Attachment B - Fiscal Capacity Committee Meeting Minutes and Presentations.pdf

City of Phoenix — City Council Policy Session (2026-10-13)

Extracted text (via pymupdf_layout) 71509 characters

ATTACHMENT B
City of Phoenix
Fiscal Capacity Committee
Summary Minutes
Tuesday, August 11, 2026
12 Central Conference Room
Phoenix City Hall, 12th Floor
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Committee Members Present Committee Members Absent
Ron Butler, Chair Steve Zabilski
Joseph Palomino
Toni Maccarone
Tanya Amezquita
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Ron Butler called the Fiscal Capacity Committee to order at 9:09 a.m. with
committee members Ron Butler, Joseph Palomino, Toni Maccarone, and Tanya
Amezquita present. Chair Butler shared his experience serving on previous Fiscal
Capacity and General Obligation Bond committees.
2. OPEN MEETING LAW
Council Support Supervisor Davvid Welch explained the Arizona Open Meeting Law
(OML) and discussed its application to all public bodies and all public meetings,
including the Fiscal Capacity Committee. He shared various examples of allowable
and prohibited actions to ensure the members understood OML’s applicability to the
Committee.
3. ETHICS
Assistant City Attorney Samuel Arrowsmith explained the City’s Ethics, Gifts, and
Conflicts of Interest policies which apply to all members of the Fiscal Capacity
Committee. He reviewed the language of the policies and provided examples of
allowable and prohibited actions to ensure the members understood the City’s
various ethics policies.
4. INTRODUCTION OF MEMBERS AND CHARGE OF COMMITTEE
Committee members introduced themselves and briefly shared their backgrounds.
Chair Butler discussed the charge of the Fiscal Capacity Committee as an advisory
body meant to evaluate how much debt the City can responsibly incur for major
initiatives like the General Obligation bond program, without raising the secondary
property tax rate.

5. GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PROGRAM BACKGROUND
Budget and Research Director Aaron Mertz provided additional history about the
City’s previous General Obligation bond programs in 2001, 2006, and 2023. He
explained that the large gap between the 2006 and 2023 bond programs was due to
the severe impacts of the Great Recession on property values.
Mr. Mertz shared that the Mayor and Council affirmed their desire for a regular
cadence of GO Bond programs approximately every five years. He noted that this
desire would need to be balanced by the Committee with various constraints
including debt capacity, project delivery capacity, bond ratings, and operations and
maintenance costs. He also reviewed the planned timeline for the 2028 GO Bond
Program.
6. PROPERTY TAX OVERVIEW AND VALUATION FORECAST
Deputy Budget and Research Director Chris Fazio explained that General Obligation
debt is backed by secondary property tax revenue and provided an overview of the
property tax system in Arizona. He shared a sample property tax bill from a median
single family residential property in Phoenix and provided a comparison of tax rates
and tax bills to other peer cities.
Chair Butler noted the importance of evaluating the City’s assumptions in the
forecasts and information being provided to the Committee.
Mr. Fazio shared three different scenarios for the Property Tax Assessed Valuation
Forecast: Baseline, Informational Pamphlet, and Stress. He explained the key
assumptions being made and shared the results of each scenario.
Ms. Amezquita asked if the appreciation percentages being used in the models
netted out personal property depreciation. Mr. Fazio confirmed that this was correct.
7. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Chair Butler asked if any committee members had requests for future agenda items.
No additional agenda items were requested.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Butler adjourned the meeting at 10:09am.
A recording of this meeting has been posted to the following URL:
https://youtu.be/dUPD12y3N3Q

THE ARIZONA
OPEN MEETING LAW (OML)
City of Phoenix
Arizona Open Meeting Law
The business of the public should be conducted in public
Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S)
• A.R.S. § 38-431 through 38-431.09
Purpose
• Open deliberations & proceedings
• Decisions made in public
• Public access to governmental process
2

Applicability
Applies to All Public Bodies
• All multimember governing boards of all political
subdivisions
• All committees & advisory bodies appointed by those
bodies
– City Council & Subcommittees
– City Boards, Commissions, Committees
– Advisory Committees and Subcommittees
A.R.S. § 38-431(6) 3
Applicability
Applies to All “Meetings”
• A gathering, in person or through technological
devices, of a quorum of members of a public body at
which they discuss, propose or take legal action,
including any deliberations by a quorum with respect
to that action
Quorum
• Majority of appointed members OR
• As specified by the ordinance, charter, bylaws
Note: Executive Sessions for specific
purposes are not “open”
A.R.S. § § 38-431(3), 38-431(4) 4

“Meeting”
Electronic Communications
1. An exchange of electronic communication among a
quorum is a meeting if:
• exchange involves discussion, deliberation, or
taking action by the body concerning a matter
likely to come before the body
• includes an exchange between two members if a
quorum is copied, even if no other members
respond
2. A one-way electronic communication is a meeting if:
• sent by one member to quorum of public body
• and communication proposes legal action
A.R.S. § 38-431(4)(b) 5
“Legal Action”
• Includes discussions, deliberations,
consultations among a majority of the members
of the public body on matters that may require
final action or decision
A.R.S. § 38-431(3) 6

What Must a Public Body Do?
• Provide notice
• Have an agenda
• Meet in public
• Permit public to attend
(Exception: authorized executive sessions)
• Take all action in public
• Create/prepare meeting minutes or a recording
7
Meeting Notices & Agendas
Posting
• Must be posted at least 24 hours in advance of meeting time
• On official posting board (legal) (City Hall on 3rd Ave)
• Also required to post on website
• If notice not posted – meeting cannot be held
Notice
• Name of body, date, time, place
• Include specific agenda items to
be discussed, considered, or
decided, or where to get copy of
agenda
• Reasonable description to inform
public of what will be discussed
A.R.S. § 38-431.02 8

Communication & Discussion
Discussion at the Meeting
• Allowed
– Discussion of an item listed on the agenda
– Action on an item that was listed for action on the
posted agenda
• Prohibited
– Discussion or action on matters not listed on the
agenda
– Discussion or action without a quorum present
• Cannot conduct a meeting without a quorum
• Note: Quorum can be lost during meeting
9
Public Comments
Agenda Items
• OML does not give the public the right to speak on
agenda items – but public may expect it
Non-Agenda Items – “Call to the Public”
• The public may comment on non-agenda items
• The Body cannot discuss or respond, but can:
– Have speaker fill out a card
– Impose time restrictions
– Ask staff to follow up or place on future agenda
– Respond to personal attacks
• Public comment is allowed at Phoenix City Council
meetings – therefore public may expect at other meetings
10

Communication & Discussion
Communication Outside the Meeting
• OML intended to make discussions among members on
board business occur in public meetings, not privately
• Allowed:
– Communication with staff for clarification or
information about an agenda item (other members
should not be included)
• Prohibited:
– Communication among members of the Body on
current or potential action items
– Requesting staff to poll other members for opinions
– Separate or serial discussions with a majority of the
members of the body on a potential action item
11
Protocol for Board Members to Relay
& Transmit Information
• A member who wishes to share information with others
should send it to the board liaison
– The information must not be a member’s position on a
matter or a proposal for action
• The liaison will distribute information to other board
members as appropriate
• Conflict of Interests (actual or potential) must be disclosed
to board liaisons and forms submitted
– They must be declared at the meeting
– A member with a conflict may not discuss or vote on
the item
– A member with a conflict is not counted towards
quorum on that item
12

Record of Meetings
• A statement describing legal actions, minutes or a recording
must be posted to Web and available to the public within 3
working days after the meeting
• Minutes are required of every meeting even if only discussion
occurred on items with no action taken
– If quorum lost then minutes must reflect up to that point
• All public meetings require minutes that include:
– date, time, place, members present and absent
– a general description of matters considered
– names of persons making statements
– description of legal actions taken (including motions and
votes,) as well as a presentation/discussion only
– conflict of interest if declared
• Approved minutes must be posted to Web within 2 working
days after approval 13
A.R.S. § 38-431.01(B)
Violations of Open Meeting Law
• Individual members who knowingly violate and any
persons who aid, attempt, or agree to aid
• Penalties may include:
– Rescind actions taken at the meeting
– Civil penalty up to $2,500 (3rd offense)
– Attorney fees
– Removal from office
• Monetary penalties cannot be paid by the City
A.R.S. § 38-431.07(A) 14

Attending Other Meetings
• Official vs. Individual Capacity
– Official Duties
– Personal Opinions
• Things to remember when
acting in individual capacity
– Usually best not to identify as
board member
– Not speaking on behalf of board
– Vital to note when your position is
in conflict with board decision
15
Resources
• Arizona Revised Statutes – Title 38
• Arizona Open Meeting Law Handbook
• City of Phoenix Public Meeting Notices
16

For questions or to post meeting
Notices, Agendas, Results or Minutes,
email: OML@phoenix.gov
Questions?

