Funding Kick Off
Oct.
Applications Due
Internal Review &
Eligibility
Nov.
Community Development
Staff Scores Due
Dec.
Agency Presentations
HCDAB Scores Due
Jan.
Funding Spreadsheet &
Scores Finalized
Funding
Recommendations
Completed
Feb.
Meet with City Manager
Mar.
CCD March 12 & 19, 2026
3
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 3 of 24
Funding Considerations
City Council
Strategic Priorities
Eligible Activity
Regulatory
Compliance
Agency Capacity
HCDAB & Staff
Scoring
4
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 4 of 24
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
CDBG is a federal HUD program that provides flexible funding to
cities to address community development needs
Funds primarily benefit low- and moderate-income residents
Typical uses include housing rehabilitation, public facility
improvements, neighborhood infrastructure, and limited public
services
5
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 5 of 24
Eligible CDBG Activities
Public Service Activities (subject to 15% cap):
Homeless services and housing stability programs
Senior services, youth programs, and food assistance
Case management and supportive services
Non-Public Service Activities:
Housing rehabilitation programs
Public facility and accessibility improvements
Neighborhood infrastructure improvements (sidewalks, lighting, drainage)
Code enforcement and blight removal
Economic Development
6
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 6 of 24
Lower-Risk CDBG Non-Public Service Activities
Emergency Rehabilitation Programs – Health and safety repairs for
low-income homeowners
Public Facility Improvements – Parks, community centers, and ADA
accessibility modifications
Neighborhood Infrastructure Improvements – Sidewalks, lighting,
drainage, and accessibility improvements
Code Enforcement and Blight Removal – Addressing unsafe structures
and neighborhood deterioration
7
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 7 of 24
Higher-Risk CDBG Non-Public Service Activities
Economic development activities –
Projects that rely on job creation or retention requirements
Require detailed documentation showing jobs primarily benefit low- and
moderate-income persons
Property acquisition for future redevelopment –
Development timelines can delay project completion and expenditure
deadlines
Projects dependent on future financing, environmental review, other
regulatory requirements – increase project costs
Large multi-partner development projects –
Activities involving multiple funding sources or development partners
that
Increase administrative complexity and implementation timelines
8
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 8 of 24
FY 26/27 CDBG Estimated Funding Available
9
15% Public Services + Program Income $21,928 = $573,240
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 9 of 24
CDBG Funding
10
Agency
Project Name
Recommended Award
Family Promise - Greater Phoenix
Mesa Family Shelter Program
$ 85,820
Child Crisis Arizona
Early Education Services for Low-Income Mesa Families
$ 80,000
Central Arizona Shelter Services (CASS)
Emergency Shelter for Mesa Adults & Seniors - Single Adult
Shelter &The Haven Senior Shelter
$ 63,191
A New Leaf
Housing Support Services - La Mesita & Desert Leaf
$ 51,703
COM - Office of Homeless Solutions
Navigation Services
$ 292,526
Total $ 573,240
Agency
Project Name
Recommended Award
City of Mesa (Set Aside)
Emergency Rehabilitation Program
$ 2,389,017
Total
$ 2,389,017
Public Services
Non-Public Services
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 10 of 24
HOME Investment Partnerships Program
HOME is HUD’s primary program for creating and preserving
affordable housing.
Funds support development and rehabilitation of affordable
rental housing.
Additional uses include homebuyer assistance and tenant-based
rental assistance for low-income households.
11
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 11 of 24
FY 26/27 Estimated Funding Available
12
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 12 of 24
HOME Investment Partnership Program
13
Agency
Project Name
Recommended Award
City of Mesa (set-aside)
Rental and Utility Deposit Program
$ 400,000
A New Leaf
La Mesita Phase 4 Construction
$ 2,673,350
Total $ 3,073,350
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 13 of 24
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)
ESG supports a community’s homelessness response system.
Funds may be used for emergency shelter operations, rapid
rehousing, and homelessness prevention.
Programs also support street outreach and coordinated entry
services.
14
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 14 of 24
FY 26/27 Estimated Funding Available
15
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 15 of 24
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)
60% Cap on Shelter Services Operations
16
Agency
Project Name
Recommended Award
Save the Family Foundation of Arizona
Rapid Rehousing for Mesa Families
$ 110,505
Tempe Community Action Agency (TCAA)
I-HELP Emergency Shelter
$ 40,000
A New Leaf
East Valley Men's Center
$ 164,010
Total
$ 314,515
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 16 of 24
Human Services and A Better Community
(ABC)
Human Service Activities
Crisis Services
Prevention & Early Intervention Services
Transitional Services
Long-Term Support
Human Service Funding
Local funding supporting human services activities.
ABC
Donated funding supporting human services activities.
17
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 17 of 24
FY 26/27 Estimated Funding Available
18
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 18 of 24
A Better Community (ABC)
Agency
Project Name
Recommended Award
Valley of the Sun YMCA
Pathways to Success: Quality Childcare & Early Education for
Every Family - Ross Farnsworth
$ 35,000
House of Refuge, Inc.
Transitional Housing for Homeless Families
$ 50,000
Arizona Brainfood
Weekend Food Bags
$ 19,500
Total $ 104,500
19
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 19 of 24
Human Services Funds
Agency
Project Name
Recommended Award
City of Mesa
Off The Streets Program*
$ 547,163
Total $ 547,163
20
*Staff is continuing to look for alternate funding.
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 20 of 24
Human Services Funds – Non-Profits (Alternate)
21
Agency
Project Name
Recommended Award
Arizona Brainfood
Weekend Food Bags
$ 30,500
Oakwood Creative Care, Inc.
Comprehensive Day Care Services for Low-Income, Older Adults in
Mesa w/ Cognitive & Physical Impairments - Two Mesa Locations
$ 40,000
Teen Lifeline
Youth Crisis Services
$ 50,000
Aster Aging, Inc
Meals on Wheels - Mesa Downtown and Red Mountain Centers
$ 50,000
Paz de Cristo Community Center
Relief Services to Empower Individuals
$ 50,000
Matthew's Crossing
Meals to Grow Program
$ 35,000
Homeless Youth Connection, Inc
Empowering Youth for the Future
$ 25,940
Oakwood Creative Care, Inc.
Community Hub Community Engagement Services for Low-Income,
Older Adults in Mesa
$ 10,000
United Food Bank
Mesa Emergency Food Assistance
$ 50,000
Maggie's Place, Inc
Shelter Services at the Hannah House
$ 50,000
Save the Family Foundation of Arizona
Pathways to Stability for Mesa Families & Children Experiencing
Homelessness
$ 44,293
Catholic Charities Community Services,
Inc.
My Sister's Place/Pathways: Walking Alongside Survivors of DV
$ 50,000
East Valley Institute of Technology
Hope Tech
$ 50,000
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Central
Arizona (BBBSAZ)
Healthy Habits, Healthy Minds for Mesa Youth
$ 11,430
Total
$ 547,163
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 21 of 24
Next Steps
22
March 30,
2026
(tentative)
30-Day Public
Comment
Period
May 4, 2026
City Council
Approval
May 15, 2026
Funding
Submittal to
HUD
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 22 of 24
Thank you...
23
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 23 of 24
Questions?
24
Study Session
March 26, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 24 of 24