TAB Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026

TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES
APPROVED
HELD ON July 21, 2026
The Transportation Advisory Board of the City of Mesa met at City Hall (20 East Main Street, 1st Floor) on
July 21, 2026, at 5:30 p.m.
TAB Members Present TAB Members Absent Others Present
Mike James (Chairperson) Dana Alvidrez Anna Janusz
Michelle McCroskey (Vice Chairperson) Lea Bertoni Stephan Bach
Justin Bond Tara Bingdazzo Sabine King
Gennie Fasanella Efren Carmona
Daniel Hartig Erik Guderian
Melissa Leon Stephanie Derivan
Samuel Taylor Elizabeth Wiltrout
Nathan Woodworth
Chairperson James called the July 21, 2026, Transportation Advisory Board meeting to order at 5:35 pm.
Item 1. Approval of the minutes of the Transportation Advisory Board meeting held on May 19, 2026.
It was moved by Board Member McCroskey, seconded by Board Member Bond, that receipt of
the above-listed minutes be approved.
Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:
AYES – Hartig – James – Bond – Fasanella – Leon – McCroskey – Taylor - Woodworth
NAYS – None
Item 2. Acknowledge incoming Board Member Gennie Fasanella and Samuel Taylor.
Chairperson James welcomed incoming board members, Gennie Fasanella and Samuel Taylor.
He invited both to provide a brief introduction to the Board. Board Member Fasanella
introduced herself first, followed by Board Member Taylor.
Chairperson James also invited Board Member Woodworth, who had recently joined the Board,
to provide a brief introduction. Board Member Woodworth did so.
1

Item 3. Items from citizens present.
None
Item 4. Hear and discuss a presentation on the City of Mesa Photo Safety Program.
Stephanie Derivan, Police Commander, introduced herself and indicated that she would be
giving a presentation on the City of Mesa Photo Safety Program. She explained that Elizabeth
Wiltrout, Police Division Manager, and Stephan Bach, City Traffic Engineer, would assist her with
this presentation. Commander Derivan provided an overview of when the program began, and
explained the types of cameras used, their locations and when cameras were most recently
added. In total, there are 21 red-light and speed-on-green cameras, along with 9 cameras
located within school zones.
Vice Chairperson McCroskey asked how schools are prioritized for school zone cameras, noting
that Mountain View High school was not included on the list.
Commander Derivan explained that requests are received from schools and that speed studies
are conducted in response. She noted that Westwood High school had submitted several
requests, but the study results indicated that the primary issue at the school is traffic volume
rather than speeding. Commander Derivan deferred the question to Mr. Bach for additional
information.
Mr. Bach added that requests are also received from citizens. In addition to vehicle speeds,
Transportation staff review crash data in the area. If speeding is identified as a concern,
Transportation staff coordinate with the Mesa Police Department to determine next steps.
Commander Derivan continued the presentation and explained that the first school zone
camera was installed at Rhodes Junior High school after a child was killed following an evening
school event. She stated that the incident prompted the photo enforcement program in the City
of Mesa.
Board Member Taylor noted that no portable units were shown and asked whether portable
units had been considered.
Commander Derivan explained that the units at Eastmark High School and Highland Junior High
are capable of being portable, but they are set not to be. The City of Mesa has chosen not to use
portable units. When the program initially began, the City of Mesa used portable vans that were
relocated based on requests and identified issues. After several years, City Council decided to
discontinue this program. The City of Mesa now uses fixed locations, which are published on the
City’s website.
Board Member Fasanella asked for clarification regarding a speed on green camera.
Commander Derivan explained that any vehicle traveling 11 MPH or more over the posted
speed limit while proceeding through a green light will trigger the camera. She stated that the
purpose is to reduce vehicle speed.
2

