Good evening.

Welcome to the Mesa City Council meeting for January 26, 2026.

All members of our city council are present.

As we usually do, we're going to begin the meeting with an invocation by Reverend Mindy Tucker from the Unity of Mesa, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Pledge of Allegiance will be led by U.S.

Army Lieutenant George Papa, who served as the Alpha Company Platoon, leader of the Americal Division in South Vietnam.

So with that, would you please stand for our invocation?

Sweet Spirit, we come together with humility and grace, holding the highest and best for our beloved city, knowing that with wisdom in our minds and love in our hearts, that we are guided.

We are guided to serve and protect our beloved families, our elders, our youngers, our in-betweens, so that everyone can receive what they need and deserve with dignity.

With great gratitude for attention to safety and respect.

We say thank you, God and amen.

Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

You may be separate.

Thank you, uh Reverend Tucker and Lieutenant Papa.

Thank you.

You're excused.

Item one is the consent agenda.

Mr.

Christopher, you'd like to come forward and read the consent agenda.

And then I'll ask Miss Mosley if we got everything off the consent.

Go ahead, sir.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

These are the items on the consent agenda.

All items listed with an asterisk will be considered as a group by the city council and will be enacted with one motion.

There will be no separate discussion unless a council member or citizen request, and in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered as a separate item.

Item two, approval of minutes of previous meetings is written.

Item 3A, Act of Liquor License Application for Udon Shin, 138 South Dobson Road.

Item 3B, Acting Liquor License Application for University Market, 1931 West University Drive.

Item 4A has been removed from the consent agenda.

Item 4B, approving one-year term contract with four one-year renewal options for bronze water service valves, fittings, and hydrants for the materials and supply warehouse for the water resources department.

Item 5A has been removed from the consent agenda.

Item 5B, approving resolution authorizing the sale of certain city-owned real property located at 159 North Phyllis, and enter into a purchase and sale agreement for sale of the property.

Item 5C has been removed from the consent agenda.

Item 5D has been removed from the consent agenda.

Item 6A, act on introduction of ordinance of zoning case 25-256 for property located east of the northeast corner of Southern Avenue and Single Butte Road.

This is a major site plan modification and amended conditions of approval of ordinance 3884 for development of a minor automobile vehicle service and repair facility.

Item 6B, introduction of ordinance for zoning case 25-219 for property located west of the southwest corner of Hampton Avenue and Crisman Road.

Rezone with planned area development overlay and site plan review to allow 102 lot attached single residence development.

Item 7A, approving resolution declaring proposed titles and schedules of terms, rates, fees, charges for non-residential water utility services to be a public record.

Item 7B, introduction of ordinance adopting titles and schedules of terms, rates, fees, charges for non-residential water utility services.

Item 8A, approving resolution declaring amended terms and conditions for the sale of utilities to be a public record.

Item 8B, introduction of ordinance proposing and adopting amended terms and conditions for sale of utilities.

Item 9A, approving ordinance, proposing amendments to chapter one of Title One and Chapters 66 and 67 of Title 11 of the Mesa City Code pertaining to the organization and duties of the Planning and Zoning Board and Design Review Board.

Item 9B, approving ordinance for zoning case 25-397 for property located at the northeast corner of University Drive and 80th Street.

Site plan modification and amending conditions of approval of ordinance number 2354 to allow for an office development.

Item 9C, approving ordinance for annexation case 25-889 to de-annex public right of way located at the intersection of Brown Road and Crisman, subject to approval by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.

This de-annexation is to accommodate Maricopa County's right-of-way requirements.

Item 10A, approving ordinance for zoning case 24-525 for property located at 8839 East Main Street, rezoned with new plan area development overlay, a site plan review and council use permit to allow for a boat in RB storage facility.

And item 10 B approving resolution to enter into an amended and restated development agreement to facilitate development of a boat and RV storage facility related to zoning case 24-525 on property located on the southwest corner of Main Street and the loop 202 Red Mountain Freeway.

Mayor and Council members, these are the items on the consent agenda.

Thank you, Mr.

Christopher.

Uh Miss Mosley was everything requested off the consent.

Yes, Mayor, that was all of the requests.

Okay, great.

All right, we'll have a motion for that.

Thank you, Miss Redia.

Second by Mr.

Summers, please cast your vote.

Okay, you can let me correct that role.

Let's see if we could reboot it, reset it.

No, it affected all of us.

All right, please try one more time.

Thank you.

Please cast your vote.

All right, consent agenda pass this unanimously.

Thank you, everyone.

Uh the first item off consent is item 4A.

We have one speaker, Miss Mosley.

Who would that be?

That would be Mr.

Reggie Braun.

Mr.

Braun, if you'll come forward, thank you.

Is there a time?

Sorry.

Is there a time limit on this?

Pardon?

Is there a time limit on this, sir?

There's not.

Okay, I won't go very far.

I just want to thank you.

You're talking about 4A, correct?

Yes, sir.

Uh, four-year interior contract with six one-year renewal options for an enterprise automatic vehicle.

Telematic solution.

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

Uh, I want to say that I'm happy to talk about something that's not so inflammatory.

Uh, I told you I've been a risk analyst in data, and I also work with LLMs.

And I'm not sure if everybody here knows or heard that telematics data, even for the cities, are data that are sent about your driving, about your uh behaviors, about how fast and how much you're stopping.

Now, the efficiencies that they're saying here, they kind of appeal to everyone about AI.

AI is going to make things easier, lower cost, all the kinds of things that kind of appeal to sloth and greed, because AI, as I know of it, doing it, is being pushed by people in power who would just benefit from it.

And it takes away our data and information.

I do remember you spoke about using AI.

Um, when someone says that they are not going to share your information, uh, they are under legal liability for that.

However, when they go out of business, when they go bankrupt, that promise is null and void.

Look at 23 and me.

Genetic information about your history, about your health, they promise not to do.

They went bankrupt, and now that is the highest bidder.

Data is the most expensive thing and valuable thing to them.

Now I have a solution.

I'm not just complaining about it.

Um, right now, their AI is currently filming the vision, the pupils of the driver if they're tired or they're enhanced.

It's not taking to context whether someone cut them off and took breaks.

Um, this information could be passed on to insurance companies that would raise our rates and then for taxpayers.

Now, you can say and make it for them to not keep that data on a cloud.

Keep that data locally on a server.

All of our data belongs to us.

Do not give it up freely.

Does anybody here have a 2021 vehicle or newer?

ADAS federal requirement requires manufacturers to include records of your telematics.

That telematics data is sent via convenience of your remote start, your GPS, and even if you don't, your ODB auto mechanic loads it to manufacturers.

There have been denials of warranty claims, and we suspect that'll be going to insurance eventually.

They would deny you your claim or raise your rates if you took so many stops and breaks, or the context that people were cutting you off, that possibly there was a distraction.

This is a risk, and this is part of what I'm hoping to take you in the future.

Is that this kind of research for which I get paid for, I want to share with you to make good decisions.

Data is important.

We're giving it away.

So please, this is a solution.

You guys have a great open data.

You have a good team, I know.

Keep our information safe on our own servers.

In the future, do not give away people who are saying that AI is going to help your business, because anyone who promises you something and says it's free is selling you something.

Because anyone who promises you something and says it's free is selling you something.

Normally, to influence your behavior.

I have actual proof.

If you want to get on your phone right now and go to Instacart and all by the same thing here, folks, you will get different prices.

There is a proposal because it doesn't affect just poor people.

A proposal to get consumers to spend as much as they can.

It doesn't matter if you make $30,000 a year for a million dollars a year.

Reggie, let's stay on the topic of the city.

The kind of telemanaged data they'll they'll serve.

It's just data.

If you look at a friend who died in San Diego, their obituary, and you don't clear your cash, your next search for an airline ticket will be higher than average.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Reggie.

Any questions from counsel?

Okay, vice mayor.

You're too close.

I couldn't see you.

Thank you.

To city manager, I don't know, maybe IT is out here.

This is automatic vehicle locators, correct?

Uh because we've had this conversation about data sharing.

Is his information is relevant to like EMS data and some of our policing data, but this is just location of vehicles.

City owned vehicles.

City owned vehicles.

City fleet vehicles.

So city fleet vehicle police fire being the easiest example.

Who's the closest to the fire?

Who's the closest to the crime?

And that's the one that gets dispatched.

Yeah, okay.

And we have our CIO here, Reggie.

So if you want to talk to Mr.

Kahn afterwards and get some more information gathering, you can.

If I may.

LB Technologies uses AI to gather all sort of data to grow cameras devices.

Not here.

Thank you.

Scott, go ahead.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, Vice Mayor, Counsel, Scott Kahn, CIO and IT Director for City of Mesa.

This particular item 4A is part of what we call the application rationalization initiative.

It is one piece where we have identified duplication of products and applications that perform the same functions.

And we're in the process of combining those from multiple applications down to a single app.

In this particular case, it's an automatical vehicle locator.

We have six different AVL systems currently in play in the city today.

This will take all six down to a single vendor.

This will allow us to manage the vendor better, get a better price point.

It will be less expensive than what we currently pay the six vendors in total, and it allows us to op absolutely see where all of the city's vehicles are on a single map instead of having to build multiple screens and watch them independent of each other.

So this combines, becomes more efficient, becomes less expensive for the city, and is only one of many other uh products to come that we will be combining down to a more reasonable amount that saves the city money.

Thank you, Scott.

All right.

That's uh great detailed.

Uh I'll entertain a motion to approve item 4A.

Is there a motion for to that effect?

Not that there's a timer.

Three minutes.

We got three minutes to make the make the motion.

I did not start the timers.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Summers.

Thank you, Miss Goforth.

Please cast your vote.

All right.

That passes unanimously.

The next one is item 5A.

Uh Miss Mosley, who do we have speaking on item 5A?

We have Reggie Brown again.

Um you had said answered his question that you weren't we weren't timing him on the first one.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Yeah, I'm not sure.

Excuse me, Mayor.

Um these are supposed to be time.

There is supposed to be time.

That's okay.

I'll be right back.

Reggie, you have three minutes.

This is 5A.

Is this about the uh do you want to assist this again, please?

5A.

Which one was this one again, please?

Yes, it's 5A.

Which one is it?

Oh uh construction nuisance and damage SMS notification of residents.

No, that's not 5A is uh communication license agreement with Crown Castle No, I'm sorry, that that wasn't that.

Um that wasn't the one I signed up for.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

So I'll need a motion for to approve item 5A.

Thank you, Miss Duff.

Thank you, Miss Goforth.

Please cast your vote.

All right, item 5A passes unanimously.

Next we'll move over to 5C.

Uh approving authorized city managers to an intergovernmental agreement with the regional public transportation for fixed route paratransmit and ride choice services.

So with that, item 5C is off.

Who would like to start?

Who is our speaker on that, Miss Mosley?

We have Mr.

David Winstanley.

Mr.

Winstanley.

Thanks, good evening, Mr.

Mayor, Council members and staff.

My name is David Winstanley.

I'm sure you're tired of hearing from me.

Sorry.

I would like to ask you to postpone voting on this agenda item pending a more in-depth review and discussion of the costs and contract requirements.

