Welcome to our Mesa City Council meeting for June 8th, 2026.

All of our council members are present.

As usual, we begin the meeting with an invocation by Pastor Richard Cornejo from the Outreach Mesa, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, uh led by Jaden Smith from Troop 54.

So I'd ask you to please stand.

Pastor, if you'll come over and bless us, please.

Thank you, Mayor.

Let's go ahead and pray.

Family Father, we come before you, Lord, and we thank you here today for our salvation and freedom that you've given us, Lord.

We're praying that today, God, for just the leading and the guiding and the wisdom that we need, Father, for our council, Lord, as they continue to conduct business here today.

I'm praying God for all our families and our community.

We're praying God for our law enforcement and all those that protect our community as well.

And we thank you in Jesus' name.

Amen.

Thank you.

Jaden, you want to come forward, please.

Please stand and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation.

In the visible with liberty and justice for all thank you, Jaden, Mr.

Lines for bringing your scout here.

Before we start, I want to recognize the uh Turkish flag, American flag, as yesterday evening.

We recognize the Turkish national soccer team coming to Mesa, Arizona, and they're staying in the Riverview area, after which they're gonna go to the Arizona Athletic Grounds and prepare for competition in the FIFA League.

So we're excited about having them here and wish them the best of luck and welcome to Arizona.

It's their first time here in the States, especially this area.

And it's a little warmer here than where they're used to in Istanbul, Turkey.

So we'll welcome that.

With that, uh before we do the consent agenda, Miss Mosley, can you say the names of the three individuals selected?

And I'll probably ask you again for that as well.

Okay.

Um the first is I never put my glasses on.

Sorry.

James Beck.

Uh, number two is Nathan Taylor Taft, and number three is Braden Peters.

And I'll ask those again for you.

Okay, with that said, uh, Mr.

Christopher, if you'd like to come forward and read the consent agenda, from what I understand, uh 5D and C are off the consent.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

These are the items on the consent agenda.

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

There will be no separate discussion unless the council member or citizen requests 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 as written.

Item three A, acting on liquor license application for Little Drummer, 1211 North Country Club Drive.

Item 3B, acting on liquor license application for Angry Crab Shack, 1927 North Gilbert Road.

Item 3C, acting on liquor license application for Tailgate Bar and Grill, 1762 South Greenfield Road.

Item 3D, acting on liquor license application for Holiday and Express, 1405 South Westwood.

Item 3E, acting on liquor license application for Boulders on Southern, 1010 West Southern Avenue.

Item 3F, Act and Liquor License Application for Oro Brewing Company, 210 West Main Street.

Item 3G, Act on Liquor License Application for Quick Corner, 66 South Mesa Drive.

Item 3H, Acting Liquor License Application for Yal Sua, 17 West Main Street.

Item 3I, Acting Liquor License Application for Sipal Zix 502 West Third Avenue.

Item 3J, Act on Liquor License Application for Breakthrough, 4551 South Power Road.

Item 3K, Act and Liquor License Application for 711, 3615 South Power Road.

Item 3L, Act on Liquor License Application for Faux Bon Me Cafe, 3442 South Ellsworth Road.

Item 3M, Act on Liquid License Application from Akoto Sushi, 1524 South Power Road.

Item 4A, approving one-year term contract with four-year renewal options for electric utility distribution transformers for the materials and supply warehouse for the Energy Resources Department.

Item 4B, approving three-year term contract with two-year renewal options for hazardous facility operational support for the Solid Waste Department.

Item 4C, approving dollar limit increase to the use of the cooperative term contract for route planning and management solutions as requested by the Solid Waste Department and the Department of Innovation and Technology.

Item 4D, approving contract to purchase solar-powered portable traffic signal trailers for the Transportation Department.

Item 4E, approving Aeropine Park and Whiteman Park Playground Renovation, Design Build, bid build contract.

This project's funded through the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program and granted through the Housing and Community Development Department.

Item 5A, approving resolution to enter into a lease agreement to operate, manage, and program a downtown restaurant and food business incubator at city owned property located at 11 West Main Street.

Items 5B and 5C have been removed from the consent agenda.

Item 5D, approving resolution to approve a fiber access agreement with the City of Apache Junction for information technology and related services.

Item 5E, approving resolution to enter into a foreign trade zone operator agreement with MGC Pure Chemical America to activate and operate a chemical manufacturing facility at 6560 South Mountain Road.

And item 5F, approving resolution to enter into an intergovernmental agreement between the City of Mesa and the State of Arizona on behalf of the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County for the Mason Municipal Court's use of jury administration infrastructure and related jury services offered by the Superior Court.

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

Thank you, Mr.

Christopher.

Ms.

Mosley, we're all good with that.

Yes, Mayor.

No other request.

Okay.

All right.

Council entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Mr.

Reddy.

Please cast your vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you, everyone.

Next, we'll move over to 5B and C.

Uh for housekeeping.

For those of you with signs, I would ask you to keep them at eye level because there's others behind you that would like to see the dias here.

