March 12, 2026 Community and Cultural Development Committee

COMMUNITY & CULTURAL 
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES 
 
March 12, 2026 
 
The Community and Cultural Development Committee of the City of Mesa met in the Study Session 
room at City Hall, 20 East Main Street, on March 12, 2026, at 9:21 a.m. 
 
COMMITTEE PRESENT 
COMMITTEE ABSENT 
STAFF PRESENT 
 
 
 
Francisco Heredia, Chairperson 
Jennifer Duff 
Scott Somers 
None 
Candace Cannistraro 
Lauren Lowe 
Holly Moseley 
 
Chairperson Heredia conducted a roll call. 
 
1. 
Items from citizens present. 
 
 
 
There were no items from citizens present. 
 
2-a. 
Hear a presentation and discuss eligible activities and current and potential city projects and 
programs related to Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment 
Partnerships Program (HOME), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), and Human Services 
funding. 
 
Housing and Community Development Administrator Justin Boyd displayed a PowerPoint 
presentation. (See Attachment 1) 
 
Mr. Boyd reviewed the City of Mesa’s proposed federal and local funding sources and eligible 
activities for Fiscal Year (FY) 26/27, noting that strict federal regulations govern how funds can 
be used. He emphasized that although the presentation indicates that Human Services/A Better 
Community (ABC) has an allocation of $651,663,only $547,163 of Human Service funds are 
available for allocation this year after required set aside and prior commitments. He stated that 
the ABC program is funded through donations made by Mesa residents to support community 
services and that staff is recommending not utilizing these donation funds for allocation at this 
time. He added that the City may may consider revisiting potential uses of these funds in the 
future. (See Page 2 of Attachment 1) 
 
Mr. Boyd described the role of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 
and indicated that the City administers the funds locally, while partnering with non-profit 
organizations and community stakeholders. He explained that the COM is a HUD entitlement 
community that receives certain federal housing and community development funds directly 
from HUD, rather than from the state. He noted that being an entitlement community allows the 
                                        
 
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK

Community & Cultural Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
 
Page 2 
 
 
City to design programs and allocate funding that addresses local needs, while maintaining 
compliance with federal regulations. (See Pages 3 and 4 of Attachment 1) 
 
Mr. Boyd advised that the City administers several local programs from federal and local funding 
sources. He identified the primary federal programs, and the local funding through Human 
Services and ABC, which the City provides. He commented that combined, these fund sources 
create a coordinated system that supports housing stability, community development, and 
essential services to Mesa residents. (See Page 5 of Attachment 1) 
 
Mr. Boyd mentioned that CDBG is one of HUD’s most flexible funding tools for local 
government, and is intended to reach community development needs, while primarily benefiting 
low-to moderate-income households. He indicated that due to this flexibility, CDBG plays a 
critical role in neighborhood revitalization and improving conditions in areas with the greatest 
need. (See Page 6 of Attachment 1) 
 
Mr. Boyd described the eligible activities for CDBG funds, and the hierarchy of lower-risk and 
higher-risk activities for CDBG non-public service activities. He defined that lower-risk activities 
can be implemented more quickly and produce measurable results and he highlighted several 
projects. He identified the CDBG activities that present a higher level of implementation risk due 
to their complexity, and noted the projects that fall within that category. (See Pages 7 through 9 
of Attachment 1) 
 
Mr. Boyd stated that the selection of CDBG projects affects HUD’s required 1.5 timeliness ratio, 
which measures unspent funds versus annual grant amounts and must remain at or below 
1.5%. (See Page 10 of Attachment 1) 
 
Mr. Boyd explained how the City distributes CDBG funds between public service and non-public 
service activities. He mentioned that $295,000 was allocated for public service activities, with 
Phoenix Rescue Mission receiving funding through an RFP process for community navigation 
services, while the remainder stayed in-house. He added that for non-public services, the City 
began focusing on projects for park improvements and prioritized timely spending and federal 
compliance. He stressed that managing the program internally gives the City greater oversight 
of outcomes. (See Page 7 of Attachment 1) 
 
Deputy City Manager Candance Cannistraro noted that due to past difficulties meeting the 1.5 
timeliness ratio, the City shifted more funding in-house to improve control and project success. 
 
In response to a question from Committeemember Somers, Mr. Boyd explained that the budget 
is based on prior-year allocations since current year HUD allocations are received later, making 
estimates necessary. 
 
