Extracted text (via pymupdf)
76422 characters
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
COUNCIL MINUTES
April 2, 2026
The City Council of the City of Mesa met in the Study Session room at City Hall, 20 East Main Street, on
April 2, 2026, at 7:30 a.m.
COUNCIL PRESENT
COUNCIL ABSENT
OFFICERS PRESENT
Mark Freeman
Scott Somers
Rich Adams*
Jennifer Duff
Francisco Heredia
Alicia Goforth
Dorean Taylor
None
Scott Butler
Holly Moseley
Jim Smith
(*Participated in the meeting through the use of video conference equipment.)
Mayor Freeman conducted a roll call.
Mayor Freeman announced that today is World Autism Awareness Day and noted that Mesa is
the first Autism Certified City, reflecting the community’s commitment to accessibility, awareness,
and support for individuals on the autism spectrum. He thanked Mark Garcia from Visit Mesa for
leading this initiative.
1.
Review and discuss items on the agenda for the April 6, 2026 regular Council meeting.
All of the items on the agenda were reviewed among Council and the following was noted:
Conflict of interest: None
Items removed from the consent agenda: None
Responding to multiple questions from Councilmember Duff regarding Item 5-e, (Authorizing the
sale, execution, and delivery of Utility Systems Revenue Obligations, Series 2026, not to
exceed $341,000,000. (Citywide)), on the Regular Council agenda, Assistant City Engineer Marc
Ahlstrom explained that the Banner Gateway improvement is a small gas infrastructure project
and the work was completed in coordination with the Central Mesa Re-Use Pipeline project since
both were located in the same area. He added that the improvement was related to providing
service in that area and was part of the City’s routine gas utility system.
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Page 2
In response to a question from Mayor Freeman, Energy and Sustainability Director Scott Bouchie
stated that typically the City makes upgrades based on the expected revenue from gas customers
to ensure their service needs are met, and the City also evaluates whether the utility will generate
sufficient revenue from those improvements. He commented that for this specific project, he
needs more time to review the details.
Responding to multiple questions from Councilmember Duff, City Treasurer Mark Hute confirmed
that there are thresholds for private development to pay for improvements if the infrastructure
does not exist; however, this is for general public use.
City Manager Scott Butler clarified that the City acts as the utility provider and makes infrastructure
investments when serving a customer is expected to generate more revenue over time than the
cost of installing the infrastructure.
In response to a question from Mayor Freeman, Mr. Hute replied that when bond issuances occur,
the City’s goal is to provide funding for the calendar year. He shared that since bond proceeds
are often not received until midway through the year, the City usually reimburses itself for the first
six months of expenditures, while the remaining funds help cover project costs for the rest of the
year.
Responding to a question from Councilmember Taylor, Mr. Butler explained that the City issues
the bond and installs the infrastructure upfront after determining that the long-term revenue from
serving the customer will exceed the installation cost. He noted that the process is similar to how
Salt River Project (SRP) or other utility providers evaluate whether to extend service to a new
neighborhood. He shared, in this case, the City has a customer ready to use the gas service, so
the infrastructure is installed with the expectation that the long-term revenue will significantly
exceed the initial cost.
In response to a question from Councilmember Taylor, Mr. Hute added that the project is initially
funded with operating funds from the utility fund, and those funds cover the upfront costs and
construction expenses, then are repaid with the bond proceeds.
In response to multiple questions posed by Councilmember Duff regarding Item 5-f, (Approving
and authorizing the City Manager or designee to purchase and contract with a qualified
electric power supplier via a reverse auction for a firm electric power product to provide
12 Megawatts (MW) of off-peak summer supply between June and September 2026, not to
exceed $90/MWh or $1,382,400 total cost. (Citywide)), on the Regular Council agenda, Mr.
Bouchie answered that energy use is seasonal with higher gas demands in colder months and
increased electricity use during warmer weather. He noted that the purchase is for summer off-
peak hours, primarily nighttime when air conditioning demand remains high. He said the City
continuously reviews projected demand and existing supply contracts to closely match energy
needs and avoid costly market purchases and price volatility. He mentioned that the City is using
a reverse auction process that has been successful in the past and a limit was set to allow
flexibility in case of market fluctuations and to avoid delays that could expose the City and its
ratepayers to higher costs.
Mr. Ahlstrom introduced Real Estate Manager Lisa Davis and displayed a PowerPoint
presentation regarding Item 5-b, (Approving and authorizing the sale of certain City-owned
real property located at 8130 East Redberry, Mesa, Arizona, and authorizing the City
Manager to enter into necessary deal documents, including a purchase agreement and
development agreement. (District 5)), on the Regular Council agenda. (See Attachment 1)
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Page 3
Ms. Davis provided an overview of the history of the 8130 E. Redberry property, as well as the
results of the online auction. She described how the appraised value was determined and
reviewed the steps taken and outreach conducted for the notification of sale. (See Pages 2
through 4 of Attachment 1)
In response to a question from Councilmember Goforth, Ms. Davis stated that three registered
bidders participated in the online auction, and 2,900 people signed up to receive information.
Ms. Davis discussed the development requirements for the property and presented a proposed
eight-lot map layout that was created by a hired engineering firm. She referred to a map that
illustrated the current zoning and residential areas and highlighted areas that have not been
annexed into the City. (See Pages 5 and 6 of Attachment 1)
Ms. Davis stated that she is seeking authorization to sell the property and to allow the City
Manager to execute purchase and development agreements. (See Page 7 of Attachment 1)
In response to a question from Councilmember Taylor, Ms. Davis explained that the buyer is
eager to purchase the property and is ready to finalize the purchase agreement. She commented
that if the top bidder decides not to proceed, the City can move forward with the second-highest
bidder.
Responding to a question from Mayor Freeman, Mr. Butler explained that the property was
purchased in 2003 for potential park development and later was determined not to be ideal for
the property, which led to the decision to sell it. He stressed that the intent is to reinvest the funds
back into parks in Northeast Mesa or other park sites that could benefit from those funds, and
stated that staff will work with Councilmember Goforth on those plans.
Councilmember Goforth expressed her opinion that when bond funds are approved for a park in
a specific area, those funds should continue to be used for that category and area.
Mr. Butler agreed, stating there is full alignment with that approach. He said staff will work with
the Parks Department to determine which nearby parks would benefit most and what types of
improvements could be made with the available funding.
In response to multiple questions posed by Councilmember Duff, Mr. Butler responded that staff
would work with the Parks Department and review the Parks Master Plan for the area. He stated
that while $2 million does not go far in park development, there are sufficient needs in the area to
utilize the full amount. He emphasized, at a minimum, the original $600,000 will be reinvested to
remain in the area and be used for parks.
In response to multiple questions from Councilmember Goforth, Ms. Davis replied that the City
has conducted three online auctions and two sold for the appraised value and one sold above the
appraised value. She described the online auction process as simple and successful.
Councilmember Goforth stated her satisfaction that the properties sold at appraised value and
above appraised value, noting that the area has strong potential for opportunities.
In response to multiple questions from Vice Mayor Somers, Mr. Hute confirmed that there are
some General Obligation (GO) bonds that are still outstanding prior to 2008. He commented that
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Page 4
the City considers refinancing bonds every year; however, several of the bonds have very low
rates, especially GO bonds.
Responding to a question from Mayor Freeman related to other similar parcels, Mr. Butler referred
to another parcel acquired in 2003 that is no longer needed and is unsuitable for a park and noted
that the City intends to release similar unused properties when appropriate.
Mr. Hute displayed a PowerPoint presentation regarding item 5-d, (Authorizing the sale,
execution, and delivery of Utility Systems Revenue Refunding Obligations, Series 2026,
not to exceed $225,000,000. (Citywide), on the Regular Council agenda. (See Attachment 2)
Mr. Hute provided background information on the City’s financial plan, the benefits of financing,
and outlined the financing process. (See Pages 2 and 3 of Attachment 2)
Mr. Hute discussed the management of long-term obligations, the option to refinance every ten
years and noted that there is an opportunity to refinance all the utility bonds this year. (See Page
4 of Attachment 2)
Mr. Hute distinguished between the GO bonds and the Utility Systems Revenue Obligations. He
reviewed the proposal for the utility bonds issued from 2013 through 2016 and indicated that the
refinancing of $225 million in utility bonds will provide an estimated savings of $13.6 million, which
would spread over several fiscal years. He highlighted the categories of the proposed issuance
of $61 million in GO bonds, using previously approved authorizations from the bond elections in
2020, 2022, and 2024. He noted that after the issuance authorizations would remain on each of
those elections and the information is included in the Council Report. (See Pages 5 through 7 of
Attachment 2)
Responding to a question from Councilmember Taylor, Mr. Hute confirmed that the remaining
funds from the previous years’ bonds will be used in future bond issuances.
