Presentation of Recommended Funding for Community and Cultural Development FY17/18 Programs

Presentation to Community and Cultural Development Committee

For Meeting on The 30 March 2017
Please Note: Link to access original 18-page presentation can be found here
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program
HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) Program
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Program
Human Services Funding
Purpose and Recommendation
• Allocation of federal and local dollars for FY 17/18
• Recommend funding for the following programs 

Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) 

HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) 
Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) 
Human Services
Estimated HUD Allocations for FY 2017/18 (see page 3)

Applications
72 applications submitted: 
13 CDBG  $1,970,434 
15 ESG/Homeless $1,575,960 
40 Human Services $1,749,078 
4 HOME $2,603,675
Total:       $7,899,147

[Amounts after the forward slash are the recommended funding]

 CDBG Applications
Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation (NEDCO) – Economic Development Program
$100,000 $100,000
> CDBG Economic Development Subtotal $100,000
CDBG COM Housing and Community Development – Demolition
$50,000 $50,000
CDBG COM Housing and Community Development – Homeowner Rehabilitation Program
$650,000 $650,000
> Housing Rehabilitation  Subtotal $700,000

CDBG Child Crisis Arizona – Campus Creation $419,000 / $300,000
CDBG COM Housing and Community Development – Downtown Façade Improvement Program – Phase 2
$322,500 / $322,500
CDBG Save the Family – Conference Center $115,000 / $115,000

CDBG Marc Community Resources – Courtyard Improvements for the Disabled
$372,000 / $250,000
CDBG Paz de Cristo Community Center – Day Center & Navigation Svcs. Construction
$108,000 /  $108,000
> Public Facilities Infrastructure Subtotal $1,095,500

CDBG A New Leaf – Autumn House Domestic Violence Shelter
$67,500 / $35,000
CDBG Child Crisis Arizona – Emergency Children’s Placement Services
$75,000 / $15,000
CDBG Community Bridges – Homeless Navigation Services
$174,732 / $95,000
CDBG Community Bridges – Mobile Outreach & Crisis Stabilization Services
$65,000 / $65,000
CDBG Local First Arizona Foundation – Fuerza Local $56,814 / $25,000
CDBG Paz de Cristo – Day Center & Navigation Services $359,428 / $183,000
CDBG Save the Family – Homeless Families Intervention Case Coordination
$60,000 / $35,000
CDBG West Mesa CDC – Economic Development Program
$90,000 / $45,000
> Public Service Subtotal $498,000
ESG – Shelter A New Leaf – Homeless Shelter Services $250,000 / $172,798
ESG – Rapid Rehousing
Save the Family – Lutheran Social Services of the SW Collaborative
$200,000 / $93,600
> Subtotal $266,398
HOME City of Mesa Housing –TBRA Program $100,000 / $100,000
HOME Community Bridges – TBRA Program *$217,144 /  $210,168
HOME ArtSpace –ArtSpace Mesa Lofts $500,000 / $500,000
> Subtotal $810,168
HS/ABC House of Refuge –Adopt A House $48,400 / $48,000
HS/ABC A New Leaf – Housing Stability Support Services $50,000 / $50,000
HS/ABC Save the Family – Homeless Case Management & Supportive Services
$150,000 / $125,000
HS/ABC A New Leaf – Rapid Rehousing $72,500 / $50,000
HS/ABC Marc Community Resources – Employment Training and Placement
$56,16 /$30,000
HS/ABC A New Leaf – Emergency Shelter $250,000 / $27,000
HS/ABC Paz de Cristo Community Center – Employment Opportunity Program $26,235 / $25,000
Human Services / ABC FY 2017/18 Applications for Funding
HS/ABC Lutheran Social Services – IHelp Shelter Program for Homeless Women
$30,000 / $25,000
HS/ABC East Valley Adult Resources – Meals on Wheels $25,000 / $25,000
HS/ABC East Valley Adult Resources – Assistance for Independent Living/volunteer Services $30,000 / $25,000
HS/ABC Paz de Cristo Community Center – Showers for the Homeless
$25,960 / $25,000
HS/ABC United Food Bank – Emergency & Supplemental Food Assistance Program
$20,000 / $18,000
HS/ABC Teen Lifeline - Crisis Hotline Programs $20,000 / $18,000
HS/ABC Maggie’s Place –The Hannah House $35,000 / $18,000
HS/ABC Community Legal Services – Removing Barriers to Justice for Low-Income Mesa Residents $54,100 / $45,000
HS/ABC Oakwood Creative Care – Long-Term Support for Adult Day Health Services
$36,000 / $36,000
HS/ABC Child Crisis Arizona – Family Education $25,000 / $15,000
HS/ABC Valley of the Sun - Mesa Family YMCA – Mesa Family Diversion Class
$15,000 / $10,000
HS/ABC MesaCAN – Client Services $175,000 / $90,000
HS/ABC Boys and Girls Club of the East Valley – Healthy Lifestyles
$35,000 / $15,000
HS/ABC Early Childhood Enrichment Project – Early Education Enrichment Program
$60,000 / $60,000
> Subtotal $780,000






