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 US Army Lieutenant George Papa, who served as the Alpha Company platoon, leader of the American 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 inetweens, 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. >> Will you please remain standing and call me as >> 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 seated. >> Thank you, 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 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 3 A, act on liquor license application for Udon Shin, 138 South Doppson Road. Item 3 B, act on liquor license application for University Market, 1931 West University Drive. Item 4 A has been removed from the consent agenda. Item 4B, approving a 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 5 A has been removed from the consent agenda. Item 5B, approving resolution authorizing the sale of certain city-owned real property located at 159 North Phillis and enter into a purchase and sale agreement for sale of the property. Item 5 C has been removed from the consent agenda. Item 5D has been removed from the consent agenda. Item 6A, act on introduction of ordinance for zoning case 25-256 for property located east of the northeast corner of Southern Avenue and Signal Road. This is a major site plan modification and amending 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 Chrisman Road. Reszone with plant area development overlay and site plan review to allow 102 lot attached single residence development. Item 7 A 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 8, approving resolution declaring amended terms and conditions for the sale of utilities to be a public record. Item 8 B, 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 9 C approving ordinance for annexation case 25-889 to deanex public right ofway located at the intersection of Brown Road in Chrisman subject to approval by the Maroba County Board of Supervisors. This deanexation is to accommodate Maroba County's right-of-way requirements. Item 10A, approving ordinance for zoning case 24-525 for property located at 8839 East Main Street. Reszone with new plan area development overlay, a site plan review and council use permit to allow for a boat and RV storage facility. And item 10B, 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 the requests. >> Okay, great. All right, we'll have a motion for that. >> Thank you, Miss Reddia. Second by Mr. Summers. Please cast your vote. >> Okay, you can >> Let me correct that real. >> Let's see if we could reboot it. Reset it. disenfranch. >> No, it affected all of us. >> All right, please try one more time. >> Mr. Radia, Mr. Summers. Thank you. Please cast your vote. All right. Consent agenda passes 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 4-year contract with six one-year renewal options for an enterprise automatic vehicle telematic solution. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Uh, I want to say that I'm happy [clears throat] to talk about something that is not so inflammatory. [snorts] 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 it'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 to 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. 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 buy 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 years or a million dollars a years. >> Reggie, let's stay on the topic of this data. The kind of telematics 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 council? Okay, vice mayor, you're too close. I couldn't see you. [laughter] >> Thank you. Uh to city manager, I don't know, maybe it is out here. This is automatic vehicle locators, correct? Because we've had this conversation about data sharing. his his information is relevant to like EMS data and some of our policing data, but this is just location of vehicles. >> Cityowned vehicles. >> These are only 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. con afterwards and get some more information gathering. You can >> if I may LB technologies uses AI to gather data include cameras not just >> Thank you Scott. Go ahead. >> Good evening Mr. Mayor, vice mayor council Scott Khan, 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 [clears throat] we're in the process of combining those from multiple applications down to a single app. In [clears throat] this particular case, it's an automatical vehicle locator. We have six different AVL systems currently in play in the city today. This [clears throat] will take all six down to a single vendor. This will allow us to manage the vendor better, get a better price point. [clears throat] It will be less expensive than what we currently pay the six vendors in total. And it allows us to ab 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 a great detailed uh I'll entertain a motion to approve item 4. Is there a motion for to that effect? No, but there's a timer. >> We got three minutes to make the make the motion. >> I did not start the timer. [laughter] >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Summers. Thank you, Miss Go forth. 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 Braun 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. >> Excuse me, Mayor. Um, these these are supposed to be time. They adhere to the threeminut rule as well. >> Reggie, you have three minutes. >> This is 5A. Is this about the um Do you want us this again, please? >> 5A. Which one was this one? Okay, 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 the communication license agreement with the Crown Castle. >> No, I'm sorry that that wasn't it. Um, that wasn't the one I signed up for. >> Okay. Yeah. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. So, I'll need a motion for to approve item 5A. >> Thank you, Miss Duff. Thank you, Miss Go forth. Please cast your vote. All right. Item 5A passes unanimously. Next, we'll move over to 5C. Uh, approving an authorized city manager to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the regional public transportation for fixed route paratransmit and ride choice services. Uh, public transportation funds proposition 4479 funds. So with that item 5C is off. Who would like to start? Who who is our speaker on that? Miss Mosley. >> Uh we have Mr. David Win Stanley. >> Mr. Win Stanley. >> Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council, members, and staff. My name is David Winstanley. I'm sure you're tired of hearing from me. Sorry. Uh, 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 this subject, but there 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 in 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 $4.99 million 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 halfsent countywide sales tax approved in Prop 