And so you're obstructing their view.

We could see your signs just fine.

Will you please lower your signs at eye level?

That's not very low.

Okay.

So I'm asking to do that.

Just be courteous of the ones behind you.

And by the way, there's no discussion on data centers here at all for this month in Mesa.

So you could your advocacy, we understand.

And so with that said, just lower your signs so others can see.

I'd appreciate that.

All right.

Uh item 5B.

We have one person who would like to speak.

We have uh Noah James Markham.

Noah, you want to come forward?

After which uh 5C, uh Mr.

Wynne Stanley and Noah after Mr.

Wynne Stanley.

Aloha uh mayor and to the rest of the city council.

Um so I am really appreciative that we are talking about 5B, and I hope that we will extend it more into Mesa even more because we talked about, you know, maybe not, but I think this would be a great investment to have, but also not just for Mesa, but also we need to think about not about the money.

We're thinking about people, right?

This is what I'm talking about.

I see people on this rail.

I I write it.

And it's it it humbles you, right?

That you have homeless people that go on there just to get a little cool air.

Plus your sign down.

And you know, that really that really humbles you hold on just a minute, ma'am.

I'm going to ask you to lower your sign.

Otherwise, we'll put you in the back.

We'll put you in the back.

It doesn't matter.

This is my council meeting.

Be respectful.

I'm going to ask you to lower your sign.

I'm going to ask you to lower your sign.

That's the last time I'll ask a police officer to escort you in the back.

That's fine.

Okay, officer, escort her to the back.

Officer.

Go to the back.

Ladies, ladies, I want order in this court.

Officers.

You're a fascist and your vocal side is one attacking.

Okay.

You're out of here.

Lady, you're out.

Lady, I'm out.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I bet you don't know real big.

Guess what?

No one's voting for you.

No one's voting for you.

You lost your fucking job.

No one's voting for you.

Are you going to ask for the woman to screen?

I would have around.

Yes.

I I've asked her, I've asked her to lower your sign.

You can go stand in the back and hold your sign, ma'am.

You can go to the back and hold your sign there.

Officers, you can ask her to stand in the back.

Can we talk about the data center?

There's no discussion on data centers.

It's not on the agenda.

So, ma'am, lower your sign so people can see it.

You don't have a first amendment right to obstruct others behind you.

Okay.

Officer.

Officer, escort her to the back.

Mr.

Smith, as far as the legal is concerned.

Mayor and Council, Mayor, you've uh you can direct the officers to have her place in the back or to have her removed and trusted.

I don't know.

She shouldn't need to be removed.

She can just stand in the back and hold her sign.

Very curious of others behind you.

Mr.

Smith.

You can direct officers to have a lot of people.

I've already directed the officers.

This is my first amendment right.

I am being respectful and quiet.

And you are being the meeting.

This is my meeting.

You're being disrespectful to the others around you.

So I work for everyone here, including the ones behind you.

I'm not going to argue with you.

I'm going to ask you to please stand up and move to the back, and the officers will assist you to do that.

No, we're fine.

It's about a non-agenda item, so I'm not going to tolerate this.

Mayor, Mayor, under management policy, I'm having this individual trespassed, and she will be removed by our officers.

Okay.

Thank you.

What about the woman in the phys flag out there?

She's going to be remaining the whole meeting.

She started.

It feels like something five credit call.

Yeah, Mayor, Moscow.

Okay.

We're gonna move on.

Thank you.

Uh Noah, go ahead and continue.

Go ahead and continue.

Oh my goodness.

It's just um, you know, so this is great that we can expand the light route, because I don't think people really understand about what people go through on a daily basis that are homeless.

And you know, it might be like you've you know had a little bit of a scare of a new rent, but that's not the same thing as somebody actually being homeless and that actually needs to ride the light rail um to get a little um air, you know, and um also we need to think about people with accessibility because you know, we are put to the ground.

We are in the dirt, we are in the mud, we are in the um the sewer systems.

Um we're not thought about because we're always thinking about the money and how this transportation, you know, it's just not it's absurd that we are fighting about this this uh fight about the light rail when people like me that was born with the disability that sometimes doesn't want to drive their own car because we are scared, our own selves.

So it's better for us to go on the rail, you know.

So um please fund this and approve it.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Noah.

Why don't you sit on the front roll?

You're gonna be after Mr.

Wynn Stanley.

Mr.

Winstanley is on five years.

We're gonna move over to five C.

Mr.

Winstanley.

Good evening.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council, and staff for letting me speak.

My name is David Winstanley.

I live in District 6 near Eastmark.

In my consulting business recently, I've been contracted to perform due diligence for the purpose for the purchase of an aircraft design and manufacturing company.

One of my tasks was to review the company's supply chain, looking for single source vendors and technologies that could result in uncontrolled cost increases to future production and single point failures that could stop production.

Why would I share this with you?

Because when I look at the situation with Valley Metro for fixed bus transit service from the lens of business operations, it raises all kinds of red flags for me.