Mr. Hute presented several examples of projects to be funded by the new proposed GO bonds.
(See Page 8 of Attachment 2)
In response to a request for clarification from Councilmember Goforth, Deputy City Manager/Chief
Financial Officer Mike Kennington explained that the City does not seek voter approval for bonds
every year to reduce costs and instead plans bond programs in larger four-to-six year cycles. He
commented that the City’s most recent transportation bond package was approved in 2020 and
he shared the City’s strategy for bond projects
Mr. Butler added that the one exception is for public safety bonds, which are issued more regularly
based on need. He emphasized that smaller, more frequent issuances allow for greater flexibility,
accuracy in project planning, and clearer commitments to voters. He discussed the factors
considered when evaluating street projects, including project timing and any outlying
circumstances.
Councilmember Goforth commented on the importance for residents to understand that when a
bond is issued in a certain year, the construction does not usually begin in the same year; the
plan is five to six years long.
In response to a question from Vice Mayor Somers, Mr. Kennington explained that the City’s debt
philosophy is based on having the people who use a public asset help pay for the asset over time.
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Page 5
He said large community projects are often financed through bonds so the costs can be spread
among current and future users through debt service payments. He confirmed that if the City paid
cash for a project, current homeowners would bear the full cost through taxes even if they moved
shortly afterward.
Responding to a question from Councilmember Taylor, Mr. Hute replied that voter approved
bonds that have not been issued do not expire and remain open. He explained that there are
unique circumstances and factors that can cause project delays and, in some cases, projects are
accelerated when conditions are favorable, such as lower costs.
Discussion ensued regarding prioritization and timing of projects, consideration of costs to the
general public, structuring debt, and the use of cash and bonds for projects.
Mr. Hute presented a graph showing the City’s total GO payments, including current debt and the
proposed new debt. He explained that annual payments would rise slightly next fiscal year, and
then gradually decrease over time. (See Page 9 of Attachment 2)
Mr. Hute explained the proposed utility obligation issuances for 2026 involving $341 million, with
$179 million of funding for projects not related to capacity fees, while $162 million would fund
growth-related projects supported by capacity fee revenues. (See Page 10 of Attachment 2)
In response to a question from Vice Mayor Somers, Mr. Hute confirmed that approximately 47%
of the bonds on page 10 are going to be paid by the capacity fee, whereby if Council had not
passed the capacity fee, the cost would be borne by all the utility ratepayers.
Responding to a question from Councilmember Goforth, Mr. Hute clarified that the obligations are
paid back through the utility revenues, which includes the capacity fee revenues, and not the
secondary property tax.
Mr. Hute highlighted several examples of non-capacity fee and capacity fee projects that are
funded through utility obligations (See Page 11 of Attachment 2)
(At 8:15 a.m., Mayor Freeman excused Councilmember Adams from the remainder of the
meeting.)
Mr. Hute explained that the utility financing payment chart includes all outstanding and proposed
utility debt payments, which would be funded through utility ratepayers and the new capacity fee
revenues. He stated that total payments are expected to increase next fiscal year and remain
relatively stable for several years and then decline in the future. (See Page 12 of Attachment 2)
Mr. Hute reviewed the proposed financing timeline and emphasized that the date ranges are
necessary to comply with IRS tax rules requiring issuances to be separated by at least 15 days
and to allow flexibility to secure favorable market pricing. (See Page 13 of Attachment 2)
Mr. Butler stated the City brings forward debt issuances annually so financing aligns with when
projects are ready for construction. He added that the City also evaluates annual opportunities to
restructure debt, and this year’s restructuring is expected to save taxpayers approximately $13
million.
Responding to a question from Councilmember Taylor, Mr. Kennington responded that many
critical infrastructure projects are extremely expensive, such as the Mesa Reuse Pipeline Project
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Page 6
that costs more than $200 million. He explained it would take years to save enough cash for larger
projects, and bonding allows both current and future users of the infrastructure to share in the
cost.
Mr. Butler added that the City already cash-funds many infrastructure projects through the Capital
Improvement Program. He mentioned that the City’s philosophy for bonding has been for long-
term generational projects with lifespans lasting decades so the costs are spread across the users
who benefit from the infrastructure over time.
Responding to a question from Councilmember Taylor, Mr. Butler said the upcoming budget
discussion would help address misconceptions that the City generates profits in the General
Fund. He clarified the City only raises enough General Fund revenue to cover expenses, and the
City is not accumulating excess profits.
Councilmember Taylor commented that many residents commonly believe the City makes large
profits because municipal budgeting is complex.
Mayor Freeman said the term “revenue” is more appropriate than “profit” because the City is not
operated for profit. He explained City revenues are managed conservatively and invested to fund
community projects, public safety, utilities, and other services while keeping taxes and rates as
low as possible. He added that the City of Mesa (COM) is financially well managed and is the
“Best Run City” in Arizona, as well as nationally.
In response to a question posed by Mayor Freeman, Mr. Hute explained that the State annually
publishes a report measuring each city’s debt and the capacity being utilized by each city and
town, subject to constitutional limits. He added that Mesa internally calculated its FY 25 capacity
usage at 18% using the same methodology as the State based on the most recent public data
from FY 24. He stressed that for FY 24, Mesa ranked around tenth among Arizona cities and
towns in debt capacity usage.
Discussion ensued regarding the State’s annual report on outstanding indebtedness, percentage
of capacity used, debt levels, legal capacity limits, and taxpayer impacts.
In response to a question posed by Councilmember Duff, Mr. Kennington explained that rating
agencies consider several factors when determining bond ratings.
Councilmember Duff commented that the City operates on a balanced budget where all revenue
is assigned to specific uses and does not generate profits. She explained that reserve funds only
build when revenues exceed estimates. She noted the City faces constant pressure to address
aging infrastructure and public safety needs, and paying cash for large projects upfront could
delay many other necessary improvements. She cited Gilbert as an example of a city that delayed
utility infrastructure investment and later faced significant utility rate increases after trying to cash-
fund improvements. She said Mesa instead aims for steady, predictable rates and long-term
financing stability.
Mayor Freeman added that the current City Hall building was paid for entirely in cash and carries
no debt, a deliberate funding decision at the time of construction.
In response to multiple questions from Councilmember Taylor regarding Item 5-a, (Setting May
18, 2026 as the public hearing date to review the proposed FY2026/2027 annual
assessments for the Mesa Town Center Improvement District No. 228. The proposed final
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Page 7
assessments do not include any rate increases. (District 4)), on the Regular Council agenda,
Downtown Transformation Manager Jeff McVay introduced Economic Development Project
Manager Jimmy Ceracchio and provided an overview of the process for annual assessments by
the City.
Mr. Butler added that the district is a special taxing district authorized under state statute and was
created through a vote by the downtown property owners.
Councilmember Duff explained that the Downtown Mesa Association (DMA) is not a City entity is
similar to a Homeowners Association (HOA) and is a separate business.
Mr. Cerracchio explained that the DMA is organized as a 501(c)(6) nonprofit organization, with an
affiliated 501(c)(3) entity used to support sponsorships. He noted that assessment funds are
primarily used for the Clean and Safe Program, and the remaining funds are used to support
programs and events that attract businesses, visitors, and daily activity to downtown Mesa.
Mr. McVay announced that staff will provide an annual overview of the DMA and its activities
during the May 18, 2026 public hearing. He noted that since the City is the largest landowner
downtown, it voluntarily pays an assessment even though municipalities are exempt from the
district assessment. He added the City pays a reduced rate per square foot in order to share in
the costs and services provided by DMA. He mentioned that the Council reviews DMA’s
assessment methodology every five years as part of the organization’s renewal process, while
the current item only concerns approval of the annual assessments. He described the assessment
formula, which is intended to reflect the level of services DMA must provide to each property.
Mr. Cerracchio added that only commercial properties participate in the assessment district, which
includes apartments since they are classified as commercial properties. He mentioned that single-
family residential properties are excluded.
In response to multiple questions from Councilmember Taylor regarding Item 4-d, (Aripine Park
& Whitman Park Playground Renovation, Design-Bid-Build Contract (Districts 1 & 4)), on
the Regular Council agenda, Interim Parks and Recreation Director Andrea Alicoate explained
that the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds would specifically cover the
construction portion of the projects, which is required under the program’s eligibility rules. She
reported that Capital Improvement Funds for Whitman Park had previously been allocated in 2022
for design services. She mentioned that Aripine Park, which was a basin without park amenities
or features, will become a park and those funds were allocated in 2023 for the design. She
commented that the Parks Department uses its park lifecycle and master planning process to
prepare projects in advance, so they are “shovel ready” when funding opportunities become
available.