I did spend over four hours attempting to research the subject, but either is not a lot to find on the city or uh Valley Metro's websites.

I did not find this subject in any agendas for study sessions nor in the Transportation Advisory Board.

So the following questions result from my inability to find that information.

This looks like a seven-year agreement based on the posted agreement, but I cannot figure out which year of the seven this is specifically for.

Is this a new initial agreement for seven years or year one of the seven?

Seven years also seems like an awful long time for this kind of a contract.

Was there a review of Valley Metro RPTA's performance for this service in recent years that validates their continued financial support?

What was paid last year and in past years compared to those being requested herein?

Are these proposed values reasonable compared to past years given inflation and other relevant factors?

Perhaps most important, how does the proposed 4.997 million dollars compare to what is in the city budget for the subject?

I could not find the relationship between what's being asked here and what's in the budget.

What's expected for next year?

I understand that 80% of the expenditures documented in this agreement are paid for by the half cent countywide sales tax approved in Prop set 479.

But that means you as council are the stewards of our tax dollars.

You're deciding how that money is spent, and it is all of our tax dollars.

Are these dollars being spent wisely?

My look at schedules A and B suggest not.

Those schedules say that for the county funded bus routes, the fares collected average about five percent of the total net cost of operation.

That does not seem like a reasonable nor a rational value.

Based on data from the city website, albeit the most recent data is for 2024 and somewhat incomplete.

It nonetheless shows that the downtown buzz for the downtown buzz, the city pays $16 for each time a rider gets on the bus.

For Fiesta Buzz, it's $12.

For Route 128, it's $17.

For Route 120, it's 14 dollars.

This does not seem like a good value to me.

Perhaps it is time to challenge Valley Metro and RPTA.

Yeah, RPTA.

Are they using 50 passenger buses to ferry five people?

Are there new technologies like Zooks in in Las Vegas that can meet the need at a much lower cost?

Please ask them, please challenge them.

I am asking you to look a little deeper into how you spend my tax dollars and your tax dollars.

Thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you, Mr.

Winstanley.

Mr.

Butler, I know we have Jody here.

I mean, we have two similar items.

Yeah, maybe the light rail and this.

Yeah, absolutely.

I in all due respects, Mr.

Wynstanley.

There is a plethora of information, not just that the city over the years, how it has allocated its uh funding between RPTA and the city of Mesa on these routes, but also this is it goes through an extensive public process at RPTA, where the regional body there, of which Mr.

Heredius sits as our representative on the board, uh, votes on it all of the performance and um performance measures uh re-examines the routes working with the local municipalities.

Um Vice Mayor Summers could speak from his experience serving on the RPTA board in the past, but this is an exhaustive process that is that happens annually.

So uh and Jody can speak to the um particulars of of this year's uh particular uh contract.

But this is an annual process that we do, and it's been part of the obligation of the city of Mesa for this partnership with RPCA going back to the voter approved proposition 400 uh that the voters approved in in 2004, of which there was going to be a regional cost share between um the regionally funded routes and then the local routes that the city of Mesa pays for, but that we have Valley Metro administer on our behalf so that we don't have separate and duplicative transit services out on onto our streets, and so we contract those services through uh RPTA.

And so we contract those services through uh RPTA.

And so uh Mr.

Rell um can certainly um address anything that I might have missed out through the process, and Councilmember Heredias uh may have some comments as well as uh as a board member and and former chair of RPTA on that.

Uh do you want to weigh in now or the Jody could have Jody once you come in and sit close, you'll have two agenda items to speak on.

Um yeah, so we have Use the microphone there a little closer.

There um we enter into an agreement every seven years with Valley Metro to provide this transit service, and seven years is um a number we all as a region decided on because things change, we need to be flexible, we need to adjust, and we can amend.

Um, but administratively we do it every seven years.

Um over the past 20 years through proposition 400.

We have m proposition 400 identified routes that would be eligible for regional funding.

Um, and Prop 400, I had a very um specific the very first criteria to to be eligible for regional funding was that you needed to serve more than one jurisdiction.

So um you had to cross and routes had to go from Mesa to Gilbert to Tempe or to Chandler in order to be eligible.

Over the last 20 years, we have moved every route that is regionally eligible for funding over to be funded by Prop 400 and take that burden off the general fund that was in there, and in some cases, added new routes.

So the form the roughly five million dollars that's in the agreement represents funding for four routes that do not meet the regional criteria that we continue to fund.

I think one of the questions was asked the funding for this route, is it similar to last year's?

I you know, every year we budget X amount of dollars.

I I'm working in fiscal year 26, 27, and trying to remember back to 25 numbers.

Um it's very close to the same number that we approved last year.

It might be a couple hundred thousand dollars more.

Okay.

All right.

Is there any questions from council?

I have a question.

Thank you.

Yeah, Ms.

Taylor.

Mr.

Winstonly asked, what year are we on right now out of the seven?

This would be the first year of the seven.

Okay.

And then in terms of the research that he was doing, he said he was struggling to find this data that should be so readily available.

Can you tell us where um a resident, including myself?

Most of the data, I believe, and I'll have to go back and check.

Our website should link the transit website, should link back to the Valley Metro site for ridership data because that is the repository of the data for the region.

That's correct, but there's no cost data there.

Thank you, Mr.

Wynn Stanley.

Any other questions, Ms.

Taylor?

Is there no cost data available if people do want to look at that?

I feel like Scott has something to say.

Now, this is there's a lot of information out there, and we're glad to work with Mr.

Wynn Stanley to show him where that information is in the in the extensive documentation that you know literally hundreds of pages of documentation that RPTA board um approves, um, of which Mesa um represented by um Councilmember Heredia votes on each each year that has all of that information, just like the city's budget documents that that reflects all of those various routes and the various funding and the different costs associated with those broken down Jody by routes.

Um we break it down by routes, yes.

Yeah, so we're we're glad to work with Mr.

Wooden Stanley to make sure he's aware of that information.

Yeah, one of the things that just to kind of add is years ago, Mesa did operate our own transit service, and we transitioned to have Valley Metro operate that because it was more efficient, more effective.

Um years ago, Tempe made that same transition.

They previously operated their own contract under their own garage and transitioned to Valley Metro, and all of that gives the region more economies of scale to be more competitive when bidding these contracts out.

So are you saying that it's it's technically less expensive for us because we've spread the burden thinner by using uh Valley Metro and they are they are basically scooping up other municipalities?

It's more efficient cost-wise, yes, because you're spreading the whenever you set up your own contract, you have your own overhead, your own staffing, you're duplicating staffing and resources.

So now it's one source that's spread over in the in our particular situation.

It's an East Valley contract, so it's spread over Scottsdale, Tempe Mesa, Chandler, and Gilbert.

And this is just specific to the bus services.

Is that correct?

Correct.

The bus and the paratransit and the ride choice services.

Can you explain for the general public paratransit and ride choice just for those of them who may not be familiar with that?

Sure.

Paratransit is a service we have to require, we have to provide.

So for us, the base in our region, the base fare for bus is two dollars.

So the most we can charge for paratransit is four dollars.

We have in my 20 years here, we have always offered alternatives to that service because paratransit is a very costly service.

Um so we've offered alternatives that are more cost effective to us.

And ride choice is that more commercial option?

It doesn't have the you can if you want to go right now and you're ADA certified, you can call the number and book a lift, book an Uber, um book the transit option you want.

Um that service we charge three dollars as a way to maybe make it more incentivized to go out and use ride choice over paratransit trips.

Thank you.

So would you say we charge Mesa charges?

The region.

The region is charging that.

Okay.

Those fares are set by the region.

So like me, so Mesa doesn't charge one fare for ride choice and Chandler charge another fair.

Right.

They're standardized.

Right.

Okay, and then so the $4,997,487.

That is for four routes that do not meet the criteria that the $34 million would have essentially covered.

Is that correct?

They operate solely within the Mesa boundary.

So they're not eligible for regional funding.

Got it.

So we are in charge of our own internal operations.

I see.

Mr.

Winstanley, does that help you at all, or is there do you have any additional questions that you would like Jody and I to answer for you?

I'd like to have a chance to find the RPT.

Sorry, can't remember the RPCA data and look at it rather than to waste your time there.

Okay.

All right.

Well and and Mayor, um, we'll we'll definitely get with Mr.

Wooden Stanley and get him that information.

And and just to clarify, too, even though this is this transit operating agreement, it's a is a seven-year agreement because of the time that it takes to stand up an operator.

The um the funding that's allocated is is done annually.

That's based on the budget discussion that um RPTA has and that the city of Mesa has that we allocate those funds for.

So you'll see this as an annual item, just as you have for at least the 22 years that I've been here that this will uh come back once a year where we approve the budget for that next year after consultation with RPTA.

So just wanted to clarify that point.

Okay.

I had one more question.

Does the four the four routes um are these just bus routes or are these also including the paratransit or the right?

Those are just bus routes.

There's two bus routes and two circulators.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Mr.

Adams.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Mr.

Butler, um, I'd like to ask you a hypothetical question on this matter.

Can you describe uh what the effect of a no vote?

Of a majority no vote by this council on this matter would be.

Can you kind of paint me a picture of what that looks like?

In terms of obligations the city has entered other effects.

Sure.

This is um the city's agreement with Valley Metro to operate those routes that we've established within the city of Mesa.

So a no vote would terminate that that agreement with Valley Metro and would and would cease the operations of those bus routes.

Uh Jody could speak to more specificity, but as you see, when when one of every eight of these dollars is drawn down from Prop 400 um dollars or regional dollars out of that, it would uh forego the regional funding coming into the city of Mesa and would would stop the operations of of all the bus routes and paratransit in the city of Mesa.

All routes, not just the four.

Correct.

It all goes away.

It all goes away.

Thank you.

And I I would add also paratransit and ride choice, uh, you know, uh section that our disability community uses to you know go to medical uh appointments and and other appointments that they have throughout the uh city of Mesa and across the valley uh also will cease to to operate and and one thing to remember you know, bus ridership is you know, tens of thousands of people every month use buses here in the city of Mesa.

And I I would add also you know paratransit and ride choice, uh, you know, uh a section that our disability community uses to you know go to medical appointments and and other appointments that they have throughout the uh city of Mesa and across the valley uh also will cease to to operate and and one thing to remember you know bus ridership is you know tens of thousands of people every month use buses here in the city of Mesa and so we have to remember those individuals that use this but you know uses the buzz the the bus routes um and and those people that are going to create economic activity going shopping going to visit family and those kinds of things so it it uh it has a great effect in our community I think you know we we will always be car dominant here in the valley because how spread you know how spra has gone but to alleviate some folks that don't have cars that uh you know want to use buses and light rail which is the next topic um you know these individuals tens of thousands of individuals every month who utilize this service it's an important aspect uh including our disability community so um like Mr.