A sole source supplier that does not appear to have any restraints on future costs to be passed on to Mesa without any obligation or incentive to perform cost reduction investigation or activities.

From January to June of this year, you're already being asked to approve a 10% increase in direct costs to the city and a similar 7% increase in indirect costs paid for through props 479 and 400.

That seems excessive to me.

What will happen in future years?

What are Mesa's what are the City of Mesa's options under the current seven-year contract if the price increases are too much?

The most recent financial data from Valley Metro shows a fair box recovery of 5.3% and a subsidy per boarding of $13 for fixed route buses.

That means we as taxpayers are pay are subsidizing the fixed bus routes to the tune of 95% of their operational cost.

Let's be honest.

It is what it is the majority of that cost is paid for by Prop 479 and 400.

But beginning this year, also for Mesa's general fund taxes.

So my question to you as city council members, as stewards and fiduciaries of our tax and utility dollars, is this money being spent wisely and efficiently?

Are there mechanisms to hold Valley Metro accountable for how they spend our money?

I'm not talking about financial audits.

I'm asking, are we getting value for our money?

And are we at risk for uncontrolled increases in costs or reductions in service in the future?

When you voted for Prop 479, whether you voted for it or against it, did you know that it included a 95% subsidy for normal bus operations and expectations that the city would pay more?

I certainly did not, and I don't think the majority of Mesa voters understood this either.

Is this a transparency issue?

I'm not sure, but I doubt that most Mesa citizens understand that the buses are 95% funded by their taxes.

Two weeks ago from your new innovation and transparency department.

And I wonder why this philosophy can't be applied to suppliers and partners to the city, such as Valley Metro.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, David.

Appreciate that.

Uh Noah.

Aloha Mayor and to the rest of the city council.

Um item number five C.

I hope that you will approve this.

And it is talking about paratransit and ride choice, and that is something I use as a person with a disability.

Uh and my whole life I've had this disability, and it's kind of frustrating for me to see people complain about this stuff.

It especially people that are older and acting like, oh, just because we're on disability, da-da-da-da-da, you've lived longer than me, da da da.

You can talk to disabled people that live their whole life this way.

And um it's not okay to be talking about this like this.

These are human beings that have to learn how to there's some disabled people that cannot talk for their whole lives, and they need somebody in their lives to help them through this every single day.

And it's heartbreaking that we have so many evil people that don't think about that kind of human being.

That's out of the box from everybody else.

So I hopefully we will approve this because it is something that I I love to talk about.

Um, as a disability advocate, this is my favorite thing to talk about because they matter in this world just like everybody else in this world.

So thank you so much, Mahalo.

Thank you, Noah.

Uh counsel, any comments?

Uh, Ms.

Taylor, would you like to on this would be regarding 5B?

This is my what I'm gonna do is combine 5B and C together and ask for a motion to approve that once we're all done with discussion.

Okay.

I just had some comments.

Yeah.

Specific to 5B.

Thank you so much, Mayor.

I appreciate it.

Um's responsibilities and and human beings, it is our responsibility to represent our voters who pay into these systems.

And um, one of the things that I discussed when I was campaigning was the light rail and the fact that Mesa citizens subsidize an enormous portion of our five miles of light rail, which is costing us $3.6 million per mile.

Uh in 1985, Maricopa County voters approved a half cent sales tax.

It was promised as a one-time tax.

It was for 20 years, it was supposed to invest in roads and freeways.

Historically, this was when Maricopa County was small and many of the other counties were small.

This is what connected our little state to other states.

We were told it would sunset as voters.

It didn't.

It renewed in 2005, and again, it came up in 2025.

What was once supposed to be a 20-year tax is now a 60-year tax.

We have gone over half a century asking people continuously to pay for something that less than one percent of Mesa residents ride.

There is truly nothing more permanent than a temporary tax.

Tonight we're being asked as a council to approve 18.3 million dollars of Mesa taxpayer money for a single year of operations and maintenance on a five-mile stretch of a light rail.

Again, 3.6 million dollars per mile for one year.

Just to keep the lights on.

This is not for expansion.

This is not improvement, this is just maintenance really in operations.

But it's growing.

Proposition 479 includes a fair recovery requirement.

Valley Metro is supposed to recover an increasing percentage of costs through fares, actually paid by riders.

10% in one year, 15% in year two, and 20% in year three.

We are not meeting the metrics.

Those targets are not being met.

And when they don't, Mesa taxpayers are going to make up the difference in the costs.

Voters never actually approved of that mechanism.

They are now being effectively double taxed to cover the gap between what riders pay and what the system is actually costing us.

The math is stark.

Or per rider for a bus ride.

Light rail, though, is even worse.

As a matter of fact, it is a fixed infrastructure.

It is a single linear track.

Train cars that hold roughly the same number of passengers as a single bus running largely empty.

I have the honor of being upstairs and watching it go by, and I time it every 10 minutes, and I get to see approximately three to four people get off, and sometimes nobody get on.

