Minutes of the Special Meeting, Budget Workshop #2 held on March 24, 2025
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
33199 characters
Meeting Minutes
City Council Special Meeting
March 24, 2025 | 4:00 p.m.
Council Chambers Conference Room
88 E. Chicago St., Chandler, AZ
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kevin Hartke at 4:00 p.m.
Roll Call
Council Attendance
Appointee Attendance
Mayor Kevin Hartke
Joshua Wright, City Manager
Vice Mayor Christine Ellis
Kelly Schwab, City Attorney
Councilmember Angel Encinas
Dana DeLong, City Clerk
Councilmember Jane Poston
Councilmember Matt Orlando
Councilmember OD Harris
Councilmember Jennifer Hawkins
Staff in Attendance
Tadd Wille, Assistant City Manager
Dawn Lang, Deputy City Manager / Chief Financial Officer
Andy Bass, Deputy City Manager
Alexis Apodaca, Mayor & Council Public Affairs Senior Manager
Matt Dunbar, Budget & Policy Director
Ryan Peters, Strategic Initiatives Director
Riann Balch, Community Resources Senior Manager
Leah Powell, Neighborhood Resources Director
Discussion
1.
Budget Workshop #2, Fiscal Year 2025-26
1. Opening Remarks
2. FY 2025-26 Budget Overview and General Fund Operating Budget Update
3. Proposed 5-Year One-Time General Fund Balance Forecast
Page 2 of 15
4. Assessed Valuation and Property Tax Update
5. Key Budget Dates and Questions
JOSHUA WRIGHT, City Manager, introduced the item.
MATT DUNBAR, Budget & Policy Director, presented the following presentation.
• FY 2025-26 Budget Workshop #2
• FY 2025-26 Budget Theme “Strength in Numbers” Our Brand A safe, diverse, equitable and
inclusive community that connects people, chooses innovation and inspires excellence
• Agenda
o 01. FY 2025-26 Budget Overview and General Fund Operating Budget Update
o 02. Proposed 5-Year One-time General Fund Balance Forecast
o 03. Assessed Valuation and Property Tax Update
o 04. Key Budget Dates and Questions
• Chandler Budget Process Timeline
• Strategic Framework Guides Our Decision Making
o Focus Areas
▪ Economic Vitality
▪ Sustainability and Technology
▪ Neighborhoods
▪ Connectivity
▪ Quality of Life
▪ Community Safety
• Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Resident Budget Survey Actionable Items
o In response to the Resident Survey, departments have reviewed the comments
relevant to their areas and identified 34 actionable items. Each department is actively
working to address these items accordingly.
o See handouts
• FY 2025-26 Budget Overview and General Fund Operating Budget Update
• FY 2025-26 Budget Drivers (all funds)
o Revenues
▪ Revenues reflect actual economic environment with analysis on sustainable
level
▪ Increases coming from continued increased local spending (slowing) with
decreases from remaining residential rental revenue
▪ State Shared revenues updated with latest projections using State and League
forecasts
o Expenditures
▪ Funding to convert one-time funded positions to ongoing, maintain service
delivery after adjusting for inflation, and ensure social safety net services
continue
Page 3 of 15
▪ Personnel costs increasing to build the strength of our workforce to meet
evolving resident
▪ expectations. Reflects ongoing savings from PSPRS employer contribution
▪ Capital projects increased for new infrastructure and carry forward of projects
underway
o Grants
▪ Federal changes are being monitored in previously identified grants with a
continued focus on finding grant opportunities for which the city may qualify.
o Ongoing Savings with One-time $
▪ Maintain funded status of PSPRS to ensure unfunded liability does not grow
• Annual Budget Evaluation Modified Zero Based Budget (MZBB)
o Goal: To ensure adequate funding of core services and efficient use of resources
through reallocation prior to adding new
o Started last year with two cost centers: Buildings & Facilities and Fleet
o Continued this year with: Management Services, Community Services and City Clerk
Departments
o •Reviewed two years of actuals (FY 2022-23 & FY 2023-24)
o Verified if funding levels at the account line level were adequate based on trends with
an emphasis on core service delivery line items
o Removed one-time funding and prior year carryforward
o Excluded personnel lines except overtime and temporary
o Required back-up for any lines that were underfunded
o Made budget adjustment recommendations based on findings
o Adjustments included budget decreases that were reallocated to fund budget
increases by account and across cost centers
• Annual Budget Evaluation MZBB Results
o City Clerk
▪ Most budget lines were adequate for service delivery at current levels. One
minor enhancement to funding is needed of $2,500 to shore up spending
needs.