Butler said you know I've been serving uh on the Valley Metro board uh for over five years now and it's uh every year uh along with the other cities that have light rail and bus services across the valley uh that it's a 19 member board uh that we have uh monthly meetings that we go and look at these numbers and and ask you know these these questions because uh like everything it has uh uh costs associated right uh these types of services like what we have in public safety and and other services that we have here in the city all have uh you know a cost right and so we manage these costs and try to to navigate as a region how do we maximize these these types of services because we understand that people travel across cities right people don't just uh you know stay in Mesa right they they they go to tempe or May Chandler or Gilbert or or Phoenix right and so the these region wide services are an important asset to have as a as a as an opportunity for folks who travel right so just to put into context as far as a dollar number number here as mentioned you know we we actually bringing back these these tax dollars that were already paid that the voters voted on a countywide just recently this past uh you know 2024 we're bringing that those monies back to the city of Mesa to invest in having these types of services here in Mesa right so uh so I'll just leave it there I know we're talking about LIRO after this but um just putting you know understanding the context of how many people uh this service um provides a service to right so thank you Mr.

Radio any other comments from council vice mayor yes since uh Mr.

Butler brought up my name I might as well chime in a little bit uh just because we have a contract does not preclude us from innovating in this space when I was on the RPTA board one of the things that we did was we opened a center for folks with disabilities to train them on how to utilize the uh the ride choice services because the right as you heard in this presentation ride choice is significantly less expensive than paratransit so it was an opportunity to to drive some innovation uh and as far as I know it's still open and still very successful uh the example given um in uh uh las vegas is a conversation I think we've had where autonomous vehicles and smaller vehicles really have a great opportunity in the not too distant future to innovate this space and to reduce cost uh and and to probably be some microtransit that's flexible I'm looking forward to that day I don't think we're quite there yet uh but again this contract does not preclude the opportunity to do that type of innovation in in uh in the public transit sphere um obviously we've heard a lot about how important particularly paratransit is uh and including in my district um so uh hopefully we we will see that that level of innovation and uh I would also say and this that these are the types of levels of government because the complaint is legitimate I can't if you can't find the documents right if RPTA doesn't have a great website and you can't find the documents to get a sense of things and this is a public transportation system so those those documents need to be easier to find something to relate to RPTA but also RPTA meetings are public meetings correct right so they are open to the public they are scheduled just like a city council meeting and I would encourage people when it comes to meetings like RPTA or any any other public agency that impacts this city is to look at their agenda uh go to those meetings if you can they're all the way in downtown Phoenix that's that's quite a ways uh for

Correct.

So they are open to the public.

They are scheduled just like a city council meeting, and I would encourage people when it comes to meetings like RPTA or any other public agency that impacts this city, it is to look at their agenda.

Uh go to those meetings if you can.

They're all the way in downtown Phoenix.

That's that's quite a ways uh for Mr.

Winstanley and myself to drive.

Well you can take the light rail.

Or or uh if I took the light rail, it'd take forever.

Um that's my that's my kick on that.

Um but they are accessible meetings, and you know, not every meeting you have to go to on that, but there are some key meetings that that folks would would attend, and maybe they can carpool with you, uh, Mr.

Paretti.

Um to go because I think that is that is really important.

So that that's just kind of my statements on that.

Mr.

Reddy, you had one more.

Yeah, just to make a point on the on the innovation.

Yeah, you know, Valley Metro has partnered with uh and Jody, maybe you can elaborate on this, you know, uh last mile uh items like with Waymo uh providing last mile on light rail or the ending trips of their bus routes, things like that, uh over the last several years.

Um and so it's hit or miss depending on the area, but I I think that's something that um has been uh top of mind for all the cities on how this innovation is gonna be uh part of the transportation systems that we use in the future, right?

Including, you know, uh uh buses and light rail and and cars and so um but I don't know if you want to talk a little bit more on some other or some of that innovation there that we're yeah, Valley Metro has um did have a contract with Waymo um to to provide service within for ride choice.

It was a very limited area, primarily Chandler and very south parts of Mesa.

Um when it was first starting out and stuff, and they've done they've tried to do other um pilots in different things, but like everything, it just sometimes becomes cost prohibitive at that time.

Um and so they keep coming up and trying different innovative different things to make things more innovative and um more responsive to the customer needs.

Thank you, Jody.

Um Miss Goforth and Mr.

Adams.

Yeah, I just want to say thank you, Mr.

Rin Stanley, for your questions.

I think they're reasonable and certainly justified.

Um are we getting what we pay for?

And and I do encourage you to to look into some of that RPTA public process that Vice Mayor Summers mentioned, and then um and I hope also that Scott and Um Jody can get with you and and get some of the other information that you're asking for.

So thank you for your questions, appreciate it.

Mr.

Adams.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I I think this is brought to light uh a couple of important issues.

I um I think Mr.

Wynn Stanley's questions are entirely germane to the issue, and what I would like to see the next time this particular matter comes to us for funding, uh we now know what some of those questions are.

I think they're legitimate, and maybe we could have a little more um a little more depth in the staff report about that.

On balance, we're talking five million dollars, which is by no means a small or insignificant sum.

However, at this late hour, I'm I'm inclined to be sympathetic towards our citizens who rely on the the bus transportation, the paratransit, and so forth, because to uh not approve this as Mr.

Butler outlined, the bus service stops, not just the the few routes, it all stops.

And I think that's uh I think that's overkill when you consider who would be affected.

So uh well, I'm very sympathetic to the concerns and the questions, and they should be answered.

The information should be easy to find.

Um I I'm not inclined to say to uh however many of our citizens who rely on this particular form of transportation, hey, you're out of luck.

Um I it would have been great to be able to look at this in a you know less uh time-sensitive manner, but uh here it is before us, so um I won't I won't belabor it, but those are my thoughts on the matter.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Taylor.

Okay, just a couple more things.

Um just to be clear, we are renting buses as a city of Mesa from Valley Metro.

Is that correct?

That's part of this $4,900,000.

We're renting the service, so we're paying for the service.

So they're providing the buses, the maintenance, the operators, the supervision.

Okay, the whole thing.

Got it.

Just like that.

Yes, and I resonate with Mr.

Adams, unfortunately.

I didn't, I don't think I realized that if we were to vote, no, we're literally stripping like the entire Valley Metro service from Mesa.

So on the data that is provided to us for the overall cost of this operation, do is that um information that Mr.

Winstanley or any other resident could find that is specific to just those four routes that Mesa is paying for?

Can we see that breakdown?

We we can.

They have it broken down.

Um we've got a report that uh Jody can share with Mr.

Wynn Stanley from the Valley Metro website that's got that that has the cost basis per route and also has the um well, the last five years of transit performance reports uh on the Valley Metro website, so we can we can certainly make sure that um he's aware of where that's located on the website.

Okay.

And that and sorry, you don't mean to rush you.

I don't want to belabor it too much either.

A couple other things.

Uh one, is this something that in the future we could look at maybe a cost analysis of we're using Valley Metro services, we're helping spread that cost then for other municipalities, but in the future we look at what would the cost be for Mesa to service just those four routes internally.

I don't know if it would exceed the five million.

Do we need do we need just those four routes?

Do we have everything else covered?

How many people are riding those buses?

What are those analytics look like?

Um the contracts, seven years feels very long.

It kind of binds us as a council.

I know I'm sorry, I'm slamming you with a couple questions and jody, but is it possible we have like two to three-year contracts?

If I can just add seven years is a is a lengthy time, but within the contract, there's um a 90-day, I forget if it's 90 or 60 days, where you can get out by giving Valley Metro written notice.

The I want to be clear, the hiccup to that is whenever you make significant changes of more than 10% to a bus route, it has to go through a Title VI evaluation.

Um so we would have to do, I would recommend doing that Title VI evaluation to see what the implications for Mesa are because sometimes the accommodations for that Title VI analysis, it's more cost effective just to keep the bus.

Got it.

Um so I can put what that might look like, but there is a clause in there, a termination clause that gives us it's either six 30, 60 or 90 days.

I believe it's 60 days.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, and I don't want to strip the bus system away.

I have people that I am very close to that use our bus system.

So I by all means am not trying to say, oh, we should just remove public bus systems.

Um I am inclined to agree with Mr.

Adams for the sake of this and us not asking questions earlier on, and that this is important for us to there is one other thing, Mr.

Wynn Stanley just about it.

If there's a mutual aid clause attachment in there, it's the very last one.

And what that does is that allows if something happens and we can't fuel our vehicles, we can go to the greenfield facility and feel fuel them at Valley Metro.

Likewise, if something happens at Valley Metro, they can bring their vehicles here.

And that was in the last agreement, and it was very came in very handy in September when um solid waste was unable to fill fuel their vehicles.

And so they sent all their vehicles, I think, but four or five to Valley Metro's greenfield facility to fuel them up so trash and recycles could get picked up that day.

It's good to know.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Jody, and thank you, Scott.

Thank you, David, and thank you, Councilmember Haradia, for walking us through some of that.

Ms.

Renio.

Yeah, just to add that, you know, I think uh more recently uh City of Tempe try looked at uh some of these conversations as well uh as uh they have a pretty extensive orbit system where it's like a neighborhood uh system and and other uh bus routes and looked at the pricing of going uh independently from Valley Metro.

We might Valley Metro, you know, you we can we we do these contracts in scale, right?

Five-year contracts because then you can reduce some of that costs and kind of what Jody mentioned earlier is is bring those costs down rather than when you have only one sole, you know, uh one sole client, you know, they usually have a lot more pricing to that because of the of the costs that it entails to operate these these systems, right?

So I and from what I understood Tempe decided not to go in uh on their own because the cost was significant, like millions of dollars more than what Valley Metro was chart was uh charging the city of Tempe.

So it's just uh a case scenario just recently what happened, and so that's something that uh if we do look at just the context of the more the most likely it will cost us millions of dollars more than you know, going at a region aspect because of the economies of the scale on contracting, because it it's is is it's a lot of layers to these uh services, right?

Prior transit vendors, you know, bus vendors, you know, the the bus uh operators and and all these pieces uh play uh are very costly, and so uh that's something that uh you know, as a business owner, you know, when you as you you look at economies of scale, you like to have those so that you can bring your costs down on those ends, and that's the same kind of model that we use at Valley Metro and us being part uh of Valley Metro to use those economy as to drive uh um our cost down for for our residents, right?

So but thank you, Jody.

Uh don't go far.

I'm just gonna weigh in.

I was thinking the council report, over almost 54,000 people have used paratransit.

Almost a hundred thousand people have used right choice.

So by either reducing or eliminating this program would affect a lot of people in Mesa.

These are Mesa riders here.

So it's it's not feasible to do.

And over the years we've discussed, I mean, people want us to extend the bus routes into D5 and D6, and that's really it's not affordable.

So I think we have a good thing happening now today.

We're always looking at ways we can save money, and these are one of the things that we have to, and I'll use the word subsidize this program to make it efficient for those who cannot afford to drive and meet their needs.

Uh with that, council.

If there's nothing else, I'll entertain a motion to approve item 5C.

Thank you, Mr.

Radio.

Thank you, Ms.

Taylor.

Please cast your vote.

Passes unanimously.

Thank you, Council.

Next we'll move on to item 5D.

5D is approved and authorized city management in a funding agreement with Valley Metro Rail for the light rail operations in the city of Mesa.

We have seven speakers, so each will have three minutes.

Who's our first speaker, Ms.

Mosley?

