Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mesa adopts 5-year capital improvement plan after staff says utility bond and rate forecasts remain adjustable
Summary
The council approved the city’s five‑year capital improvement program (CIP) and staff reiterated that the outer-year utility rate and debt forecasts are adjustable and that general-obligation bonds and utility revenue bonds are separate funding categories.
Mesa City Council adopted a five-year capital improvement program (CIP) resolution that covers fiscal year 2025–26 and provides a planning forecast for the subsequent four years, while staff emphasized the plan’s outer-year projections and any associated utility rate adjustments remain subject to later review.
The council vote approves the FY 2025–26 CIP (the item required by the city charter) and accepts the five-year projection as a plan; council and staff said year‑two through year‑five figures are forecasts and can be revised as circumstances change.
Resident Alex Brancic urged council to delay approval and separate general-obligation bonds, utility bonds and the gas utility revenue pledge for clearer public review. “Approving this item as presented will commit to a utility rate increase of 7.23% this year, and a cumulative increase of over 44% over the next 5 years,” Brancic told the council and asked them to return the item to staff for further breakdown.
City budget staff and finance leaders responded that the CIP already separates general-obligation (GO) bonds and utility revenue bonds in the document and that the FY 2025–26 year is the only year being formally adopted tonight. Brian Kennington explained that GO bonds (voter‑approved) are paid via a secondary property tax and that utility revenue bonds are paid from utility revenues. Budget director Bridal Richel said the $19 million referenced by a speaker was for system growth in the Magma/San Tan Valley area and would be paid by the utilities serving that area.
Kennington and other staff reiterated that the five‑year CIP is a planning tool: “The adjustments are not set in stone,” staff told council, and rate assumptions can be revisited in the November–December budget process. Councilmembers noted the difference between entitlements/approvals and actual expenditures, and staff reiterated that some CIP items are only issued if and when financing or voter measures proceed.
Council voted 7–0 to approve the CIP resolution for FY 2025–26 (motion by Councilmember Heredia, second by Councilmember Pillsbury). Staff said the document will be revisited and adjusted as budget and rate decisions are finalized later this year.