City of Phoenix
Ethics, Gifts & Conflicts of Interest
A Presentation to the City’s Boards and Commissions
City of Phoenix Law Department
August 2026
1
Overview
This presentation covers:
City’s Ethics Policy (P.C.C. Section 2-52)
Ethics Policy and Principles
City’s Gift Policy (P.C.C. Section 2-52)
Examples of Gifts
Conflicts of Interest
Conflicts of Interest Examples
Reporting Concerns
Questions
2 2

City’s Ethics and Gift Policies Background
In February 2017, the Phoenix City Council clarified the City’s ethics
policy and adopted a new gift policy
Clarified Ethics Policy Applies to All
Adopted Single Gift Policy
Prohibits gifts that create the appearance of undue influence or a
conflict of interest
Waiver for “special occasions” (as defined by the Code)
3 3
City’s Ethics and Gift Policies Background
Created City of Phoenix Ethics Commission
Investigates alleged ethics violations by elected officials and board
members
Make recommendations to Council for action, if warranted
Effective Date
January 1, 2018 (elected officials and board members)
4 4

City’s Ethics Policy
Phoenix City Code § 2-52(B): Ethics Policy
“It is the policy of the City of Phoenix to uphold, promote and
demand the highest standards of ethics from all of its elected
officials, employees, board members, and volunteers.
Accordingly, all City elected officials, employees, board
members, and volunteers must maintain the utmost standards
of personal integrity, truthfulness, honesty, and fairness in
carrying out their public duties, avoid any improprieties in their
roles as public servants, and never use the City position or
power for improper personal gain”
5 5
Ethics Policy and Principles
To uphold the public’s trust and promote transparency in City
government, a committee member should:
• conduct all aspects of City business in an honest, professional, and
legal manner;
• avoid situations that create an actual or perceived conflict between
the board member’s personal interest and those of the City; and
• ask for help 3-5 business days before action is required if a
committee member is uncertain if an action or circumstance violates
City policies
6 6

City’s Gift Policy
What is a “gift”?
• Phoenix City Code § 2-52(A)(7): a gift is direct or indirect
compensation, other than as provided by law, for services, duties, or
responsibilities rendered or to be rendered by a person in their
capacity as an elected official, employee, board member, or
volunteer
• A tangible thing of value given to a board member in the course and
scope of one’s duties as a board member
7 7
City’s Gift Policy
Prohibited Gifts. A gift in any amount received or accepted by a
board or committee member is prohibited if the gift creates the
appearance of undue influence or if the gift creates a conflict of
interest
Permissible Gifts. A gift is permissible if the gift is not otherwise
prohibited by law
Disclosure Not Required. Board or Committee members are not
required to disclose a permissible gift
8 8

City’s Gift Policy
“Gift” does not mean:
– Political campaign contributions permitted by law;
– Compensation received from the person’s relative or partner;
– A personalized plaque or similar personalized award received for
the person’s service to the City;
– Admission, food, beverages, transportation, or accommodations
received in one’s capacity as a City representative and related to
City business; or
– Admission, food, or beverages received to attend a “community
event” (as defined by the Code)
9 9
City’s Gift Policy
Special Occasion Waiver (Phoenix City Code § 2-52(C)(5) )“Special
Occasion” means an engagement, wedding, or birth or adoption of a
child that involves a board or commission member, a board/commission
member’s relative, partner, or relative of a partner; or the death of a
relative, partner, or relative of a partner
– “Relative” means spouse, child, grandchild, parent, brother, sister,
and their spouse, and the child of a spouse
– “Partner” means a person in a domestic partnership as defined in
P.C.C. §18-401
10 10

City’s Gift Policy
• Before accepting a special occasion gift, a board or committee
member may request a waiver from the Ethics Commission to accept
a gift that may otherwise violate the gift or ethics policies
• A board or committee member is not required to obtain a waiver to
accept normal and customary gifts such as flowers, food, or
donations to charitable organizations made by others to recognize a
special occasion
11 11
Examples of Gifts
Tickets or Admission to Entertainment, Cultural, or Sports/Athletic
Events
• May accept as a representative of the City if attendance is within the
course and scope of one’s City duties
• May accept if the tickets have no monetary value or were made available to
a large group of City representatives (not exclusively members of the board
or commission)
• Otherwise may not accept, even if: (1) purchase the tickets from the donor;
(2) reimburse the donor; or (3) make a charitable donation for value of the
tickets
12 12

Examples of Gifts
Refreshments
• Committee members may accept food or refreshments that are
generally available to meeting attendees during meetings where a
board member properly serves as a City representative
Business Meals and Expenses
• Board or Commission members may participate in periodic or rotating
business functions hosted by other agencies at which a meal is served
and the meal is generally available to all attendees
• Board or Commission members should not accept a “one-on-one”
meal from a person who has or soon will have business or action
before the Board or Commission, regardless of the cost, when the
occasion is related to City business or action
13 13
Examples of Gifts
Meals and Refreshments (cont.)
• Board or Commission members may not accept meals, refreshments, or event
attendance from a vendor that contracts with the City or is looking to contract with the
City if the committee member is involved in the procurement, administration, or
management of the contract, vendor, or related goods and services
Board or Commission Member Participation in Conferences, Events, or Activities
• Board or Commission members may accept travel, conferences, or training related to
City business at a reduced cost or at no-cost to the member only if the Board or
Commission member’s sponsor does not have or will not soon have any action
before the Board or Commission
• Board or Commission members may participate in all events associated with the
conference or training if all attendees have a similar opportunity to do so and it would
not create a conflict of interest
14 14

Examples of Gifts
Board or Commission Member Participation in Conferences,
Events, or Activities
• Board or Commission members should not accept payment or other
honoraria when they speak or give a presentation as a City
representative
• Incidental items, such as coffee mugs, t-shirts, or hats that are
available to all conference attendees, may be accepted
15 15
Conflicts of Interest
Conflicts of Interest The City has adopted Arizona’s conflict of interest
laws under Phoenix City Charter, Ch. XI, § 1. Board/Commission members
must be constantly on guard against conflicts of interest. In short,
Board/Commission members should not participate in any decision or
contract that may result in a direct or indirect monetary benefit to the
Board/Commission member or the member’s relative or partner
Declaring a Conflict of Interest If a Board/Commission member believes
the member has a conflict of interest (or even a possible conflict) on a
matter before the Board/Commission, the member should immediately
make the conflict known and work with the Board/Commission’s liaison and
their chairperson to file a conflict form with the City Clerk, declare the
conflict on the record at the committee meeting, and refrain from voting or
otherwise participating in the matter
16 16

Conflicts of Interest Examples
Worked Previously for Firm The committee member has done work in
the past and anticipates doing further work in the future for a firm that
seeks a City contract. A potential conflict exists regardless of whether the
work involves the matter that is the subject of the contract. Mere past
association does not constitute a conflict if the business relationship is not
a continuing one
Contract of Relative The relative of a committee member is in business
with a person or entity whose request is being considered by the
committee
17 17
Reporting Concerns
Report Improper Conduct to the Integrity Line
• Board/Commission members have a duty to prevent any improper acts
or failure to act in government
• Report suspected wrongdoing, illegal or unethical behavior call the
Integrity Line at (602) 261-8999 or 534-5500 (TTY)
• Unethical behavior includes, but is not limited to, contract fraud,
vendor kickbacks, loss or waste of City money or property, falsified
documents, or even incidents of danger to public health or safety
18 18

Questions ?
19 19

Fiscal Capacity Committee
August 11, 2026
Agenda Topics
Open Meeting Law Presentation
Ethics Presentation
Introductions & Charge of Committee
GO Bond Program Background
Property Tax Overview & Valuation Forecast
2

Planned 2028 Bond Program
August 2026 – Fiscal Capacity Committee
October 2026 – Committee Report to Council
November 2026 – Capital Needs Study Submittals
Spring 2027 – Appoint Bond Committee
Summer/Fall 2027 – Bond Committee Work
Winter 2027 – Bond Committee Recommendations
November 2028 - Election
3
Property Tax Overview
4

Property Tax Overview
Ad Valorem tax on real & personal property
Property valued by County Assessor & DOR
Primary & secondary rates established
Assessed and collected by County Treasurer
Distributed to taxing jurisdictions
5
Tax Levy Formula
Property Net Property
Tax = Assessed x Tax
Levy Value / 100 Rate
City assumes 1% of levy is uncollected
6

Net Assessed Valuation
For secondary, historically based on Full Cash Value
November 2012: Proposition 117
Now based on Limited Property Value
Change first reflected in 2015-16
7
NAV = LPV x Ratio
Limited Full Cash Prior Year
Property lesser (Market) Limited
Value of Value or Property + 5%
Value
Phoenix’s current FCV > LPV by 91%
Median single family FCV = $336,500
Median single family LPV = $167,964
8