▪ Additional service enhancements will need to be requested in a change
request decision package, as there was no additional funding found to be
available for reallocation
o Community Services
▪ After adjustments, all budget lines were adequate for service delivery at
current levels
▪ Maximized reallocations as shown on the right. Additional service
enhancements will need to be requested in a change request decision
package, as there was no additional funding found to be available for
reallocation
o Management Services
Page 4 of 15
▪ After adjustments, all budget lines were adequate for service delivery at
current levels
▪ Additional service enhancements may need to be requested in a change
request decision package, as there was minimal funding found to be available
for reallocation
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked if unused department budget funds are returned to the original
cost center or reallocated to the general fund when the process isn't completed.
MR. DUNBAR said any underspent funds are returned to the general fund for general purposes,
but the exact amount is typically reallocated. For example, if a department has a $100,000 budget
but consistently spends $80,000, they will continue to receive $100,000 until a review determines
that $80,000 is more appropriate, allowing the $20,000 to be repurposed. The intention is while
funds are returned to the general fund, ongoing allocations are adjusted accordingly.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked when reviewing base budget reallocations, the funds always
return to the departments, or if some are also redirected to the general fund.
MR. DUNBAR said that funds typically stay within the department. However, if there is an excess
amount, such as in Community Services where $500,000 could have been reallocated but only
$419,000 was needed for current expenditures, the extra would be used to offset new decision
package requests. If the decision package requests exceed or fall short of that amount, the
remaining funds could be returned to the fund balance and reallocated across any department.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked if there is a way to ensure the numbers are appropriately
adjusted; so that if there is extra funding, it isn't simply allocated without consideration.
MR. DUNBAR said the reason they work closely with the department is to facilitate dialogue,
ensuring that any freed funds aren't redirected to another project without proper consideration.
It must be for an existing project and justified based on the review process. If new needs arise, a
change request should be submitted, allowing the City Manager to discuss it with the Mayor and
Council for transparency. This process focuses on maintaining existing service levels for residents.
If there are consistent overages or underspending in certain areas, the goal is to adjust and align
the budget accordingly.
DAWN LANG, Deputy City Manager / Chief Financial Officer, added that they are not only looking
ahead to the upcoming year but also reviewing the current year and past expenditures. When
planning for decision packages, they reallocate to current levels. However, if there are upcoming
contract increases, such as an 8% increase in landscaping and community services, that becomes
a new request. They may try to offset some of the cost through reallocation, but those increases
are not part of the modified zero based budget process.
Page 5 of 15
MAYOR HARTKE said that this process helps the city budget more effectively. It's not that the
dollars would have been spent otherwise; they are returned to the general fund. This approach
provides a more precise, more accurate, and transparent understanding of where the money is
allocated.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked for clarification on the previous slide, where it was mentioned
that personal lines were excluded except for overtime and temporary. He requested a definition
of what is being done in that regard.
MR. DUNBAR said that all employee salaries are budgeted by the budget department, including
ongoing salaries. However, overtime and temporary budgets are requested by the departments.
If a department needs additional ongoing funding for overtime or temporary budgets, they submit
a request through the decision package process. The salary lines are closely aligned with FTE
allocations, positions, and current salaries, leaving little room for adjustments. In contrast,
overtime and temporary budgets offer more flexibility, as some departments may spend more on
overtime or underspend on temporary staff. These areas are reviewed to ensure the budgeted
amounts are adequate, and adjustments or reallocations may be made based on departmental
needs.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO said when reviewing the budget, the focus is on examining the
programs and services provided in relation to the resources allocated to deliver those services.
MR. DUNBAR said correct, it is not based on the resources being generated from those services.
Instead, it is based on the services being provided and the cost associated with delivering those
services at the budget line level.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO said he understands.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked whether the city could function without paying overtime to
employees.
MR. DUNBAR said that many areas rely on overtime, particularly in departments delivering
essential services like police, fire, and utilities. For example, water and wastewater plants cannot
operate without an assigned operator. If a vacancy occurs or someone is out, overtime is
necessary to ensure adequate staffing. While overstaffing could eliminate the need for overtime,
it would incur the cost of hiring additional full-time staff. In some cases, such as with Fire
Department rovers, overtime needs are offset by having staff available to fill in where needed.