 

Committee Report for Community and Cultural Development Committee Meeting The 30 March 2017

COMMITTEE REPORT
Community and Cultural Development Committee 
Date:  March 30, 2017 
To:  The Community and Cultural Development Committee 
Through: Natalie Lewis, Deputy City Manager + Ruth Giese, Community Service Director  
From:  Elizabeth Morales, Housing and Community Development Director   
Subject: Housing and Community Development Funding   
Council District: Citywide 
Purpose and Recommendation 
The purpose of this report is to present the Community and Cultural Development Committee with the funding recommendations for the FY2017/18 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME, Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), and Human Services Programs.
There is also prior year funding for HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) projects that is recommended to be carried over and to be included in the 17/18 funding. 
As part of the preparation process of the City’s Annual Action Plan (AAP) for FY2017/18, staff is requesting that the Committee review, modify, and/or approve the attached recommendations, which will then be considered by full Council.  
Background 
The City of Mesa has participated in the federal CDBG Program for 40 years, the ESG Program for 28 years, and the HOME Program for 24 years. During this time, Mesa has been allocated over $100 million for a variety of activities including capital improvements, housing, economic development, public services, homeless assistance, emergency shelter, and neighborhood improvements.
This substantial investment by the federal government has benefitted many low- to moderate-income Mesa residents, while at the same time, significantly improving their quality of life. 
For planning purposes, staff is assuming a similar level of CDBG, ESG and HOME funding allocations from the federal government for these programs. 
If there is an FY17/18 elimination and/or reduction in one or more of these programs or their funding appropriations, staff will return to City Council to discuss an updated funding allocation, based on that available funding. 
For FY2017/18, Mesa utilized an application process to solicit proposals from non-profit agencies and City departments for use of its annual allotment of CDBG, ESG, and HOME funds, as well as the City’s Human Services programs.
Proposals were reviewed by City staff for project eligibility and alignment with the City Council’s Strategic Priorities and Goals, and forwarded to the Housing and Community Development Advisory Board (HCDAB) where they were reviewed and formally rated on March 2 and March 7, 2017. 
Each funding application received ratings from each Board member, which ranged from Highly Recommend to Not Recommended.
Each project could receive up to 9 votes for recommendation. 
Staff reviews the technical eligibility of the proposals and also considers the Council Strategic Priorities and Goals and the HCDAB’s scoring in order to propose draft recommendations for further Council consideration and action.
The  process is designed to ensure the federal funding is invested in high-need eligible services and is distributed to programs that offer the highest and best returns on this investment to Mesa’s low-moderate income residents, businesses and neighborhoods.  
** A copy of the rating sheets utilized by the HCDAB and staff can be found as the following attachments to this report: 
Attachment A – HCDAB Rating Tool 
Attachment B – Staff Eligibility Review Tool 
Attachment C – Director Funding Recommendations for the CDBG, HOME, ESG, and Human Services programs  
Alternatives 
Staff has identified alternatives regarding the FY2017/18 CDBG, HOME, ESG and Human Services programs: 
1. Accept the funding recommendations outlined in Attachment C – Acceptance of the attached recommendations will provide a balanced mix of housing activities, economic development, public services, and assistance to non-profit agencies that will help improve the quality of life for Mesa residents and within Mesa neighborhoods. These recommendations are also consistent with the City of Mesa’s 5-year goals as outlined in the Mesa Consolidated Plan. 
2. Revise the funding recommendations outlined in Attachment C – The Committee could choose to revise the funding recommendations to more closely align with Council Strategic Objectives. 
Fiscal Impact 
For planning purposes, the City has anticipated FY2017/18 allocations by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for CDBG, HOME and ESG funding. The allocations are based on prior year funding; however, HUD may be reducing 17/18 funding which will likely not be known until May/June 2017.
Staff have identified possible reductions of 15%, and provided the funding cutoff at that level.
Should full prior year funding be given, it would be as follows:
See tables on pages 2 and 3 in the committee report available here