NAV = LPV x Ratio
Assessment ratio established by State Statute
Residential: 10%
Commercial: 15.5% => 15.0%
Agricultural/Vacant: 15.0%
Baseline forecast assumes no legislative changes to these ratios
9
Ratio Change Impact
2026-27 2027-28 % ∆
Full Cash Value $500,000 $510,000 +2.0%
Limited Property Value $250,000 $262,500 +5.0%
Assessment Ratio 15.5% 15.0% -3.2%
Net Assessed Value $38,750 $39,375 +1.6%
Approximately 40% of property at 1.6% max LPV growth vs. 5.0%.
(40% * 1.6%) + (60% * 5.0%) = 3.6%, less offset for depreciation,
etc.
10

Levy = NAV x Rate
Established by taxing jurisdictions
Governed by legal limits
11
City of Phoenix Taxes
Primary Secondary
Rate Rate
$1.2652 $0.7745
$236 million $144 million
12

Primary Property Tax
General Fund source
Subject to Constitutional 2% Levy Limit
Current Rate: $1.2652
Current Constitutional Limit: $1.2652
Limit/rate will drop whenever property value appreciation > 2%
13
Secondary Property Tax
Debt service for general obligation bonds
Cannot exceed annual debt service
Allowance for reserve up to 10%
14

Sample Tax Bill
+5%
15
Sample Tax Bill
City Portion (this taxpayer):
($343)/($1,841) = 19%
City Portion (average for all taxpayers):
18% in 2025-26
16

2026-27 Tax Rates
Primary Secondary Combined
Tempe 0.8851 1.6775 2.5626
Phoenix 1.2652 0.7745 2.0397
Glendale 0.3096 1.0787 1.3883
Chandler 0.2118 0.8700 1.0818
Gilbert - 0.9800 0.9800
Scottsdale 0.4801 0.4267 0.9068
Mesa - 0.8500 0.8500
17
2026-27 Tax Bills
Median SFR
(City Share Only)
Tempe $572
Scottsdale $401
Phoenix $343
Average: $328
Chandler $292
Gilbert $284
Glendale $230
Mesa $175
18

Assessed Fiscal Capacity Valuation Committee Forecast
Assumptions: Baseline Model
Assessment ratios held constant after 2027-28
2.0% appreciation through 2027-28
3.0% appreciation thereafter
Annual new construction growth of 2.0%
19

Baseline NAV Model
40,000,000,000
35,000,000,000
30,000,000,000
25,000,000,000
20,000,000,000
15,000,000,000
10,000,000,000
5,000,000,000
-
NAV NAV per historical calculation
20
Forecast Accuracy
2026-27 2026-27
Projected Actual NAV
NAV in 2021 Feb. 2026
$18.28 $18.63
billion billion
(+1.9%)
21

Informational Pamphlet Model
Required by statute
Growth years 1-5 <= prior 10-year average (~5%)
Growth years 6+ <= 20% of prior 10-year average (~1%)
Must reflect long range assumptions that staff considers unlikely
22
Pamphlet NAV Model
40,000,000,000
35,000,000,000
30,000,000,000
25,000,000,000
20,000,000,000
15,000,000,000
10,000,000,000
5,000,000,000
-
NAV NAV per historical calculation
23

Stress Scenario
Legislature continues commercial ratio reductions down to 10%
Property values collapse in CY 2029: FCV intersects with LPV
New construction collapse in CY 2029-2031: reduced to 31% of 2028
Market does not rebound following crisis
Despite severity, FY 2060 NAV still 50% higher than pamphlet
24
Questions?
Fiscal Capacity Committee
August 11, 2026

Next Meeting: August 18, 9:00
Summary of Outstanding GO Debt Service
2023 GO Bond Program Status
2028 GO Bond Program Constraints/
Considerations
2028 GO Bond Program Scenarios
26

City of Phoenix
Fiscal Capacity Committee
Summary Minutes Tuesday,
August 18, 2026
12 Central Conference Room
Phoenix City Hall, 12th Floor
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Committee Members Present Committee Members Absent
Ron Butler, Chair
Joseph Palomino
Toni Maccarone
Tanya Amezquita
Steve Zabilski
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Ron Butler called the Fiscal Capacity Committee to order at 9:05 a.m. with
committee members Joseph Palomino, Toni Maccarone, Tanya Amezquita, and
Steve Zabilski present.
2. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF AUGUST 11, 2026, MEETING MINUTES
Ms. Maccarone made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 11, 2026,
meeting. Ms. Amezquita seconded the motion, which passed unanimously, 5-0.
3. FISCAL CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Chief Financial Officer Kathryn Gregory shared background information about the
City’s previous General Obligation (GO) bond programs and the City’s current GO
bond ratings.
Chair Butler emphasized the importance of having high credit ratings for the City to
be able to raise capital from financial markets.
Ms. Gregory reviewed the 2023 GO bond program including project highlights as
well as current and forecasted debt service and program expenditure amounts.
Chair Butler noted 2023 GO bond expenditures would overlap with the timeline of
the proposed 2028 GO bond program and that could impact voter sentiment.
Ms. Gregory explained that there were lessons learned from the 2023 GO bond
program regarding the timing and amount of the bond issuances that would be
implemented moving forward.

Ms. Amezquita asked if there was any concern about overlapping between
implementation of the 2023 GO bond program and the approval process for the
2028 GO bond program.
Ms. Gregory noted that all the debt associated with the 2023 GO bond program will
be issued before the 2028 GO bond program begins but acknowledged that
messaging would be key to helping voters understand why there is overlap.
Various members shared ideas about how messaging about the overlap could be
communicated to voters.
Ms. Amezquita asked if capital projects that are outside of the GO bond program
could be swapped in to help accelerate completion of the 2023 GO bond program.
Ms. Gregory shared the possibility of exchanging “like for like” projects but cautioned
that there were numerous requirements that would need to be fulfilled for a swap to
occur.
Chair Butler noted that each of the propositions had detailed project lists that were
very specific and that it would be difficult to find a “like for like” project to swap.
Budget and Research Director Aaron Mertz discussed the approval process for the
original project list and noted that Council approval would be needed for any
modifications.
Ms. Gregory explained the various capacity factors to be considered when sizing a
GO bond program, including financial, strategic, legal, economic, and external
factors.
Ms. Gregory discussed the modeling framework and assumptions used to analyze
and prepare the available options for the 2028 GO bond program.
Ms. Amezquita asked if 6% interest rates were being assumed for the planned GO
bond programs in 2028, 2033, and 2038.
Ms. Gregory confirmed this was correct and noted it was a conservative estimate.
Chair Butler asked what the actual interest rate was for the first tranche of the 2023
GO bond program.
Deputy Finance Director Jami Schmalz stated that the actual interest rate was in the
high 3% range.

Ms. Gregory shared the “Base” option consisting of a $500 million bond program in
2028, a $500 million bond program in 2033, and a $500 million bond program in
2038. She explained that this option would have a maximum annual debt service of
approximately $133 million and shared a forecast of secondary property tax rates
and debt service based on this option.
Chair Butler asked if the planned defeasance of GO debt in 2033 and 2034 was
possible due to secondary property tax collections exceeding previous forecasts.
Ms. Gregory confirmed that this was correct.
Ms. Gregory shared the “Inflation” option consisting of a $550 million bond program
in 2028, a $600 million bond program in 2033, and a $650 million bond program in
2038. She explained that this option would have a maximum annual debt service of
approximately $145 million and shared a forecast of secondary property tax rates
and debt service based on this option.
Ms. Gregory reviewed the outcome of both options when combined with the
Baseline, Information Pamphlet, and Stress scenarios from the Property Tax
Assessed Valuation Forecast. She confirmed that neither option would result in an
increase in the secondary property tax rate under any of the scenarios.
Chair Butler asked whether the amounts from the “Inflation” option were tied to any
specific calculations.
Ms. Schmalz stated that the amounts were not tied to the Consumer Price Index.
Chair Butler requested an agenda item for the next meeting to address how the
amounts were calculated.
Ms. Amezquita concurred with the request and additionally asked for staff to share
the impact of inflation on the purchasing power of $500 million over time to
demonstrate the need for a larger bond program.
Ms. Gregory discussed various options that were available to the committee.
Ms. Maccarone asked about the factors that were considered by the previous
Fiscal Capacity Committee to arrive at the $500 million amount.
Chair Butler explained that the previous committee reviewed the analysis from staff
and had discussions around the timing and payoff of previous issuances, which
opened up significant capacity for new debt service.