Ms. Cannistraro stated that CDBG funding is generally stable each year and is divided into two 
categories: public services, partly handled in-house, and non-public services, which as of last 
year were 100% allocated to in-house emergency rehabilitation programs. 
 
In response to a question from Committeemember Duff, Ms. Cannistraro confirmed that the 
overall intent is to benefit low-income residents. She stated that eligibility requirements remain 
the same whether services are delivered through non-profits or directly by the City, and 
recipients must also be certified.

Community & Cultural Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
 
Page 3 
 
 
Mr. Boyd highlighted the HOME Investment Partnership Program funds that help expand 
housing opportunities. (See Page 11 of Attachment 1) 
 
Ms. Cannistraro clarified that HOME funds are primarily used as gap financing for affordable 
housing projects, often supporting developers applying for Low-Income Housing Tax Credits 
(LIHTC). She mentioned that the City’s approach has evolved on how to create affordable 
housing options within the City’s infill development. 
 
In response to a question posed by Chairperson Heredia, Ms. Cannistraro answered that the 
City is exploring options for brick-and-mortar assets, and stronger partnerships to ensure 
successful outcomes.  
 
Mr. Boyd summarized the programs that are supported by the Emergency Solutions Grant 
(ESG). (See Page 12 of Attachment 1) 
 
Ms. Cannistraro explained ESG funds are typically given to non-profits for services, are the 
smallest funds received from the federal government, and have the same requirements as 
others. She mentioned staff have not experienced any issues with the spending down of these 
funds.  
 
Mr. Boyd described additional local Human Services and ABC funding that supports non-profits 
and may not be fully covered by federal funds. (See Page 13 of Attachment 1) 
 
In response to a question from Chairperson Heredia, Ms. Cannistraro affirmed that the Human 
Services and ABC funding are more flexible than HUD funds. She explained the difference 
between the ABC and Human Services funds. 
 
Discussion ensued regarding funding options and future plans for SunAire operations, 
communicating donation use to residents, and exploring alternative funding sources.  
 
Mr. Boyd provided an overview of the HOME-American Rescue Plan (ARP) federal funding 
source and how the dollars support Mesa’s community. (See Page 14 of Attachment 1) 
 
In response to a question posed by Chairperson Heredia, Ms. Cannistraro clarified that funds 
must be spent by September 2030 and only certain operational costs are eligible for SunAire. 
 
Mr. Boyd explained that the non-congregate shelter to supportive services is a much lower risk 
activity, and he discussed the services supported. (See Page 15 of Attachment 1) 
 
Mr. Boyd reviewed the timeline for the upcoming schedule and commented that the process 
promotes transparency and public participation in accordance with federal regulations governing 
the planning of federal funds. (See Page 16 of Attachment 1) 
 
Chairperson Heredia suggested using these funds as a temporary solution for SunAire, while 
long-term options are explored.  
 
Additional discussion ensued regarding CDBG allocations, spend down requirements and 
deadlines, direction of the committee, and steps following Council’s recommendation.

Community & Cultural Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
 
Page 4 
 
 
Committeemember Duff expressed her concerns with the potential termination of the SunAire 
project, lack of support for non-profits with steady funding, and Human Services funding.  
 
Mr. Boyd clarified that HOME-ARP funds are separate from this funding process and would not 
affect the agencies or other funding sources. 
 
Chairperson Heredia acknowledged the challenges non-profits face with application periods for 
City funds. He suggested moving the process forward to allow time to seek other options and 
sponsors, emphasizing it is up to the Council to make the final decision. He supports 
considering as an option for the recent issues with SunAire and homelessness, noting that data 
shows the program is impactful and sustainable. 
 
Committeemember Somers stated that after next week’s discussion, the Committee will provide 
a recommendation to Council.  
 
Committeemember Duff proposed that if the Council proceeds, a provision be included to 
restore Human Services funding to its original purpose providing an opportunity to support 
SunAire’s progress and allow time to explore other funding options. She emphasized the need 
to continue serving Mesa’s homeless population.  
 
Chairperson Heredia thanked staff for the presentation. 
 
2-b. 
Hear a presentation and discuss proposed programs to support redevelopment priorities and 
initiatives. 
 