Coordinated With 
The CDBG, HOME, and ESG funding applications have been reviewed with applicants, citizens, other city departments, and the HCDAB. 
Final funding recommendations by Council will be included in the City’s Annual Agency Plan (AAP) that serves as its formal application to HUD for funding of the CDBG, HOME, and ESG programs.
The AAP will be available for review starting April 16, 2017, and the residents of Mesa are encouraged to provide feedback during the required 30day comment period that ends on May 16, 2017.
Residents can also provide feedback during a public hearing that will occur on May 4, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. Lower Level Council Chambers (57 E. 1st Street) at the regularly scheduled Housing and Community Development Advisory Board meeting.
On May 16, 2017, the AAP will go before Council, and, if approved, it will be submitted to HUD no later than June 30, 2017. 
These meetings meet the Citizen Participation requirements set by HUD for participation in these federal programs.  

City of Mesa Housing Rehab Program Audit

AUDIT REPORT  CITY AUDITOR
Source: http://mesaaz.gov/city-hall/city-auditor/audits
Report Date: February 23, 2017
Department: Community Services/Housing & Community Development Division
Subject: Housing Rehabilitation Program
Lead Auditor: Karen Newman 

OBJECTIVE This audit was conducted to determine whether adequate controls are in place to ensure compliance with Housing Rehabilitation Program requirements for eligibility, procurement, and expenditures. 
SCOPE & METHODOLOGY The audit scope included Homeowners Rehabilitation projects (under the Housing Rehabilitation Program) completed in fiscal years 2014 through 2016. To meet our objective, we interviewed staff members, reviewed Housing and Community Development policies and procedures, reviewed project documentation, and performed other tests and procedures as necessary. 
BACKGROUND  The City of Mesa’s Housing Rehabilitation Program is administered by the Housing and Community Development Division of the Community Services Department. It is funded by the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) awarded to the City by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
In FY 2016, the City was awarded a total of $3.2M in CDBG funding.
Of that amount, the City Council allocated $1.25M for housing rehabilitation activities, of which $650,000 was used specifically on the Homeowner’s Rehabilitation Program for eligible owner-occupied homes.   Each fiscal year, the City adopts an Administrative Plan for the Homeowners Rehabilitation Program. This document outlines the specific requirements for participation in the program, contractor selection and performance, and procedures for placing loans/liens on the properties.  The Plan is designed to ensure compliance with federal guidelines, while meeting the goals of the program, which include:
• Eliminate health and safety hazards in homes
• Benefit low-income, very low-income, extremely low-income, and disabled residents
• Improve neighborhoods and encourage long-term stability
• Address energy efficiency issues 
CONCLUSION  In our opinion, internal controls are in place and operating effectively to provide reasonable assurance that Homeowners Rehabilitation projects are conducted in accordance with the majority of applicable requirements. However, improved controls are needed to ensure that exceptions to program requirements are adequately approved and documented, and that project change orders are signed by the homeowner before work proceeds.
A summary of our observations and recommendations is included below.
For additional details and responses from management, please see the attached Issue and Action Plans (IAPs). 
OBSERVATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Observation: Exceptions to program requirements are not always documented as required by the Administrative Plan.  The Plan allows for exceptions when warranted, but expressly states that exceptions must be documented and approved by the Rehab Committee. 
We found exceptions granted in all areas of the program (i.e. eligible participants, properties, expenses, contracting, liens); however, the project files contained no documentation for the exceptions.   
Recommendation: Exceptions to program requirements should be documented and approved by the Rehab Committee.  Additionally, the "Housing Rehabilitation Program Checklist" should include a step to ensure that the project file includes documentation for exceptions granted. 