ATTACHMENT B
Mr. Zabilski asked if there was an option in between the Baseline and Inflation
options.
Ms. Gregory confirmed that staff would be able to produce a new model and show it
to the committee at the next meeting.
Ms. Amezquita requested a model that was specifically based on actual inflation.
Ms. Gregory confirmed that an actual inflationary model and a model showing the
anticipated purchasing power of the Base option when factoring inflation would be
shown at the next meeting.
Chair Butler reminded the committee that the focus of the discussion should be on
the 2028 GO bond program and that the recommendations from this committee
would not bind future fiscal capacity committees.
Mr. Mertz reiterated that both options showed a declining secondary property tax
rate under each scenario.
Deputy City Manager Cynthia Aguilar discussed the importance of understanding the
impact of inflation on project costs.
4. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Chair Butler asked if any committee members had requests for future agenda items.
No additional agenda items were requested.
Mr. Mertz shared the planned agenda items for the August 25, 2026, meeting.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Butler adjourned the meeting at 10:03 am.
A recording of this meeting has been posted to the following URL:
https://youtu.be/qM6snE3htcI

Bond Program
Fiscal Capacity
Committee
August 18, 2026
0
Agenda
Summary of Outstanding GO Bond Debt Service
2023 GO Bond Program
Fiscal Capacity Considerations
Modeling and Assumptions
2028 GO Bond Program Scenarios
1

Background - GO Bond Program
The City has a long history of issuing GO bonds
• Phoenix voters have approved 13 bond programs
since 1957, totaling $5.1 billion
• 2023 GO Bond Program approved for $500M
• GO Bonds were issued in 2024 (1st Tranche); next
issuance planned for fall 2026 (2nd Tranche)
• GO Bonds are issued for major capital
infrastructure with specific legal restrictions and
financial considerations.
Current GO Bond Ratings
STARTING FROM A STRONG POSITION
• Fitch: AAA
• S&P: AA+
• Moody’s: Aa1
Strong Ratings = Lower borrowing costs for taxpayers.
Demonstrates the City’s credit quality and financial
management

GO Bond Debt Service
Annual GO Bond Debt Service (principal and interest) for
$562 Million Principal Amount of Currently Outstanding GO Bonds
$160
Millions
$140
$120 • FY2027 secondary Tax rate is $0.7745,
reduced from $0.8141 in FY2026.
$100 • Maximum annual debt service (MADS)
is ~$127 million
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0
Principal Interest
4
GO Bond Debt Service
Estimated Annual GO Bond Debt Service (principal and interest) for
$794 Million Principal Amount of Bonds Outstanding
$160
Tax collections / $0.7745 rate
Millions
$140
$120 • FY2027 secondary Tax rate is $0.7745,
reduced from $0.8141 in FY2026.
$100 • Maximum annual debt service (MADS)
is ~$133 million
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0
Principal Interest
5

2023 GO Bond Program Status
6
2023 GO Bond Program
$500M
Voter Approved Propositions:
1. $214M - Enhance Community Safety through Fire, Police,
Roadway and Pedestrian Infrastructure
2. $109M - Improve Quality of Life in Phoenix Neighborhoods
3. $114M - Create a Modern, Sustainable Phoenix to Live and
Work
4. $63M - Enhance, Preserve and Increase the Supply of
Affordable Housing and Senior Centers
7

Projects Underway
Rio Reimagined Land Acquisition - $23M
Community and Economic Development will begin
community engagement & concept plan development
for the site.
Fire Station 15 (45th Ave and Camelback) - $21M
Opening Fall 2026
Pavement Maintenance/Storm Drain - $81M
58 projects completed or underway, and many more to
come!
8
July-2026-GO-Bond-Status-Update.pdf
Projects Underway
Arizona State University Health Technology Center-
$11.9M
April 2026 Groundbreaking
Opening Fall 2028
Heat Resilience - $7.6M
Tree planting, shade structures, reflective surfaces and
green stormwater infrastructure at multiple sites
throughout the City.
Affordable Housing Property Preservation - $32.8M
Four Projects under construction – Eight more planned.
9

2023 GO Bond Program Spending
$500,000,000
$450,000,000
$400,000,000 85% Spend
1st Tranche
$350,000,000 (Est.)
85% Spend
$300,000,000 $108,784,898 2nd Tranche
$250,000,000 (43.6%) (Est.)
$200,000,000
$150,000,000
$100,000,000
$50,000,000
$-
Jan-24 Mar-24 May-24 Jul-24 Sep-24 Nov-24 Jan-25 Mar-25 May-25 Jul-25 Sep-25 Nov-25 Jan-26 Mar-26 May-26 Jul-26 Sep-26 Nov-26 Jan-27 Mar-27 May-27 Jul-27 Sep-27 Nov-27 Jan-28 Mar-28 May-28 Jul-28 Sep-28 Nov-28 Jan-29 Mar-29 May-29 Jul-29 Sep-29 Nov-29 Jan-30
Actual Spend through July 31, 2026 Projected Remaining Spend of 1st Tranche
Projected 2nd Tranche Spend 2nd 2023 Tranche Issuance
10
Fiscal Capacity Considerations
11

Capacity Considerations
Financial Strategic Legal Economic External
Infrastructure GO Reserve Growth Legislative
Bond Ratings Timing Requirements Assumptions Changes
Annual Debt 5-year Bond Market
Debt Limits Affordability
Service Cycle Conditions
Assessed
Operating Long Range IRS Tax- Secondary
Valuation
Affordability CIP Exempt Rules Tax Rate
Changes
12
Modeling Framework and Assumptions
13

GO Bond Capacity – Program Guardrails
Property Tax Affordability
• No increase to current total property tax rate of $2.0397
• No increase to secondary property tax rate of $0.7745
Debt Management
• Limit peak debt service to no more than $145M
• Maintain GO Reserve Fund requirement (≤ 10% ADS)
Program Timing
• 5-year cycles for GO Bonds, 2028, 2033 and 2038
• Two issuances per program
Debt Structure
• 20-year amortization for all issuances
• Targeted debt service to avoid a floating rate or over/under collection
Interest Rates
• Remaining 2023 Bond Issuance – 5%
• Future Issuances – 6% 14
Long-term GO Bond Modeling
$500 Million Bond Program Bond Program Bond Program
Bond Program to Voters to Voters to Voters
to Voters November 2028 November 2033 November 2038
November 2023
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
$250 Million Bond Sale Bond Sale Bond Sale
Bond Sale FY 2031 FY 2036 FY 2041
FY 2027
1 2 3 4
$250 Million Bond Sale Bond Sale Bond Sale
Bond Sale FY 2029 FY 2034 FY 2039
FY 2025
15

2028 GO Bond Program Options and
NAV Scenarios
16
GO Bond Debt Service
Estimated Annual GO Bond Debt Service (principal and interest) for
$794 Million Principal Amount of Bonds Outstanding
$160
Tax collections / $0.7745 rate
Millions $140
$120
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0
Principal Interest
17

2028 GO Bond Program Options
Option 1: Base Model
2028 2033 2038
$500M $500M $500M
18
Option 1: Baseline
$500M in 2028/ $500M in 2033/ $500M in 2038
Secondary
Fiscal Year
Rate
$0.7745 FY 2027
Objective:
No Increase to $0.6490 FY 2028
Secondary Tax Rate $0.6198 FY 2029
$0.5694 FY 2030
$0.5417 FY 2031
Max Annual Debt Service ~$133 million
Secondary Property Tax Rate
0.7745
0.6490 0.6198
0.5694 0.5417 0.5173 0.4951 0.4744 0.4505 0.4308 0.4119
FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037
Note: Tax rates are subject to change (plus or minus) based on actual Net Assessed Values (NAV).
There is no guarantee that NAV forecast will be achieved. 19

Forecasted GO Bond Debt Service
$500M / $500M / $500M Bond Program
$160
Tax collections / $0.7745 rate
Millions
$140
$120
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0
Principal Interest
20
2028 GO Bond Program Options
Option 1: Base Model
2028 2033 2038
$500M $500M $500M
Option 2: Inflation Model
2028 2033 2038
$550M $600M $650M
21

Option 2: Inflation
$550M in 2028/ $600M in 2033/ $650M in 2038
Secondary
Fiscal Year
Rate
Objectives:
No Increase to $0.7745 FY 2027
Secondary Tax Rate $0.7458 FY 2028
Annual Debt $0.7108 FY 2029
Service of $145M $0.6778 FY 2030
$0.6466 FY 2031
Max Annual Debt Service ~$145 million
Secondary Property Tax Rate
0.7745 0.7458
0.7108 0.6778 0.6466 0.6171
0.5893 0.5629 0.5380 0.5143 0.4919
FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037
Note: Tax rates are subject to change (plus or minus) based on actual Net Assessed Values (NAV).
There is no guarantee that NAV forecast will be achieved. 22
Forecasted GO Bond Debt Service
$550M / $600M / $650M Bond Program
$160
Tax collections / $0.7745 rate
Millions
$140
$120
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0
Principal Interest
23

