March 5, 2026 Audit, Finance & Enterprise Committee

OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK             
 
AUDIT, FINANCE & ENTERPRISE COMMITTEE 
MINUTES 
 
March 5, 2026 
 
 
The Audit, Finance & Enterprise Committee of the City of Mesa met in the Study Session room at City 
Hall, 20 East Main Street, on March 5, 2026, at 12:18 p.m.  
 
 
COMMITTEE PRESENT 
 
COMMITTEE ABSENT 
 
STAFF PRESENT 
 
 
 
Alicia Goforth, Chairperson 
Rich Adams 
Scott Somers  
 
None 
Jothi Beljan 
Mike Kennington 
Charlotte McDermott 
Holly Moseley 
 
Chairperson Goforth conducted a roll call.  
 
1. 
Items from citizens present. 
 
 
There were no items from citizens present.  
 
2-a. 
Hear a presentation, discuss, and provide a recommendation on the proposed fees and charges 
for the Falcon Field department. 
 
  
 
Assistant City Attorney III Charlotte McDermott explained that staff are proposing fee changes 
to help make Falcon Field as financially sustainable as possible. She clarified that the proposed 
fee is not intended to reduce noise or traffic, nor is it designed to impact other airport users, and 
those issues are not part of the proposed fees or the agenda item under consideration. 
 
 
Falcon Field Airport Director Corinne Nystrom introduced Jill Casson Owen, a partner at Snell & 
Wilmer specializing in airport law, who had been working with the City of Mesa (COM) staff to 
develop the proposed fees to ensure compliance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
requirements, and displayed a PowerPoint presentation. (See Attachment 1) 
 
 
Ms. Nystrom stated that Falcon Field Airport’s purpose is to operate a safe, reliable, and well-
maintained airfield while providing customer-focused aviation services, fostering positive 
community relationships, supporting a sustainable aviation ecosystem, and advancing the City’s 
vision of fiscal responsibility, quality development, and a thriving job-creating community. (See 
Page 2 of Attachment 2)  
 
Ms. Nystrom reported that Falcon Field operates as a financially self-sustaining airport, with 
revenues generated from tenants and airport users rather than the City’s General Fund. She

Audit, Finance & Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Page 2 
 
 
confirmed that the primary revenue sources include fuel flowage fees, ground lease rents, city-
owned tie-down fees, and storage room rentals. She recalled that the COM is required to 
comply with FAA grant assurances whenever grant funding is received, which includes 
maintaining a fee and rental structure designed to make the airport as self-sustaining as 
possible. She commented that grant funds may only be used for capital projects and cannot be 
used for airport operations, and Falcon Field operates as an enterprise fund separate from the 
COM’s General Fund. She pointed out that in 2006, proceeds from a real estate sale of 
approximately $4.6 million were placed into the airport enterprise fund, which helped support 
airport operations for many years. She explained that the airport had maintained a balanced 
budget by conservatively managing spending, but the fund balance has gradually declined, in 
part due to deferred capital projects and maintenance of airfield pavement and other COM-
owned facilities. (See Pages 3 and 4 of Attachment 1)  
 
 
Ms. Nystrom reviewed the airport’s current financial outlook, noting that capital improvement 
and pavement maintenance costs have increased significantly. She stated that the airport is 
gradually falling behind on needed pavement maintenance and other improvements, including 
upkeep of the 411 COM-owned hangars and other airport facilities. She presented a photo of a 
deteriorating aircraft parking ramp to illustrate the impacts of deferred pavement maintenance 
and noted that without adequate funding to maintain airport facilities, more areas of the airfield 
could experience similar deterioration. (See Pages 5 and 6 of Attachment 1) 
 
 
Ms. Nystrom pointed out that to address the financial challenges, several capital improvement 
projects have been deferred and that improvements that are typically funded through the airport 
enterprise fund, such as landscaping and signage, have also been delayed due to limited 
revenue. She stated, with respect to pavement maintenance, staff have focused available 
funding on the most deteriorated areas, prioritizing locations in the worst condition. She 
discussed the pavement condition index (PCI) parameters and confirmed that if pavement 
conditions fall below a PCI of 50, full reconstruction is required, which is significantly more 
expensive than preventative maintenance measures such as crack sealing and surface 
treatments. (See Page 7 of Attachment 1) 
 
Responding to a question from Committeemember Adams, Ms. Nystrom verified that the poor 
pavement conditions can be considered a safety issue. She noted that the deteriorating 
pavement areas are sometimes still used by larger aircraft; however, the airport attempts to limit 
use of those areas when possible because the heavier aircraft can accelerate pavement 
damage. 
 