This is not high capacity transit.

The word light rail actually refers to low capacity.

That's why it's called a light rail.

It has nothing to do with light as in outside shining, it's the capacity.

The council recently faced a similar question with Falconfield.

It is a enterprise fund.

I understand that.

But it was whether to subsidize an enterprise fund on the backs of the general taxpayer for the benefit of a small number of users.

We chose not to subsidize that.

We said that that is not a burden the broader taxpaying public should carry for a limited use base.

Light rail is the same question for me, but is a much larger scale.

A small number of riders, a very small number riders, a massive and growing public subsidy, and there is no exit in sight because we signed to pay into perpetuity, meaning forever.

My ask before this returns to council is to stop future expansion because taxpayers are tired of being told what they're going to pay for without their permission to approve it, to renegotiate our cost sharing formula, commission independent legal reviews of our intergovernmental agreement, because outside council, as far as I know, has not reviewed what it would actually cost Mesa to exit this, and redirect dollars to something similar to bus or bus and paratransit, where the money could serve exponentially more residents at a fraction of the costs.

May I also note that the light rail is a single track that goes in one direction.

Buses can be moved.

The nodes can go to where we actually see Mesa residents as riders on those buses, meaning we can be more flexible with the money that we're spending and helping people get a ride.

I know people who ride the buses to work every single day.

They use them, they are helpful.

But we must also recognize subsidies come from somewhere else.

And in Mesa, we all want to talk about utilities.

Well, utilities, sales tax, TPT tax, those are the things that get raised on our taxpayers to help subsidize things like this.

18.3 million dollars this year, who knows what it will be next year.

I didn't create this problem.

We as a council were handcuffed by a prior council who went into a contractual agreement.

And it makes you wonder why are we even voting on this in the first place if we're being told, oh, you'll just be sued if you exit it.

What's the point?

So I'd like to bring all of this up on record because I think it's exceeding and exceedingly important to bring to the public's eye and notification that you will continue to pay for something you did not get to speak about.

You did not get the right to vote on.

And I think that's insulting.

So for that reason, I will be voting no, not just for myself, but for the Mesa taxpayers that I choose to represent and for a system Mesa residents never truly chose and largely do not use.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Taylor.

Any other comments?

We're gonna we're gonna I'm gonna vote on we're gonna make a motion to 5B so the separate vote can be made.

Mr.

Adams, do you have a comment?

Be on 5B.

Yes, yes, I do.

Um maybe a couple of questions for Mr.

Smith.

And then a couple of comments.

Mr.

Smith, I think we had this similar conversation in January.

And my recollection is, and I'm not taking a position on the pros and cons of not advocating for light rail.

But I would like to look at this matter a little differently.

Previous council, current council, any council enters into a contractual agreement.

That creates a legal obligation.

And Mr.

Smith, I'd like to hear your summary again of what, in your opinion, as our city attorney would happen if this council by majority voted no.

Please.

Mayor and Council.

So the the cities entered into three agreements.

Um there's a joint powers agreement, or sometimes it's also referred to as an intergovernmental agreement.

We've also entered into bylaws.

Um the Valley Metro is a separate legal entity.

It is a governmental entity.

We're a member of that entity, and it's uh it's actually created under state statute.

And then there's also a master agreement for for payment for the annual maintenance.

Uh a lot of the the language in which it sort of boils down to on exiting um the ability the ability to pay for the maintenance comes down into the bylaws, which obligates the city to make payments.

And and it that's the it's the provision that also includes the 12% um interest or penalty if you'll have um if we don't make the payment.

Um it does have it does have a provision which we can withdraw.

The withdrawal, however, is not is not easy as you might guess.

Um it it seems to have been drafted largely uh with the concept of uh the possibility that Tempe might withdraw from the from the system, which would then render the system very difficult to utilize.

Um and so it was made so it would be very difficult for Tempe to leave.

Um and and it wrote up, but it requires is this it requires the other two members, the other two municipalities, to agree to the withdrawal and to sort of cover their costs.

Because the idea, I think at least when it was drafted, if Tempe left, well, Tempe, you're still going to have to pay for us to be able to uh put the light rail through Tempe.

That's what at least appears to be.

Um and so that's what provision would also apply to us until we get the other two entities, the other Tempe and Phoenix to agree to amend the agreement in order to withdraw from the agreement, we have to get their agreement, or we have to cover the cost.

So we're trapped by the the idea that you have to make the payment.

Um and so realistically to withdraw from this agreement, we have to go amend the bylaws of the formation of Valley Metro itself, which we are a member of.

Um also if we don't pay, I've I think I've forgotten to say this in the past, um, we we lose our voting rights.

So we actually no longer sort of have a seat at the table in addition to the the 12 percent.

So hopefully I I know we've said this, but I know you want it want me to say it again for the benefit of the public that have don't attend all our meetings.

Well, thank you.

Um as I said earlier, I'm I'm not taking a position of advocacy or a position of opposition at this juncture to the existence and the operation of light rail.

There it is.