ISSUE AND ACTION PLAN 
Issue #1:  Exceptions to Program Requirements Not Documented  
Observation: Exceptions to program requirements are not always documented in the project files, as required by the Administrative Plan.  
Criteria:
The Administrative Plans for FY13/14 and FY14/15 state: "In cases of particular need and/or special extenuating circumstances, the Loan Review Committee may grant exceptions to any of these rules.  In case an exception is granted, a "Memo to the File" stating why the except ion was warranted will be placed in the project file." 
The Administrative Plan for FY15/16 states: "In cases of particular need and/or special extenuating circumstances, the Rehab Committee may grant exceptions to any of the guidelines and rules stated in the Housing Rehabilitation Administration Plan.  In case an exception is granted, a memo to the file stating why the exception was warranted will be placed in the project file."  
Comments: To ensure compliance with federal regulations, the Homeowners Rehabilitation Program Administrative Plan contains specific language regarding participant, property, and expense eligibility; loan/lien filings; and contracting requirements.  When exceptions are warranted, documentation regarding the reason for the exception, along with proper approval, should be included in the project file. 
When testing for compliance with program requirements, we found that the following exceptions were made, but were not documented as required:
• 4 exceptions to the requirement that a manufactured home must be built before June 15, 1976.
• 2 exceptions to the requirement that mortgage payments must be current.
• 4 exceptions to the requirement that "the Major Rehab Program will allow up to $50,000 of repairs to qualifying homes of low-income homeowners."
• 1 exception to the requirement that "Homeowners who have previously participated in the program cannot participate again as long as there are other applicants on the waiting list, and/or if the original lien has not been forgiven."
• 1 exception to the requirement that "All change orders over $1,500 (Sub-contractor’s price) will require three bids." 
• 4 exceptions to the requirement that "The contract will be for sixty (60) working days.  The contractor may request in writing, an extension for extenuating circumstances beyond the contractor's control.  The Housing Supervisor will deny or grant in writing, an extension for a sufficient amount of time to complete the performance."
• 1 lien exception on an NSP home purchase rehab.
• Lien exceptions for all Emergency Repair Program projects – a policy change was made to process these as grants instead of liens, but the Plan was not amended to reflect this change, and the exception was not documented in the project files.  
Recommendation: Housing Services should implement more effective internal controls to ensure that exceptions to program requirements are documented in the project files. 
For example, the “Housing Rehabilitation Program Checklist” should be revised to include a step to ensure all exceptions are documented as required.  

Management Response: Action Plan #1:
More effective internal controls have already been implemented as demonstrated on the updated Housing Rehabilitation Program Checklist.  which is attached. Please see attached checklist for reference. 
Individual or Position Responsible:  Housing Rehab Specialist and Supervisor 
Estimated Completion Date: January 2017  


2. Observation: Project change orders were not signed by the homeowner and/or contractor before work proceeded as required by the Administrative Plan.  Even though the homeowner is not required to pay for change orders, and Housing Services now records change order amounts as grants instead of liens, the homeowner must approve of any work to be done before the contractor proceeds. 
Recommendation: Required signatures should be obtained for all change orders before work proceeds.