 
In response to a question from Chairperson Goforth, Ms. Nystrom reported that the overall PCI 
at the airport is 58, and while some areas are in good condition, others require immediate 
attention. She added that the Engineering Department estimated bringing all airport pavement 
up to the recommended PCI of 70 would cost approximately $5.75 million per year, $46 million 
over the next 8 years. and clarified that this estimate includes all pavement areas at the airport, 
including the hangar areas. 
 
 
Ms. Nystrom advised that FAA and State grants cannot be used for routine maintenance, such 
as crack sealing or seal coating, but may fund reconstruction of certain airport infrastructure. 
She discussed the Airport Pavement Management System (APMS) program managed by the 
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), which provides limited funding focused on 
maintenance; however, funding from the program must be distributed among public use airports 
statewide based on need. She noted that Falcon Field has received some funding through this

Audit, Finance & Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Page 3 
 
 
program, but the funding generally applies to runways, taxiways, and the most active public use 
ramps. She remarked that maintenance for other areas, such as hangar areas and certain 
ramps, are not eligible for FAA or State funding and must be paid for through the Airport 
Enterprise Fund. (See Page 8 of Attachment 1) 
 
 
Ms. Nystrom explained that in 2024, discussions began on transitioning Falcon Field operations 
into a cost center model, separating activities into three categories: city-owned hangars and 
tiedowns, the airfield, and ground leases. She stated that the intent of the approach is for each 
cost center to function as a financially self-sustaining operation. She added that, as part of this 
effort, Council approved an 8% rent increase for COM-owned hangars and tiedowns. (See Page 
9 of Attachment 1)  
 
 
Ms. Nystrom reviewed the COM-owned hangar cost center and pointed out the ongoing 
expenses that include pavement maintenance, cane bolt installations, and building capital 
reserves for future hangar repainting projects, are estimated at approximately $2 million. She 
stated that based on these costs, staff recommended a 10% increase in hanger rental rates. 
She reviewed the COM-owned tiedowns cost center and reported that the existing rates 
currently recover approximately 55% of the amount needed for the operation to be financially 
self-sustaining. She reported that staff recommended a 23% rental rate increase for open-
tiedowns and an 11% increase for covered tiedowns to address the gap. (See Pages 10 and 11 
of Attachment 1) 
 
 
Responding to a question from Committeemember Adams, Ms. Nystrom explained that the 
airport uses a three-tier structure, with hangars priced highest, covered tiedowns at a mid-level, 
and open tiedowns at the lowest rate. She noted that while covered tiedowns currently cost 
more than open tiedowns, increasing those rates too much could bring them close to or above 
hangar rates.  
 
 
Ms. Nystrom reviewed the items included in the airfield cost center and noted that this 
represents the most costly area of the airport budget. She reported that the estimated Fiscal 
Year (FY) 25/26 cost for the airfield cost center is $2,410,432, while projected revenues total 
$374,300. She advised that without implementing landing fees, the airfield would face an 
estimated funding shortfall of approximately $2,036,132. She indicated that to cover the deficit, 
staff recommended increasing the avgas fuel flowage fee from $0.14 to $0.15 per gallon and 
implementing landing fees. (See Pages 12 and 13 of Attachment 1)  
 
 
In response to a question from Chairperson Goforth, Ms. Nystrom confirmed the airfield cost 
center has been subsidized by ground lease revenues and the funds from the previous land 
sale.  
 
 
 
Ms. Nystrom outlined the methodology used to determine the proposed landing fee increase.  
She stated that staff identified the amount of revenue needed for the airfield cost center to 
become financially self-sustaining and evaluated it to ensure compliance with FAA requirements 
that airport fees be reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory. She added that staff also 
reviewed general aviation landing fees at comparable airports and factored in a potential 10% 
reduction in aircraft landings, recognizing that some pilots may choose to utilize other airports. 
(See Page 14 of Attachment 1) 
 
 
Ms. Nystrom explained that the proposed landing fee structure is based on a model used at 
other airports across the United States and is not unique to Falcon Field. She indicated that the

Audit, Finance & Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Page 4 
 
 
proposal also includes 16 exemptions intended to ensure the fee structure is applied fairly. She 
detailed the proposed exemptions. (See Pages 15 through 17 of Attachment 1) 
 
 
Ms. Nystrom reviewed the financial forecast and stated that if no fee adjustments are approved 
and landing fees are not implemented, airport revenues will remain unchanged while expenses 
continue to increase. She verified that under that scenario and after accounting for eight years 
of planned capital improvements and pavement maintenance, the airport’s ending balance 
would decline to approximately $3.3 million by the end of FY 25/26. She recalled that the goal is 
to maintain about $2.5 million in reserve to address unexpected repairs or operational needs 
and reiterated that future projections show the airport operating at a deficit if no changes are 
made. (See Page 18 of Attachment 1) 
 