However, in most cases, overtime is essential to meet staffing requirements and fill vacancies.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS expressed concern about the significant amount spent on overtime
and additional staff, suggesting that it might be worth examining more closely. He questioned
Page 6 of 15
whether part-time staff could help reduce overtime costs, given the large amount of money spent
on overtime.
MR. DUNBAR said the department continuously reviews overtime usage, especially in areas with
high overtime demands. They hold bi-monthly meetings to discuss overtime trends and
allocations. Additionally, reserves are set up to help offset costs, such as when someone is on
military or light duty. While some positions, such as police officers, are not suitable for part-time
staff, the Police Department has an early hire program to bring on officers before they fully retire
or leave, helping to fill full-time positions more quickly and reducing the need for overtime.
Despite these efforts to minimize overtime, certain areas will always require some level of funding
for staffing.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked about the City Clerk's Office, which typically operates with a
surplus, not by design but due to demand. He wondered how the city ensures that the department
is meeting its needs, preventing staff from being overworked, and making sure they have
everything required, especially since they are contributing additional funds back to the primary
budget. He questioned whether this was part of their intended function.
MR. DUNBAR said each year, during the budget process, there is an opportunity to ensure
departments are properly staffed. For the City Clerk's Office, a permanent FTE was added in the
previous budget year, and a full-time temporary FTE is also included in this year’s budget. This will
be addressed during their budget briefing, where it will be highlighted as part of their staffing
package to ensure they have sufficient personnel. If a department identifies needs that differ from
those of previous years, they can submit a decision package request for additional positions, such
as when the Clerk’s Office requests extra staff to meet its needs.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS said the City Clerk's Office seems very nimble and small, yet they are
very effective and forward-moving, handling many different functions. He stated that he was
trying to understand why the department operates in this manner, especially since they
consistently meet demands and even return money to the primary budget, which is not typically
their responsibility. He raised concerns about ensuring that, moving forward, the department isn't
overworking itself to meet the community’s needs while still contributing to the budget.
MR. DUNBAR explained that department directors evaluate staffing needs annually during the
budget process and bring forward requests for new positions based on demand. These requests
are carefully discussed with the City Manager to determine the best course of action, whether it
involves adding a full-time employee, retaining a temporary position, or initiating a pilot program.
MS. LANG said that vacancies are regularly reviewed. When a position becomes vacant, it's not
automatically posted and filled. Instead, the department assesses all other positions and needs
to determine if the vacant position could be repurposed to meet a different requirement or if it
still represents the most pressing need.
Page 7 of 15
LEAH POWELL, Neighborhood Resources Director, presented the following slides.
• Housing & Community Development Federal Grants
MAYOR HARTKE said the reason contingency funds are set aside is to address potential risks. For
example, if a low-risk issue escalates to a high-risk one and there isn't enough money available,
the contingency dollars are there to ensure stability. He said by having these funds, the city has
stability because it relies on the ability to adjust even when unexpected challenges arise.
MS. POWELL said they have worked closely with the budget team to conduct a thorough analysis
of their program, examining monthly expenditures and potential fluctuations. They also ran
various scenarios, including reductions of 15%, 30%, or 50% in some funds, as well as 5%, 10%,
and 20% reductions to public housing vouchers. The goal was to be prepared for any unforeseen
circumstances.
MAYOR HARTKE said that in a worst-case scenario, if the money expected from federal sources
doesn't come through, contingency funds are set aside to address the shortfall. In the short term,
this would likely mean adjusting the source of funds, rather than eliminating the program. He
emphasized that once Council has approved a program, believing it's the best for the community,
the goal is to avoid cutting it, even if federal funding falls short.
MS. POWELL said that is correct.
VICE MAYOR ELLIS asked about the overflow from the hotel program, which the city has already
funded, and how many individuals are currently in the pipeline for placement. She acknowledged
that 25 people have been affected so far but noted that a continuous pipeline of individuals would
be moved into homes as the process progresses.
MS. POWELL said there are two lists: one for clients who have been vetted and qualify for the
program, with four recently moved up for vouchers, and another for referrals still going through
the qualifying process. They are currently freezing the referral list to ensure they don’t place
people in situations they can’t fully support, as they’ve determined they can’t cover all costs for
the full two-year program with the available funding. She asked for an update on the referral list.
RIANN BALCH, Community Resources Senior Manager, said three or four people are on the
referral list, but they have not yet been contacted.