2028 GO Bond Program Options
Option 1: Base Model
2028 2033 2038
$500M $500M $500M
Option 2: Inflation Model
2028 2033 2038
$550M $600M $650M
Each option was evaluated based on three NAV scenarios
1. Baseline Scenario
2. Legislative Requirement
3. Stress Scenario
24
Net Assessed Value Scenarios
25

NAV Growth
Baseline – Legislative - Stress Scenarios
Estimated NAV
(in millions)
Fiscal
NAV Growth Base Legislative Stress
Year
5.50% 2028 $19,374 $19,374 $19,374
5.00%
2029 20,328 20,328 20,135
4.50%
4.00% 2030 21,319 21,359 20,918
3.50% 2031 22,347 22,443 21,725
3.00%
2032 23,414 23,581 21,958
2.50%
2.00% 2033 24,521 24,777 22,121
1.50%
2034 25,669 26,034 22,244
1.00%
2035 26,859 26,298 22,811
0.50%
2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2036 28,094 26,564 23,390
Baseline Scenario Legislative Requirement Stress Scenario 2052 55,230 31,220 39,273
26
Secondary Tax Rates – Option 1
Baseline – Legislative – Stress Scenarios
Secondary Property Tax Rate Secondary Property Tax Rates
$1.00
Fiscal Baseline Legislative Stress $500M / $500M / $500M
Year Scenario Requirement Scenario
2028 $0.6490 $0.6490 $0.6490 $0.80 $0.7745
Total
Current Rate
2029 0.6198 0.6198 0.6258
2030 0.5694 0.5683 0.5803 $0.60 Propert
2031 0.5417 0.5394 0.5572
y Tax
$0.40
2032 0.5173 0.5137 0.5516
2033 0.4951 0.4900 0.5488 Rates
$0.20
2034 0.4744 0.4678 0.5475
2035 0.4505 0.4601 0.5305
$0.00
2036 0.4308 0.4556 0.5174
Baseline Scenario Legislative Requirement
2052 0.1737 0.3073 0.2443
Stress Scenario FY 2027 Rate
27

Next Meeting – August 25, 9:00am
2023 GO Bond Program Update
• Project Delivery Discussion
• Lessons Learned
Operating Costs Capacity
• General Fund 5-year forecast
• City Priorities
30

ATTACHMENT B
City of Phoenix
Fiscal Capacity Committee
Summary Minutes
Tuesday, August 25, 2026
12 Central Conference Room
Phoenix City Hall, 12th Floor
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Committee Members Present Committee Members Absent
Ron Butler, Chair
Toni Maccarone
Tanya Amezquita
Steve Zabilski
Joseph Palomino
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Ron Butler called the Fiscal Capacity Committee to order at 9:04 a.m. with
committee members Toni Maccarone, Tanya Amezquita, and Steve Zabilski present.
2. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF AUGUST 18, 2026, MEETING MINUTES
Ms. Maccarone made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 18, 2026,
meeting. Ms. Amezquita seconded the motion, which passed unanimously, 4-0.
Committee member Joseph Palomino arrived at 9:07 a.m.
3. FISCAL CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Chief Financial Officer Kathryn Gregory shared the applicable state constitutional
debt limits for general obligation bonded debt. She showed the calculations used to
determine the City’s available borrowing capacity and demonstrated there was
significant capacity for the proposed 2028 GO bond program.
Ms. Gregory reviewed the impact of inflation on the purchasing power of $500 million
from the 2023 GO bond program. She explained that it would take approximately
$559 million in 2028 to have the same purchasing power as $500 million in 2023.
Ms. Gregory shared “Option 1” consisting of a $500 million bond program in 2028, a
$500 million bond program in 2033, and a $500 million bond program in 2038.
Ms. Gregory shared “Option 2” consisting of a $550 million bond program in 2028, a
$600 million bond program in 2033, and a $650 million bond program in 2038.

Ms. Gregory shared “Option 3” consisting of a $575 million bond program in 2028, a
$625 million bond program in 2033, and a $675 million bond program in 2038.
Ms. Gregory presented forecasts for the secondary property tax rate and debt
service for all three options. She noted that the declining secondary property tax rate
in each option provides the City with flexibility should assumptions regarding Net
Assessed Value or other factors prove to be inaccurate.
Ms. Gregory reviewed the outcome of all three options when combined with the
Baseline, Information Pamphlet, and Stress scenarios from the Property Tax
Assessed Valuation Forecast. She confirmed that none of the options would result in
an increase in the secondary property tax rate under any of the scenarios.
Committee members discussed the options and agreed to remove Option 1 from
further consideration.
Chair Butler reiterated that the role of the committee is to make a recommendation
specifically on the proposed 2028 GO bond program amount.
4. PROJECT DELIVERY
City Engineer Eric Froberg reviewed the 2023 GO bond program from a project
delivery perspective. He identified the departments responsible for delivering the
2023 GO bond program and explained that because some departments have more
routine experience with CIP projects than others, additional support is being
provided to ensure project success.
Mr. Froberg provided examples of projects underway in the 2023 GO bond program
and explained why certain project types, such as land acquisitions, have shorter
timelines than constructing new facilities such as fire stations.
Mr. Froberg reviewed the forecasted expenditure timeline of the 2023 GO bond
program and noted that one of the lessons learned is to begin the procurement
process earlier so that projects can advance to construction at a faster pace.
Chair Butler asked what the interest rate was on the first $250 million tranche of the
2023 GO bond program.
Ms. Gregory stated that the interest rate on the first tranche was 3.8%.
Chair Butler asked what the expected interest rate would be on the second $250
million tranche of the 2023 GO bond program.

Deputy Finance Director Jami Schmalz stated that the expected interest rate on the
second tranche would be closer to 5%.
Mr. Froberg explained the stages of project execution and shared the typical timeline
and expected pace of expenditure for City construction projects.
Mr. Froberg shared specific project execution challenges associated with the 2023
GO bond program and highlighted additional resources that have been provided to
overcome those challenges.
Mr. Froberg reviewed the lessons learned from the 2023 GO bond program and
shared his confidence in the City’s ability to deliver on any of the options for the
2028 GO bond program.
Mr. Butler noted the importance of delivering on the 2023 GO bond program to
ensure support for the 2028 GO bond program.
Ms. Amezquita noted that the ramp-up in work and expenditures for the 2028 GO
bond program would be balanced by the ramp-down of the 2023 GO bond program.
Mr. Zabilski emphasized the importance of working with non-profit partners in
advance to ensure success for the 2028 GO bond program.
Ms. Maccarone acknowledged the long gap between previous GO bond programs
and expected the implementation of the 2028 GO bond program to be smoother due
to the lessons learned.
5. OPERATING COST CAPACITY
Budget and Research Director Aaron Mertz provided an overview of the multi-year
General Fund revenue and expenditure forecast. He explained the mechanics of the
forecast, including how a surplus or deficit is calculated and the implications for
program and service delivery.
Deputy Budget and Research Director Dan Wang presented the FY 2027-28
estimate for each category of General Fund revenue and explained the funding
sources and growth rates for each. She compared the forecasted growth rates with
historical trends and explained key factors that impacted prior year growth rates.
Chair Butler asked what factors were driving the forecasted growth rates in the outer
years of the forecast.

ATTACHMENT B
Ms. Wang explained that the projected growth rates in the outer years were based
on a combination of the University of Arizona’s econometric model results and
known changes to state-shared revenues.
Mr. Zabilski asked if the revenue estimate should be considered “conservative” given
the low growth estimate in FY 2027-28.
Ms. Wang noted that the estimate was moderately conservative and explained that
the FY 2027–28 forecast reflects Arizona’s state tax conformity with the Federal
“One Big Beautiful Bill,” which will begin impacting the City in two years due to the
lag in state-shared revenue distribution.
Chair Butler asked if the multi-year forecast typically includes carryover from year to
year.
Mr. Mertz confirmed that carryover is typical and additionally explained the City
Council has used set-asides in recent years to offset the impacts of state actions,
including the loss of residential rental tax and the impact of the flat state income tax.
Chair Butler asked if the City adopts a balanced budget every year.
Mr. Mertz confirmed this was correct.
Ms. Wang shared additional revenue forecast considerations, including negative
state shared revenue impacts from the incorporation of San Tan Valley.
Mr. Mertz presented the General Fund expenditure growth forecast and explained
the key factors that impacted prior year growth rates. He noted that the high levels of
expenditure growth in FY 2022-23 and FY 2023-24 reflected the implementation of
the citywide Classification and Compensation Study and new labor contracts with
the City’s bargaining units. He explained the growth in the FY 2026-27 budget was
due to a few significant one-time expenditures and the implementation of new labor
contracts.
Mr. Mertz shared historical and projected inflation rates based on the Consumer
Price Index and discussed the continued upward pressure on costs for the General
Fund.
Mr. Mertz shared and discussed historical and projected General Fund pension
costs for both the civilian City of Phoenix Employees’ Retirement System and the
sworn Public Safety Pension Retirement System.