Ms. Nystrom commented that if the proposed fees are approved, the airport would operate with 
positive balances in subsequent years. She added that all fees would be reviewed annually to 
determine if adjustments are necessary and emphasized that implementing the proposed fees 
would allow the airport to address deferred pavement maintenance and needed improvements 
to COM-owned facilities. (See Page 19 of Attachment 1) 
 
In response to a question from Chairperson Goforth regarding a projected dip shown in the 
financial forecast, Ms. Nystrom explained that the fluctuations are tied to capital improvement 
projects funded through federal and state grants. She explained that some years include only 
design work funded by grants, while later years include construction phases with larger grant 
funding amounts, resulting in variations in revenues and expenditures. She noted that aside 
from pavement maintenance and hangar painting, the COM typically only contributes its local 
match portion for projects supported by federal and state grants. 
 
 
Office of Management & Budget Assistant Director Samuel Schultz added that the timing of 
pavement maintenance projects requires funds to accumulate, meaning only smaller portions of 
the work can be completed each year; therefore, funds are carried over and gradually built up 
until sufficient resources are available to complete larger maintenance projects. 
 
Ms. Nystrom stated that if the Committee agrees with the proposed fee changes, the City 
Council is scheduled to consider the proposed amendments to the fees and charges on March 
23, 2026, and if approved, the updated fees would take effect on May 1, 2026. She noted that if 
landing fees are approved, the City would need to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to select 
a third-party vendor to manage data collection, billing, and fee processing. She pointed out that 
this process would create a short implementation delay while the vendor is selected and the 
necessary systems are established to administer the landing fees. 
 
In response to a question from Chairperson Goforth, Ms. Nystrom detailed the public outreach 
provided to the community, aeronautical users, and airport tenants. She verified that the landing 
fee revenue would remain dedicated to the airfield and would not be used for other airport cost 
centers, as each is intended to operate independently. She noted that the primary revenue 
source for the airfield is the fuel flowage fee, with smaller amounts generated from other fees 
such as rental car operations and additional access cards. 
 
Chairperson Goforth thanked staff for the presentation.

Audit, Finance & Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Page 5 
 
 
It was moved by Committeemember Adams, seconded by Committeemember Somers, that the 
staff recommendations regarding the proposed fees and charges for the Falcon Field 
department be forwarded on to the full Council for further discussion and consideration. 
 
Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:  
 
AYES – Goforth–Adams–Somers 
NAYS – None 
 
Carried unanimously.  
 
2-b. 
Hear a presentation, discuss, and provide a recommendation on the proposed fees and charges 
for the following City departments and other administrative changes: Arts & Culture, Business 
Services, Code Compliance, Community Services (administrative only change), City Clerk, 
Community Services (administrative only change), Development Services, Mesa Fire and 
Medical (administrative only change), Municipal Court, Office of Urban Transformation, Police 
(administrative only change), and Transportation. 
 
 
Office of Management & Budget Assistant Director Samuel Schultz displayed a PowerPoint 
presentation. (See Attachment 2) 
 
Mr. Schultz explained that fees and charges had been reviewed citywide, with departments 
conducting analyses to ensure that fees appropriately cover associated costs. He pointed out 
that if the recommended fee changes are approved the impact on the budget would be $2.6 
million. (See Page 2 of Attachment 2) 
 
Mr. Schultz presented proposed Arts and Culture fee updates, including the addition of an 
optional ticket refund protection program at the Mesa Arts Center. He pointed out that the 
program would allow patrons to purchase protection at checkout that provides a full ticket refund 
for covered unforeseen circumstances, with a proposed fee of 8% of the total ticket or order 
amount. He stated that a refund protection fee could generate an estimated $89,000 in revenue, 
if implemented. He discussed the proposed increase to the i.d.e.a. Museum admission fee to 
$15 for all attendees age one and older. He verified that the combined estimated fiscal impact of 
these changes is approximately $176,000. (See Page 4 of Attachment 2) 
 
 
In response to a question from Committeemember Somers, i.d.e.a Museum Administrator 
Jarrad Bittner confirmed that the standard practice for museums is to charge admission for 
individuals ages one and older, while children 12 months and under are typically admitted free 
of charge. 
 