Vice Chairperson McCroskey clarified that the City of Mesa has units capable of being moved but
has elected not to move them.
Commander Derivan confirmed that this was correct. She explained that the issue is reviewed
annually with legislature; therefore, the City of Mesa elected to use units capable of being
portable while currently maintaining them at fixed locations.
Vice Chairperson McCroskey asked whether this approach provides flexibility.
Commander Derivan confirmed that it does, particularly because of uncertainty regarding the
potential legislative changes and because portable units could be implemented in a timely
manner, if necessary.
Vice Chairperson McCroskey stated that several members of the Transportation Advisory Board,
including her, are particularly concerned about speeding and red light running. She requested
that the Board be notified when related legislation is proposed so that Board members may
have an opportunity to contact their legislators.
Commander Derivan agreed and then passed the presentation to Ms. Wiltrout.
Ms. Wiltrout discussed unit staffing and explained that the City of Mesa staff review every event
in which the camera system is activated. Staff evaluate every event to determine whether
sufficient information exists to issue a notice of violation or a citation.
Board Member Woodworth asked for confirmation that City of Mesa staff, rather than an
outside agency or consultant, review the events.
Ms. Wiltrout confirmed that the reviews are conducted by City of Mesa employees.
Mr. Bach continued the presentation and discussed reduction in vehicle speeds within school
zone during both school hours and non-school hours. Referring to the presentation, Mr. Bach
noted that Red Mountain High School experienced approximately a 12 MPH reduction in speed
during school hours and a 5 MPH reduction in speed during non-school hours. He then explained
that the Transportation Department receives approximately one million dollars every year for
safety related projects. Mr. Bach discussed how the funding is used and identified previous
projects that had been funded. He also discussed improvements completed as part of the 1st
Avenue project, including the separation of bike lanes.
Vice Chairperson McCroskey asked which picture Mr. Bach was referencing on the presentation
screen.
Mr. Bach identified the photograph in the upper right corner of page 7.
Vice Chairperson McCroskey asked how the bike path was separated from traffic and whether a
physical barrier was present.
Mr. Bach responded that the separation consists of a striped buffer with delineators.
3

Vice Chairperson McCroskey stated that the separation between the bike lane and vehicular
traffic was a positive improvement.
Mr. Bach continued the presentation by explaining reinvestment projects involving sidewalk
installation, traffic calming, raised crosswalks and bike lane improvements, all of which
addressed identified safety concerns. He described several reinvestment projects funded
through photo safety revenue, discussed future projects, and invited questions from the Board.
Board Member Hartig returned to the discussion regarding the speed reduction following
enforcement and asked whether there was any correlation between the observed reductions
and the number of citations issued.
Commander Derivan responded that she doesn’t have an answer at this time, but it could be
reviewed. She added that the program has helped reduce recidivism rates.
Board Member Taylor requested that the presentation return to the speed reduction slide. He
stated that including the posted speed limit on the slide would be helpful. He also expressed
interest in crash reduction data to determine whether crashes have been reduced in these
areas. In addition, Board Member Taylor suggested including the year in which each project was
installed to provide a better understanding of the amount of work completed annually using the
available funding.
Erik Guderian, Transportation Department Director, introduced himself and responded. He
explained that the use of photo safety program funding for safety projects began in 2020 and
that all the projects presented by Mr. Bach had been installed since 2020. Mr. Guderian added
that the funding provides an important opportunity to complete smaller safety projects that
otherwise would not have a funding source. He stated that some projects extended over
multiple years. Some projects are relatively simple and cost approximately $ 15,000 to $20,000,
while others cost substantially more.
Vice Chairperson McCroskey asked about the last slide of the presentation and requested
clarification regarding the white lines shown in one of the pictures.
Mr. Bach responded that the white lanes represent a crosswalk and curb extensions. He
explained that these improvements encourage drivers to reduce speed, increase driver
awareness of pedestrians, and reduce the walking distance in the road for pedestrians.
Vice Chairperson McCroskey inquired whether narrowing the roadway causes drivers to slow
down.
Mr. Bach confirmed that it does.
Chairperson James commented that the intersection of Westwood & 10th Street is a good
example of this treatment, with curb extensions and shorter pedestrian crossings.
Board Member Fasanella asked why the cameras appeared to be particularly successful at
Fremont Junior High School and Red Mountain High School.
4