Mr. Mertz presented the General Fund Multi-Year Forecast results and identified the
range of capacity in the General Fund to absorb ongoing operating costs from both
the 2023 GO bond program and the proposed 2028 GO bond program. He
discussed the need to balance new operating costs associated with the 2028 GO
bond program with competing priorities for new programs and services.
Chair Butler asked if ongoing operating costs from the 2023 GO bond program
would be $31 million when the program is complete.
Mr. Mertz confirmed this was correct.
Chair Butler asked if the 2028 GO bond program would have approximately the
same level of operating costs as the 2023 GO bond program.
Mr. Mertz noted that the specific project mix for the 2028 GO bond program would
determine the amount of ongoing operating costs.
Chair Butler asked if the forecast results indicated that the General Fund would be
able to absorb operating costs from the 2028 GO Bond program if it was in a similar
range to the 2023 GO bond program.
Mr. Mertz confirmed this was correct.
Ms. Amezquita asked if ongoing operating costs for the 2028 GO bond program
would begin to impact the General Fund in FY 2031-32.
Mr. Mertz confirmed this was correct and noted that when the 2028 GO bond
program is adopted the Multi-Year Forecast would begin to incorporate the
anticipated operating costs.
Ms. Amezquita asked if the City’s balanced budget policy would require
expenditures to be adjusted to accommodate the 2028 GO bond program if revenue
did not grow along with the growth in expenditures.
Mr. Mertz confirmed this was correct and provided an example of the options
available in the event of a recession that caused reduced revenue.
Mr. Zabilski asked if escalating health care costs were being factored in the Multi-
Year Forecast.
Mr. Mertz confirmed that the City has experienced significant growth in health care
costs and that they are factored in the Multi-Year Forecast.

Mr. Mertz shared examples of ongoing operating costs from the 2023 GO bond
program.
Chair Butler asked which types of projects have the highest level of operating costs.
Mr. Mertz noted that net-new facilities have higher operating costs than replacement
facilities.
Deputy Budget and Research Director Chris Fazio noted that fire stations tend to
have the highest level of operating costs due to the amount of new sworn employees
needed to operate the station. He noted the timing of project delivery is structured to
reduce the impact of new operating costs.
Mr. Mertz shared additional budget consideration factors for the General Fund.
6. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Chair Butler requested Option 2 and Option 3 be brought back for committee
deliberation at the next meeting.
Ms. Amezquita asked if the November 2028 ballot would include the 2033 and 2038
GO bond programs.
Chair Butler noted that the November 2028 ballot would only include the 2028 GO
bond program and future Fiscal Capacity Committees would address the 2033 and
2038 GO bond programs.
Mr. Mertz asked if the committee would like to have a draft report to Council
prepared for deliberation at the next meeting.
Chair Butler agreed to have the draft report deliberation after the committee decides
which option to recommend to Council.
Chair Butler asked if any committee members had requests for future agenda items.
No additional agenda items were requested.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Butler adjourned the meeting at 10:29 a.m.
A recording of this meeting has been posted to the following URL:
https://youtu.be/lWbYdy9tErY

Bond Program
Fiscal Capacity
Committee
August 25, 2026
0
Agenda
Debt Limitations 6%/20%
Impacts of Inflation
Models and Scenarios
1

Debt Limitation
• Pursuant to Chapter 177, Laws of Arizona 2016
(House Bill 2054), the City’s debt limitation is based
on the full cash net assessed valuation.
Total
• Under the provisions of the Arizona Constitution, Proper
outstanding general obligation bonded debt for
combined water, sewer, light, parks, open ty Tax space
preserves, playgrounds, recreational facilities,
Rates
public safety, law enforcement, fire emergency,
streets and transportation may not exceed 20% of a
city’s full cash net assessed valuation, nor may
outstanding general obligation bonded debt for all
other purposes exceed 6% of a city’s full cash net
assessed valuation. 2
Debt Limitation Calculation
Total
Proper
ty Tax
Rates
3

Inflation Impacts
4
Inflation History and Assumptions
CPI-U PERCENT CHANGE
8.0%
Year Annual % Index
Change $612 7.0%
$571 $584 $599
2023 - $500M $545 $559
ACTUAL $511 $517 $532 6.0%
$500
HISTORY 2024 2.2% $511M
(Through 5.0%
2026) 2025 1.2% $517M
4.0%
2026 2.8% $532M
3.0%
2027 2.6% $545M
2028 2.4% $559M 2.0%
ASSUMED
2029 2.2% $571M 1.0%
RATES
(For Planning 2030 2.3% $584M 0.0%
Purposes) 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
2031 2.5% $599M
Value Index Annual Inflation
2032 2.3% $612M
5

Impact of Inflation on the
2028 Bond Program
Using CPI-U (All Urban Consumers) – Phoenix-Mesa Scottsdale, Not Seasonally Adjusted
WHAT 2023 DOLLARS LOOK LIKE IN 2028 WHAT 2028 DOLLARS LOOK LIKE IN 2023
Inflation Equivalent value
$500 $500
2023 to 2028 in 2023 Dollars
MILLION = $559 MILLION ≈ $448
2023 Bond 2028 Bond
Program MILLION Program MILLION
It would take approximately $559 million in 2028 to have the A $500 million program in 2028 would have the purchasing
same purchasing power as $500 million in 2023. power of only about $448 million in 2023 dollars.
2028 BOND SCENARIOS COMPARISONS FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Approx. Value in 2023 Dollars Change vs. 2023 Program
2028 Bond Program Size What it Means
(Purchasing Power) ($500M in 2023 Dollars)
$500 million ≈ $448 million - $52 million Significant reduction in purchasing power
Slightly below the purchasing power of the
$550 million ≈ $492 million - $8 million
2023 program
$559 million* Approximately the same purchasing power
≈ $500 million $0 million
*(Inflation Adjusted Equivalent) as the 2023 program
Slightly more than the 2023 purchasing
$575 million ≈ $515 million + $15 million
power 6
Option 1: Forecasted GO Bond Debt Service
$500M / $500M / $500M Bond Program
$160
Tax collections / $0.7745 rate
Millions $140
$120
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047
Secondary Property Tax Rate
0.7745
0.6710
0.6395 0.6098 0.5817 0.5552 0.5302 0.5064 0.4840 0.4627 0.4426
FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037
Note: Tax rates are subject to change (plus or minus) based on actual Net Assessed Values (NAV).
There is no guarantee that NAV forecast will be achieved. 7

Option 2: Forecasted GO Bond Debt Service
$550M / $600M / $650M Bond Program
$160
Tax collections / $0.7745 rate
Millions $140
$120
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047
Secondary Property Tax Rate
0.7745 0.7484
0.7133 0.6801 0.6488 0.6193
0.5913 0.5649 0.5398 0.5161 0.4936
FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037
Note: Tax rates are subject to change (plus or minus) based on actual Net Assessed Values (NAV).
There is no guarantee that NAV forecast will be achieved. 8
Option 3: Forecasted GO Bond Debt Service
$575M / $625M / $675M Bond Program
$160
Tax collections / $0.7745 rate
Millions $140
$120
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047
Secondary Property Tax Rate
0.7745 0.7484
0.7133 0.6801 0.6488 0.6193
0.5913 0.5649 0.5398 0.5161 0.4936
FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037
Note: Tax rates are subject to change (plus or minus) based on actual Net Assessed Values (NAV).
There is no guarantee that NAV forecast will be achieved. 9

Net Assessed Value Scenarios
10
Secondary Tax Rates – Option 1
Baseline – Legislative – Stress Scenarios
Secondary Property Tax Rate Secondary Property Tax Rates
$1.00
Fiscal Baseline Legislative Stress $500M / $500M / $500M
Year Scenario Requirement Scenario
2028 $0.6710 $0.6710 $0.6710 $0.80 $0.7745
Total
Current Rate
2029 0.6395 0.6395 0.6456
2030 0.6098 0.6086 0.6214 $0.60 Propert
2031 0.5817 0.5793 0.5984
y Tax
$0.40
2032 0.5552 0.5513 0.5920
2033 0.5302 0.5247 0.5876 Rates
$0.20
2034 0.5064 0.4993 0.5844
2035 0.4840 0.4943 0.5699
$0.00
2036 0.4627 0.4894 0.5558
Baseline Scenario Legislative Requirement
2052 0.1443 0.2554 0.2030
Stress Scenario FY 2027 Rate
11