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 suggests not. Those schedules say that for the county funded bus routes, the fairs collected average about 5% 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 20 24 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. This does not seem like a good value to me. Perhaps it is time to challenge Valley Metro and RPTA. R Yeah, RPTA. Are they using 50 passenger buses to ferry five people? Are there new technologies like zuks 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. Win Stanley. [snorts] Mr. Butler, I know we have Jody here. I mean, we [clears throat] have two similar items >> between the light rail and this. >> Yeah, absolutely. I in in all due respect, Mr. Win Stanley, 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 all of the performance and um performance measures, 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, um, 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 has been part of the obligation of the city of Mesa, um, 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, 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 uh Mr. El um can certainly um address anything that I might have missed out through the process and council member Heredia uh may have some comments as well as um as a board member and and former chair of RPTA on that. Do you want to weigh in now or let Jody come in? >> Yeah, I'll have >> Jody Why don't 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 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 in routes had to go from Mesa to Gilbert to Tempee 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 four the roughly $5 million 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 know every year we budget x amount >> of 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,000 more. >> Okay. All right. Is there any questions from council? >> I have a question. Thank you. Mr. Winston asked what year are we on right now out of the seven? >> This is 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 [clears throat] 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 writership 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. Win Stanley. Any other questions? Miss 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. Win Stanley to to show him where that information is and the in the extensive documentation um that you know literally hundreds of pages of documentation that RPTA board um approves um of which Mesa um represented by um council member 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 route. >> 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 and more effective. Um 11 years ago, Tempe made that same transition. they previously operated their own contract under their own garage and transition to Valley Metro and all of that gives the region a 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 um Valley Metro and they are they are basically scooping up other municipalities. >> It's more efficient costwise. 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 um in the in our particular situation, it's an East Valley contract. So it's spread over Scottdale, 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 um a a service we have to requ with within 3/4 miles of a bus stop or light rail station. Um it's much because it's the federal government requires that it's much more regulatory in nature. So you have to book you have to be ADA certified. Um, and it's, let me back up. It's for our residents who are 65 and over and disabled who are ADA certified. Um, and so you have to book it a day in advance. You have to if you there's problems. There's challenges for cancellation. There's the fair can be no more than two times the base fair for your bus. So for us, the base in our region, the base fair for bus is $2. So the most we can charge for paratransit is $4. Um, as an East Valley region and specifically Mesa, 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 coste 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 $3 as a way to maybe make it more incentivized to go out and use ride choice over a pair of transit trips. >> Thank you. So would you say we charge Mesa charges? >> The region >> the region is charging that. Okay. that those fairs are set by the region. >> So like so Mesa doesn't charge one fair for ride choice and Chandler charge another fair, >> right? They're standardized, >> right? >> Okay. And then so the 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 right operations. >> I see. >> Mr. Winston Lee, does that help you at all or is there do you have any additional questions that you would like Jod and I to answer for you? >> I'd like to have a chance to find the RPA. Sorry, can't remember the RPA data and look at it rather than to waste your time here. >> Okay. All right. >> We'll 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 is 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 um 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 a hypothetical question in this matter. Can you describe 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? uh other other effects. >> Sure. Thi 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 u 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. All >> it all goes away. >> It all goes away. >> Thank you. And I I would add also, you know, paratransit and right choice uh you know uh a 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 bus ridership is, you know, tens of thousands of people every month use buses here in the city [snorts] 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 and those people that are going to creating 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 sprawl 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. brother said, you know, I've been serving uh on the Valley Metro board uh for over 5 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 there 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? These types of services like what we have in public safety and other services that we have here in the city all have u 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 Tempee or May Chandler or Gilbert or or Phoenix, right? And so the these regionwide services are an important asset to have as a as a as an opportunity for folks to travel, right? So just to to put it into context as as far as a dollar 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 Lyro 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. Radia. 