Extracted text (via pymupdf)
32628 characters
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK COUNCIL MINUTES January 26, 2026 The City Council of the City of Mesa met in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 20 East Main Street, on January 26, 2026, at 5:45 p.m. COUNCIL PRESENT COUNCIL ABSENT OFFICERS PRESENT Mark Freeman Scott Somers Rich Adams Jennifer Duff Alicia Goforth Francisco Heredia Dorean Taylor None Scott Butler Holly Moseley Jim Smith Mayor’s Welcome. Mayor Freeman conducted a roll call. Invocation by Reverend Mindy Tucker from Unity of Mesa. Pledge of Allegiance was led by First Lieutenant George Papa, United States Army. There were no awards, recognitions, or announcements. 1. Take action on all consent agenda items. 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 of these items unless a Councilmember or citizen requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered as a separate item. If a citizen wants an item removed from the consent agenda, a request must be made prior to the Council’s vote on the consent agenda. It was moved by Councilmember Heredia, seconded by Vice Mayor Somers, that the consent agenda items be approved. Upon tabulation of votes, it showed: AYES – Freeman–Somers–Adams–Duff–Goforth–Heredia–Taylor NAYS – None ABSENT– None Carried unanimously. Regular Council Meeting January 26, 2026 Page 2 *2. Approval of minutes of previous meetings as written. Minutes from October 20, 2025, Joint Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community meeting; October 30, November 13, December 1 and December 8, 2025, Study Sessions; December 1 and December 8, 2025, Special Council meetings; and January 12, 2026, Regular Council meeting. 3. Take action on the following liquor license applications: *3-a. Udon Shin A restaurant that serves lunch and dinner is requesting a new Series 12 Restaurant License for Chasing Dragons LLC, 138 South Dobson Road, Suite 108 - Huong Tram Le Truong, Agent. There is no existing license at this location. (District 3) *3-b. University Market A convenience store and smoke shop is requesting a new Series 9 Liquor Store License for Sodhi & Sodhi Investments LLC, 1931 West University Drive - Harnoor Singh Sodhi, agent. The existing Series 10 Beer and Wine Store License held by Sodhi & Sodhi Investments will revert to the state. (District 3) 4. Take action on the following contracts: *4-a. See: Items not on the Consent Agenda *4-b. 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). (Citywide) This contract will establish a list of qualified, pre-approved vendors who can provide various valves, fittings, hydrants, and repair parts stocked in the Materials and Supply warehouse. These materials support Water Resources maintaining the City’s water distribution system including City-owned fire hydrants. The vendor that provides the lowest price, can meet the required delivery time frame, and has product availability will be selected. The Business Services Department and Procurement Services recommend awarding the contract to the lowest, responsive, and responsible bidders, Ferguson Enterprises, LLC dba Ferguson Waterworks; Fortiline, Inc. (a Mesa business); and Winwater Works Phoenix AZ Co. dba Winwater Works Phoenix at a combined total amount not to exceed $2,550,000 annually. 5. Take action on the following resolutions: *5-a. See: Items not on the Consent Agenda *5-b. Authorizing the sale of certain City-owned real property located at 159 North Phyllis and authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Purchase and Sale Agreement for the sale of the property. (District 3) – Resolution No. 12465 *5-c. See: Items not on the Consent Agenda Regular Council Meeting January 26, 2026 Page 3 *5-d. See: Items not on the Consent Agenda 6. Introduction of the following ordinances and setting February 9, 2026, as the date of the public hearing on these ordinances: *6-a. ZON25-00256 "Sun Devil Auto - Signal Butte." 5.9± acres located approximately 280 feet east of the northeast corner of East Southern Avenue and South Signal Butte Road. Major Site Plan Modification and amending Conditions of Approval Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 9 of Ordinance No. 3884 for the development of an approximately 7,689± square foot Minor Automobile/Vehicle Service and Repair facility. WS Holdings I, LLC, owner; George Pasquel III, Withey Morris Baugh, PLC, applicant. (District 5) – Ordinance No. 5990 Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions P&Z Board Recommendation: Approval with conditions (Vote: 4-0) *6-b. ZON25-00210 "The Lincoln." 