Mr. Bach explained the numbers for both schools and that they had the highest reductions.
Board Member Taylor stated that this further demonstrates the importance of including the
posted speed limit when presenting the data. He then inquired whether the posted speed limit
at Red Mountain High School was lower than the other locations.
Commander Derivan responded that the posted speed limit is 45 MPH and is reduced to 35 MPH
during school hours.
Vice Chairperson McCroskey commented that the larger reduction near the high school may be
related to students driving themselves to school, whereas the other locations parents are
driving their children to school.
Board Member Woodworth inquired whether Red Mountain High School is located on Power
Road near Brown Road.
Commander Derivan clarified that the school is located on Brown Road near Power Road.
Board Member Woodworth commented that the area experiences relatively high travel speeds
heading towards the desert and that a great speed reduction would therefore be expected.
Board Member Leon asked how easy or difficult it is to enforce the citations issued through the
camera system. She also inquired whether an increasing number of individuals were challenging
photo enforcement citations in court and prevailing, and whether those challenges were
resulting in additional time and expense for the City.
Commander Derivan responded that most individuals pay their citation, while in some cases
judges rule in favor of the citated individual. She indicated that staff are currently reviewing the
data to determine the percentage but stated that most individuals pay their fines or attend
driving school.
Board Member Leon stated that the objective was to ensure that the cameras are not creating
false positives.
Commander Derivan stated that false positive did not appear to be a concern and indicated that
additional data could be provided once the analysis is finalized.
Board Member Leon commented that the cameras appear to be effective means of reducing
speeds and generating revenue, provided that citations are not being continually and
successfully challenged in court.
With no additional questions from the Board, Chairperson James thanked the presenters. He
emphasized that it was encouraging to see the results associated with reduced speed in school
zones and appreciated seeing how the City of Mesa uses the funds. Chairperson James also
requested additional information regarding how safety investments are prioritized, including
whether periodization occurs through the budget process or as opportunities arise.
5

Mr. Bach explained that school locations are evaluated based on multiple factors such as
speeds, crashes, complaints and the demonstrated need. When several of these factors are
present at a location, the project is a priority.
Sabine King, Assistant Transportation Director, introduced herself and provided additional
information. She explained that the Transportation groups meet every other month and
maintain a prioritized list of projects for which funding is not currently available. Staff determine
which projects should move forward as funding becomes available. When new projects or needs
are identified, the priority list is reevaluated.
Chairperson James thanked Ms. King and congratulated her on her new position.
Item 5. Hear and discuss an update on the Mesa Moves Bond Program.
Sabine King, Assistant Transportation Director, introduced herself and indicated that she would
be giving a presentation on the Mesa Moves Bond Program.
Ms. King stated that this presentation was presented approximately one year earlier and
therefore might be familiar to some Board members. She explained that the City of Mesa voters
authorized a $100 million bond on November 3, 2020. The City of Mesa Transportation
Department was able to obtain an additional $ 62 million from the Maricopa Association of
Governments (MAG), providing a total of $ 162 million for Transportation projects. Ms. King
then explained that substantial price increases associated with the pandemic resulted in some
projects being placed on hold. She also detailed the Regional Roadway Improvements with the
status of each project.
Board Member Taylor noted that some areas in the southeast part of the City is currently
underdeveloped and inquired whether it would be possible to receive funding through the
development projects.
Ms. King explained that developers in the City of Mesa are required to construct the roadway
along their frontage to the ultimate conditions identified in the Transportation Master Plan. For
example, if development occurs along a roadway that currently has one lane in each direction,
but it is identified in the Transportation Master Plan as ultimately having three lanes in each
direction, the developer is required to construct the additional two lanes, as well as curb and
gutter. She added that developers are also required to contribute toward the cost of a future
traffic signal when developing property adjacent to an intersection where a traffic signal is
planned. These contributions are referred to as in-lieu fees.
Ms. King continued the presentation by reviewing arterial roadway reconstruction projects and
providing the status of project. One of them was the Country Club Drive and Southern Avenue
Project which was originally included in the 2020 bond. Because of funding limitations, the City
of Mesa was only able to fund the design through the bond. Ms. King advised that this project is
now on their list of high crash locations, and they are focusing on the safety perspective at this
location. The project will include raised medians because several incidents involved vehicles
turning left in front of approaching traffic. She also stated that several pedestrians were crossing
the roadway at a location without a designated pedestrian crossing. A pedestrian crossing will
6