MS. POWELL said while individuals are in the hotel program, the team is actively exploring all
possible housing alternatives for them. Some may find the current option to be the best fit, but
they are also seeking other voucher opportunities and looking for ways to help individuals
transition to self-pay. Ms. Powell said there are people in the hotel program who could eventually
become self-sufficient. Additionally, they are constantly exploring all options, including applying
Page 8 of 15
for open waitlists, whether for their own Section 8 program or other cities' programs, to help
individuals secure vouchers.
VICE MAYOR ELLIS said that the process is ongoing, and the city is not stagnant, with individuals
not simply waiting to be placed in housing. She explained that they continuously move people
through the hotel program to make room for others, as they are constantly working to get people
off the streets and into temporary housing.
MS. POWELL said they are always at capacity with the hotel rooms, often exceeding the available
rooms during emergencies when they need to get someone off the street quickly. In those cases,
they may use a few extra rooms at one hotel, while the other hotel is fully booked. She noted that
they are constantly working to move people to the best housing options, which sometimes include
other shelters, particularly for families, as there are more resources and vouchers available
through family shelters.
VICE MAYOR ELLIS asked about the status of projects already in the pipeline, which the city had
anticipated moving forward with. She inquired about the status of those projects, especially
considering the potential highs and lows still ahead.
MS. POWELL said that at the moment, there hasn't been any update on the RAD vouchers. The
McQueen project is on schedule and progressing as planned. The Haven on Hamilton project is
moving forward, although ongoing efforts are underway to secure tax credits, bond allocations,
and funding. She anticipated that by the time the project reaches its closing stage, they would
have a clearer understanding of the status of the RAD vouchers.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if the RAD vouchers are being managed with the state’s
involvement, or if the federal government has already addressed that part of the process.
MS. POWELL said that the RAD vouchers are part of the transition from public housing and are
managed under HUD. She added that the allocation for the McQueen project has already been
secured, while they are still working on obtaining funding for the Haven on Hamilton project.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked whether the Haven on Hamilton project is being collaborated
on with the state and asked who is responsible for the sign-off, the federal government or the
state.
MS. POWELL said that the process involves both the federal and state levels. They need to secure
their IDA and bond allocation, for which they are currently on a waitlist. Once the bond allocation
is secured, they can pursue various tax credits. The timing is crucial, and adjustments may be
necessary depending on the allocation. At this stage, they are waiting for the bond allocation.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked how many of the red areas are occupied by families.
Page 9 of 15
MS. POWELL said most of them are families.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if the 25 referred to households or individuals.
MS. POWELL said they are households.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO said these numbers may not represent individuals and could be
doubled.
MS. POWELL said these are households.
MR. DUNBAR continued the presentation.
• General Fund Forecast Revenues and Expenditures
• Ongoing / One-Time Local Sales Tax (TPT) Proposed Revenues
• State Shared Revenues (in millions)
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked how tariffs affect the projections, noting that increases could
raise prices and create challenges. He asked how the team is adjusting numbers and how they will
keep Council updated if changes occur.
MR. DUNBAR said that while the exact impact of tariffs is uncertain, a 25% tariff would increase
the cost of goods or services, but it doesn’t mean that people will spend 25% more. He noted that
individuals may reallocate their spending rather than increase it. Spending levels are expected to
remain stable, but the types of goods and services purchased may shift, with essentials like eggs
potentially seeing more spending. In contrast, non-essentials, such as new vehicles, could decline.
Mr. Dunbar said the city monitors customer behavior and monthly tax reports to track changes,
and if needed, additional discussions will be held with Mayor and Council. He clarified that no
significant increase in discretionary spending is expected due to tariffs.
MR. DUNBAR continued the presentation.
• Priorities for Ongoing Dollars
o 1. Maintain existing service levels within core programs and strategic focus areas
including contract and other increases
o 2. Ensure sufficient ongoing funding for facilities and infrastructure including
technology and security
o 3. Convert successful social safety net programs to ongoing funding from grants
o 4. Build the strength of our workforce to meet evolving resident expectations
o 5. New enhancements or additions, considering the option of one-time pilot
programs first
• FY 2025-26 Ongoing Decision Package Recommendations (All Funds)
Page 10 of 15
MAYOR HARTKE asked if the price of chlorine had stabilized or if there was still an issue with
inflation.
MR. DUNBAR said the price has not increased as expected; it has flatlined and remains the same.