9.1± acres located approximately 340 feet west of the southwest corner of Hampton Avenue and Crismon Road. Rezone from Planned Employment Park with a Planned Area Development Overlay (PEP-PAD) to Multiple Residence 2 with a Planned Area Development Overlay (RM-2-PAD), and Site Plan Review to allow for a 102-lot attached single residence development. Virtua Mesa Crismon owner, LLC, owner; Brennan Ray, Ray Law Firm, applicant. (District 5) – Ordinance No. 6001 Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions P&Z Board Recommendation: Approval with conditions (Vote: 6-0) 7. Take action on the following resolution declaring titles and schedules of terms/rates/fees/charges to be public records and available to the public, and introducing the following ordinance regarding titles and schedules for non-residential water utility terms/rates/fees/charges and setting February 9, 2026, as the date of the public hearing on this ordinance: *7-a. A resolution declaring proposed titles and schedules of terms/rates/fees/charges for non- residential water utility services to be a public record. (Citywide) – Resolution No. 12468 *7-b. An ordinance adopting titles and schedules of terms/rates/fees/charges for non- residential water utility services. (Citywide) – Ordinance No. 6002 8. Take action on the following resolution declaring titles and schedules for terms and conditions for the sale of utilities to be public records and available to the public, and introducing the following ordinance regarding titles and schedules for terms and conditions for the sale of utilities and setting February 9, 2026 as the date of the public hearing on this ordinance: *8-a. A resolution declaring amended Terms and Conditions for the Sale of Utilities to be a public record. (Citywide) – Resolution No. 12469 *8-b. An ordinance proposing and adopting amended Terms and Conditions for the Sale of Utilities. (Citywide) – Ordinance No. 6003 9. Discuss, receive public comment, and take action on the following ordinances: Regular Council Meeting January 26, 2026 Page 4 *9-a. Proposed amendments to Chapter 1 of Title 2 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 the Design Review Board. The amendments include, but are not limited to: modifying the membership and qualifications of the Planning and Zoning Board; repealing in its entirety Section 11-66-2: Planning and Zoning Board and adopting a new “Section 11-66-2: Planning and Zoning Board;” repealing in its entirety Section 11-66-6: Design Review Board and adopting a new “Section 11-66-6: Design Review Board;” and modifying appeal bodies. (Citywide) Ordinance No. 5997 Staff Recommendation: Adoption P&Z Board Recommendation: Adoption with Conditions (Vote: 6-0) *9-b. ZON25-00397 "Department of Child Safety of Arizona" 3± acres located at the northeast corner of East University Drive and North 80th Street. Site Plan Modification and amending the Conditions of Approval No. 1 and 4 of Ordinance No. 2354. This request will allow for a 24,000± square foot Office development. Innovative Technology Development Group, LLC, owner; Kyle Vilaubi, Bramic Design Group, Inc., applicant. (District 5) Ordinance No. 5998 Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions P&Z Board Recommendation: Approval with conditions (Vote: 6-0) *9-c. ANX25-00889 “Geneva Villas De-Annexation.” De-annexing public right-of-way located at the intersection of East Brown Road and North Crismon Road (0.14± acres), subject to approval by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. The de-annexation of public right-of-way is allowed pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-471.03. (District 5) –Ordinance No. 5999 In 2022, 7.93± acres of land were annexed into the City of Mesa, including the land that is the subject of this proposed de-annexation ordinance. Since 2022, Maricopa County has determined that it needs an additional 10 feet of right-of-way in the area, specifically for Crismon Road. This de-annexation is to accommodate Maricopa County’s right-of- way requirements. 10. Discuss, receive public comment, and take action on the zoning ordinance, and take action on the resolution, relating to the development 202 RV Valet Storage Expansion: *10-a. ZON24-00525 "202 RV Valet Storage Expansion." 15.5± acres located at 8839 East Main Street. Rezone from General Commercial with Planned Area Development Overlay (GC-PAD) to GC with a new PAD Overlay, Site Plan Review and Council Use Permit (CUP). This request will allow for a 58,845± square foot Boat and RV Storage facility. Germaine RV LLC, owner; Dane Astle, Edifice Architecture, applicant. (District 5) – Ordinance No. 6000 Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions P&Z Board Recommendation: Approval with conditions (Vote: 6-0) *10-b. A resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to enter into an amended and restated development agreement with Germaine RV, LLC, and Monty R Germaine and Debora L Germaine Trust to facilitate development of a Boat and RV Storage facility related to Zoning Case ZON24-00525 on property located on the Southwest corner of Regular Council Meeting January 26, 2026 Page 5 East Main Street and the Loop 202 Red Mountain Freeway. (District 5) – Resolution No. 12470 Items not on the Consent Agenda 4-a. Four-Year Term Contract with Six One-Year Renewal Options for an Enterprise Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) Telematics Solution for City-Owned Vehicles for Fleet Services and the Department of Innovation and Technology and Various City Departments. (Citywide) This contract establishes a unified platform for Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) to standardize vehicle tracking and telematics data gathering for city-owned vehicles. The platform embraces and implements “Application Rationalization” which aims to streamline technologies, a primary goal of