In response to multiple questions from Councilmember Taylor regarding Item 6-a, (ZON25-00942
“Rio Salado 25” 3.1± acres located at the northwest corner of West Rio Salado Parkway
and North Cubs Way. Rezone from General Commercial (GC) to General Commercial with
a Bonus Intensity Zone Overlay (GC-BIZ), Council Use Permit (CUP), and Site Plan Review.
This request will allow for the development of an approximately 54,725± square foot hotel
and 36-unit multiple residence building. Rio Salado 25, LLC, Owner; Jonathan Boyd, Boyd
Development, applicant. (District 3)), on the Regular Council agenda, Assistant City Manager
Marc Heirshberg introduced Principal Planner Evan Balmer and displayed a PowerPoint
presentation. (See Attachment 3)
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Page 8
Mr. Heirshberg provided an overview of the proposed “Rio Salado 25” project, a 3.1± acre
redevelopment of the former Maricopa County Animal Control site. He described the new plans,
including a hotel and housing specifically contracted for the Chicago Cubs’ minor league players
and staff, due to MLB housing requirements. He indicated the hotel would serve both the public
and team-related overflow needs, as well as team operations. He discussed the location and the
great potential for dining opportunities and retail, adding that parking and access are major
challenges. (See Pages 2 and 3 of Attachment 3)
In response to multiple questions from Councilmember Taylor, Mr. Heirshberg replied that the
nearest parking location is approximately a half mile away, making it difficult to generate foot
traffic for retail or entertainment uses. He confirmed that the multi-family housing would be
exclusively contracted for the Chicago Cubs year-round, and the hotel would mainly serve the
general public, while also providing overflow accommodations for the Chicago Cubs.
Mr. Butler discussed future opportunities for continued development at Mesa Riverview and the
strong relationship with the Chicago Cubs.
Councilmember Heredia commented that increasing year-round foot traffic at Riverview is
important for improving activity in the area. He explained that previous development interest for
the site mainly involved storage facilities and parking-related uses, which did not align with the
City’s vision for the area. He described the site as small and uniquely constrained, but said the
Cubs-related proposal was likely the best use available because it would bring more people to
the area throughout the year rather than only during spring training.
In response to a question from Councilmember Goforth, Mr. Heirshberg explained that the City is
not opposed to developing parking garages; however, the cost is significant at approximately
$30,000 per parking space, and the challenges with restricted access and available parking.
Mr. Butler commented on the parking challenge in redeveloping Riverview and said future mixed-
use projects will require solutions for both facility and visitor parking for this location.
Responding to a question from Councilmember Taylor, Mr. Heirshberg confirmed that the
proposal for the development is the best option received for the site.
(Mayor Freeman declared a recess at 8:57 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:05 a.m.)
2-a.
Hear a presentation and discuss the fiscal year 2026/2027 summary of the proposed budget.
Management and Budget Director Brian Ritschel introduced Assistant Director Samuel Schultz
and displayed a PowerPoint presentation. (See Attachment 4)
Mr. Ritschel explained that the presentation is an overview of the overall budget and in April the
departments will present their budgets in more detail. He said the adoption of the tentative budget
sets the limit and the City cannot expend above that budget, noting that resources include both
revenues that the City receives and any reserves in the fund balance. He stated that the budget
theme for this year is Elevate Mesa. (See Pages 2 and 3 of Attachment 4)
Mr. Ritschel identified the financial policies and principles for the General Governmental Funds.
He emphasized that although our policy is to maintain a reserve balance of 8% to 10%, the City
strives to maintain a 10% to 15% reserve fund over a five-year forecast period. He advised that
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Page 9
the five-year forecast helps sustain the stability of any programs and services that the City
implements. (See Pages 4 and 5 of Attachment 4)
Mr. Ritschel reviewed the budget pressures for FY 26/27 that will contribute to the loss of ongoing
revenues. He indicated that the City Manager has requested each department review their base
budget and reduce their ongoing base budget by a net 2%. (See Pages 6 and 7 of Attachment 4)
Mr. Ritschel reviewed the forecast that was presented to Council in February of 2026, noting that
the forecast includes the 2% reduction of all departments and that by FY 29/30 the City will
achieve the goal of a positive net sources and uses of $2.3 million. He emphasized that the ending
reserve balance does not drop below 21.4%, which is above the City’s 10% to 15% financial
principles, indicating that the City’s financial approach and strategies has brought the City two
years ahead of schedule in achieving positive financials and high ending reserve balances. (See
Page 8 of Attachment 4)
Mr. Ritschel discussed the City’s budget strategies and the impact of reducing ongoing
expenditures over the past three years to remain as responsible as possible to the taxpayers.
(See Page 9 of Attachment 4)
In response to a question posed by Vice Mayor Somers, Mr. Ritschel confirmed that police recruit
signing bonuses are paid from the General Fund. He explained that FY 2025/26 was originally
projected to have roughly a $55 million negative net sources and uses balance, but improved
retail sales tax revenues, stronger sales tax growth, and expenditure reductions decreased the
projected deficit to $36.3 million.
Discussion ensued regarding budget projections, cost reductions, the City’s conservative
budgeting practices, and the use of a five-year financial forecast alongside the adoption of an
annual one-year budget.
Mr. Ritschel highlighted budget reductions made by City departments to assist with saving money
and discussed revenues from resources included in the forecast. He outlined several of the
enhancement requests and their purpose, including staff positions associated with a three-year
pilot program for efficiency. (See Pages 10 through 12 of Attachment 4)
Mr. Butler noted that many enhancement requests reflect Council priorities and that departments
continually evaluate cost-saving measures and whether services should be performed in-house
or by contractors.
Mr. Ritschel reviewed infrastructure improvement costs included in the proposed budget. He
provided an overview of the proposed budget adjustments for FY 26/27 and compared previous
forecasts, noting the reductions in expenses from $2.3 million to $1.8 million, while maintaining
fiscal stability. He advised that despite projected deficits in a few years, reserve levels remain
above policy requirements, and the long-term outlook improves over time. (See Pages 13 and 14
of Attachment 4)
In response to multiple questions from Councilmember Goforth, Mr. Ritschel clarified that the
infrastructure costs on Slide 13 are one-time funds for life cycle cash funded projects that are
more infrastructure related, while Slide 12 identifies one-time and ongoing requests.
Responding to multiple questions from Councilmember Goforth, Mr. Butler explained that every
department submitted a 2% reduction plan, and management reviewed each proposal and
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Page 10
rejected cuts that would create larger problems or reduce long-term efficiency. He explained that
inflationary pressures continue, but three years of 2% budget reductions have prevented spending
from increasing by approximately $56 million.
In response to a question from Councilmember Goforth, Mr. Ritschel explained that the projects
highlighted on Slide 13 are major ongoing projects, and staff will return to Council with a full
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) presentation, which will include bigger life cycle and all of
the capital projects that the City intends to budget for next fiscal year, as well as a five-year plan.
Additional discussion ensued regarding enhancement requests and the redevelopment toolkit.
Mr. Ritschel reviewed the financial policies and principles for the Utility Fund, emphasizing a
higher reserve fund balance percentage of 20% or higher compared to the General Governmental
Fund. (See Pages 15 and 16 of Attachment 4)
Mr. Rischel outlined several budget pressures, noting that the cost increases for water
commodities for the 91st Ave Water Reclamation Plant and the Val Vista Water Treatment Plant
are becoming significant. (See Pages 17 of Attachment 4)
Mayor Freeman added that pending legislation could negatively affect City funding and budget
stability.
Mr. Ritschel discussed the impact of the 2% reduction for each City department in their ongoing
base budget. He provided an update of the forecast that includes the 2% reduction and the
capacity fee, resulting in positive net sources and uses by FY 28/29. He highlighted the $3.8
million of reduced ongoing expenditures for FY 24/25 to FY 26/27, and $1.7 million of ongoing
savings submitted by departments. He explained that capacity fees are expected to generate
about $24 million annually, ensuring that growth-related infrastructure costs are paid by new
development rather than existing ratepayers. He reported that the capacity fee will be reviewed
with the Utility Master Plan every four to five years. (See Pages 18 through 21 of Attachment 4)
Responding to multiple questions posed by Councilmember Goforth, Mr. Ritschel explained that
the $24 million in revenues from capacity fees will be reflected in the FY 26/27 budget and is
deposited into a separate restricted fund, while the Utility Fund benefits from reduced debt service
and capital costs. He replied that there is a first-year discount fee for capacity fees, which began
on January 1, 2026 and expires on June 30, 2026, and the full fee will be in place on July 1, 2026.