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. U 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 as you heard in this presentation, ride choice is significantly less expensive than paratransit. So it was an opportunity [clears throat] 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 Las Vegas is a conversation I think we've had where autonomous vehicles and smaller vehicles really have an great opportunity in the not too distant future to innovate this space and to reduce cost uh and and to drive even 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 the 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 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, you 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. >> 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 any other public agency that impacts this city. I 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. Win Stanley and myself to drive. >> Well, you can take the light rail >> or or uh [laughter] if I took the light rail, it' 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, Mr. Pedia. >> Um to go because I think that is that is really important. So that that's just kind of my statements on that. >> Mr. Ready, you had one more. Yeah, just to make a point on the on the innovation, you know, Valley Metro has has partnered with uh and Jody maybe you can elaborate on this, you know, uh last mile uh items like with Whimo 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 and how this innovation is is going to be a 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 or some of that innovation there. >> Yeah, Valley Metro has um did have a contract with Whimo um to to provide service within for ride choice. It was a very limited area, primarily Chandler in 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 [clears throat] 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. Uh Miss Goforth and Mr. Adams. >> Yeah, I just want to say thank you Mr. Ren 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 Summer has 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. >> Mr. Adams. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um I I think this has brought to light a couple of important issues. I um I think Mr. Win Stanley's questions are entirely germanine 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 a little more depth in the staff report about that. On balance, we're talking $5 million, 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 bus transportation, the paratransit, and so forth. Because to uh not approve this, as 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, while 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 in a less time-sensitive manner, but 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, the whole thing. >> Got it. >> Just 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 um 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 Jody can share with Mr. Win 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 then and sorry, I don't mean to rush you. I don't want to belver 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 thin 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 5 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 do those analytics look like? Um, in the contract, 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 threeyear contracts? If I can just add, seven years is is a lengthy time, but within the contract, there's um a 90-day, I forget if it's 90 or 60day 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 six evaluation. Um, so we would have to do I would recommend doing that title six evaluation to see what the implications for Mesa are because sometimes the accommodations for that title six 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 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'm 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 that this is important for us to >> There is one other thing Mr. Win Stanley just brought up. There is 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 green field facility and field 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 green field facility to fuel them up so trash and recyclables could get picked up that day. >> It's good to know. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you Jod and thank you Scott. Thank you David. And thank you Council Member Heredia for walking us through some of that. >> Miss Heredia. >> Yeah. Just to add, you know, I think uh recently uh city of Tempe tried looked at u some of these conversations as well as they have a pretty extensive orbit system where it's like a neighborhood uh system and and other u bus routes and looked at the pricing of going uh independently from Valley Metro. Remind Valley Metro, you know, 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 the cost that it entails to operate these these systems, right? So, and from what I understood, Temppee decided not to go and uh on their own because the cost was significant like millions of dollars more than what Valley Metro uh was what char was charging the city of Tempee. So, it's just a a case scenario just recently what happened. And so that's something that um if we do look at just the context of the more most likely it will cost us millions of dollars more than you you know going at at a region aspect because of the economy scale on contracting because it it's it's it's a lot of layers to these uh services right 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 cost down on those ends and that's the same kind of model that we use at Valley Metro and us being part uh of value metro to use those economy skills to drive uh um our cost down for for our residents. Right. But >> thank you, Jody. Uh, don't go far. I'm just weigh in. I was looking at the council report. Over almost 54,000 people have used paratransit. Almost 100,000 people have used right choice. So by either reducing or eliminating this program would affect a lot of people in Mesa. These are Mesa writers here. So it's it's not feasible to do. and and 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 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. Ready. Thank you, Miss Taylor. Please cast your vote. Passes unanimously. Thank you, councel. Next, we'll move on to item 5D. 5D is approve and authorize 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, Miss Mosley? >> Uh first up will be Bob Hathcock followed by Reggie Braun. >> By who? Who second? >> Reggie Braun. >> Okay, Mr. Hathcock. Welcome. Good evening, mayor and councel. 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 [snorts] 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 1 and 2% of valley commuters are using the light rail system. [clears throat] 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 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. [snorts] 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 wrership 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 [snorts] annual utility increases. Regarding our recent special election, some of you were outraged, calling the cost of 104K a waste of taxpayer 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 continuence? Thank you. >> Thank you, Bob. Reggie, who's after Reggie? Miss Mosley, >> Mary Mayino, >> 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 on 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 Door Dash. 