the City. A unified approach will take multiple systems that perform the same function and reduce them down to a single application, making it easier to track, maintain, and integrate into desired dashboards for understanding vehicle locations and improved route efficiency. The project will be completed in two phases. Phase One includes approximately 1,200 city-owned vehicles and rolling stock (loaders, backhoes, etc.). Phase Two is expected to include approximately 983 city-owned vehicles. Phase Two is not included in the current dollar amounts and will be presented to Council for approval at a later date. A committee representing Fleet Services and the Department of Innovation and Technology and Procurement Services evaluated responses and recommend awarding the contract to the highest scored proposal from LB Technology, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $221,000 for Year 1 and an amount not to exceed $201,000 annually for years 2-10, with an annual increase allowance of up to 5% or the adjusted Consumer Price Index. Regie Bron, a Mesa resident, expressed concerns regarding data privacy, artificial intelligence (AI), and long-term data security. He pointed out his professional experience as a risk analyst working with data and large language models and stated that telematics systems collect detailed driving behavior data, including speed, braking, and driver monitoring metrics, and cautioned that such data represents a significant privacy risk. He encouraged the Council to prioritize data governance, cybersecurity, and privacy protections when considering AI-enabled technologies. In response to a question from Vice Mayor Somers, City Manager Scott Butler confirmed that the proposed contract applies only to City-owned vehicles. Chief Information Officer Scott Conn stated that the proposed application is focused on identifying and reducing duplicative software systems across departments. He pointed out that the proposed application will consolidate six existing AVL systems currently used by the City into a single vendor solution and is expected to be less expensive than the combined cost of the six existing systems. It was moved by Councilmember Heredia, seconded by Vice Mayor Somers, that the Four-Year Term Contract with Six One-Year Renewal Options for an Enterprise Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) Telematics Solution for City-Owned Vehicles be approved. Upon tabulation of votes, it showed: AYES – Freeman–Somers–Adams–Duff–Goforth–Heredia–Taylor Regular Council Meeting January 26, 2026 Page 6 NAYS – None ABSENT– None Carried unanimously. 5-a. Approving and authorizing the City Manager to enter into an Amendment to the Communications License Agreement with Crown Castle Fiber, LLC. (Citywide) – Resolution No. 12464 It was moved by Councilmember Duff, seconded by Councilmember Goforth, that Resolution No. 12464 be adopted. Upon tabulation of votes, it showed: AYES – Freeman–Somers–Adams–Duff–Goforth–Heredia–Taylor NAYS – None ABSENT– None Carried unanimously. *5-c. Approving and authorizing the City Manager to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) for fixed-route bus, paratransit and RideChoice, services. The estimated cost of transit services for FY 2025/26 is $39,002,561. Public Transportation Funds (PTF) from Propositions 400 and 479 will fund $34,005,074 and the City's General Fund will fund $4,997,487. (Citywide) – Resolution No. 12466 David Winstanley, a Mesa resident, requested that Council postpone action on the agenda item pending additional review and discussion of costs and contract requirements. He stated that he found limited information available through City and Valley Metro sources and expressed concern with the length of the contract. He asked Council to challenge Valley Metro/RPTA on efficiency and potential alternatives, including new technologies, to reduce costs. Mr. Butler reported that there is extensive information available online regarding how transit funding is allocated between the City of Mesa and the RPTA. He explained how the funding, performance measures, and route evaluations are reviewed through an established and comprehensive public process conducted annually by RPTA, with input from local municipalities. He outlined the City’s responsibilities under voter-approved regional transit funding measures, including Proposition 400 approved in 2004, and pointed out that regionally funded routes and locally funded routes are cost-shared, with Valley Metro administering certain City-funded routes on Mesa’s behalf to avoid duplicative transit services. He noted that Councilmember Heredia currently serves as Mesa’s representative on the RPTA Board. Transit Services Director Jodi Sorrell explained that the City enters into a transit service agreement with Valley Metro on a seven-year administrative cycle, a timeframe established regionally, to provide flexibility as service needs evolve and allow for amendments during the term. She stated that this approach has been used consistently over the past 20 years, using the framework identified by Proposition 400 that established eligible routes for regional funding. She listed the regional eligibility criteria and stated that Mesa has since transitioned