Uh first up will be Bob Hathcock, followed by Reggie Braun.

By who who's second?

Reggie Braun.

Okay.

Mr.

Hathcock.

Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Bob Hathcock is my name.

I'm a resident of District 2.

Tonight I wish to speak in opposition of authorizing the city manager to enter into a funding agreement with Valley Metro Rail Inc.

for the current operations in Mesa.

As you can see on our agenda, and thank you for printing this, it's costing us six times more to operate than the revenues that this produces annually.

According to some recent reports, I have seen between one and two percent of Valley commuters are using the light rail system.

While its intent was to be a public service, you have to question the enormous cost that benefits the relatively few.

It has been referred to as an underperforming asset when in reality it is a huge liability to taxpayers.

The net annual impact on our general fund is over 15 million dollars to operate and maintain just our five-mile stretch.

Bear with me as I recap what some of our past and present city leaders have told us about Mesa's involvement in the Valley Metro Rail.

In 2009, Mayor Scott Smith said, and I quote, light rail going through downtown would create a vibrancy and energy that we cannot even imagine.

In 2009 or 2015, Mayor John Giles called it a critical component in reviving the downtown area and a tool to meet growing demand for communities that require less driving.

Finally, in 2024, then Mayor candidate Mark Freeman said this.

The light rail has brought big time problems to Mesa, and we are having to police it.

The ridership is so low on the rail and on the and on the bus system that it does not justify additional investment.

Mayor Freeman, I believe that you win the prize for giving us the most accurate description of the truth regarding the light rail in Mesa.

What was promoted as a way to stimulate our city economy by leaps and bounds and make us less independent, less dependent on automobiles has simply become a massive waste of taxpayer dollars.

We have to wonder in what better ways could we have spent 15 million per year?

I can think of a few ways.

Additional funding for public safety, subsidizing annual utility increases.

Regarding our recent special election, some of you were outraged calling the cost of 104K a waste of tax payroll dollars and something that was not good for Mesa.

That expenditure pales in comparison to annual deficits that we are talking about here.

It's time to rip off the band-aid here and break the cycle of taking this federal grant money only to be stuck with costly consequences of bad investments.

My questions for the mayor and council tonight that I hope you will address.

How long do we continue to throw good money after bad on failed projects like this?

And knowing the facts of our light rail reality, how can you justify its continuance?

Thank you.

Thank you, Bond.

Uh, Reggie.

Who's after Reggie, Miss Mosley?

Mary Maybino.

Thank you again.

With respect to the gentleman who spoke earlier, and I understand that our costs are happening.

They're looking at the past and not the future.

Now, when we were young, having four wheels and a gas tank was independence.

It was our right of passage, it was our way to freedom.

As of 1983, 80% of 18-year-olds had a license.

Today that has fallen to 60%.

For 16-year-olds, it's down to 25%.

Nearly 26% of Gen Z do not drive at all.

We have Uber, they have Doordash.

They're not looking for a parking spot, they're looking for a community.

They live on YouTube algorithms that show them the dangers of the world.

As a child, you want to look at cars, YouTube feeds them car crashes.

They are anxious and afraid to drive, because they don't have to.

93% of them report intense driving anxiety.

If in the future you want their tax dollars to help us older and younger generations, we have to provide a way to live that doesn't require a steering wheel.

This isn't just social science as a GDP engine.

The Valley Metro Light has a five to one return on investment.

That means every dollar we put in generates five dollars in regional growth.

Now, you may say nearsightedly that this is costing us this.

I'm fine with raising uh insurance that'll give us a growth in the future.

That's how you invest.

The rail loan has driven over six hundred and eighty-nine million in private investment.

This is revenue that funds our police, our parks, and our schools.

Revenue generated because we give a people a way to reach our core without a car.

Look at our downtown real estate and developers are spending millions to emulate a small town feel.

What I call shopping industria.

There are places where stores, entertainment, and high density residential units are all over together.

People call the 20 Minute City a new idea, but it's called living in the past, returning to walkable, vibrant Mesa we had before.

Now I had a birthday this last weekend, and I invited friends from all over the valley.

They were surprised and amazed at what we had.

Arizona distillers, speakeasies, places that they never even heard of.

And I they were like, oh man, if only we had a place to get down here like they had in Europe.

In Japan, if you're gonna go in Japan, it's all trains.

We were uh duped in the 1960s by the NCL Big Five, who invested in discouraging light rail and public transportation.

They were found in antitrust and they were fined, but it affected California and other cities that we don't have to.

Private investment also extends to the out regions outside of us.

We can demand that from Tempe Phoenix.

689 million investment for Mesa.

4.2 billion Tempe for call the sack care free, Nova's Innovation District.

Phoenix 12 billion, cityscape, Roosevelt Row, South Central Hub.

It's more than just what we think we see here or in the past.

It's where we're going in the future.

And to add to that, I have a neighbor who is 70 years old.

She is alone.

And because I had the flexibility to work from home, I drive her to her appointments.

She's afraid to ask anyone for help.

She won't use Uber.

She won't use Waymo.

A lot of our people don't have that.

Thank you, Reggie.

Thank you.

Thank you for your service to your neighbor.

Next we'll hear from Mary.

Uh after Mary Holly, whom do we have?

Uh, next after Mary will be Linda Patrick Hayes.

Linda.

Okay.

Mayor and Council members, good evening.

I'm Mary Mabineau, LD10 PC, Brown and Wrecker.

The light rail in general is running into opposition.

The Fally, the Valley Light Rail Expansion Plan to the State Capitol and into West Phoenix has been stopped.

One month ago, the Phoenix City Council Transportation Subcommittee decided to not endorse the plan.

The Arizona State Legislature does not want the light rail near the Capitol.

The Diamondbacks also have expressed concern over light rail expansion on Jefferson Street.

The other two options for its expansion are now dead in the water because surrounding Phoenix residents oppose it.

Why all this opposition?

Besides the confusion and street destroying aspects, light rail costs multi-millions to expand and cost multi-millions to maintain and operate.

Now, here we are in Mesa.

Since 2008, the city has poured millions into this mode of transportation, without which it cannot be sustained otherwise.

The light rail operation and maintenance cost for Mesa, Phoenix, and Tempe equal 108 million.

So 18 million in cost versus 2.9 in revenue leaves over 15 million to be taken out of our general fund.

And this is only for fiscal year 2025 to 2026.

So this will only be higher in coming years.

Sounds like a losing proposition and boondoggle to me.

Why on earth are we continuing to fund this and subsidize the very few people who write it?

And of those few, some are not even paying their fares due to a proof of payment honor system.

It rips up streets, narrows roads, and wires overhead and rail tracks below are visually unappealing and ugly.

It's starting to physically divide us into a north side and a south side Mesa.

People, including myself, don't want to go to downtown anymore and deal with all the confusion it generates.

And now apparently the City of Mesa stats are showing increased crime on both sides of Main Street where the light rail is, and it's highly concentrated around the light rail stations.

Okay.

So here's an option.

I think the residents are sick and tired over being taxed everywhere they turn, including higher utilities and fees, to fund the general fund for subsidies like this.

It's never going to pay for itself, not even 50% of itself.

And it's not a necessity.

So please vote no.

Thank you very much.

We got it.

Thank you.

Linda, you're coming up, and after Linda, whom is it?

After Linda is David Wynn Stanley.

Okay, David.

Excuse me.

Linda, there's a lot of people watching the three minutes.

So Linda Patrick.

Oh, yeah, you've heard about me.

Um I'm speaking in opposition of 5D.

I'm coming from a little different angle, even though I agree with the people opposing it because of the cost to the taxpayers in Mesa.

But I feel very strongly that the light rail is a big part of your 2050 plan, along with items like 15 minutes cities and road diets.

I'm against that plan.

I know that you will argue that the people voted for it, but do you think you were really transparent with the people?

Did you tell them it could cost them millions of millions of dollars a year down the road a little ways?

Probably not.

But anyhow, here is my commentary.

I spent the month of October 1986 in the Soviet Union.

At that time, Moscow had a population of 11 million people.

We never saw one private home.

Twenty years later, I moved to Mesa, Arizona.

Four or five years after that, I was with the group and I heard the term 15 minute cities.

I said I've seen those.

Everyone asked me where.

I said 1986 in the Soviet Union.

I was really with intrigued with what I had seen in the Soviet Union.

So one day in Red Square, I decided to go into GUMS to see if I could find information about it.

Actually, I found it in the bookshop, and they had a few copies in English, and so I bought one.

That wasn't easy because I had to stand in four different queue up in four different lines to pay and receive my book.

Each queue line lasted from 45 minutes to an hour.

So here is the book that I bought.

You see this 15-minute city here.

And if I go here to page 118 and 11, there are five components to their 15-minute cities.

Number three is rapid transit.

And it says the basic concept stresses a pedestrian scale, the distance from any residents to the center of the services, including public transportation, will not exceed 500 yards to 600 yards, a seven-minute walk.

So they're they were they're gonna be they're a little quicker than you people.

Um this book was written in the 1950s.

It was translated in English in Milan, Italy in 1968.

I think this should have been mandatory reading for the people who wrote the 2050 plan.

And I really questioned, did you write it or did you copy a plan somebody else had written?

Linda, Linda, I hate to stop you, but your time's up.

Okay, I just for this reason, and I I won't read any further about the the transit system, but for this reason, my personal experience, please vote no on this agenda item, and I thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Wynn Stanley, who's after Mr.

Winstanley?

Alex Rennie Recheek.

Alex Ranisich.

Good evening, Mayor, Council members.

Uh, you know me by now.

Uh I do want to take a quick second and say my opening statement to the previous item was not in opposition.

I asked you to postpone it and study it some more.

The same is true here.

There is a saying, often wrongly attributed to Albert Einstein, that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

I believe that saying applies to this subject, the cost to Mesa of light rail operations.

If I understand it correctly, Mesa is in six in the 16th year of a 25-year contract to pay whatever Valley Metro bills us.

It has been suggested that the correct way to refer to the Mesa leg of a light rail is an underperforming asset.

Maybe so, but in any functioning business, an underperforming asset would not be kept on the books for over 10 years, nor expected to drain the budget into the future with no plan to correct it.

Based on Valley Metro ridership data, I did find this on the Valley Metro site.

It will cost the city of Mesa approximately $7.20 every time a writer gets on the light rail in Mesa.

Is that a good deal that already has the fare extracted?

It's actually better than the bus service, which quite surprises me.

But subsidizing a small population is not good business practice.

It's time to do something different.

Renegotiate with Valley Metro.

I'm not saying stop this today.

I'm saying get a better negotiating team that says, how do we get the costs down or how do we get the ridership up?

What are the other technologies that could be used?

Um, etc.

etc.

Some specific suggestions have been made by Kerry Davis.

Have they been reviewed and tried?

I have no idea.

I've never heard.

What can be done to increase ridership?

That's a hard one.

More than half of city Mesa citizens would have to drive five to fifteen miles to get to the nearest station.

So that means half of the population is not gonna do that.

I'll tell you myself, it's a it's 15 miles, 17 miles for me.

When I get on the on the freeway, what's the point of getting off it, Gilbert?

It it just doesn't make sense.