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 we 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. It's a GDP engine. The Valley Metro Light has a 5:1 return on investment. That means every dollar we put in generates $5 in regional growth. Now, you may say nearsightedly that this is causing 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 alone has driven over 689 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. [clears throat] Look at our downtown. Real estate developers are spending millions to emulate a small town feel. What I call shopping industria. There are places where stores, entertainment, and highdensity residential units are all woven 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, speak easys, 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 going to 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 regions outside of us. We could demand that from Tempe Phoenix 689 million investment for Mesa 4.2 2 billion temp for culde-sac carefree Nova's innovation district Phoenix 12 billion a cityscape Roosevelt row south central hub it's more than just what do 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 have 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 Whimo 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, how whom do we have? >> Uh next after Mary will be Linda Patrick Hayes. >> Linda. Okay. >> Mayor and council members, good evening. I'm Mary Maynau, LD10PC, Brown and Recker. The light rail in general is running into opposition. The valley the valley light rail expansion plan to the state capital 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 capital. 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 cost 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. Mesa's share is $18 million. The revenue Mesa generates from fairs and other sources is 2.9 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 fairs 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 southside 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. It's cheaper to actually defund and rip it out instead of subsidizing multi-millions into it. Let's put it on the ballot. 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. >> Thank you, Mary. >> We got it. Thank you. Uh, Linda, you're coming up. And after Linda, whom is it? After Linda is David Winstanley. >> Okay, David. >> Excuse [clears throat] me. >> Linda, there's a lot of people watching the three minutes. So, >> okay, Linda Patrick, >> speak. >> Oh, yeah. You've heard about me. Um, [laughter] u, so 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 15inute 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 and millions of dollars a year a 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. 28 years later, I moved to Mesa, Arizona. Four or five years after that, I was with the group and I heard the term 15minute cities. I said, "I've seen those." Every 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 and receive my book. Each queue line lasted from 45 minutes to an hour. I don't want to live like that and I don't want my children and my grandchildren to live in that. So, here is the book that I bought. the ideal communist city. You see this 15 minute city here. And if I go here to page 118 and 119, 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 residence to the center of the services, including public transportation, will not exceed 500 yards to 600 yards, a 7 minute walk. So, they're they were they're going to 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 question, 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 the transit system, but for this reason, in my personal experience, please vote no on this agenda item. And I thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Mr. Winstanley. Who's after Mr. Winstanley? >> Alex Ren Reik. >> Alex Ranis. [snorts] >> 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 the 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 20 cents every time a rider gets on the light rail in Mesa. Is that a good deal? That already has the fair 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 writership up? What are the other technologies that could be used? Um, etc., etc. Some specific uh suggestions have been made by Carrie Davis. Have they been reviewed and tried? I have no idea. I've never heard. What can be done to increase wrership? That's a hard one. more than half of city Mesa citizens would have to drive five to 15 miles to get to the nearest station. So that means half of the population is not going to 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 at 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 wrership, 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. While voters approve the light rail, this council still has the authority and responsibility to decide on funding levels, as you're going to vote on this evening, for $15 million. 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 noticed 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 an election, you would you would also be subject to an ethics violation, not to mention okay >> um, a violation of a state statute. So I'd ask you not to to take off your pins or to take off your hat to just hide this while you're speaking. >> Sorry, I came here straight from walking and knocking. >> Is this working? >> Thank you, Alex. >> There we go. >> Is that better? Can you not see? >> It is. Systemwide, the cost for the light rail are approximately 97 million annually and fairs only cover 7% 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 are 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 5 million as a compromise to reign 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 LD10 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 write 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 [clears throat] 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 on the 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, um, anyway, I also have seen the police multiple times outside the light rail. We know it's it's not crime free at all. Um, so, um, and obviously the money we're paying an ungodly amount for a a boondoggle and 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, and as Mr. Heredia had said, we are carheavy in Mesa. [snorts] Most people drive cars. They don't drive the the amount of people riding us 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 um for for this when it doesn't benefit the major even the majority of Phoenix? It would definitely be in our best interest of Mesa in the long run to dismantle it. >> Thank you, Miss Carlson. Hey everybody, we got this. Just stand down. >> I got it. Uh >> thank you, Kathy. Well, 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 council 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 this 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 going to 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. 