Issue and Action Plan 
Issue #2:  Required Signatures Not Obtained for Change Orders  
Observation: Project change orders were not signed by the homeowner and/or contractor prior to work proceeding.  
Criteria: The Administrative Plans for FY13/14, FY14/15, & FY15/16 state: "The Homeowner must be informed of any changes to the contract or other problems encountered during the rehabilitation work, and sign the Change Order form before work proceeds." 
The Administrative Plan for FY15/16 states: "The contract or will sign the Change Order, have the homeowner sign the Change Order, and return it to the HCD Rehab office before proceeding with any work.”  
Comments: These requirements are intended to prevent unauthorized change orders and unnecessary program expenses, which could preclude other homeowners on the waiting list from receiving necessary repairs. 
30 of 33 change orders reviewed did not have required signatures.    
Recommendation: Required signatures should be obtained for all change orders before work proceeds. Or, if appropriate, management should re-evaluate the change order process and related risks, and update the Administrative Plan to reflect current practices.      
Management Response: Action Plan #2:
The Administrative Plan was updated July 1, 2016 to state change order approval from the homeowner is required before work proceeds. 

Please see attached page 20 from the Administrative Plan with this requirement. Also attached is the Change Order form with a signature line for the homeowner’s authorization.  

The following new protocol ensures that internal controls are put in place to effectively utilize these tools.  

• Change Orders 
• Coordination of all Change Orders will be handled by the Housing Rehab Specialist for all projects.
• Prior to any work being performed, all Change Orders will be submitted to the Housing Rehab Specialist.  

 The Housing Rehab Specialist will ensure:
1. The requirements for submission have been met.
2. If not already performed, a site inspection will be performed to verify the necessity of the Change Order. 
3. The proper documentation will be attached (including the site inspection verification).
4. City approval (budget & scope) must be approved by: a). the Inspector; b). the Housing Rehab Specialist; and c). Program Supervisor. 
5. After the Program Supervisor has approved, the Homeowner must also approve. 
6. After Step #5, the Housing Rehab Specialist will issue the Notice to Proceed (signed by the Housing Rehab Specialist and the Program Supervisor) on the Change Order with copies to the Homeowner. 
Notes: Step #4 
The Inspector signature verifies the necessity & the scope/budget;
the Housing Rehab Specialist signature verifies the project file, process and documentation are in place and that all steps are performed correctly;
the Program Supervisor signature provides the Ok to proceed. 
This protocol has two separate check & balances by the Housing Rehab Specialist & Program Supervisor ensuring system success. 
Individual or Position Responsible:  Housing Rehab Specialist and Supervisor 
Estimated Completion Date: November 2016   

FOR GENERAL INFORMATION about the City of Mesa's Housing Rehabilitation Program
http://mesaaz.gov/city-hall/city-auditor/audits

Sketchy Preliminary Draft Notes on Agenda for City Council Study Session

This study session will be held off-site.
Allotted time 1.5 hours to discuss and provide direction on:
COMMUNITY SAFETY, WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND ENTREPRENUERSHIP, SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY, STRONGER NEIGHBORHOODS, PLACEMAKING, AND DIVERSITY, WELL-MANAGED AND INNOVATIVE GOVERNMENT .....Huh?????
Are you serious? All these topics in an hour-and-a-half?

Mesa City Council Study Session
Thu 30 March 2017 07:30 - 09:00 am
Off-Site at the Mesa Arts Center
Mesa Contemporary Arts - Classroom
1 East Main Street Mesa, AZ 85201

Roll Call
(Members of the Mesa City Council will attend either in person or by telephone conference call)

1 Review items on the agenda for the April 3, 2017 regular Council meeting.
  [Has the agenda even been published or made available to the public yet?]