Manager of Urban Transformation Jeff McVay introduced Development Services Director Nana 
Appiah, Redevelopment Administrator Jeff Robbins, Economic Development Director Jaye 
O’Donnell, Code Compliance Director Angelica Guevara, and displayed a PowerPoint 
presentation. (See Attachment 2) 
 
Mr. McVay explained that the Redevelopment Toolkit includes several tools informed by staff’s 
comparative research and national best practices tailored to fit the Mesa environment. He 
added that eight different tools were developed to be a pilot for a comprehensive redevelopment 
program and assist in meeting Council’s strategic priorities. He noted that an important goal of 
redevelopment is the convening of stakeholder focus groups used to determine the tools that 
will be successful and useful to the development community, small business owners, and 
property owners. (See Page 2 of Attachment 2) 
 
Ms. O’Donnell highlighted the feedback from the two focus groups, stating that both groups 
expressed strong support for the toolkit. She mentioned that several of the refinements include 
plan resources for marketing and more flexibility through the various menu items. She added if 
Council’s direction is to move forward, staff will focus on making the application process easy to 
apply and understand. (See Page 3 of Attachment 2) 
 
Mr. Robbins provided an overview of the public infrastructure tool and its function. He 
commented that the tool is designed to assist with only the public side of utilities. (See Page 4 of 
Attachment 2) 
 
In response to a question from Committeemember Duff, Mr. Robbins replied that either a small 
business owner or property owner can apply.

Community & Cultural Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
 
Page 5 
 
 
 
Ms. Guevara discussed the enhanced code compliance tool for the blight removal program, 
noting the title may change. She stated that the main goal of the program is to offer grants to 
assist property and small business owners, remediate blight, and beautify properties. She 
commented that code issues deter investments in surrounding proprieties and reduce business 
activity, impact health and safety, and negatively contribute to areas with struggling economic 
activity. (See Page 5 of Attachment 2) 
 
Ms. Guevara highlighted the vacancy registration program and the benefits to property owners 
and the City. She indicated that she anticipates the program to initially be revenue neutral with 
no fee for the program. She noted after the property is vacant a year, there would be annual 
fees starting with $150 in year one, and the purpose of the fees are for inspections for safety 
and to recuperate staff costs, while motivating business or property owners to reoccupy their 
buildings. (See Page 6 of Attachment 2) 
 
Responding to a question from Chairperson Heredia, Ms. Guevara answered that the City does 
not have a current vacancy registry. She explained that the addition of the vacancy registry 
program is expected to help reduce many of the problems that exist with trespassing, 
vandalism, and eliminate delays in finding property or business owners. She noted that staff do 
not have the capability to track vacant properties and that approximately 7.7% of buildings in 
Mesa are vacant. She reported on the benefits of having contact information for business and 
property owners. 
 
Chairperson Heredia proposed including a feature in the registry that would allow business and 
property owners to be notified.  
 
Ms. Guevara advised that one feature of the program is to adopt by ordinance a requirement of 
property owners to register vacant buildings proactively, without needing a complaint or blight 
notice. She added that if owners do not voluntarily register and the property is flagged by Code 
Enforcement, they will request registration information to ensure a local contact. 
 
Responding to multiple questions from Committeemember Duff, Mr. Robbins clarified that the 
vacancy registration requirement would be for all commercial properties citywide and relates to 
undeveloped dirt or by-pass parcels within Redevelopment Areas (RDA). He stated that staff is 
working on a notification system to inform business and property owners if their property is in an 
RDA and to understand what is required to meet compliance. 
 
Ms. O’Donnell described the demolition and remediation program and the benefits of 
reinvestment. She advised that reimbursement occurs after owners pay upfront, and while 
current funding does not cover remediation, there are ongoing discussions with Arizona 
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to potentially support remediation. (See Page 7 of 
Attachment 2) 
 
Responding to a question posed by Chairperson Heredia, Ms. O’Donnell stated that staff will 
take into consideration ways to reduce permitting and other City-related costs to further 
incentivize demolition and remediation. 
 
Mr. McVay provided an overview of the Reuse Ready Program, which is intended to support 
small business growth. He discussed the challenges with older buildings and the significant 
costs to revitalize older neighborhoods. (See Page 8 of Attachment 2)

Community & Cultural Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
 
Page 6 
 
 
 
Mr. Appiah outlined the Placemaking Program which is specific to commercial districts taking 
initiatives through the City’s Capital Improvements projects (CIP) or working in partnerships with 
developers. (See Page 9 of Attachment 2) 
 
Mr. McVay summarized the Strategic Acquisition and Analysis Program, noting that certain city 
parcels are strategically located so that their redevelopment can significantly impact surrounding 
properties. He stated the intention is to focus on areas in which strategic investment is 
necessary, where the market is not responding to current conditions. He emphasized the City 
would be following standard City policies, and no acquisitions could be incurred without Council 
approval. (See Page 10 of Attachment 2) 
 
In response to a question from Committeemember Somers, Mr. McVay replied that the main 
opportunity lies in completing feasibility studies and collaborating with private property owners. 
He added that by identifying sites with appropriate zoning and development proposals, owners 
can reposition their properties for improved economic activity, either through sale or joint 
ventures with developers. 
 
