Mesa City Council Meeting – September 9, 2025

The Mesa City Council convened on September 9, 2025, for a regular meeting that included approval of consent agenda items, a contentious discussion on water fluoridation, unanimous approval of a major downtown development (Cul-de-Sac), introduction of two zoning cases, and extensive public comment on the city's 287G immigration enforcement agreement. All votes were unanimous.

Consent Calendar

• The consent agenda (Items 2, 3A–3E, 4B, 4C, 5B, 5C, 5D, 6A, 6B, 7A) was approved unanimously. Items 4A, 5A, 7B, and 7C were removed for separate discussion.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Item 4A (Fluoride contract): Alec Francis urged the council to amend the contract to remove hydrofluorosilicic acid from the water supply, citing health risks, voter approval history, and national trends. He noted recent studies linking fluoride to lower IQ and stated that nations like Germany and Sweden have banned water fluoridation.
• Item 5A (Cul-de-Sac development):
  • Kerry Davis, former mayor of San Bernardino, opposed the project, citing insufficient parking, $10 million in city infrastructure reimbursement, and lack of a grocery store in the area.
  • Terry Medexa, president of the Downtown Mesa Association, expressed strong support, emphasizing the need for more residents to support downtown businesses.
  • Armando Hernandez, owner of three downtown Mesa businesses and a restaurant in the existing Cul-de-Sac Tempe, supported the project, stating it would bring needed density and foot traffic.
  • Tim Sprague, a downtown investor, supported the project, noting that grocery stores require rooftops before they locate in an area.
• Item 7B (4062 East Main rezone): Mary Mabino opposed the project, citing an oversupply of apartments in East Mesa, low occupancy rates (she claimed below 50% at a nearby complex), and concerns about three-story buildings blocking views.
• Item 7C (Price Manor 2 rezone):
  • Kimberly Van Riper (online) opposed the project, citing increased density, inadequate citizen participation reporting, and omitted concerns about livestock and traffic.
  • Kim Warden opposed the project, requesting larger lot sizes consistent with the neighborhood.
  • Marilyn Crosby opposed the project, arguing that support expressed at the public meeting was based on fear of a worse alternative, not genuine endorsement.
  • Annette Williams initially indicated support but later clarified opposition.
• Citizens Present (Item 8): Multiple speakers addressed the 287G program.
  • Alec Francis, Mary Granger, Scott Granger, and Mary Ann Mendoza spoke in strong support, arguing the program deters crime, removes illegal criminals, and makes Mesa safer. Mary Ann Mendoza shared a personal story of her son, a Mesa police sergeant killed by an illegal alien, stating the program could have prevented his death.
  • The city clerk read a list of 65 individuals who submitted blue cards in support of the 287G program and 10 in opposition.

Discussion Items

• Item 4A – Water/Wastewater Treatment Chemicals Contract: The council discussed a four‑year term contract for chemicals, including hydrofluorosilicic acid for fluoridation. Mayor Freeman noted the fluoride addition was voter-approved (Proposition 400, November 1999). City Attorney Smith clarified the proposition allowed but did not mandate fluoridation. Water Resources Director Chris Hasser explained that the Val Vista treatment plant (jointly owned with Phoenix) also fluoridates, meaning water in that part of Mesa would remain fluoridated regardless. After debate about potential continuance, the council voted to approve the contract and hold a future study session to review the issue.
• Item 5A – Cul-de-Sac Ground Lease and Development Agreement: Jeff McVay, Manager of Urban Transformation, described the three‑phase project: Phase 1 (140 for‑sale townhomes), Phase 2 (minimum 225 units – possibly additional townhomes or student housing), and Phase 3 (about 610 market‑rate apartments). Minimum 800 parking spaces are planned. The city will reinvest a portion of the land sale proceeds into off‑site pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Council members expressed strong support, noting the site has been vacant for decades, the project will increase light‑rail ridership, and it aligns with downtown community plans.
• Item 7B – Zoning Case 25-304 (4062 East Main): Staff clarified the project is a planned area development (PAD) with a preliminary plat for for‑sale townhomes (137 units: 42 two‑story, 95 three‑story). Current zoning is RM‑4 (30 units/acre); the proposal is 19 units/acre. The item was introduced for a final hearing on September 22.
• Item 7C – Price Manor 2 Zoning Case: Sean Lake, representing the applicant, defended the project as an infill for‑sale development (41 lots). He noted that Phase 1 (Price Manor 1) is already under construction and that the two phases will share HOA amenities. The council discussed citizen participation concerns but voted to introduce the item for final consideration on September 22.

Key Outcomes

• Item 4A: Approved unanimously (motion by Councilmember Spilsbury, second by Duff). Council will schedule a study session to further review fluoridation.
• Item 5A: Approved unanimously (motion by Duff, second by Spilsbury). The developer must meet phased deadlines or lose the right to close on subsequent sales.
• Item 7B: Moved forward for introduction unanimously; final hearing set for September 22, 2025.
• Item 7C: Moved forward for introduction unanimously; final hearing set for September 22, 2025.
• Item 8: No formal action taken; public comments on the 287G program were noted.