Mr. Ritschel stated that $2.1 million in enhancement requests were submitted by departments
and approved. He highlighted several of the enhancement requests, including assisting Solid
Waste with maintaining their trucks. (See Pages 22 of Attachment 4)
Mr. Butler commented that the additional shift at the East Mesa Service Center will improve fleet
reliability and efficiency despite limitations caused by outdated maintenance facilities.
In response to a question from Councilmember Heredia, Mr. Butler acknowledged longstanding
infrastructure deficiencies at fleet facilities and promised a future discussion on solutions and
investment options.
Responding to a question from Councilmember Taylor, Mr. Ritschel confirmed that the budget
allocation funds Mesa’s share of the feasibility study costs.
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Page 11
Mr. Butler explained that participating in the study and future project funding could secure Mesa
a share of any additional water storage, following a "pay-to-play" model similar to the Roosevelt
Dam expansion.
Mr. Ritschel presented the Utility Fund forecast for FY 26/27, showing a positive forecast due to
Council passing and adopting the capacity fee which allows staff to focus on repairs and
maintenance and other operational priorities for the Utility Fund. (See Page 23 of Attachment 4)
In response to a question from Councilmember Duff, Mr. Ritschel answered that he is not
concerned about the 16.6% projected ending reserve balance for FY 25/26, since the City is
meeting their financial policy of 8% to 10% and the rating agencies are pleased with the forecast.
He emphasized that the forecast is reviewed on a monthly and quarterly basis with the
departments and utilities, and adjustments are made.
Responding to a question posed by Councilmember Taylor, Mr. Ritschel replied that capacity fee
revenues can only be used for one-time growth projects, and cannot be used for operational
maintenance, which comes from the Utility Fund.
Mr. Ritschel stated he will provide to Council a tentative budget update on April 30, 2026 and
discussed the timeline for other financial budgets.
Mayor Freeman thanked staff for the presentation.
2-b.
Hear a presentation, discuss, and provide direction on the Parks, Recreation and Community
Facilities Department budget.
Interim Parks, Recreation and Community Facilities Director Andrea Alicoate and Senior Fiscal
Analyst Alison Walker displayed a PowerPoint presentation. (See Attachment 5)
Ms. Alicoate shared the updated public purpose statement for the Parks and Recreation and
Community Facilities (PRCF) Department. She indicated that the City is transitioning from an
output to outcomes based Key Performance Indicator (KPI) model. She acknowledged the
achievements and awards of the PRCF Department, reflecting the City’s ongoing commitment to
public safety and community investment. She explained that the PRCF Department is refining its
KPIs through an index-based model and remains committed to safe community spaces, fiscal
responsibility, and high-quality services. (See Pages 2 through 4 of Attachment 5)
Ms. Alicoate reviewed the department’s cost recovery and subsidy framework, which guides
financial decisions and expense reviews. She discussed the various service levels, funding
percentages, and cost recovery goals, noting that maintenance and utility costs are not included
in the recovery goal. (See Page 5 of Attachment 5)
In response to multiple questions from Vice Mayor Somers, Ms. Alicoate explained that the cost
recovery model has been part of the Parks Master Plan for several planning cycles and has been
discussed previously with Council. She noted that the current Parks Master Plan extends through
2027 and that developing the next plan will be an important responsibility for the new director,
with continued Council involvement. She also stated that the presentation was shared with the
Parks Advisory Board.
Responding to a question from Councilmember Heredia, Ms. Alicoate stated that park
maintenance within the Level One service category represents the department’s largest expense.
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Page 12
She noted that as these costs continue to rise, the department is limited in the ability to fund other
services and often necessitate budget reductions in other areas.
Ms. Alicoate presented a chart illustrating the attendance and rentals for parks fields, sport
complexes and related facilities, and reported on the fluctuations and causes. She noted that
rental numbers do not always directly correlate with attendance or revenue. She discussed the
recreation program participation from 2022–2025 for youth programs and adaptive teams at
Webster, Eagles, and Jefferson Recreation Centers. She stated that participation continues to
grow despite no staffing increases, while staff focuses on innovation, efficiency, and maximizing
program capacity, allowing the department to serve more participants while maintaining service
levels. (See Pages 6 and 7 of Attachment 5)
Ms. Alicoate reviewed the citywide direct cost recovery performance for PRCF Department
facilities and shared the cost recovery goals for various facilities. She provided an overview of the
PRCF Department’s financial summary for expenditures and revenues, emphasizing that
commercial operations such as the Convention Center, Amphitheatre, and Cemetery generally
meet their 100% cost recovery goals, although fiscal-year timing differences can affect annual
results. She discussed the ongoing cost pressures from utilities and maintenance. (See Pages 8
and 9 of Attachment 5)
In response to multiple questions from Councilmember Goforth, Ms. Alicoate explained that
reducing park maintenance would create highly visible impacts such as deteriorating grass,
unsafe equipment, and park closures; since park maintenance is considered a Tier 1 core service,
the department prioritized maintaining those resources. She stated that recreation services, which
are more discretionary and funded through the General Fund, are where reductions can be made.
She noted that Resource Management already reflects reductions related to the removal of park
rangers and Fremont Aquatic Complex operations. She confirmed that while some programs were
transferred, the operational and maintenance costs for affected facilities had already been
removed from the budget as directed by Council during the prior budget cycle.
Councilmember Goforth expressed concern about prioritizing staff over providing programming
to residents.
Mr. Butler clarified that the department has adjusted recreation staffing to match demand while
prioritizing the upkeep of safe and attractive parks, which serve all residents.
Ms. Alicoate outlined the PRCF Department's proposed 2% budget reduction of approximately
$942,000. She commented that the reductions are focused on General Fund-supported recreation
activities rather than commercial operations or park maintenance. (See Page 10 of Attachment
5)
Discussion ensued regarding the number of full-time and part-time employees, the operation of
aquatic centers, and the cost recovery model.
Ms. Alicoate reviewed reductions in part-time staffing hours totaling 7.24 FTEs, or approximately
15,000 hours, representing less than 5% of total part-time staffing hours. She discussed the
closure and decommissioning of Freemont Aquatic Complex after May 23, 2026, and reported
that nearby aquatic facilities can absorb classes and programming, making the primary impact
reduced public swim opportunities. She emphasized that low public swim attendance at Fremont
did not justify continued staffing costs. (See Page 10 of Attachment 5)
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Page 13
Ms. Alicoate outlined the program reductions, including adaptive services program savings with
replacing costly bus transportation for summer camps with on-site activities that provide similar
experiences at lower cost. She also proposed eliminating the Spring Celebrate Mesa event,
generating $36,000 in savings. While the event attracts significant participation, it requires
substantial staffing and resources, and other downtown events provide alternative community
engagement opportunities. (See Page 11 of Attachment 5)
Ms. Alicoate summarized the proposed budget reductions totaling $942,237. She emphasized
that the department does not expect significant impacts to community programming and is
confident that all current full-time staff positions can be preserved. (See Page 12 of Attachment
5)
Mayor Freeman encouraged continued evaluation of cost recovery strategies, suggesting greater
flexibility in youth baseball field rental scheduling. He praised the department's strategic approach
to balancing cost recovery with maintaining valued public services.
(At 11:10 a.m., Mayor Freeman excused Councilmember Heredia from the remainder of the
meeting.)
In response to a question from Councilmember Duff, Deputy City Manager Candance Cannistraro
clarified that the authorized budget is $55.1 million in expenditures, while approximately $17.9
million is expected to be recovered through revenues, and the net impact would be the difference
between the expenditures and revenues.
Mayor Freeman thanked staff for the presentation.
3.
Acknowledge receipt of minutes of various boards and committees.
3-a.
Community and Cultural Development Committee meeting held on March 12, 2026.
3-b.
Community and Cultural Development Committee meeting held on March 19, 2026.
It was moved by Councilmember Duff, seconded by Vice Mayor Somers, that receipt of the above-
listed minutes be acknowledged.
Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:
AYES – Freeman–Somers–Duff–Goforth–Taylor
NAYS – None
ABSENT – Adams-Heredia
Mayor Freeman declared the motion carried unanimously by those present.
4.
Current events summary including meetings and conferences attended.
There were no reports on meetings and/or conferences attended.
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Page 14
5.