2 17-0358 (See preliminary draft of staff notes below)  
Here's the link provided:
http://mesa.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?m=l&id=/matter.aspx?key=10486

Discuss and provide direction on the City's Strategic Priorities and Goals, and on the related performance measures/supporting data

3 Adjournment.

______________________________________________________________

Mesa City Council Strategic Priorities
Staff Notes Preliminary Draft  with 4 pages (based on 2/23/17 study session)
Here's the YouTube upload for this study session:
Please note that very few members of the public attended this study session and only 7 persons have viewed this.
for an update on a pilot Love Your Neighborhood Program to see if the staff notes used in tomorrow's study session are grounded in this presentation and discussion with a duration of 28:30...only 24% of the neighborhood engaged with 400 door-to-door and one-on-one and both multi-family units and homeowners.
Lessons learned? Intensive work needed to get done ... a third party contractor needed
Questions asked by Mr.Winkle, Mr. Glover about an RFP getting used, Mr. Freeman about how much money goes back into neighborhood, Mr. Luna,
A presentation about a Tax Amnesty Program to bring down overdue receivables to bring in revenues.

 

 

Here is a very reliable all-purpose data source for the City of Mesa: You can find and locate probably more information here than in what might be presented at this study session by accessing this link >> http://www.city-data.com/city/Mesa-Arizona.html

 
Try it

COMMUNITY SAFETY
Not included in the performance indicators for this section is a good open data source shown in the image to the left.
Here's the link:
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/az/mesa/crime 

 

Safest Mesa neighborhoods

E Mckellips Rd / N Greenfield Rd

N Power Rd / E Redmont Dr

S Meridian Rd / E Baseline Rd

E Navarro Ave / S Zinnia

Fountain of the Sun

E Mcdowell Rd / N 79th St

E Mcdowell Rd / N Greenfield Rd

E Eagle Crest Dr / N Red Mountain

Rancho de Arboleda

Gilbert Rd / E Kael St 

1. Discussion Notes:

Needs to be broader than public safety 
Crime reduction element 
Include transportation and transit 
Safe streets 
Health component
Description : Building communities that are safe, healthy, and welcoming. 
Taking care of Mesa’s well-being, health, and protecting residents. 
Building environments and providing services that keep Mesa safe and healthy. 
Build safe places and infrastructure and protect the safety, health and wellbeing of Mesa’s families, businesses and visitors.

Suggested Key Performance Indicators :
Part 1 crime per 1k population 
Pavement Condition Index 
Calls for service 
Call volume of medical/ems calls vs. fire calls  
Response times by priority 
Response times by Police or Fire district/station 
Crime location 
Police closed cases vs. calls for service 
Cost of sworn personnel 


WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND ENTREPRENUERSHIP 
Discussion Notes:
Include entrepreneurship/small business element as well as a focus on a skilled workforce for larger employers
Create culture of entrepreneurship and promote small business ownership
Business incubators
Small business development 
Education to develop skills needed to have a successful career 
Higher education
Technical/vocational education
Early education

Description :
Encouraging continuous learning, the attainment of job related skills, and pursuit of business creation. 
Connect Mesa’s youth to quality education opportunities to develop a skilled and talented workforce that drives local entrepreneurship, small business ownership, startups and high-quality job creation.

Suggested Key Performance Indicators:
Higher education and vocational-based attainment rates for Mesa students 
Number of businesses located/started In Mesa 
Early education enrollment 
Number of students accessing Mesa Counts on College programs

SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY  
Discussion Notes:   Focus on economic development/job creation/business attraction.   
Does transportation and transit belong here or in community safety?   
Diversity of business sectors.
Description:
Attract and retain a diverse mix of business sectors that bring high quality jobs to Mesa

Suggested Key Performance Indicators:
Diversity of business sectors in Mesa 
Diversity as an economic asset 
Number of high-quality jobs (wage 125% of county median average) 
Median income/per capita income
Unemployment rate 
Jobs-to-population ratio

STRONGER NEIGHBORHOODS, PLACEMAKING, AND DIVERSITY  
Discussion Notes:  
Placemaking and neighborhoods combined  
Arts and Culture, Libraries, Parks and Recreation included 
Diversity  

Description:
Cultivate connections between neighbors to build resilient, welcoming, unique neighborhoods and gathering places. 