additional eligible routes to Proposition 400 funding, reducing reliance on the City’s General Fund. She advised that approximately $5 million included in the current agreement represents funding for Regular Council Meeting January 26, 2026 Page 7 four routes that do not meet regional eligibility criteria and continue to be funded locally by the City. In response to a question from Mayor Freeman, Ms. Sorrell verified that the proposed funding level is similar to the amount approved in the prior year. Responding to questions from Councilmember Taylor, Ms. Sorrell clarified that the proposed contract is in the first year of a seven-year term. She explained that Mesa previously operated its own transit service but transitioned to Valley Metro operations to achieve greater efficiency and cost effectiveness and noted the reduction of duplicate staffing and overhead costs that are now shared across multiple East Valley jurisdictions. She clarified that the agreement covers bus service, paratransit, and RideChoice service, and described the details of each program. She reported that the City is required by the federal government to provide paratransit service, which is costly, and the region is only authorized to charge $4 per ride service; therefore, the City provides other more cost-effective alternatives to ridership. She reiterated that the City would remain responsible for funding and managing these internal transit operations. In response to a question from Councilmember Adams, Mr. Butler advised the effect that a no vote would have on this item which would terminate the City’s agreement with Valley Metro, resulting in the cessation of transit operations within Mesa. He said it would also eliminate both local and regional funding, including Proposition 400 funding, and would result in the discontinuation of all bus routes, paratransit, and RideChoice services within the City, not solely the four locally funded routes. Councilmember Heredia echoed Mr. Butler’s remarks regarding the loss of ridership services that would result from a no vote on this item and emphasized that the disabled community relies on these services for medical and other essential appointments throughout Mesa and the region. He explained the ways that transit supports economic activity by providing critical mobility options for residents without access to a vehicle. Vice Mayor Somers remarked that a transit contract does not preclude future innovation in public transportation services. He emphasized the continued importance of paratransit services, particularly for residents with disabilities, and acknowledged concerns regarding the accessibility of RPTA information and encouraged improvements to document transparency. Responding to Councilmember Heredia, Ms. Sorrell added that Valley Metro continues to evaluate and test innovative approaches aimed at improving efficiency and responsiveness to customer needs as conditions and technologies evolve. Councilmember Adams expressed reluctance to delay or deny approval due to the potential impact on residents who rely on bus, paratransit, and RideChoice services. He pointed out that Valley Metro provides vehicles, maintenance, operators, supervision, and overall service delivery under the contract. Additional discussion ensued regarding the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement. It was moved by Councilmember Heredia, seconded by Councilmember Taylor, that Resolution No. 12466 be adopted. Upon tabulation of votes, it showed: AYES – Freeman–Somers–Adams–Duff–Goforth–Heredia–Taylor NAYS – None Regular Council Meeting January 26, 2026 Page 8 ABSENT– None Carried unanimously. *5-d. Approving and authorizing the City Manager to enter into a funding agreement with Valley Metro Rail, Inc., for the current light rail operations in the City of Mesa. The estimated cost of service for operations, maintenance and facility landscaping of the existing light rail line for fiscal year 2025/26 is $18,043,000. The City anticipates receiving $2,933,743 in light rail fares, advertising, preventive maintenance grant, and Arizona Lottery Funds for a net impact to the City’s General Fund of $15,109,257. (Districts 3 and 4) – Resolution No. 12467 Bob Hathcock, a Mesa resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed agreement and stated that operating costs significantly exceed revenues. He cited reports indicating low regional light rail ridership, characterizing the system as an underperforming asset and a financial liability to taxpayers. He asked Council to consider whether ongoing investment is justified given the stated financial impacts. Regie Bron, a Mesa resident, expressed his support for funding the light rail. He cited national trends that show that younger generations rely more on alternatives to personal vehicle ownership and lean more toward walkable communities and shared mobility options. He emphasized the role of light rail and transit in supporting downtown revitalization, regional connectivity, and mobility for residents who may not drive, including seniors and individuals with transportation barriers, and characterized transit as a critical component of Mesa’s long-term economic development and community sustainability strategy. Mary