Scheduling of meetings.
City Manager Scott Butler stated that the schedule of meetings is as follows:
Monday, April 6, 2026, 4:45 p.m. – Study Session
Monday, April 6, 2026, 5:45 p.m. – Regular Council
6.
Adjournment.
Without objection, the Study Session adjourned at 11:20 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 2nd day of April 2026. I further certify that the meeting
was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.
_______________________________
HOLLY MOSELEY, CITY CLERK
lr
(Attachments – 5)
Authorization to sell
8130 E. Redberry
City Council Study Session April 2, 2026
Lance Webb, City Engineer
Lisa Davis, Real Estate Manager
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 8
Location:
8130 E Redberry
South of Thomas Road
and West of Hawes Road
10+/- Acres
2003 City Purchased for
a Park for $630,000 using
voter approved bonds
2007 annexed into City
via Ordinance 4680
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 8
Online Auction
Using EASIBuy
Redberry Property
Online Auction held April 1, 2026
Minimum Bid $1,550,000-appraised value
Minimum bidding increments of $10,000
Auction held for 15 minutes with 2 minutes added as needed-
Total time 31 minutes 11 seconds
Total of 56 bids
Highest Bidder- Reserve 100, LLC
Highest Bid- $2,090,001
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 3 of 8
Notification
of sale
EASIBuy webpage created for Auction
City of Mesa Real Estate Webpage
Real Estate list of interested buyers notified
Over 2,900 emails sent with webpage information
Newspaper Advertisement from March 20th to March 22nd
Site is posted with signs
Letters sent to surrounding Property Owners
Policy requires letters mailed to property owners within 150’
Staff mailed to property owners within 1000’
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 4 of 8
•
Zoned Single Residence-35 (RS-35)
•
Dedication of half street and improvements for
Redberry
•
Design to meet drainage requirements
•
Buyer may utilize septic systems- Development
Agreement
•
Buyer may apply for rezoning
•
Must comply with Mesa 2050 General Plan
•
Must comply with Desert Uplands standards
•
Potential lot layout
Development
Requirements
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 5 of 8
Current Zoning
• Zoned Single Residence-35
(RS-35)
• Property shown in gray is not
within City of Mesa boundaries
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 6 of 8
Approving and
authorizing the sale
of the Property at
8130 E. Redberry
Authorizing City
Manager to enter
into purchase and
development
agreement.
Questions
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 7 of 8
City of Mesa Parks
City of Mesa Parks Master Plan
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 8 of 8
2026 Financing Plan
April 2, 2026
Mark Hute, Treasurer
1
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 1 of 19
Financing Plan & Benefits
2
What is the financing plan?
• Plan to secure funding for capital projects through bonds/obligations
What are some benefits to financing?
1. Tax-exempt (Lower interest rates)
2. Accelerates project delivery
3. Spreads costs over useful life of projects
4. Assists in smooth rate adjustments
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 2 of 19
Financing Process
3
1. Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
• Projects prioritized
• Funding source identified (cash and/or financing)
2. Seek voter approval (General obligation bonds)
3. Access financial markets
We are here
CIP
Process
Voter
Approval
Financial
Markets
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 3 of 19
Managing Long-Term Obligations
4
• Tax-exempt
• Structured for stable payments
• Up to 25-year final maturity
• 10-year refinance “call”
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 4 of 19
“Bonds” and “Obligations” = Loans
5
1. General Obligation (GO) Bonds
• Voter-approved for specific purpose (parks, etc.)
• Backed by “full faith and credit” of City
• Paid for with secondary property tax
2. Utility Systems Revenue Obligations
• Contractual obligation
• Backed by utility revenue pledge
• Paid for with utility revenue
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 5 of 19
Proposed 2026 Utility Refundings
6
“To ensure that bond refundings produce anticipated savings, refunding bonds should have a
net present value savings exceeding 3% of the debt service amount of the bonds being
refunded…” (City of Mesa Financial Policies, section 5.6, 2017)
Utility Systems Revenue Bonds/Obligations (Tax-exempt)
• Refinance: $225 million (Bonds issued 2013 – 2016)
• Estimated Savings: $13.6 million (NPV of 4.2% of prior debt service)
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 6 of 19
Proposed 2026 GO Bonds Issuances
7
GO Bonds (Tax-exempt)
Target Proceeds: $61 million
Parks, Public Safety, Transportation
• Bond elections: 2020, 2022, & 2024
Public
Safety
$19 M
31%
Transportation
$29 M
48%
Parks
$13 M
21%
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 7 of 19
8
• Fire Station 205 Rebuild
• Fire Station 224
• idea Museum Renovations
• Police Headquarters
• Signal Butte Park Phase 2
• Transportation Projects
GO Bonds
Project Examples
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 8 of 19
Total GO Bonds Financing Payments
(Outstanding + 2026 Proposed)
9
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
25/26
26/27
27/28
28/29
29/30
30/31
31/32
32/33
33/34
34/35
35/36
36/37
37/38
38/39
39/40
40/41
41/42
42/43
43/44
44/45
45/46
Millions
Fiscal Year
Principal
Interest
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 9 of 19
Proposed 2026 Utility Obligations Issuances
10
Utility Systems Revenue Obligations (Tax-exempt)
Target Proceeds: $341 million
• $179 million for non-capacity fee projects
– Water, Wastewater, and Natural Gas
• $162 million for capacity fee projects
– Water and Wastewater
Natural Gas
$31 M
9%
Water
$115 M
34%
Water -
Cap Fee
$150 M
44%
Wastewater
$33 M
10%
Wastewater
- Cap Fee
$12 M
3%
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 10 of 19
11
• Smart Metering (Advanced
Metering Infrastructure)
• Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline
• Natural Gas System Improvements
• Signal Butte Water Treatment Plant
Expansion
Utility Obligations
Project Examples
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 11 of 19
Total Utility Financing Payments
(Outstanding + 2026 Proposed)
12
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
25/26
26/27
27/28
28/29
29/30
30/31
31/32
32/33
33/34
34/35
35/36
36/37
37/38
38/39
39/40
40/41
41/42
42/43
43/44
44/45
45/46
46/47
47/48
48/49
49/50
Millions
Fiscal Year
Principal
Interest
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 12 of 19
Timeline for 2026 Financings
(Subject to market conditions)
13
April 6
Council considers authorization
April 27 – May 29
Bonds/obligations sold
May 21 – June 25
Proceeds received
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 13 of 19
Remaining
Analyst
Questions
14
14
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 14 of 19
General Obligation Bonds – Constitutional Limit
15
FY2024 Report of Outstanding Indebtedness – 13% of capacity used
FY2025 Report of Outstanding Indebtedness – Pending
• City’s FY2025 Internal Calculation1:
Legal
Capacity Limit
Debt
% of
Capacity Used
Mesa
$ 2,536,234,278
$ 456,510,000
18.0%
1 Calculation methodology consistent with FY2024 Report of Outstanding Indebtedness
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 15 of 19
2026 General Obligation (GO) Bonds
16
Proposed 2026 Sale: $61 million
Purpose
Election
Year
Remaining
Authorized But
Not Issued
Series
2026 Bonds
Estimated
Remaining
Authorization
Transportation
2020
$ 53,910,000 $ 29,000,000 $ 24,910,000
Public Safety
2022
82,000,000
19,000,000
63,000,000
Parks and Culture
2024
165,000,000
13,000,000
152,000,000
Public Safety
2024
90,000,000
0
90,000,000
Total
$ 390,910,000 $ 61,000,000 $ 329,910,000
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 16 of 19
2026 GO Bonds – Financing Payments
(Series 2026)
17
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
$7
25/26
26/27
27/28
28/29
29/30
30/31
31/32
32/33
33/34
34/35
35/36
36/37
37/38
38/39
39/40
40/41
41/42
42/43
43/44
44/45
45/46
Millions
Fiscal Year
Principal
Interest
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 17 of 19
2026 Utility Obligations – Financing Payments
(Series 2026A – Non-Capacity Fee Projects)
18
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
25/26
26/27
27/28
28/29
29/30
30/31
31/32
32/33
33/34
34/35
35/36
36/37
37/38
38/39
39/40
40/41
41/42
42/43
43/44
44/45
45/46
46/47
47/48
48/49
49/50
Millions
Fiscal Year
Principal
Interest
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 18 of 19