Mr. Robbins provided an overview of the Economic Development Administration (EDA) 
Revolving Loan Fund, the only tool involving federal funding and has more complex 
administration. He commented that the fund addresses lending gaps in the commercial market 
for loans between $50,000 and $250,000. He mentioned the City is exploring options for seed 
funding and alternative revolving loan fund models with fewer restrictions. (See Pages 11 and 
12 of Attachment 2) 
 
Mr. Robbins described the general process for administration of the tools and stated that there 
is staff support, depending on the tool, available to assist with the pre-application process. (See 
Page 14 of Attachment 2) 
 
Mr. Robbins discussed that many of the tools are designed to be applicable across any 
redevelopment area, and currently the City’s RDA encompasses approximately 4.5%. He 
recognized that numerous additional areas could also benefit from these resources with this 
year’s allocation, and a primary objective is to fund the development of a new RDA plan aimed 
at identifying areas exhibiting signs of blight. He emphasized that in accordance with state 
statutes, the City will complete all required reporting, after which a comprehensive plan will be 
created to expand the City’s designated territory. (See Page 15 of Attachment 2)  
 
Mr. McVay advised that the City intentionally leaves existing RDAs unchanged since those are 
designated as the City’s single central business district, and that 4.5% of the city is 
grandfathered in under a previous state statute. He advised that updating these areas would 
subject the City to current laws limiting central business districts to 2.5% of land area.  
 
Ms. O’Donnell discussed the marketing strategy and the goal of communicating Mesa’s vision 
and the support available to stakeholders. (See Page 16 of Attachment 2) 
 
Mr. McVay reviewed expenditure targets, noting that the requested $3 million allocation will be 
distributed across six tools, with flexibility to respond to market demand. He commented that the 
intention is to have a maximum cap of $3 million on individual tools. (See Page 17 of 
Attachment 2)

Community & Cultural Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
 
Page 7 
 
 
In response to a question from Chairperson Heredia, Mr. McVay confirmed that having funds 
available offers the ability to seek other funding sources and additional private or non-profit 
dollars for support. He noted many of the programs have a match requirement so that the 
program can have a multiplier effect beyond what the City’s investment would be.   
 
Mr. Robbins emphasized that Council’s direction is for the program to demonstrate public 
benefit to Mesa residents. He reviewed the public benefit options to be used while building out 
the tools to 100%, provided Council wants to proceed in that direction. (See Page 18 of 
Attachment 2) 
 
Mr. Robbins highlighted the three categories that measure the impact of the programs and 
potential modifications. (See Page 19 of Attachment 2) 
 
Mr. Robbins reviewed the launch schedule of the proposed toolkit and emphasized the need for 
immediate tools, while ensuring a clear rollout that benefits business owners. He mentioned that 
the City is already working on the vacancy registration and noted potential delays with the 
revolving loan fund due to challenges. (See Page 20 of Attachment 2) 
 
Mr. Appiah explained that the tools cannot be deployed if the regulatory barriers are not 
removed. He pointed out that the City is working with a consultant to determine ways to remove 
the barriers and improve efficiency.  
 
Committeemember Duff proposed recapturing funds from property turnover and reinvesting 
them to strengthen the acquisition fund. She emphasized organizing approachable one-on-one 
sessions with the Mesa Business Builders (MBB) to help make the process less intimidating and 
clarify funding sources. 
 
Mr. Robbins added that the funding source for the majority of the tools is the General Fund at 
this time, except for EDA, which is a federal source. He expressed openness to other funding 
sources following the initial step taken by the City to start the fund, if Council directs staff to 
proceed in that direction.  
 
In response to a question from Committeemember Duff, Mr. McVay explained that $3 million is 
allocated as part of the Office of Urban Transformation budget and the City is the administrator 
of the funding. 
 
Responding to a question from Committeemember Somers, Mr. Robbins replied that Council 
will be given the presentation at the March 26 Study Session.  
 