Maybeno, a Mesa resident, addressed the Council in opposition to continued funding of light rail operations in Mesa. She reported that other Valley communities have faced opposition to the light rail expansion and she raised concerns regarding various aspects of the light rail system. Lynda Patrick-Hayes, a Mesa resident, stated her opposition to the light rail funding and discussed her concerns about the cost impacts to Mesa taxpayers. She also expressed opposition to the City’s long-range planning framework, including the Mesa 2050 Plan, 15- minute city concepts, and related transportation strategies, and questioned whether the public was fully informed of potential long-term financial impacts when such plans were approved. She requested that the Council vote against funding the light rail. David Winstanley, a Mesa resident, commented that the cost of light rail operations is an underperforming asset to the City of Mesa and expressed concern that it continues to place a long-term financial burden on the City without a clear plan to improve performance. He encouraged Council to further evaluate the expenditure. Alex Vranicic, a Mesa resident, stated his opposition to continued funding of light rail operations in Mesa. He referenced third-party data alleging higher crime concentrations near light rail corridors along Main Street and expressed concern about impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. He requested that Council exercise fiscal restraint and requested that they vote against funding the proposed agreement. Kathy Carlsen, a Mesa resident, described her personal experience riding the light rail, noting low ridership, infrequent fare enforcement, safety concerns, and overall dissatisfaction with the service. She noted her concern regarding the cost of light rail operations, asked Council to discontinue its funding and urged them to consider the benefits of dismantling the system. Regular Council Meeting January 26, 2026 Page 9 Mr. Butler clarified that the action before Council is approval of the current fiscal year operating agreement with Valley Metro Rail for light rail operations and maintenance in Mesa. He explained that, by choosing to participate as a member city of Valley Metro Rail and to have light rail service within the community, the City is contractually obligated to approve the annual operating agreement. He noted that while broader policy discussions may occur prospectively, the City is legally required to approve the agreement as part of its existing commitment. He confirmed that a no vote would constitute a breach of contract and could expose the City to legal action, noting that the City’s legal position would be weak given its prior commitments. Councilmember Taylor discussed her concern with the ongoing General Fund subsidy and emphasized that light rail operating costs are borne locally rather than fully covered by regional tax revenues. She stated that General Fund dollars are intended to support core City services and questioned whether subsidizing light rail operations represents an equitable use of those funds. She expressed her concerns that Mesa bears a disproportionate share of operating deficits and downstream impacts, and the possible long-term effects of light rail infrastructure on Main Street. She recounted that the City Attorney recently advised that a council should not bind future council in ways that encumber their legislative authority, and she suggested this item demonstrates the consequence of a prior decision that now constrains the current council. She pointed out that light rail service has been operating in downtown Mesa since 2015 and stated that the continued escalation of General Fund support suggests the system is not self- sustaining. She urged the Council to vote against the agreement and requested additional discussions to return with options to cap General Fund exposure. City Attorney Jim Smith explained the terms of the master agreement the City has with Valley Metro, noting while future amendments to the master agreement are possible, any substantive changes would require negotiation with Valley Metro and represent a significant modification to the existing arrangement. He clarified that the legal principle prohibiting a council from binding future councils applies to legislative actions, such as setting fees or policies, but does not apply to contracts with third parties. He stated that without the ability to enter into binding contracts, the City would be unable to conduct routine business or honor contractual obligations. He further explained that failure to approve the agreement would have legal consequences and that any effort to exit the agreement would require negotiations with Valley Metro and could involve substantial financial and operational impacts. Councilmember Duff stated that the City invests approximately $90 million annually in roadway infrastructure and she listed various costs associated with streets that do not generate revenue. She said that providing transit also carries costs but noted that approximately two million riders utilize light rail service in Mesa annually which reduces traffic on our streets. She emphasized that downtown revitalization and increased