It hasn't decreased, but it has stabilized. He said there have been some additional chemical costs
related to water quality.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS said the Inflation Reduction Act included a portion that resulted in
higher taxes to help fund the infrastructure bill. He mentioned having a brief conversation about
this and asked for clarification on what specific taxes were increased to support the infrastructure
bill.
MR. DUNBAR said he recalled having the conversation and mentioned a provision that increased
costs on the chemical side by a certain percentage.
MR. DUNAR continued the presentation.
• FY 2025-26 Workforce Needs
o FY 2024-25 Adopted 1,804 FTE + FTE Proposed for FY 2025-26
o Prior Year 48 FTE
o Current Year 18 FTE
o FTE converted from one-time funded to ongoing (12) PY-26:
▪ Housing Assistance Senior Coordinator - Neighborhoods
▪ Recreation Program Coordinator - Neighborhoods
▪ Customer Service Representative - Neighborhoods
▪ (2) Community Navigators* - Neighborhoods
▪ Community Resources Senior Specialist* - Neighborhoods
▪ Housing Stability Coordinator* – Neighborhoods
▪ (2) Housing Stability Senior Specialist* - Neighborhoods
▪ IT Programmer Sr Analyst (Web Devl) – Information Technology
▪ (2) Civilian Background Investigators – Police
o FTE with Revenue/Re-allocation Offsets (2) PY-8:
▪ Transportation Engineer (100%-Revenue) – Development Services
▪ Assistant City Attorney Litigation (100%-Reallocation) – Law
o Other General Fund (GF) funded FTE (3) PY-6:
▪ Community Risk Reduction Manager- Fire
▪ Crime Prevention Specialist – Police
▪ Business Systems Analyst (Network) – Police
o Other Non-GF funded FTE (1) PY-3:
▪ Senior Water Quality Technician – Public Works & Utilities
o FTE added related to CIP projects (0) PY-5
▪ Maximized reallocations & repurposing of existing positions prior to adding
positions to address needs
Page 11 of 15
o *Position previously funded with grant dollars
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked how the potential impact would affect the department's
trajectory in the next two to three years, particularly if changes were required after confirming
plans today.
MS. POWELL said the department has enough funding for the next year and will continue to seek
additional grants. She noted that it could return or be replaced even if funding disappears. The
department is adapting to the transition from public housing to the RAD program and is evaluating
how to repurpose positions, considering temporary hires when necessary.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS said he has concerns about the department's handling of potential
changes. He acknowledges its excellent work and wants to ensure it can manage any necessary
transitions.
MS. POWELL said she appreciated the support from the City Manager’s Office and the budget
team. She explained that when potential funding reductions or freezes were anticipated, the
priority was ensuring staff well-being. Ms. Powell said the department would always approach
such situations with the staff’s needs in mind. If necessary, they would explore repurposing staff
roles and adapting to the changing circumstances.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked how adding an extra person would benefit the Law Department.
He acknowledged that the department has grown and is managing more tasks, but wanted to
understand how the additional support would be utilized and where it would make the most
impact.
KELLY SCHWAB, City Attorney, said the department's caseload has increased significantly. With
only one in-house litigator, they need outside counsel for cases they can't cover. Bringing these
cases in-house would save money, as paying an in-house staff member is less costly than hiring
outside counsel.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked what a litigator is, what their role is, and how much time they
typically spend on litigation work.
MS. SCHWAB said the city has a self-insured risk retention fund, and the litigators, including the
one currently on staff and the additional one pending Council approval, are fully dedicated to
defending the city in lawsuits filed against it. In rare cases, they may also pursue litigation for
recoveries. Their time will be entirely focused on handling active lawsuits.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked what is driving the increase and whether other cities are
experiencing the same trend.
Page 12 of 15
MS. SCHWAB said the increase is due to a general rise in litigation, especially after COVID, and that
the city's current level of litigation is more typical for its size, as it had previously been lower than
expected.
MR. DUNBAR continued the presentation.
• General Fund Ongoing Forecast – Structurally Balanced
MS. LANG continued the presentation.
• Proposed 5-Year One-Time General Fund Balance Forecast
• Priorities for One-Time Dollars (slide 20)
o 1. Maintain reserves sufficient to meet financial policies including PSPRS fully funded
status
o 2. Reinvest in existing aging infrastructure, systems, including projects that generate
ongoing savings
o 3. New initiatives and capital that generate sustainable ongoing financial savings
o 4. Focus operating & capital spending to move forward strategic focus area action
items
• 2024-25 One-Time Decision Package Recommendations (All Funds)
• Maintain Funded Status of PSPRS to Ensure Unfunded Liability Does not Grow
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked if $25 million was set aside in the previous year, and then only
$7 million was paid after more data became available, inquiring about the reason for the
significant discrepancy between the amount set aside and what was paid.