It's in place, the trains go by.

So I I see this a little differently.

Um question was asked earlier about Prop 479.

I didn't vote yes, so I didn't have to study it.

Um I see this as a simple contractual matter.

If the city's agreement to enter a contract means little or nothing, if we default on this or any contract, then in my mind, our credibility as a city descends into the maelstrom of not being worth much.

Um so I don't think that's the way to approach this argument.

If it's the will of the council that we explore the will of the council by majority that we explore some of the possibilities of looking at amending or otherwise modifying the current agreements, that's a different matter.

Um, but to set those wheels into motion by defaulting on this agreement, I don't think is the way to go because I would fully expect, and I don't think it's speculation.

I would fully expect that the other parties to this agreement upon our default would engage legal counsel and they would sue us.

And I don't think we're in much of a defensible position if we do that.

So uh not a fan of light rail.

I think I think we've created a situation where people depend on it.

And uh these things apparently made sense to the councils that made these decisions and created these obligations in the past.

And like it or not, we have to honor our contractual obligations until we can find a reasonable way to take a second look at them and reconsider them.

And voting to default on this agreement just doesn't make sense to me.

So I have a bit of a different way of looking at this.

Um not as a proponent of the system or of its creation, but here we are.

We have a legal obligation.

So that's I I've said questions.

I think that was my only question for you, Mr.

Smith.

So thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Mr.

Adams.

Any other comments?

Yeah, thank you, Mayor.

I I I would agree with Councilmember Adams.

This is the way I look at it as well.

Um like him, I wasn't on the council when it was decided to be built.

I wasn't on the council when it was decided to expand it.

Um and I understand the the public's frustration with the amount of cost and the lack of cost recovery due to low ridership.

That's frustrating to me too.

That's an area that can be addressed.

Um this, as we've heard from the city attorney, is really about our legal obligation, and I'm not willing to vote no to breach that obligation and subject our taxpayers to even more um financial liability because of that breach, especially when we don't have a plan that's proposed.

If there was a uh an alternate plan that we're working on on that this council has agreed um to look into, that's a different story.

There's no plan.

It's do we support our legal obligation or do we not?

And I support uh fulfilling our legal obligation and not incurring the legal consequence that was described by the city attorney.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Duff, did you have a comment on this item?

Yeah, I think Councilmember Heretti will talk about um Valley Metro and the board we have there, um, Prop 479, which was a voter approved.

It was very what clear that it did include transit.

I am a supporter, an advocate for transit.

I believe in um what the benefits that it provides.

We we strive to be a multimodal city, and that's for all ages, all abilities, and all incomes.

If you're if we're serious about affordable housing, uh, which is affordable living, we have to be serious about transit.

Transit is subsidized nationwide, worldwide, actually.

Transit is not uh ROI on it.

Transit is for the public good and providing a means to get from one destination to the other.

Now I wish wish on our light rail that the light rail had light priority or had an express route, so it would be faster.

You know, we had some options there, it could be more efficient, and I think we can work on those as we go forward.

But it's something uh that we need to continue to be a relevant city.

Shutting down our light rail for a large city is of all the we do so many things that we subsidize.

Our parks and recreation is subsidized, our arts are subsidized, our libraries are subsidized, our public safety is subsidized.

Everything we do in the city is subsidized because we believe as a people that we would all agree to pay a little so the greater good that all of us could live a quality life, have a a good access and good availability, that you don't have to just be a rich person to uh that has a car or uh can afford your own public safety, whatever your own library, your own whatever that is.

We are in this together, and we provide for everybody, not just voters, not just the loud voices, we provide for every single resident in this city.

Um sorry, we can't do applause and such.

Um also if we're serious about economic development, the light rail has been phenomenal.

And if you think about just the apartments that are just under construction right now or about to open, we have a thousand units along the light rail.

We're building the density, we're building our city around the light rail in this area.

You don't have to choose this lifestyle.

This is a chosen lifestyle.

But if we choose not to have that light rail, we've got to stop the development and creating more housing here along the light rail because what we'd have to do is stop and build more parking lots.

And if you think about things that don't bring any tax revenue or have any activity that's worthwhile, is parking lots, just asphalt sitting there.

I couldn't think of a worse economic development use.

But we have had easily a billion dollars along the light rail track since uh inception, and that's probably just in downtown and not considering um further west, and it is continuing further east.

Um we have thousands of units also in the planning process.

We have ASU and more schools in the planning process.

Those would maybe go away.

So we can't think of transit in a silo by itself.

It is part of the composition of our city and provides many benefits with than just getting from point A to point B alone.

Um I wasn't gonna say anything tonight because I was gonna try to make it a short meeting.

So I I think that's um I'll just sum it up.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Duff.

Oh you want to talk on five B and C combined Valley Metro.

Yeah, I'll talk about that.

Okay.

Um just uh, you know, I echo my colleague uh um Councilmember Duff.

Uh you know, this is uh this is something that we subsidize for the residents of Mesa, right?