2026 Utility Obligations – Financing Payments
(Series 2026B – Capacity Fee Projects)
19
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
25/26
26/27
27/28
28/29
29/30
30/31
31/32
32/33
33/34
34/35
35/36
36/37
37/38
38/39
39/40
40/41
41/42
42/43
43/44
44/45
45/46
46/47
47/48
48/49
49/50
Millions
Fiscal Year
Principal
Interest
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 19 of 19
City Council
ZON25-00942
April 6, 2026
Mary Kopaskie-Brown, Planning Director
Evan Balmer, Assistant Planning Director
1
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 1 of 19
Request
• Council Use Permit (CUP)
• Initial Site Plan
• Rezoning 3.1 acres from GC
to GC-BIZ
2
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 2 of 19
Location
• North side of Rio Salado
Parkway
• East side of Price Road
3
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 3 of 19
Zoning
• Current: General Commercial
(GC)
• Proposed: GC-BIZ with a
Council Use Permit
4
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 4 of 19
General Plan
Current – Local Employment
Center
• Support a variety of low-intensity
business operations that are
compatible with residential uses
• Does not support warehousing and
storage land uses
• Zoning districts: OC, NC, LC, GC, PEP,
LI, EO, PS
5
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 5 of 19
Site Photo
Looking northwest from the intersection of Rio Salado and Cubs Way
6
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 6 of 19
Site Plan
• Access from Rio Salado
and Cubs Way
• Two proposed buildings
• Building 1
Hotel
103 Rooms
• Building 2
Multiple Residence
36 units
7
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 7 of 19
Bonus Intensity Zone Overlay
Development Standard
MZO Required
PAD Proposed
Maximum Building Height –
MZO Table 11-6-3.A
30 feet
65 feet
Minimum Setbacks to Building
and Parking Areas–
MZO Table 11-6-3.A
Front and Street Facing Side
(adjacent to Rio Salado Parkway)
Side and Rear adjacent to non-
residential district, per story
15 feet
60 feet (15 feet per story)
11 feet
7 feet (north side)
2.5 feet (east side)
2.5 feet (west side)
9
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 8 of 19
Bonus Intensity Zone Overlay
Development Standard
MZO Required
PAD Proposed
Required Landscape Yards –
MZO Section 11-33-3 (B)(2)(a)(ii)
Non-Single Residence Adjacent to
other Non-Single Residence Districts
15 Feet
0 Feet
Perimeter Landscaping –
MZO Table 11-33-3.A.4
Arterial Streets
Local Streets
1 Tree and 6 Shrubs per 25 Linear Feet of
Street Frontage
1 Tree and 4 Shrubs per 25 feet of Street
Frontage
0 Trees and Shrubs required within the
proposed landscape yards
10
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 9 of 19
Bonus Intensity Zone Overlay
Development Standard
MZO Required
PAD Proposed
Required Parking Spaces by Use –
MZO Table 11-32-3.A
- Multiple Residence
2.1 spaces per unit (76 spaces)
1.29 spaces per unit (56 spaces)
Required Parking Spaces by Use –
MZO Section 11-33-3(D)
- Covered Parking
1 covered parking space per unit
11 covered parking spaces on site
11
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 10 of 19
Bonus Intensity Zone Overlay
Development Standard
MZO Required
PAD Proposed
Minimum Private Open Space –
MZO Section 11-5-5(A)(3)(a) – Sizing -
Two and Three Bedroom Units
100 square feet of private open space
per two bedroom unit and 120 square
feet of private open space for three
bedroom units
60 square feet of private open space per
unit
Minimum Private Open Space Above
Ground Level –
MZO Section 11-5-5(A)(3)(e)(i)(2) –
Minimum Width
8 feet wide
5 feet wide
12
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 11 of 19
Citizen Participation
• Notified property owners within 1000 feet,
HOAs and registered neighborhoods
13
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 12 of 19
Findings
Complies with the 2050 Mesa General Plan
Complies with Chapter 70 of the MZO for a CUP
Complies with Chapter 21 of the MZO for a Bonus Intensity Zone
Complies with Chapter 69 of the MZO for Site Plan Review
Staff recommends Approval with Conditions
Planning and Zoning Board recommends Approval with Conditions (6-0)
14
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 13 of 19
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 14 of 19
Landscape Plan
8
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 15 of 19
Renderings
16
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 16 of 19
Renderings
17
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 17 of 19
Renderings
18
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 18 of 19
Renderings
19
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 19 of 19
Proposed Budget Overview
Fiscal Year 2026/27
Mesa City Council
Presented By:
Date:
Brian A. Ritschel – Management & Budget Director
Samuel Schultz – Management & Budget Assistant Director
April 2, 2026
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 1 of 27
2
Annual Balanced Budget
• Each year the City of Mesa is required to appropriate
an annual expenditure budget and set a secondary
property tax levy and associated rate
• The annual budget sets the maximum expenditure
limit for the fiscal year
• A balanced budget means that the total resources
available to the city must be sufficient to cover the
budgeted expenses
• The City of Mesa’s FY 2026/27 Proposed Budget is
balanced
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 2 of 27
3
FISCAL YEAR 2026/27 PROPOSED BUDGET
“Elevate Mesa”
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 3 of 27
4
General Governmental
Funds
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 4 of 27
5
General
Governmental
Funds –
Financial
Policies &
Principles
Financial Policies
(Council Adopted)
• Adoption of a Balanced
Budget
• Maintain a Reserve Balance
of 8-10%
• Forecasts will be Provided
over a Multi-Year Period
• Fees & Charges will be
Reviewed on an Annual
Basis
• Adoption of a 5-Year
Capital Improvement Plan
Financial Principles
(City Management Practice)
• Balance Net Sources &
Uses
• 10-15% Reserve Fund
Balance over 5-Year
Forecasted Period
• Sustainability of Programs
& Services
• Keep Wages & Benefits
Competitive to Retain &
Recruit Quality Staff
• Investment in Capital &
Lifecycle Replacement
Projects
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 5 of 27
6
Budget
Pressures
• The FY 2026/27 Proposed Budget focuses on the
City’s effort in providing quality core services while
addressing the following impacts
• Loss of on-going revenue due to state legislation
• Market-Driven Compensation & Competitive
Benefits
• Fleet maintenance & repairs
• Software & licensing
• Building maintenance and utilities
• Continuing ARPA initiatives with ongoing
General Fund support
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 6 of 27
7
Budget
Strategy -
Impact
• Striving towards a structurally balanced
budget in FY 29/30 by reducing the
ongoing base budget.
• City Manager requested departments to
submit a net 2% reduction of their
ongoing base budget.
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 7 of 27
8
General Governmental Funds Forecast Update –
February 2026
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 8 of 27
9
Budget
Strategy –
Reductions
• A total of $55.7M in ongoing expenditures have
been reduced from the budget and forecast for
fiscal years 2024/25 to 2026/27.
• For FY 2026/27 the Police Department ($4.4M) and
Mesa Fire & Medical Department ($1.4) were
asked to phase their reductions in over two fiscal
years.
• Police Department reductions in FY 26/27
• $1.7M: Conversion of 3 vacant sworn
positions to civilian positions, 9 full-time and
1 part-time vacant positions, and recruit
signing bonus pay
• MFMD reductions in FY 26/27
• $831K: Marketing/Communications Specialist
II position and reallocating 4 firefighter
positions from the General Fund to the Public
Safety Sales Tax Fund
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 9 of 27
10
Budget
Strategy –
Reductions,
Cont.
• City departments were able to make
reductions through process review and
efficiencies. Some reductions were:
•
25 vacant positions across City departments
•
Subscription costs through discontinuing
rarely used software
•
Contract costs through renegotiations
•
Equipment costs to meet staff needs
•
Insurance premiums to align with City
needs
•
Off the Streets – Sunaire operations funding
reallocated to American Rescue Plan Act
(ARPA) interest and HOME ARP funds
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 10 of 27
11
• $2.0M: Credit card purchase and cooperative
contract rebates.
• $250K: Increase projected ongoing revenues
building permits.