 
Mr. Schultz outlined the proposed Business Services fee adjustments that include increasing 
the business license application and license fee from $10 to $25, aligning it with the $25 annual 
renewal fee. He recalled that when the program was first implemented, the lower fee was 
intended to encourage participation, but staff now recommend bringing the fee in line with the 
renewal rate. He discussed establishing a $10 late fee for business license renewals and noted 
that the charge would help offset staff time required to follow up on overdue accounts. He 
described the proposed $1.50 utility billing mailing fee for customers who choose to receive 
paper bills, which would take effect October 1 to allow time to inform customers and provide 
guidance on switching to electronic billing. He noted that approximately 50% of customers use 
e-billing. He recalled that paper billing costs, including postage, printing, and staff time total

Audit, Finance & Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Page 6 
 
 
approximately $1 million annually. He emphasized that the intent is to recover the costs 
associated with paper billing rather than to subsidize those expenses. He stated that the total 
estimated fiscal impact of these changes is approximately $1,749,000. (See Page 5 of 
Attachment 2) 
 
 
Responding to a question from Committeemember Somers, Business Services Department 
Director Edward Quedens noted that some residents may be less comfortable with online 
transactions and added that customers can print copies of their bills directly from the online 
portal if needed. He pointed out that the COM currently receives a discounted postage rate of 
approximately $0.65 per mailed bill. 
 
Mr. Schultz reviewed the City Clerk’s proposal to centralize formal public records request fees 
for commercial public records requests, which are requests made for business or profit-related 
purposes. He advised that state law allows municipalities to charge for the cost of staff time 
associated with fulfilling commercial requests. He confirmed that to establish a consistent rate, 
the Clerk’s Office reviewed salary levels across departments and used the lowest rate to 
determine a proposed fee of $25 per hour. He noted that this amount does not represent full 
cost recovery but provides a defined and consistent basis for calculating charges. He explained 
that no fees would be assessed until the request is evaluated and that staff would first 
determine the time required to fulfill the request and then provide a cost estimate to the 
requester, who may then decide whether to proceed. He added that the estimated fiscal impact 
is approximately $500, as some requesters may choose not to move forward once a cost 
estimate is provided. (See Page 6 of Attachment 2) 
 
Mr. Schultz outlined the proposed Code Compliance fee adjustments, including increasing the 
administrative lien fee from $20 to $60 to align with the Maricopa County Recorder’s fee. He 
referred to the recommended restructuring of civil citation fines that will combine residential and 
non-residential properties into a single category and increase the minimum fine based on repeat 
violations. He discussed additional proposed fees including a title search fee, which would apply 
when staff must locate property ownership information, and a $15 certified mail fee to recover 
costs when notices must be sent to property owners or businesses located outside the COM, 
since local citations are typically served in person by code officers. He noted the total estimated 
fiscal impact is approximately $166,000. (See Page 7 of Attachment 2) 
 
In response to a question from Committeemember Adams, Code Compliance Director Angelica 
Guevara explained that the department processes about 10,000 complaints annually and issued 
approximately 500 citations last year. She noted that half the citations involved non-residential 
properties and listed the typical violations. 
 
Responding to a question from Chairperson Goforth, Ms. Guevara responded that in FY 24/25, 
staff expanded enforcement capacity by training additional officers to handle non-residential 
inspections, whereas previously only one officer focused on those cases. She pointed out that 
the department has also been using a third-party service to deliver citations, allowing staff to 
spend more time conducting inspections.                                                                                                          
 
Mr. Schultz summarized the updates to Development and Planning Services fee schedules. He 
added that the Code Compliance Fee Schedule will be separated into its own standalone 
schedule for improved organization. He stated that Planning Services had proposed several 
new fees, including an Employment Opportunity District application fee of $4,800 plus $78 per 
acre, a Map of Dedication fee of $100, and a Planning resubmittal fee equal to 20% of the

Audit, Finance & Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Page 7 
 
 
original application fee. He also noted several administrative updates, including standardizing 
language and formatting within the fee schedule to provide greater clarity for applicants, 
renaming certain fees, and removing obsolete fees. He said the estimated fiscal impact is 
$18,500. (See Page 8 of Attachment 2) 
 
Responding to a question from Committeemember Adams, Planning Assistant Director Rachel 
Phillips advised that during the entitlement review process, applicants often receive staff 
comments prior to a decision or public hearing and may resubmit revised materials for staff 
review to determine whether the application is ready to move forward. She recalled that staff 
had experienced instances where applicants do not fully address comments, resulting in 
multiple rounds of resubmittals and staff review; therefore, the proposed fee is intended to help 
recover staff time associated with repeated reviews. She verified that the resubmittal fee would 
begin with the fourth and fifth resubmissions, with additional charges applied if the number of 
resubmittals continues beyond that point. 
 
In response to a question by Committeemember Adams, Ms. Guevara listed the Code Violation 
fee ranges for neighboring cities and noted that while a review of surrounding communities 
showed lower fines, the City is proposing higher amounts based on feedback from code officers 
that some property owners find it less expensive to pay the fine than to correct the violation. She 
explained that unresolved violations can contribute to neighborhood blight and, in some cases, 
create safety hazards. She indicated that since approximately 80–85% of cases are resolved 
through voluntary compliance, higher fines may provide additional incentive for those property 
owners who require further encouragement to bring properties into compliance. 
 
