Mesa Public Schools board approves 2025–26 budget, OKs $5M one‑year truth‑in‑taxation levy for adjacent‑ways projects

The Mesa Public Schools Governing Board voted 4–1 on July 8 to approve the proposed 2025–26 budget and to levy a one‑year, $5,000,000 truth‑in‑taxation charge for adjacent‑ways projects.

The vote came after a public hearing and public comments in which community members urged the board not to impose new taxes and asked the district to use bond funds or existing carryforward reserves instead. Ed Steele, a community member, said the district should find savings in its $600‑million operating picture and called for greater transparency on capital carryforwards. Julie Sessions, a business owner, also urged the board to avoid a levy that might affect voter sentiment around a potential future bond.

Board and staff presented details showing the district's estimated overall tax rate would fall to 6.1137 for 2025–26 even after the levy; staff said the net assessed valuation rose about 3.8 percent from the prior year. Chief Business Officer Tyler Moore told the board the adjacent‑ways tax is levied for a single fiscal year and is collected according to the usual property‑tax schedule (typically November and April). Finance staff explained that adjacent‑ways is a pay‑as‑you‑go, no‑debt levy that cannot be used for purposes outside the statutorily authorized categories.

Superintendent Dr. Strom and CBO Moore described why the levy was before the board: the district's capital carryforward and maintenance‑and‑operations reserves are lower than in prior years and several one‑time state and federal funding streams recently dried up or were paused. Dr. Strom said the district experienced sudden reductions in federal and state grant funding that reduced available revenue by roughly $4.2 million in federal grants and that the district was being advised of a possible $21 million change related to state allocations; staff said those changes increased solvency risk and informed the recommendation to levy for adjacent‑ways this year.

Public comment and several board members pressed administration on alternatives: whether line‑item carryforwards could cover projects, whether the district could defer projects until a bond sale, and whether the district would publish a detailed line‑item list of adjacent‑ways projects. Staff answered that some projects are categorized by urgency (level 1–5), that level‑1 needs exceed $5 million, and that the administration will stand up quarterly citizen budget committee meetings to review adjacent‑ways and bond project line items.

Votes at a glance - Personnel request (consent agenda): approved, tally 5 yeas, 0 noes; no board member roll‑call names specified in the record. - Consent agenda: approved, tally 5 yeas, 0 noes. - Proposed 2025–26 budget (includes Truth in Taxation notice for adjacent‑ways levy): approved, tally 4 yeas, 1 no; the record in the transcript reports the tally but does not specify which board member cast the single no vote. - Project Lead The Way contract increase ($200,000): approved, tally 5 yeas, 0 noes; administration later confirmed the line item is funded from CTE funds and federal Perkins funds. - Tyler Technologies contract increase ($250,000): approved, tally 5 yeas, 0 noes; board discussed move to vendor cloud services and anticipated offsets from hardware and licensing savings. - Arizona School Boards Association delegate/alternate appointment: Courtney Davis (delegate), Marcy Hutchinson (alternate): approved, tally 5 yeas, 0 noes.

Why this matters: the adjacent‑ways levy is a one‑year local revenue mechanism intended for public right‑of‑way improvements that serve school access and safety. Administration said some projects flagged as urgent would not be covered by existing carryforward without reducing solvency reserves that are already strained by recent reductions or pauses in state and federal funding.

What remains to be disclosed: staff told the board they will provide a public, line‑item accounting of adjacent‑ways projects to the planned citizen budget committee and will circulate a more detailed breakdown of level‑1 projects for board review. The board also asked administration to confirm funding sources and reconcile a discrepancy in meeting materials about whether Project Lead The Way is charged to CTE or M&O funds; staff later reported it is funded from CTE and Perkins grant funds.

Members of the board requested added transparency and quarterly review as the district prepares any future bond measure and to help the public evaluate whether a levy or bond is the appropriate funding vehicle.