Budget
Strategy –
Resources
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 11 of 27
12
Budget
Strategy –
Enhancement
Requests
• Departments submitted $6.6M in one-time
and ongoing requests to increase
services/programs or start new programs
• $4.8M in requests were approved. Some of
the requests include:
• $3.0M: Redevelopment Toolkit Pilot
• Assistant City Prosecutor II (1 FTE)
• Senior Internal Auditor (1 FTE)
• HVAC Controls Technician (1 FTE)
• $65K: 3rd party process server for Code
Compliance
• I.T. Technician III (1 FTE) for city WIFI
maintenance
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 12 of 27
13
Budget
Strategy –
City
Infrastructure
• $6.0M: Facility maintenance and
improvements
• $3.0M: Parks maintenance and
improvements
• $295K: Main Library Saguaro Room
updates
• $730K: Red Mountain Library
– $500K: Children’s Room renovation
– $230K: Program Room updates
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 13 of 27
14
General Governmental Funds Proposed Budget –
Fiscal Year 2026/27
Actuals
Projected
Budget
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
FY 24/25
FY 25/26
FY 26/27
FY 27/28
FY 28/29
FY 29/30
FY 30/31
Beginning Reserve Balance
$247.5
$264.3
$235.3
$204.2
$167.7
$145.5
$147.2
Total Sources
$733.6
$703.4
$701.7
$716.6
$748.3
$779.2
$815.9
Total Uses
$716.8
$732.4
$732.7
$753.1
$770.5
$777.4
$802.2
Net Sources and Uses
$16.8
($29.0)
($31.1)
($36.5)
($22.2)
$1.8
$13.7
Ending Reserve Balance
$264.3
$235.3
$204.2
$167.7
$145.5
$147.2
$160.9
Ending Reserve Balance Percent*
36.1%
32.1%
27.1%
21.8%
18.7%
18.4%
19.3%
data as of March 2026
*As a % of all Next Year's uses of funding
dollars in millions
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 14 of 27
Utility Fund
15
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 15 of 27
16
Utility Fund –
Financial
Policies &
Principles
Financial Policies
(Council Adopted)
• Adoption of a Balanced
Budget
• Maintain a Reserve Balance
of 8-10%
• Forecasts will be Provided
over a Multi-Year Period
• Utility Rates Examined
Annually
• Adoption of a 5-Year
Capital Improvement Plan
Financial Principles
(City Management Practice)
• Balance Net Sources &
Uses
• 20% or Higher Reserve
Fund Balance
• Smoothed Rate
Adjustments throughout
the Forecast
• Equity between Residential
& Non-Residential Rates
• Affordable Utility Services
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 16 of 27
17
Budget
Pressures
• The FY 2026/27 Proposed Budget focuses on the
City’s effort in providing quality core services while
addressing the following impacts
• Market-Driven Compensation & Competitive
Benefits
• Fleet maintenance & repairs
• Solid Waste disposal
• Water Commodity
• 91st Ave. Water Reclamation Plant
• Val Vista Water Treatment Plant
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 17 of 27
18
Budget
Strategy -
Impact
• Striving towards a structurally balanced
budget in FY 29/30 by reducing the
ongoing base budget.
• City Manager requested departments to
submit a net 2% reduction of their
ongoing base budget.
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 18 of 27
19
Utility Fund Forecast Update – February 2026
Actuals
Projected
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
FY 24/25
FY 25/26
FY 26/27
FY 27/28
FY 28/29
FY 29/30
FY 30/31
Beginning Reserve Balance
$117.0
$119.4
$95.9
$86.0
$79.4
$92.6
$121.0
Total Sources
$510.8
$534.4
$572.1
$617.4
$662.1
$710.0
$763.4
Total Uses
$508.4
$558.0
$581.9
$624.1
$648.9
$681.7
$728.1
Net Sources and Uses
$2.4
($23.5)
($9.8)
($6.7)
$13.2
$28.4
$35.3
Ending Reserve Balance
$119.4
$95.9
$86.0
$79.4
$92.6
$121.0
$156.3
Ending Reserve Balance Percent*
21.4%
16.5%
13.8%
12.2%
13.6%
16.6%
20.3%
data as of February 2026
*As a % of all Next Year's uses of funding
dollars in millions
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 19 of 27
20
Budget
Strategy –
Reductions
• A total of $3.8M in ongoing
expenditures have been reduced from
the budget and forecast for fiscal years
2024/25 to 2026/27.
• A total of $1.7M in ongoing expense
reductions were submitted by the
departments
• $320K: Overtime and temporary staff due
to the slowing down of fiber to premise
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 20 of 27
21
• ≈$24M annually: Capacity fee
• Growth pays for growth
• Will be reviewed with the
Utility Master Plan
Budget
Strategy –
Resources
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 21 of 27
22
Budget
Strategy –
Enhancement
Requests
• Departments submitted and were
approved $2.1M in one-time and ongoing
requests to increase services/programs or
start new programs. Some of the requests
include:
• $252K: Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) and
Per- and Polyflouroakyl Substances (PFAS
aka forever chemicals) analytical services
• $242K: Bartlett Dam feasibility study and
Salt River/Central Arizona Project (CAP)
Interconnect Facility (SCIF) technical
review
• $1.2M: 3rd shift at East Mesa Service
Center (10 FTEs) for Fleet Services
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 22 of 27
23
Utility Fund Proposed Budget –
Fiscal Year 2026/27
Actuals
Projected
Budget
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
FY 24/25
FY 25/26
FY 26/27
FY 27/28
FY 28/29
FY 29/30
FY 30/31
Beginning Reserve Balance
$117.0
$119.4
$96.6
$85.0
$84.1
$100.3
$125.5
Total Sources
$510.8
$526.8
$569.5
$616.1
$662.9
$715.8
$771.5
Total Uses
$508.4
$549.6
$581.1
$617.0
$646.7
$690.6
$734.1
Net Sources and Uses
$2.4
($22.8)
($11.6)
($0.9)
$16.2
$25.2
$37.4
Ending Reserve Balance
$119.4
$96.6
$85.0
$84.1
$100.3
$125.5
$162.9
Ending Reserve Balance Percent*
21.7%
16.6%
13.8%
13.0%
14.5%
17.1%
20.9%
data as of March 2026
*As a % of all Next Year's uses of funding
dollars in millions
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 23 of 27
24
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 24 of 27
25
Utility Fund Transfer to General Fund
Current Forecast
Dollars in millions
Utility Transfer to General Fund
138.1
$
145.2
$
157.9
$
170.4
$
183.6
$
198.2
$
214.3
$
General Governmental Funds
FY 24/25
FY 25/26
FY 26/27
FY 27/28
FY 28/29
FY 29/30
FY 30/31
Beginning Balance
247.5
$
264.3
$
235.3
$
204.2
$
167.7
$
145.5
$
147.2
$
Sources
733.6
$
703.4
$
701.7
$
716.6
$
748.3
$
779.2
$
815.9
$
Uses
716.8
$
732.4
$
732.7
$
753.1
$
770.5
$
777.4
$
802.2
$
Net Sources & Uses
16.8
$
(29.0)
$
(31.1)
$
(36.5)
$
(22.2)
$
1.8
$
13.7
$
End Balance
264.3
$
235.3
$
204.2
$
167.7
$
145.5
$
147.2
$
160.9
$
Reserve Balance Percentage
36.1%
32.1%
27.1%
21.8%
18.7%
18.4%
19.3%
Utility Fund
FY 24/25
FY 25/26
FY 26/27
FY 27/28
FY 28/29
FY 29/30
FY 30/31
Beginning Balance
117.0
$
119.4
$
96.6
$
85.0
$
84.1
$
100.3
$
125.5
$
Sources
510.8
$
526.8
$
569.5
$
616.1
$
662.9
$
715.8
$
771.5
$
Uses
508.4
$
549.6
$
581.1
$
617.0
$
646.7
$
690.6
$
734.1
$
Net Sources & Uses
2.4
$
(22.8)
$
(11.6)
$
(0.9)
$
16.2
$
25.2
$
37.4
$
End Balance
119.4
$
96.6
$
85.0
$
84.1
$
100.3
$
125.5
$
162.9
$
Reserve Balance Percentage
21.7%
16.6%
13.8%
13.0%
14.5%
17.1%
20.9%
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 25 of 27
26
Utility Fund Transfer to General Fund
Hold Forecasted Transfer Amounts Equal to FY 24/25 Transfer Amount
Dollars in millions
Utility Transfer to General Fund
138.1
$
138.1
$
138.1
$
138.1
$
138.1
$
138.1
$
138.1
$
General Governmental Funds
FY 24/25
FY 25/26
FY 26/27
FY 27/28
FY 28/29
FY 29/30
FY 30/31
Beginning Balance
247.5
$
264.3
$
228.2
$
177.3
$
108.6
$
40.9
$
(17.4)
$
Sources
733.6
$
696.3
$
681.9
$
684.4
$
702.8
$
719.2
$
739.8
$
Uses
716.8
$
732.4
$
732.7
$
753.1
$
770.5
$
777.4
$
802.2
$
Net Sources & Uses
16.8
$
(36.1)
$
(50.8)
$
(68.8)
$
(67.7)
$
(58.3)
$
(62.4)
$
End Balance
264.3
$
228.2
$
177.3
$
108.6
$
40.9
$
(17.4)
$
(79.8)
$
Reserve Balance Percentage
36.1%
31.1%
23.5%
14.1%
5.3%
-2.2%
-9.6%
Utility Fund
FY 24/25
FY 25/26
FY 26/27
FY 27/28
FY 28/29
FY 29/30
FY 30/31
Beginning Balance
117.0
$
119.4
$
103.7
$
111.9
$
143.2
$
204.9
$
290.1
$
Sources
510.8
$
526.8
$
569.5
$
616.1
$
662.9
$
715.8
$
771.5
$
Uses
508.4
$
542.5
$
561.3
$
584.7
$
601.3
$
630.6
$
658.0
$
Net Sources & Uses
2.4
$
(15.7)
$
8.2
$
31.3
$
61.7
$
85.2
$
113.5
$
End Balance
119.4
$
103.7
$
111.9
$
143.2
$
204.9
$
290.1
$
403.6
$
Reserve Balance Percentage
22.0%
18.5%
19.1%
23.8%
32.5%
44.1%
58.7%
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 26 of 27
27
General Governmental Funds
Large One-Time Items in Forecast
FY 26/27
FY 27/28
FY 28/29
FY 29/30
FY 30/31
PD Radio Replacements
$8.2M
ERP Insights Financial Reporting
$3.5M
City Parking Garage Structural Repairs
$2.8M
Fire & Medical Radio Replacements
$1.7M
$1.7M
$3.0M
27th Pay Period
$15.6M
PD Evidence Freezer Replacement
$1.0M
Fire & Medical Cardiac Monitors
$5.1M
PD Handgun Replacements
$1.3M
Southeast Aquatic Facility – FF&E
$1.2M
Public Safety Radio Coverage Improvements
$1.8M
$1.6M
Red Mountain Aquatic Facility – FF&E
$1.2M
Large One-Time Items Total
$16.2M
$18.3M
$10.6M
$1.8M
$2.8M
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 27 of 27
Parks, Recreation and Community Facilities
(PRCF)
April 2, 2026
Study Session
Andrea Alicoate, Interim PRCF Director
Fiscal Year 2026/27
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 5
Page 1 of 12
PERFORMANCEPLUS
E N V I S I O N . E L E V A T E . I M P A C T .