therefore be added by the gas station located on the east side of the road. Construction is
anticipated to begin in the spring.
Chairperson James asked for confirmation as to whether the Country Club Drive and Southern
Avenue project would include the area near to Sunsplash.
Ms. King advised that the project would include the crossing between Hampton Avenue and
Southern Avenue near the gas station.
Chairperson James stated that several Board members had expressed concerns regarding this
area while reviewing the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan.
Ms. King indicated that the project design was funded through the 2020 bond and that project
construction will be completed with MAG reimbursement and City of Mesa funding.
Ms. King continued by reviewing the status of other projects included in the Arterial Roadway
Reconstruction presentation. She then provided details regarding the Active Transportation
Projects with the status of each.
Vice Chairperson McCroskey asked about the next steps for the Lehi Loop Shared Use Path
Project since the feasibility study had been completed.
Ms. King responded that the design and construction phases are included in the 2026 bond
package.
Ms. King continues the presentation by outlining the projects proposed for funding through the
2026 Transportation Safety Bond. The estimated cost for the ten projects is slightly over $ 186
million. The City of Mesa anticipated receiving over $ 52 million in reimbursements from MAG
and would ask voters to fund the remaining amount of $ 134 million. She then provided a brief
description of each project proposed for funding through the 2026 Transportation Safety Bond.
Vice Chairperson McCroskey asked if the nodes were part of the Lehi Phase II Feasibility Study.
Ms. King explained that the nodes were included in the Lehi Phase I project. Because the nodes
were just as expensive as the path project itself, they were removed from that project because
sufficient funding was not available. The nodes are now proposed to be added back in with
Phase II.
Vice Chairperson McCroskey inquired whether trailheads are considered transportation nodes.
Ms. King confirmed that they are.
Vice Chairperson McCroskey asked whether the trailheads would be located at Val Vista Drive
and at McDowell Road.
Ms. King confirmed those locations.
7

Vice Chairperson McCroskey sought confirmation that these trailheads would be included as
part of Phase II.
Ms. King confirmed that the trailheads are part of Phase II. She then reiterated that, because
funding was insufficient to construct both the path and the trailheads during Phase I,
constructing the path was considered higher priority. The City of Mesa now intends to complete
the trailheads.
Vice Chairperson McCroskey asked for the location of the Thomas Road Multimodal Project that
was listed on the presentation.
Ms. King stated that the project is located on Thomas Road between Higley Road and Power
Road and will connect to the recently completed Red Mountain Shared Use Path.
Ms. King then continued the presentation by explaining the remaining projects proposed as part
of the 2026 bond package and presenting a map showing the locations of the projects.
Vice Chairperson McCroskey stated that residents in her neighborhood would be the primary
users of the horse paths and expressed concerns about horse safety along these paths. She
asked how the community could best voice their concerns before the project proceeds to
construction.
Ms. King advised that the project must still go through the design process. Although the
feasibility study provided an initial understanding of what could be constructed, detailed design
is still required and will include public outreach.
Vice Chairperson McCroskey stated that the community wanted to ensure it did not miss the
opportunity to provide input.
Ms. King said they are far from construction, and they still need a detailed design.
Vice Chairperson McCroskey inquired whether the community should prepare to provide input if
the bond passes and, if the bond does not pass, whether the community would need to wait.
Ms. King stated that, when the bond passes and design begins, the project will include public
outreach. She then added that staff will provide status updates on these projects.
Board Member Taylor thanked Ms. King for her presentation. He stated that the area in which
he resides contains four-foot-wide sidewalks with power poles located in the middle of the
sidewalks and three-foot-wide bike lanes. Board Member Taylor explained that upgrades to
these facilities had been included in the 2020 bond but could not been completed because of
insufficient funding. He asked why those improvements were not included in the 2026 bond.
Ms. King explained that staff had a list of approximately 30 projects. Staff worked with the City
Council and City Management to determine the amount of funding the City of Mesa was
prepared to request from voters and then identified the highest priority projects that could be
completed within the available funding. She then asked whether Board Member Taylor was
referring to Stapley Drive and University Drive project.
8