density are essential to generating sales tax revenue and asserted that such density cannot be effectively supported without transit options. Additional discussion ensued regarding funding the light rail and the advantages and disadvantages of approving the contract with Valley Metro Rail, Inc. It was moved by Councilmember Heredia, seconded by Councilmember Duff, that Resolution No. 12467 be adopted. Upon tabulation of votes, it showed: AYES – Freeman–Somers–Adams–Duff–Goforth–Heredia NAYS – Taylor ABSENT– None Regular Council Meeting January 26, 2026 Page 10 Mayor Freeman declared the motion carried by majority vote. 11. Hear a presentation and take action on the City of Mesa Fiscal Year 2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report: 11-a. Accepting the City of Mesa's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2025. Carey Davis, a Mesa resident, referenced the City’s annual audited financial statements, stating that general governmental revenues totaled approximately $990 million while expenditures exceeded revenues, resulting in a reported deficit. He compared the City’s spending levels to neighboring cities that operate with general governmental surpluses and lower overall expenditures, and cited third-party city rankings to suggest Mesa underperforms relative to peer cities. Finance Director Irma Ashworth introduced Jean Dietrich, Partner at CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP, the City’s independent auditor. Ms. Dietrich presented the results of the audit of the City of Mesa’s financial statements for governmental activities, business-type activities, major funds, and aggregate fund information for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025. She confirmed that the audit was conducted in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS) in the United States and Government Auditing Standards. Ms. Dietrich reported that the City adopted Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 102 related to certain risk disclosures during the fiscal year, which was evaluated by management and determined to have no material impact on the financial statements. She verified that no transactions lacking authoritative accounting guidance were identified, all significant transactions were recorded in the proper period, and no unusual or fraudulent transactions were detected. Ms. Dietrich recalled that management’s financial estimates were reviewed and concluded they were reasonable and free from management bias and the financial statement disclosures were described as neutral, consistent, and clear. She reported no difficulties in performing the audit, noted management’s responsiveness and cooperation throughout the audit process, and stated that there were no deficiencies in internal controls, financial reporting, or compliance. Ms. Dietrich concluded by stating that the audit resulted in an unmodified and clean opinion on the City’s ACFR, with no additional findings reported. In response to a request from Councilmember Taylor, Ms. Ashworth explained the definitions of a material weakness and significant deficiencies and highlighted that the City had not had a material weakness in over 10 years. It was moved by Councilmember Duff, seconded by Vice Mayor Somers, that Council accept the City of Mesa’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2025. Upon tabulation of votes, it showed: AYES – Freeman–Somers–Adams–Duff–Goforth–Heredia–Taylor NAYS – None Regular Council Meeting January 26, 2026 Page 11 ABSENT– None Carried unanimously. 12. Items from citizens present. Jason Smithson, a Mesa resident, reported a high level of civic engagement occurring on Mesa school campuses and emphasized that although students cannot yet vote, they are informed, engaged, and care about civic issues. He requested that the City create a formal partnership with Mesa Public Schools by pairing Councilmembers with local high schools to engage directly with students as an opportunity to provide civic education, exposure, and connection, giving students a meaningful seat at the table. Noah James Markham, a Tempe resident, expressed strong dissatisfaction with the timing and nature of the Council’s discussion regarding light rail, stating that these issues should not be framed primarily as financial matters and emphasized the importance of transit for people with disabilities. He voiced his opposition to the 287(g) Cooperation Agreement with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Bob Hathcock, a Mesa resident, reflected on prior Council decisions and stated that recent Council action suggests increased scrutiny of staff recommendations and greater transparency. He encouraged Council to continue exercising oversight and responsible stewardship of taxpayer funds. 13. Adjournment. Without objection, the Regular Council Meeting adjourned at 7:59 p.m. ________________________________ MARK FREEMAN, MAYOR ATTEST: ___________________________________ HOLLY MOSELEY, DEPUTY CITY CLERK I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of the City Council of Mesa, Arizona, held on the 26th day of January 2026. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. ________________________________________ HOLLY MOSELEY, CITY CLERK sr