Secondary Tax Rates – Option 2
Baseline – Legislative – Stress Scenarios
Secondary Property Tax Rate Secondary Property Tax Rates
$1.00
Fiscal Baseline Legislative Stress $550M / $600M / $650M
Year Scenario Requirement Scenario
2028 $0.7484 $0.7484 $0.7484 $0.80 $0.7745
Total
Current Rate
2029 0.7133 0.7133 0.7201
2030 0.6801 0.6789 0.6932 $0.60 Propert
2031 0.6488 0.6461 0.6674
y Tax
$0.40
2032 0.6193 0.6149 0.6603
2033 0.5913 0.5852 0.6555 Rates
$0.20
2034 0.5649 0.5570 0.6518
2035 0.5398 0.5514 0.6356
$0.00
2036 0.5161 0.5458 0.6199
Baseline Scenario Legislative Requirement
2052 0.1467 0.2595 0.2063
Stress Scenario FY 2027 Rate
12
Secondary Tax Rates – Option 3
Baseline – Legislative – Stress Scenarios
Secondary Property Tax Rate Secondary Property Tax Rates
$1.00
Fiscal Baseline Legislative Stress $575M / $625M / $675M
Year Scenario Requirement Scenario
2028 $0.7484 $0.7484 $0.7484 $0.80 $0.7745
Total
Current Rate
2029 0.7133 0.7133 0.7201
2030 0.6801 0.6789 0.6932 $0.60 Propert
2031 0.6488 0.6461 0.6674
y Tax
$0.40
2032 0.6193 0.6149 0.6603
2033 0.5913 0.5852 0.6555 Rates
$0.20
2034 0.5649 0.5570 0.6518
2035 0.5398 0.5514 0.6356
$0.00
2036 0.5161 0.5458 0.6199
Baseline Scenario Legislative Requirement
2052 0.1671 0.2955 0.2349
Stress Scenario FY 2027 Rate
13

Questions and Additional Discussion

Bond Program
Fiscal Capacity
Committee
August 25, 2026
0
Agenda
• GO Bond Programs Background
• 2023 GO Bond Program Status
• Stages of Project Execution
• Project Execution Challenges
• Project Execution Resources
• 2023 Lessons Learned and 2028 Changes
1

GO Bond Program Background
The City has a long history of issuing GO bonds
• Phoenix voters have approved 13 bond programs
since 1957, totaling $5.1 billion
• 2023 GO Bond Program approved for $500M
• GO Bonds were issued in 2024 (1st Tranche); next
issuance planned for fall 2026 (2nd Tranche)
• GO Bonds are issued for major capital
infrastructure with specific legal restrictions and
financial considerations.
2023 GO Bond Program Status
3

2023 GO Bond Program
$500M
Voter Approved Propositions:
1. $214M - Enhance Community Safety through Fire, Police,
Roadway and Pedestrian Infrastructure
2. $109M - Improve Quality of Life in Phoenix Neighborhoods
3. $114M - Create a Modern, Sustainable Phoenix to Live and
Work
4. $63M - Enhance, Preserve and Increase the Supply of
Affordable Housing and Senior Centers
4
2023 GO Bond Program
$500M
14 Departments
• Arts & Culture (7) • Library (3)
• Community & Economic Dev (3) • Environmental Programs
• Fire (4) • Parks (10)
• Floodplain (3) • Planning & Development (2)
• Heat Resilience • Police (3)
• Housing (5) • Public Works (3)
• Human Services (2) • Street Transportation (3)
Support Functions
 City Engineer  Finance
 Budget & Research  Law

Projects Underway
Rio Reimagined Land Acquisition - $23M
Community and Economic Development will begin
community engagement & concept plan development
for the site.
Fire Station 15 (45th Ave and Camelback) - $21M
Opening Fall 2026
Pavement Maintenance/Storm Drain - $81M
58 projects completed or underway, and many more to
come!
6
July-2026-GO-Bond-Status-Update.pdf
Projects Underway
Arizona State University Health Technology Center-
$11.9M
April 2026 Groundbreaking
Opening Fall 2028
Heat Resilience - $7.6M
Tree planting, shade structures, reflective surfaces and
green stormwater infrastructure at multiple sites
throughout the City.
Affordable Housing Property Preservation - $32.8M
Four Projects under construction – Eight more planned.
7

2023 GO Bond Program Spending
$500,000,000
$450,000,000
$400,000,000 85% Spend
1st Tranche
$350,000,000 (Est.) 85% Spend
$300,000,000 $108,784,898 2nd Tranche
$250,000,000 (43.6%) (Est.)
$200,000,000
$150,000,000
$100,000,000
$50,000,000
$-
Jan-24 Mar-24 May-24 Jul-24 Sep-24 Nov-24 Jan-25 Mar-25 May-25 Jul-25 Sep-25 Nov-25 Jan-26 Mar-26 May-26 Jul-26 Sep-26 Nov-26 Jan-27 Mar-27 May-27 Jul-27 Sep-27 Nov-27 Jan-28 Mar-28 May-28 Jul-28 Sep-28 Nov-28 Jan-29 Mar-29 May-29 Jul-29 Sep-29 Nov-29 Jan-30
Actual Spend through July 31, 2026 Projected Remaining Spend of 1st Tranche
Projected 2nd Tranche Spend 2nd 2023 Tranche Issuance
8
Stages of Project Execution
9

Stages of Project Execution
Planning Design Construction
Delivery
Feasibility
Procurement Method Procurement
Studies
Selection
Project Sustainability Contract Project
Assessments
Efforts Execution Initiation
Property Construction
Acquisition Project
Document Construction
Environmental Closeout
(Design)
6-8 Months 12-18 Months 12-24 Months
10
Project Execution Challenges
11

Project Execution Challenges
1. Existing $12B CIP
2. Limited Departmental Project Delivery Experience
3. Limited Comparative Costs
4. Limited Planning Efforts associated with 2023 GO Bond
5. Price escalations
12
Project Execution Challenges
2021 Actual/
Inflation Current
Year Factor Forecast
2022 7.7% 11.5%
2023 2.7% 5.2%
2024 2.2% 2.2%
2025 2.0% 1.2%
2026 1.8% 2.8%
2027 2.1% 2.6%
2028 2.1% 2.4%
2029 2.1% 2.2%
13

Project Execution Resources
14
Project Execution Resources
Monthly Meetings
Bi-Annual Meetings with CMO
Quarterly Reports (B&R)
https://www.phoenix.gov/administration/departments/budget/general-obligation-
bond.html
City Managers Dashboard
https://cmpr-dashboard-
phoenix.hub.arcgis.com/pages/1de04266616342a4bcd21e6f7f5dc351
Office of City Engineer (OCE)
Procurement, Environmental, Project Management
Facility Review Committee (OCE/Public Works)

2023 Lessons Learned and 2028 Changes
16
2023 Lessons Learned and 2028 Changes
Careful Project Selection for Consideration
Balance between programs, projects, acquisitions
Earlier Procurement Initiation
Feasibility Study Emphasis
Advance Design Efforts
Greater support to Departments
Formalized Guidance to Non-Profit Partners
Dedicated department and OCE staff for execution

2023 Lessons Learned and 2028 Changes
$500,000,000
$450,000,000 Accelerate More
$400,000,000 Bond Issuance Design Consistent Delivery
$350,000,000 Design/Feasibility Initiate
Procurement Construction
$300,000,000 Underway or
$250,000,000 Complete
$200,000,000
$150,000,000
$100,000,000
$50,000,000
$-
Nov-28 Jan-29 Mar-29 May-29 Jul-29 Sep-29 Nov-29 Jan-30 Mar-30 May-30 Jul-30 Sep-30 Nov-30 Jan-31 Mar-31 May-31 Jul-31 Sep-31 Nov-31 Jan-32 Mar-32 May-32 Jul-32 Sep-32 Nov-32 Jan-33 Mar-33 May-33 Jul-33 Sep-33 Nov-33 Jan-34 Mar-34 May-34 Jul-34 Sep-34 Nov-34
18
City Engineer’s Perspective
Project Needs are not lacking
2023 GO Bond will be delivered
Intent is all 2023 GO Bond projects will
be complete or nearing completion prior
to 2028 GO Bond
Confident in delivery of either option for
2028 GO Bond

Questions and Additional Discussion

General Fund Multi-Year Forecast
and Operating Cost Capacity
August 25, 2026
Agenda
• Multi-Year Forecast Overview
• General Fund Revenue and Expenditure
Review and Forecast Considerations
• Forecast Results, Operating Cost Capacity
and Other Budget Considerations
2
2