Suggested Key Performance Indicators:
Downtown visitors 
Number of permits issued 
Code cases 
Housing vacancy rate






 

WELL-MANAGED AND INNOVATIVE GOVERNMENT  

Discussion Notes:  
Internally focused 
Customer-service driven organization 
Fiscally responsible   
Use of technology to effectively deliver services – smart city  
Community engagement 

Description:
Deliver outstanding government services to Mesa’s residents and businesses through a diverse, customer-driven organization that is responsive to City Council/community needs and priorities, and is responsible, innovative and efficient.
Creating an organization that engages the community, is responsive to their needs, leverages technology to operate more effectively, and is fiscally responsible.



Suggested Key Performance Indicators:
Community engagement results 
Customer satisfaction 
Cost of doing business in Mesa
Permits and fees 
Taxation  
Debt levels

 

Mesa = UnSustainable In A Growth Ponzi Scheme

 
 

We need new thinking inside City Hall - Who???????????
We often forget that the American pattern of suburban development is an experiment. We assume it is the natural order because it is what we see all around us.
What we have found is that the underlying financing mechanisms of the suburban era — our post-World War II pattern of development — operates like a classic Ponzi scheme, with ever-increasing rates of growth necessary to sustain long-term liabilities.
We've simply built in a way that is not financially productive.
Our problem is 60 years of unproductive growth — growth that has buried us in financial liabilities.
Background in 5 parts from this resource:
https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/

Why might Phoenix and Mesa's suburban expansion and sprawl not actually be financially sustainable in spite of using some of the ten strategies and conclusions from Strong Towns?
For Capital Improvement Plans - CIPs - maintenance of infrastructure is the elephant in the room that cities simply can’t ignore any longer. In our current system, few if any cities have any clue of the scale of their commitments for infrastructure maintenance, when they will come due, what funding sources are relied on, etc… For any responsible budgeting effort, and if the long-term budget is to be sound, this information has to be
known ...at the same time what everyone admits is missing here in Mesa is a Public Engagement Platform – The American population is engaged online in nearly every aspect of their lives. Cities need to meet their people there and harness the collective intellect, energy and commitment people have for their own city.

Growth Ponzi Scheme

 

The critical assumptions to this strategy:

 

1. Either growth continues at ever accelerating rates   

 

or

 

2. The pattern of development ultimately generates more revenue than it costs to maintain.

 

Since the end of World War II, our cities and towns have experienced growth using three primary mechanisms:

 

Take a look at the Budget Pie Chart shown to see all the available resources for the current Fiscal Year 2016/17 Budget for Mesa to see how the pieces fit in three categories outlined below

 

 

Transfer payments between governments: where the federal, state and city government makes a direct investment in growth at the local level, such as funding a water or sewer system expansion - most of this goes to new master-planned communities and their real estate developers in East Mesa funded by taxpayer-financed municipal bond debt service 

Transportation spending: where transportation infrastructure is used to improve access to a site that can then be developed - residential and industrial/tech
Public and private-sector debt: where cities, developers, companies, and individuals take on debt as part of the development process

Maricopa County is currently the fastest 'growing' population area in the whole country - just like in a Ponzi scheme where a new influx is constantly needed to fund liabilities and obligations coming due.
Long-term liabilities are coming due now.



Dead Ideas• Our local financial problems can be solved by bringing in more growth.        
Dead Ideas• A large employer, particularly a manufacturer, will solve our financial problems.    
Dead Ideas• Property owners have a right to develop their property and the public then has an obligation to maintain the infrastructure.

STEP 1: Building an environment that captures a positive ROI

STEP 2: Leveraging Public Infrastructure

STEP 3: ReGeneration is Incremental Urbanism

STEP 4: Connect

BIG Concepts.
1. The current path cities are on is not financially stable.
2. The future for most cities is not going to resemble the recent past.
3. The main determinant of future prosperity for cities will be the ability of local leaders to transform their communities.