Um hundreds of thousands uh of riders, riders uh ride the the light rail in the bus transit system, uh, which is only about four percent in the region.

Uh the rest is streets, right?

Uh freeways.

Uh we're talking about four percent of uh our our our transit uh options that we provide to our to our residents, people going to school, pre people going to uh to their doctor's office to groceries, you know, Fries and Alma School, uh to their uh Alelante Healthcare Center uh on uh Sycamore Station.

Um you're talking about people that are going to uh places that they're creating economic benefit.

And it's hard to track.

You know, I I'll be honest, it's hard to track, and it's not easy to track those those rides.

Um, and that's something that I think we need to do better on on how do we track the the utilization uh of light rail uh and how it benefits you know the the thousands of rides that happen every month.

Um and so for me I I've served on the Valley Metro, it's been uh a blessing uh over the last uh seven plus years.

Um and we, you know, it's uh it's a regional board with 19 cities uh from the the far east side of uh Queen Creek to Wickenburg and and Avondel that don't have public transit.

Um but they all have a shared voice there.

Um and we have been diligent on creating opportunities to save money.

Um and maybe I can bring up uh uh our transit director uh just this year, we saving millions of dollars uh looking at our bus operations and maintenance uh uh contracts and you know, uh things like our pair of transit.

Um, you know, we uh issue RFPs um to the comment around uh sole providers, you know, we issue RFPs in several companies uh locally and nationally apply for these RPs to provide uh um bus drivers or security detail on the light rail um uh and many other facets that uh folks enjoy, and we try our best, uh but like everything inflationary costs uh has gone up.

Um, and we try our best to make sure we narrow those costs throughout uh our region, but it's it's it's uh it's a continued work in progress like what we do here in the city every year.

We look at these budgets, and we always we always have uh various different layers from Valley Metro to our Maricopa Association governments uh looking at where staff and the city managers look at our butt uh the budgets uh on the regional level around transit and what what we can do to save and and uh bring more efficiencies in uh the operations of both the light rail and transit um and and looking at how we can maximize what we have, right?

We're we're still gonna be a car-dominant uh region.

Uh that's not gonna ever go away here in the in the in the Phoenix area, uh Maricopa County region.

Um but 60 percent of the voters uh voted for Prof.

479, right?

A majority of Mesa voters voted for Pro7479, uh, and they made a choice, uh, made a choice, and we're talking about will of the voters here.

They made a choice that they want to keep investing on taxing us uh ourselves to benefit highways and transit.

It was clear there there's option, there is uh funding that was gonna go to uh streets and and transit.

So uh when we talk about will the voters, 60 percent of the voters voted for this, uh to extend that tax um and and uh um support uh bringing uh keeping transit options uh available for for our residents.

And so um, you know, we'll keep on uh ensuring that we maximize and build efficiencies at Valley Metro and ensuring that we have um we're going through a uh uh bus uh uh a bus redes redesign to maximize bus routes throughout the region.

Uh it's a complicated network.

Uh you're you're operating in various different jurisdictions.

Um and so when you cross uh in Mesa, um, you know, we cross various bus routes into Tempe, uh Chandler, Gilbert.

Uh so we we have to work with those cities to make sure it's is it's uh it it benefits all of us.

Um and so uh it does take time, but uh we're we're trying to make sure we maximize and and uh ensure that we uh ensure that we have the ability to move people in a way that um that folks have options, right?

Uh have options rather than if they don't have a car that they can use both uh transit uh to some of these areas and and uh to emphasize on the light rail, I think um you know Phoenix has expanded light rail to South Central, uh, which uh is is having their one year anniversary um uh this week um in adding those uh opportunities to travel across our region for those that don't have a car is uh is something that um is an important aspect to uh what we need to do uh and keep on seeing how we we can do that in the future.

Um and so for for me uh you know I I support uh uh transit options uh here in Mesa and across the region because I think that we we need to ensure that we have those options available for everybody, right?

If if you want to travel via car, uh you can do that, but if you want to travel via transit in in certain areas that makes sense, uh you can do that as well.

And so uh again, uh uh we will continue to monitor um the the various different uh contracts that come in at Valley Metro, but uh I think we we have to continue based on the will of the voters that voted uh for 479 uh to to see how we can continue to expand and and and look at ways on uh adding these uh transit options, be that buses, uh be that uh you know, uh bus rapid transit, you know, other options that are coming online, uh autonomous, you know, everything's on the table uh to figure out like how do we expand those options, right?

So um okay, very good.

Uh Mayor, I'd like to just respond to one thing.

Um number one, I would like to note that it's not only wealthy people who own cars.

That is the not an accurate statement.

Um I worked three jobs when I was in college and had a car to make my minimum payments.

Uh also I would like to note that when I took an oath, it was to the taxpayers to defend their financial stewardship.

And um I think it's just important that our obligation is again to the people who are the majority.

We do subsidize a lot of things, parks, public safety, yes, lots of recreation that the majority of people use.