Ms. Guevara elaborated saying that the COM’s existing civil citation fine structure already 
includes higher allowable ranges, with fines set at $250–$1,500 for a first violation, $350–
$2,500 for a second violation, and $500–$2,500 for a third violation. She noted that staff 
typically do not assess the higher end of those ranges and when property owners request a civil 
hearing, the hearing officer often reduces the fines if the violation has been corrected.  She 
added that the proposal would increase the baseline fine levels, particularly for non-residential 
properties, with the intent of encouraging faster compliance.  
 
Mr. Schultz clarified that the fee adjustment process requires the proposed maximum amounts 
to be posted for a 60-day public notice period prior to Council action. He reiterated that 
establishing the higher maximum provides flexibility, as Council may later choose to reduce the 
fees, if desired, but increases cannot be made without completing the required notice process. 
 
Mr. Schultz stated that the Municipal Court has proposed that the construction fee increase by 
$3.00 every three years in accordance with the COM Ordinance No. 4621, with the next 
increase effective July 1, 2026. He noted the fee will remain in place until the court facility debt 
is paid off in FY 28/29, at which time the fee is expected to be eliminated. He mentioned the 
estimated fiscal impact of the increase is $81,525. (See Page 9 of Attachment 2) 
 
 
Mr. Schultz added that the Office of Urban Transformation proposed an increase to the daily 
parking permit rate, noting that current rates are lower than those in surrounding communities. 
He pointed out that comparable cities are charging approximately $15 to $50 per day; therefore, 
staff recommended increasing the rate from $2.50 to $4.00 per day. He verified that the 
adjustment would apply to approximately 1,300 parking spaces located in four garages and 
additional surface parking lots. (See Page 10 of Attachment 2)

Audit, Finance & Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Page 8 
 
 
 
Responding to a question from Chairperson Goforth, Downtown Transformation Manager Jeff 
McVay noted that the daily parking permit option has been in place for many years but has seen 
limited use, as it currently requires in-person purchase through the Downtown Mesa Association 
(DMA). He explained that with the implementation of new purchasing methods, such as QR 
codes, the option may become more accessible and is intended to support the micromobility 
plan and help address parking demand. He added that the daily rate may appeal to users who 
do not need or want to purchase a monthly permit. 
 
 
Mr. Schultz provided information about the proposed Transportation fee increases and reported 
that the increases were reviewed and recommended by the Transportation Advisory Board. He 
emphasized that the changes focus primarily on cost recovery. He discussed that the traffic 
signal in-lieu fees would be increased to reflect current market costs, including $225,000 per 
quadrant for four-leg intersections and $200,000 per share for “T” intersections. He commented 
that staff also recommended increasing the pavement surfacing replacement in-lieu fee from 
$2.75 to $4.00 per square yard to account for rising material costs. He confirmed that language 
would be added to apply the existing Technology fee to Temporary Traffic Control fees, 
consistent with Development Services practices. He added that the total estimated fiscal impact 
of these changes is $458,000. (See Page 11 of Attachment 2) 
 
 
 
In response to a question from Committeemember Adams, Transportation Director Erik 
Guderian explained that traffic signal in-lieu fees are collected from new development when a 
signalized intersection is planned but not yet constructed, allowing the City to accumulate funds 
until the signal is built through a future capital project or as additional development occurs at 
other corners. He noted this situation occurs infrequently, approximately zero to three times per 
year, and emphasized that rising signal costs make it important for the COM to maximize cost 
recovery through these fees. 
 
 
Mr. Schultz provided a brief overview of the Administrative fee updates that are intended to 
provide clarity and better transparency and said that there is no fiscal impact. (See Page 12 of 
Attachment 2) 
  
 
Mr. Schultz advised that, if approved, the proposed fees would be forwarded to the City Council 
for approval on June 1, 2026, with the changes to take effect July 1, 2026. He added that the 
Utility and Code Compliance fees would be implemented on October 1, 2026. (See Page 13 of 
Attachment 2)  
 
Chairperson Goforth thanked staff for the presentation.  
 
It was moved by Committeemember Adams, seconded by Committeemember Somers, that the 
staff recommendations regarding the proposed fees and charges for various City departments 
be forwarded on to the full Council for further discussion and consideration. 
 
Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:  
 
AYES – Goforth–Adams–Somers 
NAYS – None 
 
Carried unanimously.

Audit, Finance & Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Page 9 
 
 
3. 
Adjournment. 
 
Without objection, the Audit, Finance & Enterprise Committee meeting adjourned at 1:50 p.m. 
 
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Audit, 
Finance & Enterprise Committee meeting of the City of Mesa, Arizona, held on the 5th day of March 
2026. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. 
 