That's true for a lot of Mesa citizens.

So I ask you to please look deeper into how you are spending my and everyone's tax dollars and whether something can be done to minimize such wasteful spending.

Thank you for allowing me to speak.

Thank you, David.

With that, Alex is coming up, and then after Alex is whom.

Kathy Carlson.

Kathy Carlson, okay.

Thank you, Mayor and Council members.

As a Mesa resident, I rode the light rail recently.

Got my ticket right here as proof.

And I have to say, I saw very low ridership, no fair enforcement, and an honor system that clearly is being abused.

In addition, data from DoorProof.com shows higher crime along both sides of Main Street where it runs, affecting neighborhoods.

As you're going to vote on this evening for 15 million dollars.

Our city faces general fund shortfalls, which force utility rate increases to make those transfer funds.

The light rail drains taxpayer dollars.

Mayor and council, if I I just notice this.

Um there's a state statute that actually prohibits the use of our facilities for um campaigning.

Um it's also a violation of our ethics code.

Um and so if you were to prevail in the election, you would you would also be subject to an ethics violation, not to mention a violation of a state statute.

So I'd ask you not to take off your pens or to take off your hat to just hide those while you're speaking.

Sorry, I came here straight from walking and knocking.

Is this worth thank you, Alex?

There we go.

Is that better?

Can you not see?

It is system wide, the cost for the light rail are approximately 97 million annually, and fares only cover seven percent of that.

This leaves cities like Mesa to subsidize around 25 million yearly based on recent reports.

To those of you who've championed low taxes, smaller government and say you're fiscally responsible.

Here is an opportunity to demonstrate what you have said publicly.

I urge you to vote no.

But if that is not feasible, consider starting at five million as a compromise to rein in spending while we explore other efficiencies.

A couple of innovative options could help automate the light rail, like the airport train shuttles to cut on operator costs, or replace sections with a kid-friendly choo-choo train to attract families and generate revenue instead of sucking up tax money.

The light rail is not a benefit for the general welfare because only a few use it.

Please listen to the residents who overwhelmingly oppose throwing more money at the light rail.

And please vote responsibly with our money.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alex.

Uh Kathy.

And that's the end, right?

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead, Kathy.

Um, my name is Kathy Carlson.

I reside in the Power and Brown area in District 5.

I'm a precinct captain in LD 10 and represent those in my precinct where I have lived for 28 years, and we are against funding this light rail, as everybody else has said, and they've said it wonderfully, and I don't know a whole lot more I can say about it, but um I personally have have ridden the the light rail.

I I had to ride it for four months straight.

Well, I didn't have to, but I chose to.

Um I I wrote it for four months straight, and I was alone.

Um, and I was serving on a grand jury in Phoenix, so it did drop me off at the you know at the courthouse, but my experience was not good.

And I tried to find a place that was close to an exit with my backpack securely held in my hands, trying not to touch anything.

The smells were awful, and there were obviously some very interesting people on the light rail that were kind of scary.

Um I observed security guys coming in to check tickets occasionally, and I stress occasionally.

We know that this whole honor system doesn't work at all.

Um also have seen the police multiple times outside the light rail.

We know it's it's not crime-free at all.

Um obviously the money we're paying an ungodly amount for uh a boondoggle, and that's for one year.

So why would we keep going with this?

Um, if anybody brought me a business plan like this, that would be the most ridiculous thing.

Anybody would be laughed out of that.

Um as Mr.

Heredia had said, we are car heavy in Mesa.

Most people drive cars.

They don't drive the the amount of people writing this are so low that why do why should it cost us, our taxpayers, your are your tax dollars too.

Why are we paying this ungodly amount for this when it doesn't benefit the major even the majority of Phoenix?

It would definitely be in our best interest of Mesa and the long run to dismantle it as a carlson.

Hey, everybody, we got this.

Just stand down.

I got it.

Thank you, Kathy.

Oh, with that, that completes our citizens talking about item 5D.

Let's um have council discussion on this.

Officers, if you find somebody disruptive, you're allowed to remove that person from our meeting.

Okay.

You got the order.

All right.

With that, Mr.

Butler, do you want to weigh in first?

Yeah, Mr.

Mayor, if I could.

I just just want to level set again the conversation on tonight, because I think it's really important for counsel to is your mic on?

Yes, sir.

It should be.

Um to for council to uh um to digest exactly what they're being asked to do tonight, which is to approve this year's um operating agreement with Valley Metro Rail for rail and maintenance operations.

The city is contractually obligated to approve this agreement by being a member of Valley Metro Rail by by choosing to be a member of Valley Metro Rail and for choosing to have the service in our community.

There are there are some questions that if folks want to talk prospectively, we could we could have that, but right now we're legally obligated um to to um approve this agreement because we voted uh to enter into this arrangement with Valley Metro.

So take a step back.

This is no different though than regional arrangements that we enter into for all kinds of services.

So think of a wastewater treatment facility that we operate that's multi-jurisdictional, that we rely on Gilbert and Queen Creek, and we go to them before we start operation and say, do you want to buy into this plant?

And if you do, there's a cost that you're gonna have to um the city of Mesa can build and operate this plant, but if you do that and you buy capacity of that, there's there's a cost associated with that, and you're going to enter into a contractual obligation that's going to require you uh to pay those fees uh each year uh in return for the city of Mesa has built and delivered for that.

That's no different than what we've done with Valley Metro Rail.

This decision was made by the Mesa City Council in 2002, and then the and then the voters of Mesa through Prop 400 and Prop 479 have extended uh the regional tax that's been used to pay for both the bus and the rail service that we've spoken about tonight.

But we've already discussed the bus, so specifically to REL, uh that's the issue that's at hand before the city council uh tonight.

And and certainly council may have more questions, but I just wanted to make it clear uh the the arrangement and the agreement that's being asked uh for for council to consider this evening.

Is this an annual agreement or is this uh we we do come back annually uh on the amount that is that is an amount that um Valley Metro of which we are one of the three members along with the City of Tempe and this in the City of Phoenix on the Valley Metro rail board?

Um Councilmember Heredia serves in that capacity um for the Valley Metro Rail Board, and so that this amount comes or the amount that's set comes back to council each year for ratification.

Okay, thank you.

And Mesa, could I could I also just add we did have 1.8 million riders last fiscal year for the light rail, 1.8 million riders in Mesa that uh utilize the light rail, and it is part of a multimodal system that we that the voters of this city have voted for in both 20-year um propositions to support a multimodal approach, and this is one component of that.

The ROI people have legitimate concerns about that, you know.

If we were looking at that for a street, I wouldn't build another street.

We don't have toll roads in our street.

And if we're looking for who benefits from a certain area, it then I wouldn't build a street in Southeast Mesa if that meant that council member Duff's residents don't drive on that street.

It's all part of a connected system.

It's all part of an interrelated multimodal system that the residents of this city have voted uh to further forward on this.

And so that is what is being discussed, and it's all part of a interconnected system that provides different people different modes uh that they can choose.

So that mayor, I'll answer, you know, be glad to answer any questions in Mr.

L's here as well.

Okay, with that, we'll we'll go to Mr.

Adams.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, and and I I may have additional comments after I ask Mr.

Butler a question, but m Mr.

Um I guess I'm gonna ask you, I'm gonna ask you to delve into the hypothetical again here for us in just a minute.

In your experience, if we were to vote no, can you speculate on what we might expect Valley Metro to do, what is uh available to it under the law, and and what would you anticipate would happen.

Mayor, council member and city attorney can weigh in this since we do have a contractual obligation to fund the operations and maintenance of the light rail that we willingly entered into.

If we did not pay our bill, we did not honor our contractual obligation, they would have right to bring suit against us, and I don't like our chances considering we willingly uh entered into that agreement.

Anyone else?

Ms.

Taylor.

I was just waiting for everyone because I do have some statements.

Okay, go ahead.

Okay.

So this is to you, Mayor and my colleagues, the other council members, and um this is gonna be a couple of minutes.

So tonight's item asks us to approve a funding agreement for 18 million 43,000 in light rail operating maintenance and facility costs that are specific to fiscal year 2025-26, with about 2.93 million dollars in offsetting revenues.

This leaves us, as we've heard multiple times, 15.1 million to hit Mesa's general fund just this year.

Here is the core issue that I have with this.

This is not what Mesa residents consented to when the regional rail was sold to the public.

Maricopa County voters approved a county transportation sales tax, proposition 400, which funded a regional transportation plan.

And Valley Metro itself explains that those county tax revenues are allocated through regional planning and a public transportation fund.

But the annual operating obligation that we are voting on is different tonight.

Under Arizona statutory framework and Valley Metro's own funding explanations, light rail operations are born locally.

These are not magically covered by the same voter approval capital pipeline.

We are being asked to take general fund dollars, which are very important to our taxpayers and our residents.

These are dollars that are meant for public safety, parks and recreation, street maintenance, and other core services, water pipelines, and we are asking to subsidize a system that by the numbers in this item recovers a small fraction of its total cost.

This is a fairness problem.

You don't need to oppose transit to see it.

If a service requires a permanent subsidy, then we owe residents direct accountability, a clear vote, and a clear sunset and a clear demonstration of the benefit to the Mesa taxpayer that it matches the burden we are asking them to carry.

The cost is not only financial, it's also a public order quality of life issue.

Valley Metro acknowledges the need for fair and code of conduct enforcement and maintains security staffing and cameras across their rail system, but enforcement and compliance are very real challenges.

Local reporting shows fair inspection rates have at times been well below their stated goals, even when most inspected riders have complied.

When inspections are infrequent, the system becomes easier to use as a free corridor, a free ride, which shifts the burden to paying residents and city services.

The residents are paying for those people who like to hop on and off of the train at their own leisure.

Mesa also publishes police calls for service data.

It's tied to light rail station areas.

This shows that stations generate ongoing demand for public safety response, calls that are paid for by Mesa residents through our general fund for public safety.

And Mesa's own homelessness dashboards emphasize that homelessness is a region wide challenge, reoccurring coordinated responses, again, largely staffed and locally funded by our Mesa residents.

So here is the fairness question, and this is for my colleagues and mayor and all of those who are listening tonight.

Why are Mesa taxpayers paying a growing general fund subsidy for a regional line while also absorbing the downstream costs?

Policing, cleanup, outreach, and deterrence around the station areas.

This is a practical taxation without representation problem.

The benefits are distributed regionally, but the operating deficit and local impacts are concentrated here in Mesa.

Finally, residents and small businesses throughout the various districts, obviously, three and four, continue to tell us that they want Main Street to function like Main Street again, with restored street capacity, less of a road diet, simpler access in a corridor that supports supports local commerce and community events.

We couldn't have our Veterans Day period down Main Street because Main Street was occupied by a light rail.

Light rail and its station footprint permanently constrain how we use our current public right of way.

We have a wonderful biking club that likes to ride down Main Street on Fridays.

Currently, they're upholding a lot of traffic because we have nowhere for them to ride other than on the one lane that they are given.

Additionally, in districts three and four, we continue to hear a consistent message that Main Street should function as a traditional corridor with larger street capacity for major events, simpler access, and business owners who would like to open up businesses where there is not a light rail impeding their future traffic.