Committeemember Somers agreed with the idea of pursuing more revenue streams and 
expressed his support of the Redevelopment Program Toolkit. 
 
Chairperson Heredia suggested researching the Superstition Springs area for deployment of the 
tools.  
 
Chairperson Heredia commented that the Consensus of the Board is to move the 
recommendations forward to the full Council and thanked staff for the presentation.

Community & Cultural Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
 
Page 8 
 
 
3. 
Adjournment. 
 
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 11:25 a.m. 
 
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Community 
and Cultural Development Committee meeting of the City of Mesa, Arizona, held on the 12th 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 
 
lr 
(Attachments – 2)

Justin Boyd, Housing and Community Development Administrator 
March 12, 2026
Overview of FY 2026/2027 
Funding Sources
1
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 1 of 17

FY 2026/2027 Tentative Funding Allocations
CDBG - 
$3,675,410
HOME - 
$6,618,404
ESG – 
$340,016
Human 
Services/ABC -    
    $651,663* 
CDBG Administration (≤20%): $2,940,328
CDBG Public Service Allocation (15%): $551,312
CDBG Non-Public Service Allocation: $2,389,016
2
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 2 of 17

What is HUD?
U.S. Department of Housing and 
Urban Development.
Federal agency responsible for 
housing and community 
development programs.
Provides funding to cities to 
address housing needs and 
homelessness.
3
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 3 of 17

What is an 
Entitlement 
Community?
Cities that receive HUD funding 
directly from the federal 
government.
Funds distributed annually using 
federal formulas.
City of Mesa qualifies as a HUD 
Entitlement Community.
4
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 4 of 17

HUD and Local 
Funding Sources
Federal Programs: Community 
Development Block Grant (CDBG)
HOME Investment Partnerships 
Program (HOME)
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)
Local Programs: Human Services 
and A Better Community (ABC)
5
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 5 of 17

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
CDBG is a federal HUD program that provides flexible funding to cities 
to address community development needs.
Funds primarily benefit low- and moderate-income residents.
Typical uses include housing rehabilitation, public facility 
improvements, neighborhood infrastructure, and limited public 
services.
6
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 6 of 17

Eligible CDBG Activities
Public Service Activities (subject to 15% cap):
Homeless services and housing stability programs
Senior services, youth programs, and food assistance
Case management and supportive services
Non-Public Service Activities:
Housing rehabilitation programs
Public facility and accessibility improvements
Neighborhood infrastructure improvements (sidewalks, lighting, drainage)
Code enforcement and blight removal
7
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 7 of 17

Lower-Risk CDBG Non-Public Service 
Activities
Emergency Rehabilitation Programs – Health and safety repairs for 
low-income homeowners.
Public Facility Improvements – Parks, community centers, and ADA 
accessibility upgrades.
Neighborhood Infrastructure Improvements – Sidewalks, lighting, 
drainage, and accessibility improvements.
Code Enforcement and Blight Removal – Addressing unsafe structures 
and neighborhood deterioration.
8
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 8 of 17

Higher-Risk CDBG Non-Public Service 
Activities
Economic development activities - Projects that rely on job creation or 
retention requirements and require detailed documentation showing jobs 
primarily benefit low- and moderate-income persons.
Property acquisition for future redevelopment - Projects dependent on future 
financing, environmental review, or development timelines that can delay 
project completion and expenditure.
Large multi-partner development projects - Activities involving multiple 
funding sources or development partners that increase administrative 
complexity and implementation timelines.
9
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 9 of 17

How CDBG Project Selection Influences the 
HUD 1.5 Timeliness Ratio
HUD requires entitlement communities to maintain a CDBG timeliness ratio of 
1.5 or lower, which measures funds remaining in the City’s HUD line of credit 
compared to the annual grant amount.
Projects that move quickly to construction and produce measurable outcomes 
help maintain compliance.
Lower-risk activities such as housing rehabilitation, public facility 
improvements, and neighborhood infrastructure projects typically spend 
funds more quickly.
Complex or high-risk projects with long timelines can delay expenditures and 
increase the risk of exceeding HUD’s timeliness threshold.
Riskier projects → slower spending → higher HUD compliance risk.
10
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 10 of 17

HOME Investment Partnerships Program
HOME is HUD’s primary program for creating and preserving affordable 
housing.
Funds support development and rehabilitation of affordable rental 
housing.
Additional uses include homebuyer assistance and tenant-based rental 
assistance for low-income households.
11
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 11 of 17

Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) 
ESG supports a community’s homelessness response system.
Funds may be used for emergency shelter operations, rapid rehousing, 
and homelessness prevention.
Programs also support street outreach and coordinated entry services.
12
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 12 of 17

Human Services and A Better Community (ABC) 
Local funding supporting nonprofit service providers.
Programs address crisis services, prevention, transitional services, and 
long-term support.
13
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 13 of 17

HOME-ARP
HOME-ARP (HOME Investment Partnerships – American Rescue Plan) is a one-
time federal funding source provided by HUD to address homelessness and 
housing instability.
Funds must serve qualifying populations, including individuals or families who 
are homeless, at risk of homelessness, or fleeing domestic violence.
Eligible uses include affordable rental housing development, tenant-based 
rental assistance, supportive services, and non-congregate shelter.
The City has been allocated $5,614,116 in HOME-ARP funding, with up to 15% 
$842,117.40 permitted for administrative costs, leaving a $4,771,988.60 
available to allocate.
All HOME-ARP funds must be fully expended by September 30, 2030, or they 
may be subject to recapture by HUD. 
14
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 14 of 17

Transition from Non-Congregate Shelter to 
Supportive Services (HOME-ARP)
Local homelessness response data indicates that many individuals 
accessing shelter require intensive case management and housing 
navigation to successfully transition into permanent housing.
Redirecting HOME-ARP resources toward supportive services allows the 
City to expand case management capacity, fund staff positions, and 
strengthen housing stabilization programs.
This strategy maximizes the impact of HOME-ARP funding by helping 
residents move more quickly from crisis situations into stable housing 
rather than focusing solely on creating additional temporary shelter 
units.
15
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 15 of 17

Upcoming Timeline
Next CCD Meeting – March 19, 2026
Annual Action Plan Draft Complete for Public Comment – 
March 24, 2026
FY 2025/2026 Funding Recommendations to City Council – 
May 4, 2026
Annual Action Plan Due to HUD – May 15, 2026
16
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 16 of 17

Thank you for your time and participation.
Questions? 
17
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 1 
Page 17 of 17

Redevelopment 
Program Toolkit
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee
Jeff McVay 
Manager of Urban Transformation
Angelica Guevara 
Code Compliance Director
Nana Appiah
Development Services Director 
Jeff Robbins 
Redevelopment Administrator
Jaye O'Donnell 
Economic Development Director
March 12, 2026
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 1 of 21

The Redevelopment Toolkit
Public
Infrastructure
Utility Assistance
Enhanced Code 
Compliance
Blight Removal
Demolition &
Remediation
Blight Removal
Reuse Ready
Access + Life Safety
Vacant Property
Registration
Fill vacant spaces
Placemaking
Public Interventions
EDA Revolving 
Loan Fund
Gap Financing
Strategic Acquisition 
and Analysis
Studies and Purchases
2
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 2 of 21

Description
The Mechanics
STAKEHOLDER FOCUS GROUPS
Developer + Property Owner
Small Business
Strong marketing plan
Reasonable reporting 
requirements
Simple application process
Fast approval or denial
Strong support for the 
infrastructure tool
Published, clear timelines
3
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 3 of 21

Description
The Mechanics
PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
Provides funding to offset the cost 
of upgrading public utilities 
needed for infill, adaptive reuse, 
and redevelopment projects
Infrastructure is a prerequisite for 
private capital investment that 
generates tax revenue, create 
jobs, places for people to live, and 
improves resident’s quality of life
Why
Target: Infill, adaptive reuse, 
redevelopment, and blight 
remediation citywide
Two Tiers: Improvements $50k 
or less (small business support) 
with rapid review and approvals. 
Projects over $50k are 
negotiated
Exclusions: Public 
infrastructure only—no private 
infrastructure 
Maximum Award: Case-by-
case
Match: Negotiated. For small 
business, match may not be 
required
4
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 4 of 21

Description
The Mechanics
ENHANCED CODE COMPLIANCE
Code issues may deter investment 
in surrounding properties, reduce 
business activity, impact health 
and safety, and negatively 
contribute to areas with struggling 
economic activity
Why
Eligibility: 
Must be located within a 
Redevelopment Area AND 
LMI census tract OR
Evidence of need
Small business and property 
owners only
Only improvements visible 
from the street
Documented code case or 
administrative determination of 
blight
Legal non-conforming 
structures
Exclusions: Non-fixed assets, 
improvements not visible from 
the street
Maximum Award: $25,000
Match: 1:1
A grant that helps property and 
small business owners have 
greater impact when remediating 
blight and beautifying their 
property
5
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 5 of 21