 
 
_______________________________ 
HOLLY MOSELEY, CITY CLERK 
 
sr 
(Attachments – 2)

Falcon Field Airport Update  
Corinne Nystrom, A.A.E.
Airport Director
March 5, 2026
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 1 of 21

Falcon Field Airport Purpose Statement
Falcon Field Airport exists to:
•  Operate a safe, reliable and well-maintained airfield 
•  Provide customer-centered aviation 
• Foster positive community relationships 
• Drive a sustainable aviation ecosystem, fuel capital investment, and 
expand premiere workforce opportunities 
• Realize the City’s vision of a safe, fiscally responsible, quality development 
and thriving community of jobs and prosperity.
2
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 2 of 21

Primary Sources of Airport Revenue
Primary Sources of Airport Revenue - Current (Non-Grant)
• Ground Lease Rent 
• City-Owned Hangar, Tiedown, Storage Room Rent 
• Fuel Flowage Fees
• City-Owned Itinerant Aircraft Tiedowns 
• Rental Car Concession Fees
• Miscellaneous:  Gate Access Cards, Ground Lease Transaction Fees, 
Hangar/Tiedown Transfer Fees
3
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 3 of 21

The Need to Be Financially Self-Sustaining
• FAA Grant Assurance #24 – Maintain a fee & rental structure
   for facilities & services which will make the airport as self-sustaining as
   possible
• Since 2006, Airport Enterprise Fund has had a balanced budget due to:
 
- One-time $4.6 million net proceeds from sale of land in 2006
 
- Revenues collected from tenants and users
 
- Conservative budgeting and spending practices
 
- Deferred capital improvement projects
 
- Deferred maintenance on airfield pavement & City-owned facilities
4
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 4 of 21

Falcon Field’s Current Financial Picture 
 Looking forward, the Airport Enterprise Fund is not financially 
 sustainable due to:
       
       - General inflation 
       - Beginning in 2020, capital improvement costs began increasing 
         substantially and continue to increase
 Result:  
  - Paying more and getting less
  - Gradually falling behind on required maintenance & repair, including
     airfield pavement & City-owned facilities maintenance
      
5
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 5 of 21

Echo Ramp – February 2026
6
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 6 of 21

Actions Already Taken to Address the Approaching 
Shortfall
• Cut back on non-grant capital improvement projects
• Taking the “Band-Aid Approach” to maintain pavements – we repair 
the pavement in the worst condition with what money we have to 
work with
• Eventually complete re-construction of pavements will be needed if 
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) falls below 50
• Estimated cost for on-going pavement maintenance is $5.75 
million/year ($46 million over next 8 years) to bring all airport 
pavements to the FAA’s recommended 70 PCI.
7
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 7 of 21

Can Federal & State Grants Be Used to Cover Costs?
• FAA & State grants help with some of the capital improvements and 
pavement reconstruction, but the FAA will not pay for ongoing pavement 
maintenance (i.e. crack fill/seal coat)
• State has some funds available for pavement maintenance, but they 
determine which airports get these funds, when, and the area of 
pavement for which funds will be spent (usually runways/taxiways)
• Several necessary Airport capital improvements rank too low on the FAA’s 
and ADOT’s lists to receive funding, such as pavement reconstruction in 
the City-owned hangar areas
8
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 8 of 21

Cost Center Analysis Timeline
• In 2024, conversations began to convert to the Cost Center Approach
 
- City-Owned Hangars/Tiedowns
 
- Airfield 
 
- Ground Leases
• Each Cost Center should be financially self-sustaining
• August 2025 – City-Owned Hangars/Tiedowns – 8% rent increase 
approved
9
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 9 of 21

Proposed Fee Increase
City-Owned Hangars
 
-  Ongoing pavement maintenance costs
 
-  Complete cane bolt installation on all hangars – 3 more years
 
-  Place funds in capital reserve to re-paint the hangars to extend
 
   their lives – approximately $ 2 million
 
 
- Recommendation:  10% rental rate increase
10
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 10 of 21

Proposed Fee Increase
City-Owned Tiedowns
 
- Currently charging 55% of what is needed to be financially self-
 
   sustaining
 
Recommendation:
 
- 23% rental rate increase for open tiedowns
 
- 11% rental rate increase for covered tiedowns
 
11
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 11 of 21

Airfield Cost Center
• Airfield Cost Center 
 
- Pavement maintenance (runways/taxiways, non-exclusive ramps)
 
- Airfield lighting
 
- Aircraft landing aids (PAPIs/REILS)
 
- Safety areas
 
- Utilities
 
- Perimeter fence/gates
 
- Aircraft rescue firefighting services
 
- Terminal building/Airport maintenance facility 
 
- Airport personnel 
 
- Airfield equipment
 
- Airport’s portion of FAA & State grant projects
12
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 12 of 21