Light rail into downtown Mesa began in August of 2015, a decade later.

This agreement is asking for a continuing escalating general fund commitment.

If this system were to be self-sustaining, this trend would look quite different.

Conservative governance means user benefit should track user payment, and local taxes should fund core local needs first and foremost.

This agreement fails that test.

Our city attorney recently advised us that the council should not bind future councils in ways that encumber their legislative authority.

This item demonstrates the very consequence of a prior decision that now constrains our council.

I strongly urge you on a no vote on this agreement.

I would also like a direction to return with a cap on Mesa's general fund exposure to light rail.

Measurable reporting on fair enforcement, calls for service and station impacts specific to Mesa.

A serious corridor, alternative analysis that prioritize prioritizes local mobility and local business access.

Again, I urge a no vote.

A direction to return with a plan that reduces our exposure to this issue, pursues alternative funding, such as ripping out the light rail, which has cost us about 150 million dollars over 10 years, and replacing it with a street that allows for more local traffic to come and frequent our businesses who are working very hard, not just to survive, but to therv thrive and grow.

And I would like to see our future be one that is more pleasant towards personal transportation, because as a few of us have already stated, including our residents, Mesa is a personal transportation city.

We like our cars, we like our freedom.

And just to correct something that I heard earlier, I do want you to understand that drivers roughly represent 72% of the total U.S.

population.

I think we would do well to put in some additional parking garages or add on to the ones that we currently have so that we can accommodate those visitors to downtown Mesa.

I thank you all for considering my statements tonight.

Thank you, Ms.

Taylor.

Um we talked about some legal uh implications, Mr.

Smith.

Do you want to address those as are Mayor Council?

Um let me address first the contract.

We there is a master agreement um with Valley Metro, and it does require the city to enter into annual amendments or annual agreements regarding the funding.

Um that doesn't prevent the possibility of uh some future amendment to the to the master agreement that provides changes to that, but that would obviously be a significant change that we would need to work out with Valley Metro.

Um as Scott pointed out, this is very much like agreements that we have uh regarding um other facilities that are shared facilities with other communities like water treatment or wastewater treatment.

And as far as um binding future councils, maybe I should explain this concept or I failed to explain it evidently fully last time that this came up.

The concept is this this is that if council, and I'll do it by way of example.

If if council were to adopt a fee to tonight for for whatever, it doesn't matter, for uh a swimming class and it was for ten dollars.

Council couldn't also say we won't increase that fee for five years with the goal of just preventing a future council of ever uh changing that um swimming fee from ten dollars.

That's binding the future council.

Um but it doesn't prevent the concept doesn't apply for contracts with third parties.

So when you otherwise you would never be able to sign a contract, you wouldn't be able to honor a contract, right?

Uh, every contract literally wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on.

So when you do sign a contract with a third party, as this is a contract with Valley Metro, um, you are able to effectively bind a future council.

You are able to enter into agreement.

Um, otherwise you wouldn't be able to enter into any agreement.

And so um there would there would be consequences um if you weren't to approve this.

Um we but we could also in the future look at it.

If you were to say how to unwind this agreement, we'd have to start working with Valley Metro, and there would be a number of ripples regarding this.

So it would be very much akin, as uh as Scott pointed out, to uh someone that's a partner in a wastewater treatment plant that's been in the water treatment plant for 10 years, saying they want to be out of that agreement and the cost associated the the initial capital cost of of that um agreement and and unwinding that.

And so if council were to go that direction, we'd have to work with Valley Metro on sort of that unwind, which would have, you know, like I said, a number of ripples.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Mr.

Smith Council, any other discussion?

I I'd like to just add on that our streets aren't for free, and it comes from um taxpayers.

We get approximately 50 million dollars in the highway user um revenue fund, and um that's about 45 percent of what we spend on our highway highways.

Um we also have a point three of our two percent sales tax for the city of Mesa is for local street sales tax.

All that money, around 90 million dollars goes into our streets every year.

Those aren't for free either.

So you when you look at the cost of the highways, um they aren't for free.

You can't drive your car on a free.

There's the cost of that land, there's the public safety that monitors it, there's the police stations we have there, there's accidents which cost quite a bit of money, there's fatalities, we have mass parking lots which provide no revenue to our businesses or our city.

There is a cost to driving a car, and there is a cost to providing transit in our city.

About two million people ride our rail in Mesa every year.

Do you want to see two million people on our roads causing more congestion, more pollution?

We don't have if we are going to be a successful West Mesa downtown, we have to build the density.

And the revenues that we produce in that density are the sales tax that that runs our city.

It is very we cannot increase our density without transit.

We cannot increase our you know, our revenues in this area without a way to move people outside of highways.

So I just I could go on about this for a half hour, but the point is driving your car isn't for free.

Those roads and the public safety and the maintenance and those parking lots all cost us money.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Duff.

If there's nothing else, I'll just add uh real quick.

Jody, can you add the economic um the economic impact that we've had here in Mesa with since adding the light rail here on downtown?

I think it's close to a billion dollars of economic impact, probably some more because we're not even counting kind of future developments that's happening like on Sycamore and along the main street closer to Tempe.

But can you elaborate?

Um Yeah, yes, Council Mayor, Councilmember Herodia.

When um the 10-year anniversary of the Central Mesa extension, which is the extension through downtown, um Valley Metro is estimating based on data we provided them that that project, which was 200 million dollars in Mesa had no local money in has helped increase economic development by one billion dollars.

And that translates into sales tax and people and all of that around there.

So it does it's roughly what's estimated on in general is for every one dollar of public involved public investment, it generates about nine dollars of private.

So I I think what we're kind of context-wise, because this all operates on context, right?

Because why are we investing tens of thousands of uh dollar tens of millions of dollars to build a gateway library in the far east side, uh right?

So just putting in context, right?

What because other my colleagues have mentioned like why we're investing in parts of the city where I can't I can uh use this, right?

But this is this is part of a city that uh we need to invest in all parts, right?

All parts of the city, uh, because that's how we live in community, right?

And so I you know, I would say just to go to the point of economic impact, this is probably the largest economic driver that we've done in the city uh in one place, right?

I over a billion dollars of investment.

Uh mind you, if you remember downtown Mesa, I I think we didn't have uh uh residential permitting permits over like 20 years, like since the late 90s.

Maybe I'm wrong, Mr.

Butler, but you can uh correct me.

But over 20 years, we we didn't have uh residential permit uh in downtown Mesa before Light Rail coming in.

Uh is that correct, Mr.

Butler?

That's right.

It'd been 40 years.

40 years, yeah.

Well, well, even longer, right?

40 years.

And so I would say it has had the economic impact that we had uh envisioned, and hopefully, you know, we need to keep on working on that, right?

Like that's that's something that we need to uh uh that always every year need to work on uh bringing in more businesses, uh more activity to these centers.

Uh you know, we've been talking in our strategic planning, how do we create placemaking opportunities, right?

Those placemaking opportunities don't come out of thin air, right?

We need to invest, right?

That's why we're investing in fiber, that's why we're investing into uh things that will bring in activity, economic activity to these areas, right?

And so uh so I I differ with some of the comments that some of my colleagues meant uh you know have said uh and and look at the basics of the impact that it's had in this area, and you know, discussing over one, you know, almost two million riders.

Uh are we just glossing over those two million riders that use this system in Mesa alone, right?

Uh that's that's not the that's not something I I want to gloss over.

Uh and that's something that we should all put into context of what this system means, right?

And I agree with my colleagues that we're a car heavy, we're gonna be car heavy, but people that need options need options that you know they can use that maybe they don't have a car, like I mentioned, or they don't they have uh you know something else um that they want to go on a bus and or a light rail to connect, right?

So it is just something that we need to put in context uh and and not look at the the soul uh of you know light rail, right?

It it's part of our community that we need to keep on enhancing uh as as uh good neighbors and a good stewards and and uh and moving forward to the future of where we want to be, not only in Mesa, but the the reason, right?

Because that this is interplays with the reason that we're we're we're living here on a daily basis and operate in a daily basis uh on the region.

So I'll just leave my comments there.

Thank you, Mr.

Redding, Mr.

Adams.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I I'm gonna approach this from a slightly different perspective, if I may.

I would I would begin by saying I'm uh I'm not happy about spending 15 million dollars of public money on this particular item.

Um you know, in business and life, I endeavor to keep my word and honor my obligations and my business's obligations, and you know, to me that's integrity.

Not defaulting on contractual obligations is also part of integrity.

I am not a fan of light rail, never have been.

I don't think it's a good deal.

I agree with most of the speakers who stood here before us tonight and and spoke against it for the all the various reasons.

No argument, don't support it, wouldn't have voted for it.

Wasn't here when it was voted for.

However, this council is the custodian of this city's integrity.

Prior councils committed this city, our city, to a contractual obligation, a legal obligation, as binding as your mortgage or your American express card contract.

Just as binding.

Things happen when you don't pay the bill.

In 2004, Mesa voters approved Prop 400.

We can argue all day long about who voted for it and why they voted for it, but it's it's apparent to me, casting back to that time, that those Mesa voters who did vote for it were in one sense or another signaling their approval.

And I'm gonna assume they knew what they were voting for.

You know, not everybody does, but I'm gonna assume that those voters are informed and that they knew what they were voting for when they voted either no or yes for Prop 400.

Following that, the expansion of light rail beyond Dobson Road followed.

And we have what we have now through downtown Mesa.

I remember all the arguments from all the individuals, economic development, so forth and so on, about all the wonderful things it was going to do.

In some folks' view, those things have happened to some extent.

In others, they have not.

And I'm sure there are arguments can be made on both sides of that issue.

As much as I would like to vote no on this measure, it would be a breach of my fiduciary duty and my obligation to Mesa to potentially place our city in default of a contractual obligation.

That is far reaching.

When Mesa signs on the bottom line, that has to mean something, and the day that it doesn't, there goes our integrity as a community out the window.

Should we default and commit such a breach, it follows that Valley Metro would have grounds to sue us, and I would fully expect that they would.

A lot of money at stake here and a lot of commitments and understandings and agreements that were made that other communities along with Valley Metro performed under.

That is a risk.

The risk of that default is one I cannot in good conscience make as a member of this council.

Now I would say that if there's a groundswell of support, a groundswell of public support to undo this arrangement, there's a way to do that, and it's not by putting us in default on a contractual obligation.

If it's the will of the people or this council to direct staff, as Mr.

Smith mentioned earlier, to look at ways of unwinding this, it's not gonna be easy.

And I'm not I'm not expressing my support for that right now, but if there is a groundswell of support in this community to ask this council to look at that, so be it.

We can do it.

It isn't just that simple to say, well, let's just not pay the bill and see what happens.

I know what will happen.

I've been in business 40 years.

I know what will happen.

We're gonna get served with papers.

And I don't think that's where we want to be.

There are ways to address a matter like this when there are strong opinions on either side to look at it objectively, calmly, put all the numbers on paper and see what the end result will be, and then decide.

Is it gonna cost us 200 million to get out, 400 million, 600, a billion?

I don't know.

I guarantee you, Valley Metro will retain very competent legal counsel, and they'll come up with a number that we won't like.