And I'm gonna fight this one tooth and nail to say I'm just sticking it to the taxpayer and saying that if we go into a legal divestiture, legal divestiture, which is not just a blatant breach of contract.

That I would like to to conjecture that it was stuck to the taxpayer when they were not given the option in 2002 during an executive private session that you were gonna pay into perpetuity for something like this.

So we have multimodal transportation options in the city.

We are a personal transportation city for the most part.

We are built out, not up.

I don't mind the bus system, and I think the paratransit system to know's comment is actually excellent because it picks up people who have medical needs and takes them to wherever they need to go.

And I'm happy to subsidize that.

I am a majority woman.

I am here to represent the majority of my taxpayers, and they have asked me to speak against this, and I'm happy to, and I'm also happy to vote against it.

So thank you.

Thank you.

So council, I'll entertain a motion to clarify that the voters of Maricopa County have voted for that tax again and again and again.

And for their highways and their roads, which is the majority of the language.

I'm opposition four things.

Let's let Ms.

Duff finish your statement.

I took um the light rail on Thursday.

It's not unusual that I take the light rail because I do live in downtown and I enjoy taking it.

Um, especially in going to Tempe.

I don't like to mess with the parking or even pay for it.

Um, Thursday night, I went to, well, it's after late afternoon, I went to downtown Phoenix.

I didn't feel like being in the traffic.

I didn't want to pay $60 for parking.

Um, you know, and it was well, there was a lot of people.

There were students, there were service workers, there were professionals, there's ball game riders.

Um, yes, I I think, yes, there was a homeless person.

This it what I like about taking transit is a cross section of our community.

And if there's something that bothers you about who uses it, then we need to do some work on that.

We need to take care of people and what they need in order to do well.

This is a cross section of our community.

Transit is for everybody and for every reason.

I'm not poor, fortunately, but I don't mind taking transit.

I I like taking transit.

I really don't like driving.

I hate it, actually.

If I could take transit everywhere, I would.

It's just the default of needing to.

Fortunately, I can I can afford a car.

Not everybody can afford a car.

Um we don't want everybody driving as bad enough as it is.

Oh my gosh.

I can't imagine a lot more people driving.

But you know, I just wanted to point out the voters voted for this.

Transit is not horrible, it's wonderful.

And uh I think there's a stigma that around it, and uh it's too sad.

Thank you, Miss Duff.

Ms.

Taylor, if it's okay, could we move forward with the motion?

Yes, thank you so much for your time, Mayor.

All right, thank you.

So, council entertained a motion to approve item 5B.

Thank you, Mr.

Reddie, and thank you, Miss Duff.

Please cast your vote.

Motion passes.

Okay, next we'll move to item 5C as a separate motion.

Is there a motion to approve item 5C?

Thank you, Mr.

Summers, Mr.

Adams.

Please cast your vote.

Okay, motion passes.

Thank you.

All right, council.

For that, we'll move over to items from citizen present.

Uh Miss Ms.

Mosley, I didn't have a chance to write down all their names fast, but James is our first and then second.

James Beck, Nathan Taylor Taft, and Braden Peterson.

Okay, so Nathan, you are on deck.

And James.

James, you have three minutes.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Freeman, Council members, and neighbors.

My name is Jim Beck, and I'm a Mesa resident who resides in Eastmark.

I'm speaking tonight as I care about the long-term financial condition, health, and livability of our city.

As such, I'm concerned about the proposed data center owned by a Japanese company, which would entail a massive campus of seven buildings occupying more than two million square feet on approximately 170 acres and add to the over 4 million square feet of data centers already in our city.

We live in a desert with limited water availability, extreme heat, and our infrastructure is already under pressure.

At the same time, our limited land resources must be thoughtfully used in the highest and best way for all of our residents.

Taxpayers don't know the full cost of new substations, road improvements, or utility upgrades that may be required.

Before approving the project, a detailed study should be conducted and shared with the residents to better understand if this land could support other uses that bring more jobs, more revenue, and fewer long-term risks to our neighborhoods.

Because of these issues, a resource-intensive data center deserves the highest level of study and scrutiny before approval by this board.

As this will be a highly impactful long term decision for the city and its residents.

Is this really the best use of the land and will it result in a consistent long-term increase in the tax base our community needs?

Will this project be given additional tax incentives instead of paying the full and appropriate tax that will be charged to other businesses?

These are not minor details, as they are core questions that affect your voting citizens' quality of life, their bills, and their city's future.

Mesa residents deserve full transparency, including a full environmental impact study, not just developer provided numbers.

We deserve to understand the long-term financial implications before the city council commits our public resources.

And we deserve a process where the community is informed early, not after decisions are made.

Let me be clear.

I and many others here today are not opposed to growth.

We are here to support responsible growth.

Growth that protects our water supply, our poor power grid, our neighborhoods, and the character of Mesa.

So tonight I'm asking the council to slow the process down, gather hard facts and data, involve the public to make sure that the project truly benefits the people who live here, not just a Japanese company that wants to build here for their profit.