Board Member Taylor confirmed that this was the location he was referring to.
Ms. King stated that, unfortunately, the project did not make the final bond list.
Mr. Guderian added that, during the spring, the Transportation Department met with City
Council and City Management to evaluate approximately 30 projects, including some projects
from the 2020 bond that could not be funded. He then explained that participants had differing
views regarding which projects were most important and collectively determined which projects
would advance to the proposed bond list. Mr. Guderian stated that the Transportation
Department would love to fund all of the projects, but the proposed list reflects the amount of
bond funding the City of Mesa is comfortable moving forward with. He also noted that more
existing bond debt is coming off the City’s books than is being added.
Chairperson James said that another project favored by Board members was the Center Street
project and inquired about the plans for moving that project forward.
Ms. King stated that the Center Street project is currently proceeding into design. The city of
Mesa received a $ 7 million public safety bond allocation that will fund the Center Street project
from Main Street to University Drive.
Mr. Guderian added that the City is attempting to complete Phase I and will then evaluate
opportunities to extend the project limits.
Chairperson James acknowledged that this was positive news and asked whether the project
had been formally announced.
Mr. Guderian stated that he was unsure whether the project had been officially announced at a
Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) meeting but noted it was part of the 2024 Safety Bond.
Chairperson James acknowledged that had not realized that the project was included.
Mr. Guderian advised that a designer has been selected, and the contact negotiations are
believed to be underway. The goal is to begin public outreach this fall.
Board Member Taylor stated that his question is related to the Comprehensive Safety Action
Plan (CSAP) which includes an aggressive crash reduction goal. He then asked whether other
funding sources were available that were not included in this presentation to accomplish the
goals from CSAP.
Ms. King confirmed that other funding is available. The City of Mesa is planning to use
implementation grand funding through Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to install
protected left turns at eight intersections. The Comprehensive Safety Action Plan identified 13
intersections for conversion to protected left turns, but the city staff were able to address 5 of
those intersections in-house. The City plans to fund the remining 8 intersections with federal
funding. Ms. King also mentioned that the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) and photo safety
funds could be leveraged to further implement safety projects.
9



The goal of Mesa’s Photo Safety Program is to modify driver
Current Program behavior through voluntary compliance of traffic laws. A successful
program will reduce speeding, deter red light running violations
February 2026 and increase traffic situational awareness, resulting in fewer
serious or fatal injury crashes (Mesa CSAP, 2025).
Red-Light and Speed-on-Green Cameras Fixed-Speed Cameras/Transportable Units
Red-light Cameras 9 Fixed School Zone cameras
• 21 locations • Porter Elementary School • Eastmark High School
• Red Light and Speed On Green • Fremont Jr High School • Highland Junior High
• Rhodes Jr High School
• Mesa High School
• Red Mountain High School
• Skyline High School
• Franklin @ Brimhall

Unit Staffing
• Civilian Staffing:
• 1 Program Coordinator
• 4 Police Investigators
• Unit review of events

Speed Reductions – School Zones

Photo Safety Enforcement Funding
Transportation Department received approximately
$1 M each year for safety related projects.
• Pedestrian safety measures
• Upgraded bicycle facilities
• Mid-block crossing enhancements
• Traffic signal upgrades
• School zone upgrades
• Traffic Calming

Ellsworth & University FY Left Turn Arrows
Reinvestment Projects
Highland JH Traffic Signal* Kleinman Park RRFB*
Gilbert & Hampton Left Turn Arrows
Rio Salado Pkwy PHB* Guerrero Elementary School Zone Flashers
Inspirian Pkwy & Kinetic Dr Crossing
Equipment/
Programming
Software for School
Zone Flashers:
*Project partially funded Allows for communication
with Photo Safety Funds and remote programming

Reinvestment Projects
Westwood HS Bike Lanes 1st Ave
Separated
Bike Lanes
Installation of Missing Sidewalk & ADA Improvements:
• Higley north of McKellips
• McKellips between Higley and Recker
• Main St east of Power Rd
Driver Speed
Feedback Signs
Traffic Calming Study:
• Evaluated 10 locations with
speeding concerns
• Collectors and local streets
• Identify traffic calming measures
besides speed humps

Reinvestment Projects
Las Sendas Elementary Raised Crosswalks
Williams Field Rd
Sidewalk Installation Brown Rd Bike Lane
Mesa High School Pedestrian Refuge Farmdale Ave Traffic Calming