Description
The Mechanics
VACANCY REGISTRATION
Code Compliance expends resources 
tracking down owner information for 
properties  with code issues
City connects owners to resources, 
potentially reducing duration of 
vacancy
Trespass enforcement registration
Requirements: 
All commercial properties 
citywide
Vacant properties in RDAs
Industrial properties in RDA 
only
Revenue Neutral
90 Days: Must register within 90 
days of a vacancy
Annual Fees For Vacancy: 
Fines for non-registration will 
match commercial civil 
violation fines
Enforced through existing civil 
code compliance process with 
appeal rights. Can become a lien
Requires owners of vacant 
commercial buildings to register the 
property with the City, maintain safe 
conditions, and provide reliable 
contact information
Why
Registration
No Fee
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3+
$150
$500
$250
6
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 6 of 21

Description
The Mechanics
DEMOLITION AND REMEDIATION
Improves neighborhood 
confidence and market perception
Catalyzes private investment in 
underperforming areas
Requirements: 
Must be located within an   
RDA
Determined to be hazardous  
or functionally obsolete
Maximum Award: Lesser of 
50% of costs or $75,000
Match: 1:1 
Annual Spending Cap: 
$1,500,000 
Other: 
Reimbursement
Three bids required
Explore ADEQ partnership for 
remediation support
Assists in removing obsolete or 
unsafe structures to reduce blight 
and prepare sites for reinvestment
Why
7
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 7 of 21

Description
The Mechanics
REUSE READY
Lower barriers for tenant occupancy
Support small business and long-
term tax revenue
Enhance accessibility and safety of 
older buildings
Upgrades existing commercial 
spaces with life-safety and 
accessibility improvements such 
as fire suppression systems and 
ADA compliance enhancements
Why
Requirements: 
Must be located within an   
RDA
Signed lease 
Maximum Award: Lesser of 50% 
of costs or $75,000
Match: 1:1 
Other: Reimbursement
Eligible Uses
Fire sprinklers or equivalent 
alternative
Structural issues
Demolition of hazardous or 
unpermitted structures inside 
the property
Improvements to unsafe 
infrastructure (electrical, 
plumbing)
Interior and exterior 
improvements to meet ADA 
compliance, including upgrades 
to doorways, entryways, and 
restroom accessibility
8
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 8 of 21

Description
The Mechanics
PLACEMAKING
Why
Strengthens and differentiates key 
areas of Mesa by creating 
distinctive, high-quality public 
environments that attract private 
investment, support local 
businesses, increase foot traffic, 
and enhance overall economic 
vitality and community pride
Funds strategic investments in 
people-centered public space 
improvements within targeted 
areas
Requirements
Located within a commercial 
business district
Located in public ROW or public 
easement
City or public-private  
partnership
Compatibility: Compatible with 
plans (General, RDA, sub-area)
Identification of Needs
CIP
Transportation, Arts and   
Culture, etc. 
Goals identified in Council 
adopted plans
Eligible Uses
Capital improvements, 
activation projects and 
enhancement projects for   
public spaces
Includes art, lighting, signage 
landscaping, seating, etc. for 
programs that include, but are 
not limited to:
Canal Enhancements
Gateway Monumentation
Wayfinding 
Streetscape and 
Alley enhancements 
Public Realm Improvements
Temporary Installations    
(pianos, parklets)
9
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 9 of 21

Description
The Mechanics
STRATEGIC ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS
Why
Shape outcomes in high-impact 
locations
Accelerate catalytic private 
investment
Reduce uncertainty before major 
capital decisions
Funds property acquisition by the 
City and feasibility studies that 
position key sites for catalytic 
redevelopment aligned with the 
City’s long-term economic strategy
Guidelines For Public 
Acquisition
Strategic location
First in to prove the market
Corrects a perceived or real 
market failure
Site assemblage 
Public purpose alignment
Guidelines for Feasibility Studies 
Blighted properties
Placemaking opportunity
Strategic location
Bypassed parcels
Compatibility: 
Compatible with plans   
(General, RDA, sub-area)
Other: 
Acquisition requires Council 
approval
May  be used to supplement 
other funds for acquisitions
May be paired with 
demolition and remediation 
tool
10
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 10 of 21