Thank you for your time and thank you for listening to the concerns of the residents that you were elected to represent.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Byrne.

Nathan.

Nathan, if you'll come up.

After Nathan, who did we have?

Braden Peters.

Okay.

You have three minutes, Nathan.

Okay.

Uh I'm Nathan.

You can speak in the microphone there.

There you go.

I am Nathan Taylor Taft.

I'm a Mesa high school student, and I'm here in opposition to the NTT data center.

Water supply is a real issue in Arizona, and AI data centers jeopardize our water security.

Their cooling systems use massive amounts of water, and even if it's a closed loop system, millions of gallons can still be used up each year.

It is unconscionable to approve this data center that would take our most valuable resource away from the community that needs it and the environment.

Water is not a commodity, it is an essential resource.

And if we continue to allow data centers to be built in a place already strained by drought, we will feel the consequences.

In Corpus Christi, Texas, the city council has prioritized industry needs over the basic right to have water for their residents.

The city is now running out of water, and residents are forced to conserve that water, reusing water that they used for cooking for cooking to water plants, take fewer showers, et cetera, or face fees.

This is all while similar fees are relatively low and or non-existent for the industry, meaning they continue to use up the remaining small supply of water.

This is similar to how data center subsidies in Arizona benefit those companies over the community.

People are suffering while corporations continue to make money off of that suffering.

We live in a desert, the Colorado River is already being strained, and the Phoenix metro area is a hot spot for data centers.

We can reduce the effects of the impending water crisis, and that requires stopping these resources, these resource-intensive data centers.

A primary reason you may be considering approving this data center would be its impact on the local economy.

Despite what proponents may claim, data centers create very few jobs for their size, and AI, the technology that has spurred this flurry of data center development, is a prospective bubble, not a long-lasting economic power.

According to many economists, the AI boom is a bubble and is bound to collapse, possibly sooner rather than later, even within a year.

While AI is a significant force in the US economy right now, a lot of that is based on speculation.

And with relatively low material revenue, that bubble may burst, leaving a lot of expensive in infrastructure behind and the economy in shambles.

Economists across the political spectrum share this viewpoint.

For example, James Brogel, a white right-wing economist wrote an article titled AI Can Change the World and Still Be a Bubble, arguing that all the speculation that seems and might very well be transformational is going to fall on itself by not seeing actual revenue results.

Other economists have argued similar points and pointed to the parallels between the AI bubble and the dot-com bubble.

Data centers like these affect the whole valley, so I urge you to listen to those in the community over the greed of corporate lobbyists.

Developers have not meaningfully met with the community.

According to their citizen participation report, they only notified 91 people with only a thousand feet of the development that it even existed.

Then only two people showed up to their neighborhood meeting, part of their citizen participation plan, which only lasted 20 minutes.

Developers do not have the community's best interest at heart, but the city council is supposed to, which is why I'm urging urging you to not approve the NTT data center and put those you represent first.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Nathan.

Next person.

Braden Peters.

Uh my name is Braden Peters.

I'm a local resident, the city of Mesa.

I'm here to provide a personal statement on behalf of myself as a concerned citizen about data centers, their impact on our local community.

I was raised to work hard, positively influence my community, and be a good steward of the resources I'd been given.

And that's why I believe it's important to be here today.

I'm here to engage meaningfully with my city and uh my Mesa community.

I believe we should be good stewards of the resources we have.

Mesa is now one of the most densely populated data center cities in America, with over 15 data centers built, approved, or proposed in the last seven years alone.

We've already seen local Arizona impacts around resource scarcity and insecurity, and building more data centers only adds to that growing problem.

Water and electricity are skyrocketing in price, while data centers often pass the cost of associated building and equipment and other uh prices and costs to the parties in the community, us, the consumers.

Water consumption is often still a major impact with closed loop or other eco-friendly designs when having to generate more power and uh cooling efficiencies.

There's also growing concern about data centers and their impact on the local community's health.

The site specifically is near the Lakese Sports Park, which attracts an estimated 2.8 million visitors annually, most of them children, as well as some of the communities expanding uh and developing with the new neighborhoods in that area as well.

Many studies are just now coming out to articulate some of the physical and non-physical impacts these facilities have on the health of humans and in the local wildlife.

Further concerning is the lack of community involvement to date for this project.

As my predecess my pre the previous speaker mentioned, only two of our community members were in attendance at the zoning hearing, with very few notices put out to the surrounding communities, mostly because they're still being built.

It's my hope that our city council proceeds with transparency and a dedication to community involvement.

In evaluating the path forward, I ask that you consider not overinvesting in data centers.

My community's corridors specifically would be devastated if anything were to happen to this uh this industry.

I look forward to community participation.

I hope the Mesa Community Council uh City Council does as well.

I would say communities across the U.S.

are rejecting data centers for good reason, and I encourage the City of Mesa community and city council to reject it as well.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Council, that's all the items we have.

Is there a motion to adjourn?

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Mr.

Ritter.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

We're adjourned.