Multi-Year Forecast Overview
• Financial Best Practice
• Provides Framework for Adopting a
Balanced Budget every year
• Helps Guide Decisions to Protect
City Services
• Consult with Economic Experts –
including UofA Forecasting Project
3
General Fund Budget Forecast
4

General Fund Revenue Review
and Forecast Considerations
5
General Fund Revenue Sources
6

General Fund Revenue Estimates
7
General Fund Annual Revenue
Growth
16.0%
13.2% 12.6%
12.0%
9.5%
8.5%
8.0%
5.0% 4.3% 3.9% 4.1% 3.9%
4.0% 3.1% 2.8% 2.7%
0.0%
Residential rental loss
-4.0% and flat income tax -3.1%
impact 
-8.0%
8

General Fund Revenue Forecast
Considerations
• Economy continues to grow; however, with uncertainty
• Federal actions
• Affordability concerns and labor market slowdown
• Moderate revenue growth
• Negative state-shared revenue impacts
• San Tan Valley incorporation: ($10M) in FY26-27
• One Big Beautiful Bill tax conformity: ($21M) in FY27-28,
($14M) in FY28-29, ($15M) in FY29-30, ($12M) in FY30-31
and ($12M) in FY31-32
• State legislative impacts in upcoming legislative sessions
9
General Fund Expenditure Review
and Forecast Considerations
10

General Fund Expenditure Growth
16.0%
13.6%
12.0% 10.4%
9.1%
8.0% 6.9% 7.2%
5.6% 5.0% 5.2%
3.5%
4.0% 2.2% 2.5%
1.1%
0.3%
0.0%
11
CPI - Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale
12.0% 11.5%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0% 5.2%
5.0%
4.0%
2.9% 2.8% 2.6% 2.5%
2.0% 2.2% 2.4% 2.2% 2.3% 2.3%
2.0% 1.2%
0.0%
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026* 2027* 2028* 2029* 2030* 2031* 2032*
All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), calendar-year annual data. *2026 June’s 12-month CPI, since the entire 2026 calendar-year annual data is
unavailable. 2027 through 2032 inflation rates are based on the University of Arizona Economic and Business Research Center's forecast. 12

General Fund Pension Costs
Millions GF COPERS GF Fire PSPRS GF Police PSPRS % of GF Expenditures
$600
$524 $526 $527 $518 $527 29.0%
$498
$500 $471
$439 $442
27.0%
$400 $364
$324 $338
25.0%
$300
24.2% 24.2% 24.2% 24.0%
$200 23.8% 23.5% 23.5% 23.0%
23.0% 22.8%
22.4% 22.3%
$100 21.5% 21.0%
$0 19.0%
Act Act Act Act Act Act Budget Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast
FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 13
General Fund Expenditure Forecast
Considerations
• Employee costs are based on projections under the current
Council-adopted pay plan ordinance and employee contracts.
No assumptions have been made concerning future labor
contract negotiations.
• Estimated costs of the Class and Comp study are included in the
forecast.
• Pension costs are based on required and projected contribution
rates provided by the respective pension system actuaries.
• Non-personnel related expenditures are assumed to align with
estimated CPI growth.
14

General Fund Forecast
Results, Operating Cost
Capacity and Other Budget
Considerations
15
General Fund Multi-Year
Forecast
2026-27
2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32
Adopted
Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast
Budget
($In Millions)
Resources $2,301 $2,260-$2,289 $2,261-$2,326 $2,338-$2,439 $2,419-$2,560 $2,482-$2,668
Expenditures
Without 2023
GO Bond $2,301 $2,265-$2,254 $2,279-$2,267 $2,330-$2,314 $2,413-$2,394 $2,538-$2,517
Ongoing Costs
2023 GO Bond
- $8 $19 $28 $29 $31
Ongoing Costs
Total
$2,301 $2,273-$2,262 $2,298-$2,286 $2,358-$2,342 $2,442-$2,423 $2,569-$2,548
Expenditures
PROJECTED
(DEFICIT)/ $0 ($13)-$27 ($37)-$40 ($20)-$97 ($23)-$137 ($87)-$120
SURPLUS
16

Examples of Ongoing Operating
Costs
17
Other Budget Considerations
• Public Safety Pension (PSPRS) costs
• Continuing impact of Class & Comp implementation
• Potential costs from future labor negotiations
• Inflation continues to put upward pressure on costs
• Health insurance cost increases
• Increased costs for vehicle replacements
• Information technology needs
• Resource needs for major maintenance
• Council and community demands for more programs and
services
18

ATTACHMENT B
City of Phoenix
Fiscal Capacity Committee
Summary Minutes
Tuesday, September 1, 2026
12 Central Conference Room
Phoenix City Hall, 12th Floor
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Committee Members Present Committee Members Absent
Ron Butler, Chair
Toni Maccarone
Tanya Amezquita
Steve Zabilski
Joseph Palomino
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Ron Butler called the Fiscal Capacity Committee to order at 9:01 a.m. with
committee members Toni Maccarone, Tanya Amezquita, Steve Zabilski, and Joseph
Palomino present.
2. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF AUGUST 25, 2026, MEETING MINUTES
Mr. Zabilski made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 25, 2026, meeting.
Ms. Maccarone seconded the motion, which passed unanimously, 5-0.
3. FISCAL CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Chief Financial Officer Kathryn Gregory reviewed “Option 2” consisting of a $550
million GO bond program in 2028 and “Option 3” consisting of a $575 million GO
bond program in 2028. She confirmed that both options are financially sound and
executable without raising secondary property tax rates.
Chair Butler asked if the City’s credit ratings would be negatively impacted by either
option.
Ms. Gregory confirmed that the City’s credit ratings would not be negatively
impacted by either option, absent outside influences out of the City’s control.
Chair Butler recommended selecting the $575 million option, noting that this level of
funding would provide sufficient capacity to support projects at an amount equal to
or greater than the 2023 GO bond program.
Ms. Amezquita supported the $575 million option, noting that inflation would
eventually make it roughly equal to the $500 million 2023 GO bond program.

Mr. Zabilski agreed with the $575 million option.
Ms. Maccarone agreed with the $575 million option.
Mr. Palomino supported the $575 million option and asked whether the 2028 GO
bond program would be split into two tranches and, if so, what interest rate is
expected for the first tranche.
Assistant Finance Director Joe Jatzkewitz confirmed that there would be two
tranches with the first being sold in 2030. He stated that the modeling was done
conservatively at a 6% interest rate, but the actual interest rate will depend on the
market at that time.
Chair Butler reiterated that with the $575 million option there would be adequate
capacity for future GO bond programs, the baseline valuation forecast was
reasonable, secondary property tax rates would remain at or below the current rate,
projects will be deliverable, and the operating costs of new projects will continue to
be manageable.
4. FISCAL CAPACITY RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORT
Chair Butler asked if there were any edits to the draft of the report that was provided.
No edits were requested.
Ms. Amezquita moved to approve Option 3, $575 million, for the 2028 GO bond
program. Mr. Zabilski seconded the motion, which passed unanimously, 5-0.
5. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Ms. Amezquita said the conservative modeling gave her confidence in the
recommendation and put the City in a good position for the future.
Mr. Zabilski thanked Chair Butler for his leadership and for accommodating
committee members during prior meetings.
Budget and Research Department Director Aaron Mertz noted that the Fiscal
Capacity Committee’s recommendations are currently scheduled for the City Council
meeting on October 13, 2026.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Butler adjourned the meeting at 9:11 a.m.
A recording of this meeting has been posted to the following URL:
https://youtu.be/qLScF2LtLu0

2028 Bond Program
Using CPI-U (All Urban Consumers) – Phoenix-Mesa Scottsdale, Not Seasonally Adjusted
OPTION 2 OPTION 3
Equivalent value Equivalent value
$550 $575
in 2023 Dollars in 2023 Dollars
MILLION = $492 MILLION ≈ $515
2028 Bond 2028 Bond
Program MILLION Program MILLION
$550M Bond Program
$160
Millions $140
$120
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 1
2028 Bond Program
Using CPI-U (All Urban Consumers) – Phoenix-Mesa Scottsdale, Not Seasonally Adjusted
OPTION 2 OPTION 3
Equivalent value Equivalent value
$550 $575
in 2023 Dollars in 2023 Dollars
MILLION = $492 MILLION ≈ $515
2028 Bond 2028 Bond
Program MILLION Program MILLION
$575M Bond Program
$160
Millions $140
$120
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2

Decision Points
• Option 2 ($550M) or Option 3 ($575M)?
• Will credit rating be negatively impacted?
• Will subsequent bond programs of similar levels be
possible?
• Is the baseline valuation forecast reasonable?
• Can property tax remain at or below current level?
• Is project delivery feasible?
• Can ongoing operating costs similar to the 2023
bond program be absorbed?
3