The Mesa City Council Approved Spending over $800,000

Is polo shirts and khakis what Real Americans wear? pic.twitter.com/nMpevY4xt6 

Uniforms for city employees: Khaki Pants and Polo Shirts


[What company was awarded the contract?]

What's The City of Mesa up To Now With This Survey?

THE SURVEY
Affordability, Sustainability, Reliability:
What’s important to you as an electricity customer in Mesa?
QUESTION: Is the city planning to either own or operate some of these sources?

Post Date: 03/13/2017 4:55 PM

Mesa’s electric utility, the Energy Resources Department, is currently working on our 10-year Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) to examine the different options for providing energy to electric customers (including solar, wind, hydro and traditional power sources) and is currently seeking citizen input.
Mesa’s current power supply is 20% renewable hydroelectric power and the remainder is composed of the sources that make up Arizona’s mix as a whole (nuclear, coal, and natural gas).

Mesa receives its renewable hydroelectric power from the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) and is required to complete an IRP every five years.  
The IRP process helps both the Energy Resources Department and its customers follow the best path forward by determining the best resources for its stakeholders.
At the beginning of the IRP process, all resources are considered viable for meeting Mesa electric customers’ needs. 
These resources include:
1. Long Term Contractual Resources
This is where Mesa issues “Requests for Proposals” from energy suppliers whereby the suppliers can generate energy and sell it to Mesa for an extended period of time. 
The energy may be generated by any technology that the supplier chooses, but typical supplies in the southwest region may include

• natural gas generated electricity,
• coal generated electricity,
• nuclear generated electricity 
• possibly some small contributions from wind generated electricity or electricity generated at hydro-electric generators.

2. Purchasing Physical Resources
Mesa may have opportunities to own the resources that could provide electricity to its customers. 
This may include owning and operating

• natural gas fired generation,
• wind-powered generation or
• solar photovoltaic generation. 

Mesa may also have opportunities for joint ownership in tandem with other utilities in larger resources, accessing economies of scale. ?

3. Demand Side Management
Opportunities may exist for Mesa to facilitate programs which incent Mesa electric customers to reduce their electric consumption. 
This way, Mesa helps its customers to keep their demand low to avoid the cost of acquiring other resources -- through staff analysis and input from the public on what energy values are most important to them (sustainable energy options, affordability, etc.).

We invite you to share your thoughts on energy sources in this 5-minute survey:
English version: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/MesaEnergy
Spanish Version: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/MesaEnergyEsp
For further information on the IRP planning process, please contact Anthony Cadorin, Energy Resources Coordinator, at Anthony.Cadorin@mesaaz.gov.

This is a reply received 4 days ago in response to questions sent

Thank you for your response to our survey, we appreciate the feedback.  Regarding your questions:

 

QUESTION 1. What's the city paying now for electric supply?

 The cost of electric supplies for the City of Mesa’s electric utility are published monthly on our website in our tariff adjustment sheet.

Blogger's Note : There are no dollar figures in the link provided below
The ELRF is the electric supply cost for our residential customers

The ELCF is the electric supply cost for our commercial customers 

The ELFF is the electric supply cost for our interdepartmental customers 

These costs are inclusive of generation, transmission, and all ancillary services required to deliver electric supplies from the energy market to Mesa’s electric utility:

http://www.mesaaz.gov/residents/energy-resources/energy-factors

Request 2. Please be more specific about dollar figures, financing and proposed entities for joint ownership:

 

City of Mesa Energy Resources is always trying to keep abreast of any new resource opportunities that may be available to Mesa for electric supplies. 

We’ve previously has evaluated resource options like the ones that you’ve listed, on multiple occasions. 

In each case, the drawbacks of ownership, including unit contingent generation, have outweighed the potential benefits to the City when considering the City’s load profile and opportunities on the wholesale market. 

However, we’re always interested in hearing about and evaluating new opportunities when they arise.
Thank you,

Amy McConnell

Transportation | Energy Public Information Officer

480-644-6553 - Office

Visit us at http://www.mesaaz.gov