Airfield Cost Center Costs
• Estimated FY2025-26 Airfield Cost Center Cost:  $2,410,432
• Estimated FY2025-26 Airfield Cost Center Revenues:  $374,300
 
• Airfield Cost Center Without Landing Fees 
 
- Estimated Shortfall:  $2,036,132
• Recommendation:
 
- Increase avgas fuel flowage fee from $.14 to $.15 per gallon
 
- Landing fees
13
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 13 of 21

• Methodology Used:
   1) Determined amount of revenue needed to make the Airfield Cost
        Center financially self-sustaining
 
   2) FAA requires that fees must be reasonable and not unjustly
       discriminatory
 
- General aviation landing fees charged at other airports
   3) Account for 10% reduction in aircraft landings (some customers may
       choose to use other airports)
 
Landing Fee Methodology
14
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 14 of 21

• Based Fixed Wing Aircraft 
≤ 6,000 lbs. MLW 
 
 
 
$20.35
> 6,000 lbs. MLW 
 
 
 
$3.40/1,000 lbs.
• Itinerant Fixed Wing Aircraft
      ≤ 6,000 lbs. MLW 
 
 
 
$24.35
      >6,000 lbs. MLW 
 
 
 
$4.10/1,000 lbs.
• Based Rotorcraft, Drones, & eVTOL  
$12.60
• Itinerant Rotorcraft, Drones, & eVTOL 
$17.60
   
Proposed Landing Fees 
15
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 15 of 21

• Based aircraft – first 10 landings per month
• Rotorcraft, drones, eVTOL landing on exclusive use ramps
• Declared emergency landings (FAA Alert I, II, or III)
• All but one rotorcraft landing during continuous training & testing session in fixed 
location or while moving in the training/testing traffic pattern or while moving 
between training/testing ramp and a private ramp
• Aircraft owned by government agencies (federal, state, local, political 
subdivisions, federally-approved foreign governments)
   
 
 
Proposed Landing Fee Exemptions
16
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 16 of 21

• Aircraft under contract for sale to a government agency (certain restrictions 
apply)
• Aircraft owned by based tenants as part of production flight testing prior to 
delivery to end-use customer
• Flights conducted in support of government functions (public safety, search & 
rescue, disaster response, infrastructure protection, & emergency operations)
• Special events sponsored by the City of Mesa
• Flights for medical purposes (transporting patients, blood, or organs) & animal 
rescue purposes
   
 
Proposed Landing Fee Exemptions
17
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 17 of 21

Financial Forecast If Fees Remain the Same
18
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 18 of 21

Financial Forecast If Landing Fees & Other Fee 
Adjustments are Approved
                          
                                Total Fiscal Impact = $2,894,770
19
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 19 of 21

Next Steps 
• City Council to consider proposed Fees and Charges 
amendments on March 23, 2026
• If approved by City Council, the Fees and Charges will be 
effective May 1, 2026
20
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 20 of 21

Thank you
Questions?
21
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 21 of 21

FY 2026-27
Fees & Charges 
Recommendations
Samuel Schultz
Assistant Director, Management and Budget
March 5, 2026
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 1 of 13

Process and 
Recommendation
F Y  2 0 2 6 - 2 7  F E E S  &  C H A R G E S  R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S
2
Market comparisons conducted 
Cost of providing service and applicability of 
fee evaluated
Full listing of recommended adjustments, 
additions, and deletions are included in the 
report
Proposed effective date: July 1, 2026
Estimated impact on revenue of all 
recommendations is an increase of $2,652,315
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 2 of 13

Departments Recommending 
Modifications
F Y  2 0 2 6 - 2 7  F E E S  &  C H A R G E S  R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S
3
Arts & Culture
Business 
Services
City Clerk
Code 
Compliance
Development 
Services
Municipal Court
Office of Urban 
Transformation
Transportation
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 3 of 13

Arts & Culture
New  Mesa Arts Center Ticket Refund Protection
• Optional add-on at checkout that provides a full ticket refund if covered 
unforeseen circumstances prevent attendance.
• Proposed ticket protection fee: 8% of the ticket/order total.
Increase  idea Museum Admission Fee
• Increase range to $15 for admission fee for all attendees age 1+.
F Y  2 0 2 6 - 2 7  F E E S  &  C H A R G E S  R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S
4
Total Estimated Fiscal Impact: $176,035
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 4 of 13

Business Services
Increase  Business License Application Fee/License Fee
• Raise the new application/license fee from $10 to $25. 
• Matches $25 Annual Renewal Fee.
New  Business License Late Fee
• Establish $10 late fee.
• City Code 5-5-5 (B) enables collection of late fees for business licenses and 
blocks future issuances until all fees are paid in full.
New  Paper Billing Utility Mailing Fee*
• Recommend $1.50 fee applied to customers who choose paper bills to 
offset increased postage rates and administrative expenses.
*Effective Date: October 1, 2026
F Y  2 0 2 6 - 2 7  F E E S  &  C H A R G E S  R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S
5
Total Estimated Fiscal Impact: $1,749,780
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 5 of 13