MS. LANG said the $73 million estimate was intended to bring them closer to the $100 million
mark. They budgeted $7 million to help close the gap, and the payment was made to work toward
reaching that target.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO said the goal is to reach 100 percent, and they’ve made some
progress. He said the $25 million being set aside is intended for potential future increases to the
pension fund.
MS. LANG said the $25 million is an extra payment, beyond the regular payroll contribution, to
bring the pension fund to 100%. These additional payments are needed due to higher costs for
retired officers and firefighters, whose pensions are based on their highest three years of wages.
Inflation and wage increases affect future payments, so ongoing extra payments are required to
maintain the target.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked if any cities have achieved a hundred percent.
MS. LANG said that Gilbert was the only municipality that came close, but they backtracked.
Page 13 of 15
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked if overpaying could result in the fund being 105% funded and,
if so, whether they would adjust it the following year.
MS. LANG said that is correct.
MS. LANG continued the presentation.
• 5-Year One-Time General Fund Balance Forecast
• Proposed 5-Year One-Time General Fund Balance Forecast
VICE MAYOR ELLIS asked for clarification on the contingency's four months of funding currently
available. She asked if this amount is lower than previously set aside or if it remains the same.
MS. LANG said the amount changes because it is calculated as 15% of ongoing revenues, minus
transfers. Therefore, it fluctuates and will change slightly depending on the total ongoing
revenues.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked if the strategy to repay the ambulance project fully also applies
to the airport, given that much of the airport funding is from grants, and if that is included in the
calculation.
MS. LANG said the airport’s operational costs are no longer fully covered by its revenue due to
rising expenses. While grants help with capital projects, they often require matching funds or
cover only certain areas, meaning general fund dollars are needed. The airport’s subsidy has
grown over time, and despite efforts like renegotiating leases, it remains limited. Ms. Lang
anticipates continued subsidy until a significant expansion such as a runway extension, opens up
more revenue sources.
MR. DUNBAR continued the presentation.
• Assessed Valuation and Property Tax Update
• Property Valuation and Tax Rate History
• Property Tax Rate Comparison
• Breakdown of $1 of Typical Chandler Property Tax Bill
• Levy with Rates Unchanged
• Impact to Median Value Homeowner Primary Tax Rate Options
MAYOR HARTKE said that while everyone is focused on increasing value for residents, he believes
it wouldn't be prudent to lower the rate further. He noted that a 90% level is already good and
suggested keeping it the same for now, while seeing what everyone wants to do next year. He
recommended maintaining the current rate.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON said that residents who pay property taxes seem to bear the burden
on the budget. She suggested considering this, especially with upcoming discussions on bonds
Page 14 of 15
and water/sewer rates and urged the Council to keep residents' financial impact in mind during
uncertain times.
VICE MAYOR ELLIS acknowledged Councilmember Poston’s point but noted that decreasing the
rate yearly for the last nine years has been a privilege. She said they are at an impasse without
COVID funding and limited resources. While it’s important to keep essential staff, especially in
Neighborhood Services, she explained that they are not increasing the rate but aiming to maintain
it and revisit it next year.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO said he agrees to keep the rate flat for now and suggested focusing
on wastewater treatment rates in the coming months, as that would benefit the community.
COUNCILMEMBER HAWKINS agreed that finding ways to reduce residents' costs is important and
emphasized the importance of further analysis to determine the best approach.
COUNCILMEMBER ENCINAS said he is okay with maintaining the current rate.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS said he wants the rate to go down.
MAYOR HARTKE said there is not a clear consensus, with three in favor of maintaining the rate
and a couple of potential reductions. He suggested they revisit the issue later.
MR. DUNBAR continued the following slides.
• Key Budget Dates
• Questions?
Public Comment
None.
Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 5:41 pm.
ATTEST: _______________________
______________________________
City Clerk Mayor
Approval Date of Minutes April 24, 2025
Page 15 of 15
Certification
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Special
Meeting of the City Council of Chandler, Arizona, held on the 24th day of March 2025. I further
certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.
DATED this _______ day of April, 2025.
__________________________
City Clerk