So uh again, not a fan of light rail, agree with most of the objections here, but we've got a contractual obligation we have to stand behind.

That's integrity.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Mr.

Adams.

Any other comments?

If Ms.

Go Forth, I I'll just um follow up here uh and say uh as council member Adams, I didn't sit on the council when we um uh agreed to this or when we expanded it.

Um I would agree it seems it's an underperforming asset, but I don't think we can discount two million people that do rely on it.

Um and I think it's a bit narrow sided to say that because it's not used by everyone, that it doesn't matter.

Um, as was pointed out, we don't all we we we live in a collective and we don't all use every asset that we pay for here in the city of Mesa.

Um there's been arguments made on its economic impact.

I've personally talked to developers who have said that they have invested in downtown Mesa because the light rail is here.

Again, this it are there ways that we can maybe make it perform better, that we can fill that gap um between what it costs and what we're paying, what we gen what revenue is generated.

I I would like to have those conversations if we can.

Um, but I don't I I think to unwind it to just to um not fulfill our obligation is uh irresponsible.

And um I would not I would not be in favor of that at this time.

Um but again I I would like to continue the conversation if that's something that we can do and that we can talk to Valley Metro and how we renegotiate our contract um each year for the cost, or what we can do as a city to increase ridership and make it uh pay for itself a little bit better.

I absolutely would would welcome those discussions.

Mayor, maybe just to that point, um just to add that I absolutely I think what council member go for said Councilmember Taylor and I have had some great conversations about that um over the last couple of days as well.

The fact that um one uh there's certainly more that can always be done, and we're striving to do that working with our regional partners.

Um, and it is Jody sometimes, you know, uh she she works day in and day out um trying to see more efficiencies and and other improvements from Valley Metro and uh and certainly there is more that can be done, and we'll continue to to work with you.

And also um I think it's it's fair to say too, there's a lot of um new faces on the dias than as was alluded to than was here when we entered into some of the the previous agreements and when decisions were made about expansion.

So I think understanding more about that relationship between the city and Valley Metro is is a piece of the puzzle that staff can do a better job of of re-educating on that or educating for the first time on on some of that process.

So um hear you loud and clear.

So we will certainly at the very least uh undergo that discussion and and get additional information back to the council that that can help you just understand more how that relationship works and how it's not you know, Jody spends a lot of her time uh dealing dealing with Valley Metro.

But I I just I do want to point out too it's it's easy for us to characterize Valley Metro as you know, is this third party government entity.

Valley Metro is us, right?

Valley Metro Rail Incorporated is something that again going back to 2002, the city of Mesa decide to enter into with the city of Tempe and the City of and City of Phoenix.

It operates at our discretion.

And and that's and that's part of the understanding of this.

We have regional partners, so it's not you know, the so it's it's not the bureaucrats down at Valley Metro that are you know, some of this part of this is working with those regional partners, just like sometimes in those regional agreements, we may have differences of opinion about a wastewater treatment facility.

We have to work that through with Gilbert and and Queen Creek or others to see that through.

That's the situation here.

When we want changes at Valley Metro, there's been some things that we've wanted that our regional partners haven't agreed to.

And so you have to work through those things, and and that that is an effort that will continue to strive for more efficiency and and PD has has spoken extensively about the efforts that we're trying to do on a public safety enforcement side of things, uh, fare enforcement, the efforts that um Valley Metro has stepped up in the past what year to 18 months with enhanced um fare enforcement.

So there is definitely areas for improvement.

No one can question that, but there's also a lot of work being done to try to address some of the concerns that have been raised this evening.

Jody, I I don't want you to stand the whole evening.

You can you want to see you comfortable there because Vice Mayor?

Before I finish, can can we have can or somebody talk about there was some claims that the about the crime near the rail that increased?

I don't know if you have any off the head off your head, you know.

But maybe it you can get us some.

I mean, I I don't know if that was a value.

Yeah, we we can come back with that.

I know that's that's an effort.

We could have a study session on that and kind of bring everything to a closure.

But Chief Chief Butler and and um the commander representing that area and others have been working closely with with Valley Metro, and it it did start under Chief Cost um to beef up that that effort.

I I will say though that some of those problem areas, it it won't surprise you.

I mean, it's it's through areas that have other challenges that we talk about through redevelopment and some of the other components that all tie together.

And and so um some of the some of those challenges we're seeing at those points would also be felt on the road beside that, not just on the rail beside that.

And so it is it is more about our efforts to uplift and help redevelop certain areas of our community that need additional assistance there.

Light rail happens to be, but streets happen to be there as well, and so it's it's not just a reflection of the rail, but the overall environment where city city efforts on redevelopment as we discussed the other day could be really helpful in in uplifting some of those challenges.

beside that not just on the rail beside that and so it is it is more about our efforts to uplift and help redevelop certain areas of our community that need additional assistance there light rail happens to be but streets happen to be there as well and so it's it's not just a reflection of the rail but the overall environment where city city efforts on redevelopment as we discussed the other day could be really helpful in in uplifting some of those challenges so as a suggestion on that I think we're gonna be having a study session on the current crime statistics that we just received recently maybe roll that in as part of that conversation because it would be a good way to talk about what we're gonna do to to tackle that issue yeah we can do that in our previous conversation on the bus issue we we talked about the term of the contract what is the term of the rail contract it's actually indefinite and so the the intent is is that it's um it's um uh it's a perpetual agreement and basically until they stop providing service or their material breach and then we're able to provide notice and terminate so unlike the bus one there's no 90 day clause for how would that work if we I to I'm gonna use uh council member Adams hypothetically if if we were to change our direction on this what what would that require sure let me make an important distinction too that the attorney can we're buying a service on the bus side we're we're we're paying them as an operator to do it.

We are an owner in Valley Metro Rail.

That's the distinction and so much like that sewer treatment facility as long as we're treating the water inside it those regional partners are also paying the operations and maintenance and other things as was negotiated into that to that agreement so think of it a little bit differently than than rail and bus because that they're two separate legal entities they operate under the same umbrella for branding purposes but they operate as two separate and distinct legal entities with a different um with a different business model of how they how they um operate and so to the second part of your question there there are provisions um for an entity as was alluded to earlier to exit that agreement um it requires the consent and approval of both the Phoenix City Council and the Tempe City Council and it would also require um other yet to be determined conditions that the other parties would have to agree to to allow us to to exit that and I tend to agree with council member Adams that uh I I I think if I were them and they were expecting us to be a partner um based on our commitment to enter into it if we were to exit they're going to be asking for substantial investments to offset um the um the the portion of the improvements that they were expecting us to have provided as a partner in that endeavor and again that's not to say that we can't spoil it we certainly can but I just I just want to people to understand the complexity that comes along with with that.

And and I I guess just to throw a little bit of comfort if there is any to the folks who are concerned about the cost for this does anything in that agreement require us to increase the size of our rail portfolio to expand the light rail or other fixed rail products no there's no requirement for that and and there is no light rail expansion in the city of Mesa included in the Prop 479 regional plan.

In the city of in the city was there one in Phoenix they do have rail expansions um in Phoenix but not in Mesa correct not in Mesa okay I just like to say we can't just put up a close sign on the light rail there's a major investment that we have and many many many people depend on it.

We just can't say closed I don't know what we do with all that infrastructure and we're not connecting to the rest of the valley I know it would definitely shut down development that is planned for West Mesa and we could not grow in West Mesa with a density our our city is growing so much that we have to plan where we're gonna have the density and how we're gonna move those people we're not gonna be able to do the cars most of the roads around here in West Mesa don't have any room to expand the congestion is at a tolerable level but I did not do anything and then throw all the transit riders into the streets finding some kind of car to be in is it's just it's not manageable.

So the idea of shutting down the light rail it will hurt us economically it'll hurt hurt us um being able to for people to move and be able to grow now if East Mesa wants to take on a lot more growth a lot more apartments a lot more ways to absorb the growth then that would be a consideration but West Mesa the downtown area is an area that we are focused on growing the density and handling it in a responsible way.

But West Mesa, the downtown area is an area that we are focused on growing the density and handling it in a responsible way.

So I don't want to even consider the conversation of shutting down the rail.

We have some light priority and some ways that we could quicken that, and when it becomes the same or quicker, you will see the ridership skyrocket.

We haven't been able to do that yet, but it's coming, and we're working on the future.

And downtowns and the West Mesa is the perfect place to be able to take advantage of that.

We can be a city for all lifestyles, always to live.

But the urban core, the downtown has a certain structure that it relies on.

And we'll look at any downtown across the United States, all your major cities rely on transit.

There is no other way to move the people.

So shutting down transit, I don't think is an option.

And we've got to think about where we're going.

Yes, transit is going to improve on the service level.

I've talked to Councilmember Heredia.

There's discussions and how it can be quicker.

And if we just keep on cramming with cards, it definitely will be faster, even at its current condition because the streets cannot absorb the transit riders in cars at this point.

So I don't know where we're going with this conversation.

Um, but there are transit riders that are paying.3% of their Mesa sales tax every day, even though they don't even use the roads.

So it's not a defined system that transit riders have to pay for transit and they have to pay for the roads, right?

There's we our entire city structure is for the the community's good.

Parks don't pay for themselves, park, um, the recreation centers, the museums, uh, public safety, all the services we provide, none of it is a pay per use and sustainable.

We are community built.

I I just don't want to go down this rabbit hole of of really hurting ourselves in so many ways.

So thank you.

Thank you, Miss Duff.

Uh we've had a healthy discussion on 5C and D.

Thank you, Jody.

You can sit down.

I'm gonna call for a vote.

Um like a motion, please, if you'll make a motion, Mr.

Radio.

I need a second.

Thank you, Miss Duff.

Please cast your vote.

Passes six to one.

Thank you, everyone who participated.

Next, we'll move into uh item 11A is a presentation on the city's annual comprehensive financial report for the fiscal year ending June 30th, 2026.

I do have one request from Mr.

Kerry Davis.

Kerry Davis, Mr.

Davis, you want to come up?

Are we gonna have the presentation first?

No, yeah, we'll have the public comment first.

Okay, Irma, then Mr.

Davis.

Very much about public.

Good evening, honorable mayor and city council.

I do believe this is uh an option to increase ridership if the time to get to Phoenix was reduced by turning a couple of those early morning and later afternoon commuters into an express rail, you would increase the right ridership.

And they have discussed that in the past, and I do think that there's a possibility of reducing the number of stops to increase that uh throughput through uh through some negotiation with uh uh Tempe and with Phoenix.

So 11A is the uh annual audited financial statement, and the general governmental revenues were 990 million dollars.

The city spent and overspent by 59 million dollars, they spent a billion fifty 49 uh million dollars.

Our two neighbors, Gilbert and Chandler, they each generate surpluses on their general governmental, and they spend about 200 million dollars less than the city of Mesa.

And so it seems to me that the City of Mesa should have a better outcome as a result of the amount of money that we spend.

So if you take a look at Wallet Hub, they survey 182 cities.

City of Gilbert ranks 29th.

The City of Chandler ranks 40th.

The City of Mesa ranks 71.