Description
The Mechanics
EDA REVOLVING LOAN FUND
Why
Fills the gap between microlenders 
and commercial banks
Offers flexible, below-market 
financing
Becomes a resource for Mesa 
small businesses in perpetuity
A federally funded, locally managed 
financing tool that provides gap 
capital to small businesses that 
cannot access traditional bank 
financing
Requirements: 
Establish RLF Plan (50% ready)
Must achieve certain job ratios
Comply with federal 
environmental review        
(NEPA, NHPA)
Davis-Bacon (construction)
Record keeping
Limit cash on hand
Other regulations
Revolving 
Loan 
Fund
Cycle
11
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 11 of 21

Description
The Mechanics
EDA REVOLVING LOAN FUND
Why
Award Range: $50k-$150k
Interest Rate: Can be set by 
City. Below prime rate
The Mechanics Continued
Small Business
City Role: 
Trustee of federal assets
Creates the specific 
objectives
Sets the interest rate 
(with some limits)
Administration 
Reporting
Money Matters: 
Initial seed of ~500k
Up to $2M in EDA funds
50k-150k loans           
(some flexibility)
Portfolio must leverage $2 
for every $1 of RLF 
City not responsible for 
defaults
EDA can release the 
Federal interest after 
seven years
Obstacles: 
40% match cannot 
be paid by City
Comprehensive 
Economic 
Development 
Strategy required
Alternative Path:
Community 
Reinvestment Act 
(CRA)  is a qualified 
activity for banks
12
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 12 of 21

Budget and 
Administration
13
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 13 of 21

Notice, 
closeout, 
reimburse, 
reporting
Decision
Intake, 
review, and 
preparation 
for decision
Formal 
Application
Pre- 
Application 
Support
ADMINISTRATION AND PROCESS
Generalized. Process may vary slightly for different tools
Day-to-day administration by the Office of Urban Transformation (OUT)
14
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 14 of 21

REDEVELOPMENT AREA PLAN
Current Percentage of 
City Covered by RDA
4.5%
Future Percentage of 
City Covered by RDA 
?
15
New Plan
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 15 of 21

MARKETING
• Partnerships
• Engage brokerages
• Annual event
• Direct marketing
• Collateral (digital/print)
• Earned and paid media
• Webpage
• Digital interactive map
• Non-traditional, direct marketing
• Property owners and developers
• Commercial real estate attorneys 
• Lending institutions and capital 
partners
• Architects and engineering firms
16
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 16 of 21

EXPENDITURE TARGETS
TOOL
TARGET EXPENDITURE RANGE*
Public Infrastructure
$500,000 – $2,000,000
Business and Property Enhancement
$25,000 – $250,000
Vacancy Registration
Revenue Neutral
Demolition and Remediation
$250,000 – $1,500,000
Reuse Ready
$250,000 – $1,000,000
Placemaking
$500,000 – $1,000,000
Strategic Acquisition and Analysis
$0 – $1,000,000
Marketing and Plan Development
$25,000 – $125,000
Revolving Loan Fund
Revenue Neutral
Expenditures will not exceed available program funding
(*Range provides flexibility to adjust funding based on market demand)
17
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 17 of 21

PUBLIC BENEFIT
Negotiated Public Benefit Options
Job creation or retention
Volunteer with Mesa’s Citywide Volunteer Program
Attainable or reduced rent for a defined period of time
Enhanced improvements in the public right of way
Lien on property to be paid back at sale
Deed restriction
Other negotiated value
18
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 18 of 21

MEASURING IMPACT
Measuring Desired 
Outcomes
Private capital 
leveraged
Tax revenue generated 
(one-time, ongoing)
Jobs created or 
retained 
Economic activity as a 
result of new housing 
units
Measuring 
Program Efficiency 
Vacant spaces filled
Application turn around 
times
Businesses and 
projects supported
Annual and all-time 
fund utilization ratio          
(lent-to-total fund ratio)
Measuring Long-
term Impacts
2-3 year lookbacks on 
funded projects
Qualitative data 
19
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 19 of 21

PROPOSED TOOLKIT LAUNCH SCHEDULE
Mid 
2026
Late 
2026
2027
•
Vacancy Registration
•
Placemaking
•
Strategic Acquisition and Analysis
•
Public Infrastructure
•
Enhanced Code Enforcement
•
Reuse Ready
•
Demolition and Remediation 
•
Revolving Loan Fund
20
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 20 of 21

Questions and Discussion
21
Community and Cultural 
Development Committee 
March 12, 2026 
Attachment 2 
Page 21 of 21