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 rail, 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 u 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 um 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 Tempi and the and the city of Phoenix um on the valley metro rail board. Um, council member Heredia serves in that capacity um for the Valley Metro Rail Board and so that this amount comes or the amount that said comes back to council each year for ratification. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And could could I also just add we did have 1.8 million riders last fiscal year for the light rail. 1.8 8 million riders in Mesa um 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 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 on 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 to further forward on this. And so that is what is being discussed and it's all part of of 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 and Mr. L's here as well. >> Okay with that we'll we'll go to Mr. Adams. >> Thank you mayor. Um and I I may have additional comments after I ask Mr. Butler a question. But Mr. Butler. Um, I guess I'm going to ask I'm going to 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 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 uh to fund the operations and maintenance of of the light rail that we willingly entered into. If we did not pay our bill, if 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. Thank you. Anyone else? Miss 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 going to be a couple of minutes. So tonight's item item asks us to approve a funding agreement for 18 million43,000 in light rail operating maintenance and facility costs that are specific to fiscal year 202526 with about $2.93 million 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's 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 regionwide 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, and a corridor that support supports local commerce and community events. We couldn't have our Veterans Day parade 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 are 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 prioriti 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 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 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 US 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, Miss Taylor. Um, we talked about some legal implications. Mr. Smith, do you want to address those as our >> Sure, Mayor Councel? Um, let me address first the contract. We there is a master agreement um with Valley Metro and it it does require the city to enter into annual amendments or annual agreements regarding the funding. Um that doesn't prevent the 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 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 um 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 a swimming class and it was for $10, council couldn't also say we won't increase that fee for 5 years with the goal of just preventing a future council of ever uh changing that um swimming fee from $10. That's binding a 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? 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 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. It would be very much akin as as as Scott pointed out to 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 in the highway user um revenue fund and um that's about 45% of what we spend on our highway highways. Um we also have a.3 of our 2% sales tax for the city of Mesa is for local street sales tax. All that money around $90 million 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 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, Miss Duff. If there's nothing else, >> I'll just add real quick. Jody, can you add the economic um the e economic impact that we've had here in Mesa with since adding the light rail here in 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 Tempee, but can you elaborate? >> Um, yeah. Yes, Council Mayor, Council Member Heredia. when um the 10-year anniversary of the Central Mesa extension, which is the extension through downtown, um Valley Metro was estimating based on data we provided them that that that project, which was $200 million in Mesa had no local money and has helped increase economic development by $1 billion. And that translates into sales tax and people and all of that around there. So it does it's roughly what's estimated on a general is for every $1 of public in public investment it generates about $9 of private. >> Yep. So I think what we are kind of contextwise because this all operates on context right because why we're investing tens of thousand dollar tens of millions of dollars to build a gateway library in the far east side right so just putting in context right what because other my colleagues have mentioned like why are we're investing in parts of the city where I can't I can't 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 over a billion dollars of investment uh mind you if you remember downtown Mesa. I I think we didn't have u uh uh res 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 a residential permit uh in downtown Mesa before light coming in. Uh is that correct, Mr. Willer? >> That's right. It it'd been 40 years. >> 40 years. 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 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 to 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 me you know have said uh and and and look at the basics of the impact that has had in this area and you know just glossing over one you know almost 2 million writers uh are we just glossing over those two million writers that use this system in Mesa alone right uh that's that's nothing that's not something I I want to gloss over u 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 car heavy. We're going to 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 of you know light rail right it it's part of our community that we need to keep on enhancing as as as uh good neighbors and good stewards and and uh and moving forward to the future of where we want to be not only in Mesa but the the region right because that this is interplays with the region that we're we're we're living here on a daily basis and operate in a daily basis on the region. So I I'll just leave my comments there. >> Thank you, Mr. Mr. Adams. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um I'm going to approach this from a slightly different perspective if I may. I would I would begin by saying I'm u I'm not happy about spending $15 million 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, these prior councils committed our city to a contractual obligation with Valley Metro in 2002. It's a binding legal obligation. Like it or not, we can't just say, "Well, just don't pay the bill." Things happen when you don't pay the bill. In 2004, Mesa voters approved Prop 400. Now, we can argue all 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 in one sense or another signaling their approval. And I'm going to assume they knew what they were voting for. You know, not everybody does, but I'm going to 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 farreaching. 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 Mali 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 ground swell of support, a ground swell 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 going to be easy. And I'm not I'm not expressing my support for that right now. But if there is a ground swell 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 going to 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 going to 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 got a contractual obligation we have to stand behind. That's integrity. >> Thank you, Mayor. >> Thank you, Mr. Adams. Any other comments if Miss Go forth? I I'll just um follow up here and say 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 narrowsided 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 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 this 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 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 wrership and make it uh pay for itself a little bit better. I absolutely would would welcome those discussions. >> Yeah, mayor. May just to that point um just add I absolutely I think what council member go for said council member Taylor and I have had some great conversations about that um over the last couple of days as well the fact that um one 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 dis 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 at the very least u 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 Jod 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 as this third party government entity. Valley Metro is us, right? Valley Metro Rail Incorporated is is something that again going back to 2002, the city of Mesa decided to enter into with the city of Tempi 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 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 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 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. Um fair enforcement, the efforts that um Valley Metro has stepped up in the past what year to 18 months with enhanced um fair enforcement. So there there 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 you comfortable there? Okay. Vice Mayor, >> before I finish, can can we have can or somebody talk about there was some claims that that about the crime near the the rail that increased. I don't know if you have any off the off your head. No, but >> maybe you can get us some. I mean, I I don't know if that was a valid later date. >> 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 [clears throat] 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 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. >> So, as a suggestion on that, I think we're going to 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' be a good way to talk about what we're going to 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 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 they are material breach and then we're able to provide notice and terminate. So, >> so unlike the bus one, there's no 90-day clause for how would that work if we h to I'm going to use uh council member Adams hypothetically. >> If if we were to change our direction on this, 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 and sending it, those regional partners are also paying the operations and maintenance and other things as was negotiated into that to that agreement. Um, 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 [clears throat] 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 support. We certainly can. But I just I just want to people to understand the complexity that comes along with with that. >> And and I guess just to throw a little bit of comfort if there is any to 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 was no light rail expansion in the city of Mesa included in the Prop 479 uh regional plan >> in the city of Phoenix >> in the city. >> Was there one in Phoenix? >> Uh they they do have rail expansions um in Phoenix, >> but not in Mesa. >> Correct. Not in Mesa. >> Okay. >> Mayor, I just like to say we can't just put up a closed 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. And I know it would definitely shut down development that is planned for West Mesa and we could not grow in West Mesa with the density. our our city is growing so much that we have to plan where we're going to have the density and how we're going to move those people. We we're not going to be able to do cars. Most of the roads around here in West Mesa don't have any room to [clears throat] expand. the congestion is at a tolerable level, but I to not do anything and then throw all the transit riders into the streets, finding some kind of car to be in is just it's not manageable. So, the idea of shutting down the light rail, it will hurt us economically. It'll hurt hurt us on um being able 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 and area, is an area that we are focused on growing the density and handling in a responsible way. So, I don't want to even [clears throat] consider the conversation of shutting down the rail. I wish it was quicker. I use the light rail and there are times that it is quicker to drive than to use the light rail. We have some light priority and some um ways that we could quicken that and when it becomes the same or quicker, you will see the wrership um skyrocket. We haven't been able to do that yet, but it's coming. And we're working on the future. The majority of younger people are choosing to be places where they don't have to own a car. They want to be in an urban environment 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, all ways to live, but the urban core, the downtown has a certain structure that it relies on. And we would 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 council member Heredia. There's discussions and how it can be quicker. And if we just keep on cramming with cars, 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 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 writers have to pay for transit and they have to pay for the roads, right? There's [clears throat] we our entire city structure is for the the community's good. Parks don't pay for themselves. part um the recreation centers, the museums, public safety, all the services we provide, none of it is a pay-per use and sustain. 