I would recommend that the City Council require that the next time the city managers rate increase, salary is is considered that there's a performance that we improve the outcome for the city of Mesa.

And I don't think that it's too much to request and require some uh some better performance out of the city manager as we move forward.

Mr.

We do have a Mr.

David, we need to stay on the topic on the ACFER, please.

So the city manager's pay is not a part of the ACFAR.

Well, I understand that, but I think that it's reasonable for the city as we spend over 200 million dollars more than our two neighbors, and we could compare to them, we should be looking at a better response.

So I do have a question for the uh city manager back in 2023, the city's general governmental non-major funds for fire and for police was 101 million dollars in 2024.

It was 118 million dollars.

Mr.

Davis, your time's expired.

So uh the 118 million dollars was an increase in 2025.

My question is where does that general fund non-major general fund go?

How is it spent?

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Did you want to address that?

Or you want to go to the presentation?

Mr.

Mayor, why don't we go ahead and go through the presentation?

I I do want to appreciate Mr.

Davis raising Wallet Hub.

So I know he's quick to point out that we were rated by Wallet Hub as the best run city in the state of Arizona and the ninth best run city in the United States.

So I appreciate him using that outlet.

Also, when I get my crime statistics, I choose to listen to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, um, which is where uh and NIBERS and other uh law enforcement tools that are um level across all playing fields when we look at that.

So um so yes, so I I appreciate the reference to Wallet Hub and and I appreciate that we are the best run city in the state and one of the top ten best run cities in the country.

So I appreciate him highlighting uh that and uh and I'll I'll leave the crime statistics to the federal government to to do.

So with that, I'd love for staff to come up and give you the presentation on the act.

Will you please come forward?

Good evening, Mayor Council.

First, I wanted to confirm do you do want me to run through their presentation from Thursday or just have Jean?

Okay, yeah, uh the presentation you had planned.

Okay, thank you.

Um I have with me today Jean Dietrich, she is the partner with Clepton Larson Allen, and she is here to um communicate or um present.

There we go.

That's what I was looking for.

Present the results of our audit and the required communications to those charged with governance, which is our council.

Thank you, man.

And thank you, Mayor, Council members, for giving us the opportunity to present the results of the audit of the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business type activities, and each major fund and aggregate fund information for the city of Mesa for the year-ended June 30, 2025.

We performed our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States, as well as government auditing standards.

We did have one change in accounting policy that was adopted by the city during the fiscal year for GASBE statement number 102 for certain risk disclosures.

That adoption was evaluated by management, and it was deemed to be non-effective on the financial statements for the year end of June 30, 2025.

In performing our audit, we noted no transactions entered into by the city for which there was a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus, and all significant transactions were recognized in the financial statements in the proper period.

We did not identify any usual or fraudulent transactions in performing our audit procedures.

At arriving at your financial statements, management does perform certain estimates.

We evaluated those estimates, and we are comfortable with those estimates, and we did not deem that there was any management bias at arriving at those estimates.

All your financial statement disclosures were determined neutral, consistent, and clear.

We had no difficulties in performing the audit, and it is rigorous.

We start our audit in May and June, and we conclude our audit in November December.

And there's a lot that's asked for management, and they are always responsive and transparent with us in providing information.

Management needs to arrive at your financials in a timely manner for their deadline for December 31st, 2000, um, for December 31st deadline to have their GFOA certificate of excellence.

We did note that there were two adjusting entries that were passed as they were not material to the financial statements, and we're in agreement that it was not a material transaction.

And we had no difficulties in performing the audit.

We had no deficiencies in internal control or financial reporting or compliance to report to this body.

And overall, it was a clean, unmodified opinion on your annual comprehensive financial report.

And I have no other findings to disclose to this body.

I hope you don't find any others.

Thank you, Jean.

Uh council, are there any questions for that for our ACFR?

I don't I don't really have a question, but for the public's sake, since there are a multitude of people here and we are talking about the city's finances.

Irma, would it behoove you, five hands to explain a material weakness and a deficiency for those who are listening this evening?

Which they didn't find any of, which is great.

So do you want to answer?

Go for it.

Significant efficiency would be some proposed adjustments that the auditors would find that we missed that they felt were significant enough.

Um with that, there might have been some control controls that were not as effective, or else it would have been caught by management.

So that would be significant deficiency.

A material weakness would be several, more than one significant deficiency that identified, or an amount that's so material that if they had not found it, our financial statements might have been um misstated.

Um the city has not had a mature weakness in over 10 years, and we had a significant deficiency maybe three or four years ago, the last one we had.

Four.

Thank you very much.

All right, council hearing nothing else.

I'll entertain a motion to approve uh item 11a, our city's annual comprehensive financial report.

Thank you for motion, Miss Duff.

Second, Mr.

Summers.

Please cast your vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you, everyone.

Item 12 is is from citizens present.

As you know, we allow three speakers to speak.

And because the topics the speakers raise are not on our agenda, state law generally prevents council from responding to the speaker.

Our first speaker is Jason Smithson, uh, followed by Noah James Markin.

Uh Jason.

Thank you.

And then our third speaker is Bob Hathcock.

Mr.

Mayor, members of the council.

I come in peace tonight.

Um I want to begin by thanking Councilmember Heredia for taking time to meet with me and discuss ways the city can collaborate with Mesa Public Schools to better support our lower income schools.

I appreciate both the conversation and the willingness to a meaningful partnership.

I also want to thank Councilmember Duff when I addressed the council two two weeks ago regarding what I believed was a lack of communication.

It later became clear that the issue was a misunderstanding.

I appreciate your immediate outreach and your willingness to meet with me to discuss education and collaboration moving forward.

That brings me to why I'm here tonight.

I've been closely studying ways to make a meaningful impact on behalf of our school children.

Tonight I'm here to present a proposal for your consideration.

Here in Mesa, we are seeing an unprecedented levels of civic engagement among our young people.

They are forming civic groups on campus.

Students at Red Mountain High School recently organized a walkout to express their views.

Mountain View High School's We the People team, which studies the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, just won the state championship, and are advancing to the national competition in Washington, D.C.

Our students are paying attention.

Too often as adults, we underestimate them.

We dismiss their voices and minimize their intentions.

But the fact that they cannot yet vote does not mean they are uninformed.

It does not mean they are disengaged, and it certainly does not mean they do not care.

With that in mind, I propose the creation of a formal partnership between the Mesa City Council and Mesa Public Schools.

Specifically, I propose that each council member, including you, Mr.

Mayor, be paired with the Mesa High School.

Once per year, council members would visit campus to engage directly with students.

This would be civic engagement.

And simply be about connection, education, and exposure.

While I understand we have the mayor's youth committee, yet many students can't make that commitment necessary to be a part of it.

These students want to meet you.

They want to hear your stories.

And more importantly, they need to see that civic leadership is accessible and that their voices matter.

Before formally bringing this to the school board, it is important to have your support.

My hope is to meet with all of you to further develop this concept and establish a lasting partnership.

One that empowers our youth, encourages civic participation, and gives students a meaningful seat at the table.

Strong coordination between the city council and Mesa Public Schools is not just beneficial, but essential.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Jason.

Uh Noah, James Markham, followed by Bob Hathcock.

Noah Aloha Mayor and to the rest of the committee.

I'm the city council.

I mean, my name is Noah James Markham, and I am a resident of the great blue city of Tempe.

Um this is a disgrace that we are talking it took this long to talk about the light realm and to talk about Valley Metro and how we can help people with disabilities.

It is a disgrace that it took that long for you to understand what this would help for people with disabilities.

It is disgusting.

This should not be a money matter problem.

Another thing, your superstition mall, superstition ring mall, you have that needs to be renovated and the bathrooms.

Yes, please.

Those look like they've been not been renovated at all.

It looks very ugly down there.

Um then Main Street.

I went down here today, and I'm like, oh my goodness, where is the infrastructure?

Where's the new?

I I there's nowhere I can eat around here.

I mean, come on.

And then the ICE agreement that apparently, you know, you're blaming Obama and his administration, but he never did anything wrong, like this president of the United States did with the ICE agreement.

So I wouldn't compare Obama, President Obama, the first black president of the United States, to a convicted felon in the White House at all.

And my favorite President Biden, as of February 2024, Biden, nothing less deported or expelled a smaller share of migrants who crossed the border than Donald Trump did.

This is during President Biden's time with the ICE, the deportion deportation by ICE also fell to an average of 35,000 per year versus 80,000 a year during Trump's presidency.

And um, yeah, that's all I want to talk about.

So please step up your game, Mesa, Arizona.

Mahalo and have a great day.

Thank you, Noah, Mr.

Hathcock.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Bob Hathcock again.

Um proud lifelong resident of the great city of Mesa, Arizona.

Glad to be here.

What a difference a year can make.

It was just over one year ago that I attended my very first city council meeting.

I was one of 20 concerned citizens from all walks of life who decided to speak that evening in opposition of a proposed utility rate increase.

Most of us expressed our basic distrust and questioned the facts and figures as they were presented to us.

For the most part, our pleas against that rate hike seemed to fall on deaf ears of that particular mayor and council.

We were boldly assured that the only options of this necessary uptick would be to implement a city primary property tax or to pass a sales tax on our groceries.

We were told that this is the way it's always been done since the mid-1900s in Mesa, and that public safety would certainly suffer if the utility adjustment was not approved.

Some of you even minimized our concerns by care by comparing this increase to a monthly cup of coffee.

It was the last council meeting in the old chambers building.

While some of you thanked us for our unusually high attendance and participation, the council voted unanimous unanimously for the rate increase.

It seemed as though we were just going through the motions and that your votes had been decided long before the lengthy public hearing ensued.

Needless to say, most of us left that evening with feelings of condescension and frustration.

As disappointed as that December 2nd meeting was, it became the catalyst that many of us needed to wake up and get involved in our local government.

Fast forward, and here we are just a little over one year tonight.

We've had a couple of elections since then, and our mayor and our council look and are functioning somewhat different.

Our new council chambers looks much different.

Those of us who are observing our council meetings have noticed some glimmers of hope lately.

We actually had one no vote on the proposed annual city budget.

Thank you, Mr.

Adams.

We also had one no vote on this year's utility increase.

Thank you, Miss Taylor.

Prior to the recent swearing in of these two new council members, I was certain that the red no voting buttons were broken.

I will note that it has been encouraging to witness a subtle shift in which our council is starting to think outside the box.

You're starting to ask hard question and challenging staff to explore options which can lead to compromise and better policies, especially on high profile issues.

Your recent study sessions have become quite drawn out and often require an intermission.

These are encouraging changes.

In closing, as we gather in this impressive $32 million edifice going forward, may it be used in a manner that reflects its grand design.

We, the citizens of Mesa, will be watching as the transparency and light fill these spaces.

Just as the finest materials and craftsmanship were used in its construction, we ask you to give us your very best efforts as our elected officials and our hired staff.

Please be good stewards of our tax dollars as you represent us with integrity and efficiency.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Hathcock.

Well said.

Now, Mayor, that is all the requests.

Well, if that's the case, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Thank you, Ms.

Gulf.

Mr.

Radio.

All in favor say aye.

Thank you, everyone.

Have a good evening.