The Parks, Recreation and Community Facilities Department exists to
care for, operate, and activate vibrant public spaces and resources through
fostering safe and welcoming environments, impactful events, and dynamic
experiences, upholding Mesa's commitment to cultivating a
thriving community.
OUTCOMES-Base of KPIs
HOW WE ALIGN TO THE
PRIORITIES
WHY WE EXIST
Public Purpose
P A R K S , R E C R E A T I O N A N D C O M M U N I T Y F A C I L I T I E S
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 5
Page 2 of 12
Accomplishments:
• 2025 3-Star StarGuard Elite Award - Recognizes excellence
and leadership in aquatic safety
• 2025 Jessica Curtis Water Advocacy Award from the
Drowning Prevention Coalition of Arizona- Honoring impactful
contributions to drowning prevention
• 2025 Arizona Parks & Recreation Association Outstanding
Special Events Award- Merry Main Street (Population 100k+)
Other Department Highlights:
• Certified Autism Center Renewal- 80%+ of community-facing
staff trained, strengthening accessibility and inclusion
• Community-Driven Capital Projects- New amenities in
development, including BMX Bike Park and RC Car Track
• Mobile Recreation Expansion- Launch of M.O.R.E. (Mobile
Outdoor Recreation Experience) to increase community access
• Continues to operate a large and complex system, including
200+ parks and 2,000+ acres of parkland
Current Accomplishments & Highlights
3
3
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 5
Page 3 of 12
Fostering Outcomes:
• Safe & Welcoming Environments
• Impactful Events
• Dynamic Experiences
Our Commitment:
• Maintain safe places and spaces for
residents to gather.
• Maintain fiscal transparency and
responsibility.
• Provide high quality programs for those
who work, play, and spend time in Mesa.
Outcome Areas
4
4
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 5
Page 4 of 12
PRCF Cost Recovery & Subsidy Plan
5
5
Service
Level
Description
City
Funded
Cost
Recovery
Goal*
Examples
Comments
1
Base Level of Service,
Open Public Access,
Community-Wide Events
100%
0%
Parks, Playgrounds, Trails,
Open Space, Volunteer Service,
Events, Accessibility
Core services that provide for a
healthy and vibrant community,
unrestricted and equal access,
services mandated by law
2
Drop-in Access
Level of Service
70-80%
20-30%
Recreation Centers, Aquatic
Centers, Ramadas
Drop-in Gym, Public Swim, Court
or Ramada Rental
3
Recreation
Focused/ Educational
(Beginner/Intermediate)
50-70%
30-50%
Youth Sports, Adaptive & Pre-K,
After-School & Camps,
Swim Lessons
Recreation programs that are
market based / benefit-based
pricing
4
Skill Focused
Advanced/Competitive,
Private Rentals
0-50%
50-100%
Adult Sports, Special Interest,
Competitive Programs
Direct Costs Covered 100%
(staff & supplies)
5
Individual Benefit
0%
100+%
Trips & Excursions, Retail,
Rentals, Commercial Operations
Direct and Indirect Cost Covered
(facility & equipment)
*Cost recovery calculations based on program staffing and supply costs and not maintenance and utilities for the facility
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 5
Page 5 of 12
PRCF Attendance and Rentals
6
6
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2022
2023
2024
2025
Attendance and Rentals by Calendar Year
(Excluding Pools)
Attendance
Rentals
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 5
Page 6 of 12
Program Participants
7
7
2,531
2,881
3,369 3,497
2,161
2,668
3,063
3,501
3,450
3,666
4,077
4,432
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
2022
2023
2024
2025
2022
2023
2024
2025
2022
2023
2024
2025
Adaptive
Youth Programs
Tri-Centers
(Webster, Eagles, Jefferson)
Program Participants by Calendar Year
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 5
Page 7 of 12
Citywide Direct Cost Recovery for PRCF Facilities
8
8
*Percentages for FY25
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 5
Page 8 of 12
Department Financial Summary
9
Figures in millions,
rounded
9
Core Service Level
FY 24/25
Year End
Actuals
FY 25/26
Revised
Budget
FY 25/26
Year End
Estimate
FY 26/27
Proposed
Budget
Expenditures
Commercial
$8.6
$8.9
$8.9
$9.1
Recreation
$14.5
$16.6
$17.0
$15.3
Resource Management
$30.9
$30.9
$30.4
$30.7
Expenditures Total
$54.0
$56.4
$56.3
$55.1
Revenues
Commercial
$8.3
$9.2
$8.5
$9.2
Recreation
$6.2
$6.1
$6.1
$6.6
Resource Management
$1.9
$2.4
$2.4
$2.1
Revenues Total
$16.4
$17.7
$17.0
$17.9
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 5
Page 9 of 12
Position Reductions
• 3 Vacant Full Time Positions- $301,056:
• Recreation Specialist
• Recreation Programmer
• Trades Worker I
• Part Time Non-Benefited (PTNB) Hours- $374,760:
• 7.24 FTE Equivalent
• Closing Fremont Aquatic Complex- $180,218:
• 3.5 FTE Equivalent
• Neighboring Aquatic Complexes have the Capacity
to Absorb the Swimmers and Programs
Base Budget Reduction(s)
10
10
FY 26/27 Budget Reduction
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 5
Page 10 of 12
Base Budget Reduction(s)
11
11
FY 26/27 Budget Reduction
Program Reductions
• Operations & Maintenance Budget- $50,203:
• Adaptive Program Savings- ‘Off Broadway’ Moved to Mesa
Public Schools(MPS)
• Reduce Excursions from Summer Camps
• Overhead at The Post & Mesa Tennis and Pickleball
Center
• Eliminate Spring Celebrate Mesa- $36,000:
• Cost is Direct Savings- Additional Indirect Savings to
Reallocate Staff Time and Dept. Resources
• Commitment to Annual Fall Celebrate Mesa
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 5
Page 11 of 12
FY 26/27 Budget Reduction Summary
Reduction
FTE
Reduction
Amount
Fund
Remove Vacant Positions
-3
-$301,056
General
Close Fremont Pool
-3.50
-$180,218
General
Part-time non-benefited staffing hours
-7.24
-$374,760
General
Reduce Operations and Maintenance
0
-$50,203
General
Eliminate Spring Celebrate Mesa
0
-$36,000
General
Total
-13.74
-$942,237
12
12
Study Session
April 2, 2026
Attachment 5
Page 12 of 12