Reinvestment Projects Eastmark Pkwy PHB*
• Part of Gateway Library Project
Hampton Ave Bike Lanes
• Enhanced Pedestrian Crosswalk Straight Arrow Signal Heads
• Separated Bike Lanes • Interchange locations to mitigate wrong-way
Westwood Traffic Calming Project
• University Dr to Rio Salado Pkwy
• Raised Crosswalks Mesa Dr & Crosscut Canal Path
Crossing Upgrades*
• Converted RRFB to full signal
Extension Rd Bike Lanes
• Buffered and separated bike lanes
*Project partially funded
with Photo Safety Funds

Planned Reinvestment Projects
Stapley Dr Sidewalks
• South of Main St
• Project under construction
Horne & Consolidated Canal RRFB
• Project under construction
Beverly & 2nd St Curb Extensions
Enhanced Crossing on Center • Traffic calming & crosswalk enhancements
Street near 8th Street • Project under design
• Project in early design stage
• Pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB)
Enhanced Crossing on Dobson Rd
• Pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB)
• Between Broadway Rd & 8th Ave
• Includes bus stop improvements
• Project under construction

2020 Mesa Moves
Bond Program Update
Transportation Advisory Board
July 21, 2026
Sabine King, P.E.
Assistant Transportation Director

Ballot Question
On November 3, 2020, Mesa voters authorized the
City of Mesa to issue $100M of General Obligation
Bonds to fund transportation projects throughout
the City
2

2020 Mesa Moves
Bond Program Summary
$100M + $62M = $162M
City of Mesa Maricopa Association of Total Available Funds
General Obligation Governments (MAG) For Transportation Projects
Street Bond Funding
3

2020 Mesa Moves
Bond Program Project Costs
Price Increase since 2020
• Materials
• Labor
• Real Estate
Actions Taken
• Prioritize projects based on need and
reimbursement
• Work with MAG to maximize reimbursements
• Used additional funding from Transportation Funds
• Place some projects on hold
4

Mesa Moves Project Status

Regional Roadway Improvements
Project Status
1. Signal Butte Road – Williams Field Road to Germann Road Completed
2. Sossaman Road and Baseline Road Completed
3. Williams Field Road & Ellsworth Road Completed
4. Sossaman Road – Ray Road to Warner Road Completed
5. Broadway Road – Mesa Drive to Stapley Drive Under Construction (ETA Spring 2028)
6. Ray Road Connection to Ellsworth Road Under Construction (ETA Fall 2026)
7. Val Vista Drive – US 60 to Pueblo Avenue Under Construction (ETA Spring 2027)
8. Ellsworth Road – Germann Road to Ray Road Under Construction (ETA Spring 2027)
9. Elliot Road – Sossaman Road to Ellsworth Road Final Design (Construction Fall 2026)
10. Stapley Drive & University Drive 60% Design – On Hold, No Funding

Regional Roadway Improvements
7

Arterial Roadway Reconstruction
Project Status
1. Southern Avenue – Gilbert Road to Val Vista Drive Completed
2. Greenfield Road – Southern Avenue to Main Street Completed
3. Greenfield Road – Main Street to Adobe Road Completed
4. Country Club Drive & Southern Avenue Design 2020 Bond/Construction Other Funding
5. Broadway Road – Stapley Drive to Gilbert Road No Funding - 2026 Bond
6. Broadway Road – Country Club Drive to Mesa Drive No Funding
7. University Drive – Mesa Drive to Harris Drive No Funding
8. Stapley Drive – University Drive to McKellips No Funding

Arterial Roadway Reconstruction
9

Active Transportation
Project Status
1. Lehi Loop SUP Phase 2 Feasibility Study Completed - Final Report 12/2023
2. Center Street - Brown Road to Broadway Road Feasibility Study Completed - Final Report 04/2024
3. Eastern Canal – Brown Road to Broadway Road Construction in Spring 2027
4. Eastern Canal – Broadway Road to Baseline Construction in Winter 2026
5. US 60 Consolidated Canal to Eastern Canal 75% Design 2020 Bond/Construction 2026 Bond
6. Mesa Gateway Phase 3 No Funding - 2026 Bond

Active Transportation Projects
11

2026 Transportation Bond

2026 Bond Election
Source: Council Presentation May 14, 2026
13

2026 Bond Election
Source: Council Presentation May 14, 2026
14

Questions?