City Clerk
Update  Commercial Public Record Request Fee
• The fee currently exists in some departments at varying amounts.
• Propose a consistent $25/hour fee to apply citywide requests through the 
City Clerk.
• Public agencies may charge fees to fulfill these requests under A.R.S. § 39-
121.03.
F Y  2 0 2 6 - 2 7  F E E S  &  C H A R G E S  R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S
6
Total Estimated Fiscal Impact: $525
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 6 of 13

Code Compliance
Increase  Administrative Lien Fee
•Increase from $20.00 to $60.00 to match the Maricopa County Recorder’s Fee.
New  Civil Citation Fines for Non-Residential Properties
•Implement higher fine ranges intended for non-residential properties:
•1st violation: $750-$1,500 per violation
•2nd violation: $1,250-$2,000 per violation
•3rd violation: $1,750-$2,500 per violation 
New  Title Search Fee
•A $650 title search fee, assessed only after all internal search efforts fail, would 
allow the City to use a title company to identify a property owner with 
outstanding violations.
New  Certified Mail Fee
•Charge a $15 fee for each certified mail sent when a citation cannot be served in 
person to recover mailing costs.
F Y  2 0 2 6 - 2 7  F E E S  &  C H A R G E S  R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S
7
Total Estimated Fiscal Impact: $166,000
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 7 of 13

Development Services
Updates  to Development Services:
• Code Compliance Fee Schedule to be relocated as standalone fee schedule.
Updates  to Planning Services:
• New  Employment Opportunity District Fee ($4,800 + $78/acre)
• New  Map of Dedication Fee ($100)
• New  Planning Resubmittal Fee (20% of original application fee)
Administrative Updates to Planning Services
• Standardizing language/formatting in the Fee Schedule to provide applicants 
with greater clarity, renaming of fees, and remove obsolete fees.
F Y  2 0 2 6 - 2 7  F E E S  &  C H A R G E S  R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S
8
Total Estimated Fiscal Impact: $18,500
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 8 of 13

Municipal Court
Increase  Court Construction Fee
•The fee increases by $3 every three years per Mesa Ordinance No. 
4621.
•The fee will rise from $34.50 to $37.50 per case on July 1, 2026.
F Y  2 0 2 6 - 2 7  F E E S  &  C H A R G E S  R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S
9
Total Estimated Fiscal Impact: $81,525
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 9 of 13

Office of Urban Transformation
Increase  Daily Permit Parking Rate
•Rate will rise from $2.50 to $4.00 on July 1, 2026.
•Applies to 1,034 spaces across four garages and four surface lots 
in downtown Mesa (approx. 1300 spaces in total).
F Y  2 0 2 6 - 2 7  F E E S  &  C H A R G E S  R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S
10
Total Estimated Fiscal Impact: $1,950
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 10 of 13

Transportation
Increase Traffic Signal In-Lieu Fees
• Last updated in 2019; Proposed fees reflect current market costs paid by 
the City:
• Four-leg intersection: $225,000 per quadrant
• “T” intersection: $200,000 per share
Increase  Pavement Surfacing Replacement In-Lieu Payments
• Propose increasing the fee from $2.75 to $4.00 per square yard to recover 
higher material costs.
Add  Tech Fee Language
• Include language from Development Services for fee applied to Temporary 
Traffic Control Fees.
F Y  2 0 2 6 - 2 7  F E E S  &  C H A R G E S  R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S
11
Total Estimated Fiscal Impact: $458,000
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 11 of 13

Administrative Fee Update
Move  Animal Control fees from Police Department to 
Community Services Department.
Move  Alarm Fines, Fees, and Assessments from Police 
Department to Business Services Department.
Rename  ”MVA” to “911 Recordings” on Mesa Fire & 
Medical Fee Schedule.
Rename  ”Police, City Prosecutor’s Office & Animal Control 
Division” Fee Schedule to “Police”.
F Y  2 0 2 6 - 2 7  F E E S  &  C H A R G E S  R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S
12
Total Estimated Fiscal Impact: $0
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 12 of 13

Next Steps
F Y  2 0 2 6 - 2 7  F E E S  &  C H A R G E S  R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S
13
City Council to consider proposed fees and charges amendments on June 1, 2026.
If approved by City Council, fee & charges adjustments are effective July 1, 2026* 
*Business Services Utility Bill Fee Effective October 1, 2026
Audit, Finance &  
Enterprise Committee 
March 5, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 13 of 13