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, Jod. You can sit down. I'm going to call for a vote. Um, I like a motion, please. If you'll make a motion, Miss Ready, I need a second. Thank you, Miss Duff. Please cast your vote. Passes 6 to1. 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. Miss Mosley, are there any requests to speak on this item? >> I do have one request from Mr. Carrie Davis. >> Carrie Davis. Mr. Davis, you want to come up? >> Are we going to have the presentation first? >> Yeah, we'll have the public comment first. Okay. >> Irma, then Mr. Davis is not public. Good evening, honorable mayor and city council. I do believe this is u an option to increase writership 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 WR wrership and I think I've 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. Uh so 11A is the uh annual audited financial statement and the general governmental revenues were $990 million. The city spent and overspent by $59 million. They spent a billion5 49 uh million. Our two neighbors, Gilbert and Chandler, they each generate surpluses on their general governmental and they spend about $200 million 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 manager's 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. Mr. David, we need to stay on the topic on the acter, please. >> So >> the city manager's pay is not a part of the acter. Well, I understand that, but I think that it's reasonable for the city as we spend over $200 million more than our two neighbors and we get compared 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. In 2024, it was $118 million. >> Mr. Davis, your time's expired. >> So, uh, the $118 million 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 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 bestrun city in the state of Arizona and the ninth bestrun city in the United States. So, I [clears throat] 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, um, and neighbors and other u 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 bestrun city in the state and one of the top 10 bestrun 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 that. >> Will you and please come forward. >> Good evening, Mayor Council. First, I wanted to confirm, did you want me to run through the presentation from Thursday or just have Jean? Okay. >> Yeah. The presentation you had planned. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I have with me today Gene Dietrich. She is the partner with Clifton Larson Allen and she is here to um um communicate or um present. There we go. That's the word 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. 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 Gazsby 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 ended 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 and providing information. Management needs to arrive at your financials in a timely manner for their deadline for December 31st 20 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 were 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 act? I don't I don't really have a question, but for the public's [clears throat] sake, since there are a multitude of people here and we are talking about the city's finances, Irma, would it behoove you by chance to explain a material weakness and a deficiency for those who are listening this evening, which they didn't find any of which, which is great. >> So, do you want to answer? >> Go for significant deficiency would be um some proposed adjustments that the auditors would find that we missed that they felt were significant enough um and with that there might have been some internal 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 they 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 material weakness in over 10 years and we had a significant deficiency maybe three or four years ago, the last one we had. >> 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. [clears throat] Item 12 is is from citizens present. As you know, we allow three speakers to 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 Council Member 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 council member 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 walk out to express their views. Mountain View High School's We the People team, which studies the Constitution in the Bill of Rights, just won the state championship and are advancing to the national competition in Washington, DC. 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 the 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 de develop this concept and establish a lasting partnership. One that empower 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, [sighs] mayor, and to the rest of the committee. [gasps] I'm the city council. My name is Noah James Markham and I am a resident of the great blue city of Tempee. Um this is a disgrace that we are talk it took this long to talk about the light rail 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 bring mall you have that needs to be renovated. And the bathrooms, yes, please. Those look like they've been not [laughter] 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 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. So, we should get rid of this because this president is not good for the United States of America. And I know that China is laughing at us right now. and I am a Chinese 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 councel. 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 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. I don't know about the rest of you, but my rates have increased by an incredible amount from the previous years previous year. It was the 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 disappointing 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 but 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 we're using 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. Uh, Miss Mosley, am I missing anything for tonight? >> No, mayor. That is all the requests. >> Well, if that's the case, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. Thank you, Miss Go for Mr. Ready. All in favor say I. I. >> Thank you everyone. Have a good evening. [music]